Ultimately the Mughal Babar destroyed it and converted into “Babri Masjid”. British historian, Cunningham, records in the Lucknow Gazetteer – “The Hindus put up a brave defence.Though the Mughal army was armed with cannons, the Hindu soldiers did not trace their steps back. Not caring for their lives they fought a fierce battle. Mir Baki could capture the Janma Bhoomi only after one lakh seventy four thousand Hindus had laid down their lives in its defence.The temple too could not be broken down until cannons were fired.” One Sharma from Delhi quoted this in a letter published in The HinduDaily of 29th September 1986.
“In A.D 1528 Babar, the founder of Moghal dynasty destroyed the temple and constructed a mosque at the same place using the same pillars and stones of the temple.”(N.V. Krishna Warrierin Kumari weekly 5.5.1985)
“The British historian Cunningham has written that the King Babar seized the temple after killing twelve lakh seventy four thousand men who were guarding the temple. Babar used the same stones of the temple to build the mosque,One can see the pillars of black stone inscribed the Hindu idols used for the mosque after cutting down the limbs of Idol.”(N.V. Krishna Warrier,Kumari weekly 18.11.1954)
In every nook and corner of India, we can see many small and big old mosques. History does not state that all these mosques were built by Arabian architects and laborers. Workers were brought neither from Arabia nor somewhere else for the construction of all these mosques.The skill and services of Hindus were utilized. Hence the designs and architecture of these mosques may resemble them. Many mosques in several villages and towns look like temples.The reason for this is very clear.
Mr. Warrier says that stones and idols of a temple were used for constructing Babri Masjid!!! Then the questions are: Was there so much scarcity of brick and stones? Was Babar so foolish to keep the remnants of the destroyed temple onthe mosque? If the number of defenders of temple was nearly 13,00000, what was the population of that area at that time? This exaggerated number of Hindu soldiers is quite unbelievable.There were no such ultramodern and sophisticated weapons at that period, i.e., in the beginning of the 16th century. How did Babar kill somany people so quickly?
The fabricators of these stories totally ignore the fact that Islam has strictly forbidden the demolition of places of worship of people belonging to other faiths. Muslim rulers have a responsibility to protect them. The instructions of the Holy Quran, the directives of the Prophet ﷺand the proclamation of the successors of prophets are proof of this.
“There is no compulsion in religion; indeed, the right path is distinct from wrong path.”(2: 256)
“Say, (it is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever believe let him believe and whosoever disbelieve, let him disbelieve.” (18:29)
“Unto you your religion and unto me my religion.” (109:6)
Islam is totally against polytheism in principle and practice. Yet it teaches the Muslims (monotheists) not to insult or blame unto whom they pray. “Revile not those unto whom they pray besidesAllah.” (6:108)
It is famous that a Christian delegation that came to the Prophet in Medinahwas given permission to perform their prayer in the Medinah mosque itself. Also, Muslims are instructed to honor sacred places even during wartime.
In India, from Qutubuddin Aibak to Emperor Aurangzeb, there are long stories of Muslim rulers giving land and cash to Hindu temples. Yet our writers and media ignore and blackout these facts. The workshops to concoct and fabricate stories of religious bigotry, demolition and desecration of Hindu temples are working overtime and their production is vastly published and propagated with a special zeal and enthusiasm.Deliberate and well-planned attempts are going on to tarnish the Muslim period of Indian history. By constant propaganda and publicity, an impression has been created that the Muslim rulers were fanatical iconoclasts and rounded the country, demolishing and desecrating Hindu temples just for the sake of demolishing them. This campaign has been intensified after the Babri Masjid issue.
An impartial history student cannot claim that no atrocity was ever committed on either side i.e., Hindus and Muslims. Atrocities were possible during wars. There were instances of demolition of places of worship in wars even between followers of the same religion.
Dr. Eswar Topa in his book Politics in Mughal Timehas written (P.337) that during the reign of Feroz Tughlaq, festivals at some temples attended by Hindus and Muslims both degenerated into occasions of corruption and acts of immorality. These centers were demolished by orders of the king because they had ceased to be centers of piety and worship and had degenerated into centers of immoralities and vulgar acts. It is the duty of an efficient and sincere ruler to take stern actions to curb and contain immoralities. This action of Feroz Tughlaq cannot be treated as fanatic.
Some temples were demolished during the Muslim rule but not due to religious bigotry at all. It was only to contain lawlessness and immorality. Aurangzeb is described and pictured as a cruel religious bigot by Indian historians and writers who blindly followed the footsteps of British writers. Although four decades have passed since the Freedom of India, we are not completely free from the influence of the British. The brain and mind of most of our writers are still under the colony of British Raj.They are influenced by British tactics, and not at all free and open. Our educational field and history textbooks taught in schools and colleges are not completely free from British influence. The history written by western historians is based upon the principle of ‘Divide andRule’. Besides, the prejudiced writings of Orientalists about Islam also have influenced historians. Most western writers are prejudiced against Islam and keep their prejudice in disguise.
“Although the Emperor Akbar was a Muslim, he was very tolerant and noble”, “Aurangzeb led a simple life but he was very fanatic and imposed Jizya on non-Muslims.” These are the samples of the sentences repeatedly taught in schools. Aurangzeb, mispresented as an iconoclast, not only did not touch any Hindu temples in Agra or Delhi but also honored them and showered them with gifts. He was in South India for nearly a quarter century. There were so many big and small ancient temples all over South India. History did not say that he attacked or abolished any of them.
It was correct that Aurangzeb demolished a part of Vishwanath temple in Varanasi in a peculiar circumstance. Bishambhar Nath Pande, a distinguished historian, in his speech in Rajya Sabha in July 1986, explained the causes for Aurangzeb’sdemolishing of a part of Vishwanath temple. According to Mr. Pande, Aurangzeb was going to Bengal and passed through Varanasi with his entourage. Many of his court nobles with their families were accompanying the Emperor. The Maharaja of Kutch was among them. Some of the court nobles requested the Emperor to stay in Varanasi for a few days, so that their families could visit the temples for Darshan and Pooja of deities. The Emperor broke his journey and camped at a distance of five miles from the city. The Maharanis of various nobles, including the Maharani of Kutch, went to the city with escorts. They went to Ganga and then to Vishwanath templefor Darshan. On their return, it was found that the consort of Kutch Maharaja was missing.All the searches were in vain.Being angry about this incident, Aurangzeb, who was very strict in maintaining morality and justice, ordered a search in the temple Vishwanathji. They found an idol of Ganeshji fixed on a wall with a miraculous trait of moving if the wall was touched. The investigating officers removed the idol and the gap in the wall revealed a staircase to an underground chamber. The officers went down and found the Maharani, who had been deprived of her honor, chastity and jewelry. The nobles prayed to the Emperor to punish the guilty and take stern action to protect the lives, honor and wealth of pilgrims. The Emperor observed that since the gallery and the underground chamber had been desecrated and profaned, it should be demolished and the Mahant of the temple arrested. This action was to purify the temple of devilish deeds and to protect the sacredness of the worship centre. Dr.PattabiSitaramaiya and Dr. L.Gupta have explained this incident in their books.
Bishambar Nath Pande stated in the Rajya Sabha that he had with him photostat copies of 200 firmans of Aurangzeb granting Jagirs to temples, including temples of Balaji (Chitrakot) and to Jain temples. Mr. Pande obtained these firmans by writing letters to Mahants of various temples. He opined that if a good effort and thorough research were made, he was sure that many more such firmans from Muslim rulers could be brought to light.
The first Indian President,Dr. Rajendra Prasad had also written in his book India Divided that in Allahabad there were two firmans of grant to the priests of the famous temple of Maheshwar Nath by Emperor Aurangzeb. A well-known scholar Gyan Chandra (Gorakhpur) has collected two dozen firmans of Aurangzeb issued in favour of priests of various temples. Mr. Gyan Chandra wrote an article in detail in the journal of Pakistan Historical Society in 1959. Mr. Salahuddin Abdul Rahman, Director of Shibli Academy, Azamgarh and a well-known historian published its Urdu translation in his book MusalmanHukmaranon ki MazhabiRawadari, Part III.
Inspite of all these evidences and testimonials of tolerance and justice of Muslim rulers, there was and still there is a strong campaign and deliberate propaganda that all Muslim rulers in India were bigots, intolerant fanatics and iconoclasts.
When Ali Adel Shah II invited Raja Ramraj for help against Nizam Shah Bahri in 976 Hijra, the Raja came to his help, but burnt all the mosques in Adil Shah’s kingdom (Tarikh-e-Farishta, Vol. II, P.36). Jadu Nath Sircar has written that during the reign of Aurangzeb,Satnameeslooted Karnool and burnt all the mosques there. (History of Aurangzeb, Vol. II pp. 396) During the same period, Kumar Bhim Singh demolished nearly one hundred mosques in Gujarat. (Aurangzeb and His Times by Zahiruddin Faruki,pp. 134) Shivaji destroyed the mosques in Bhiwandi and Sholapur (Ibid). After the death of Bahadur Shah I, Ajit Singh, son of Raja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur demolished many mosques in Jodhpur and built temples at their sites. (Muntakhab-Al-Lubabby Khafi Khan, Vol. II,pp. 23). The Sikh rulers demolished thousands of mosques during their rule, according to the History of Lahore by Kanhaiya Lal Kapur.
In 1947,the Government of India appointed Barney Committee to probe into complaints about the desecration of mosques. The report said in Delhi itself 176 mosques were either in occupation of Hindus or Govt. Departments. These mosques have not been returned to Muslims so far.
In the West Bengal Assembly, it was stated by the state government in 1979 that in Calcutta alone 59 mosques were occupied by Hindus. Several newspapers had reported that from Delhi to the Pakistan border there were nearly 9000 mosques in possession of Hindus and other communities.
There may be fabrication, concoction and exaggeration in history. For the sake of national integration and communal harmony, we have to keep discretion. We should be very vigilant and cautious when we go through and/or refer to history.
It would be in the fitness of things if the Government of India set up a panel of historians, scholars and eminent leaders to probe these controversies about allegations of religious persecution and demolition of temples and mosques. The panel should investigate all these allegations and scrutinize all historical evidences in a scientific and impartial manner and announce its conclusions and findings along with evidences. Only by such a panel consisting of historians, scholars and prominent leaders with full government support can end these controversies to a great extent.
[The writer is based in Kozhikode, Kerala. Email: [email protected]]