Sashi Tharoor who is a thinly disguised Islamist apologist has come out with the theory that no Good Hindus would want to see a Ram Temple built at the site where the demolished Babri Masjid once stood. So, just as Rahul Gandhi defined Lingayats and Virashaivas as separate and non-Hindus to boot, Tharoor divides Hindus into Good and Bad using Ayodhya Mandir as test.

*

In the fullness of its wisdom, the Congress has divided Hindus as Good and Bad depending on whether one supports building a temple at the sacred site in Ayodhya or not. At least that is how I, a Bad Hindu as my name indicates (RajaRam) view the statement of Congress leader Sashi Tharoor. By this logic, a Good Hindu opposes the Ram Temple.

Let us next try to understand how good Muslims have seen the issue. Until recently, many Muslims, instigated (misled) by secularist historians had claimed there was never a temple at the site and hence no temple was demolished by Babar or his commander Mir Baqi. This theory has been exploded by archaeologists. So let us look at the records.

Evidence of the sources

There are basically two kinds of literary sources - written records and inscriptions. Both are available at Ram Janmabhumi at Ayodhya. One major inscription is that of Mir Baqi himself, apparently placed on the Masjid wall when it was built in the 16th century. Another was discovered following the demolition on December 6, 1992. There are numerous literary records by Hindu, Muslim and British authors. When we survey even a small part of this vast literature, we find that until recently, until some politicians and their pseudo-scholar proxies created the so-called ‘controversy’, no author - Hindu, Muslim, European or British official - questioned that a temple existed on the spot, which had been destroyed to erect the mosque.

We may begin with a couple of references from European writers from published sources that are widely known. A. Fuhrer in The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp. 296-297, records: “Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s Masjid.”

H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp. 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple “was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.” Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp. 172-177, further states: “The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.” One could cite many more in similar vein, but these examples should suffice for recent European records.

When we reach back in time, what we find particularly interesting are the accounts attributed to Guru Nanak, a contemporary of Babar and an eyewitness to his vandalism. Nanak condemned him in the strongest terms. Historian Harsh Narain in The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, writes: “Guru Nanak, according to Bhai Man Singh’s Pothi Janam Sakhi, said to have been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D., visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: ‘Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramachandraji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari’e.’ [‘Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us have its darsana’]

This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before the destruction of the Rama temple by Babar. Another work by Baba Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account, again suggesting that Nanak visited Ayodhya before the temple was destroyed by his contemporary, the Mughal invader Babar. Muslim sources also give a similar account. In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated not far from the Babri Masjid, which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Oudh. It ended in failure.

Motivation

A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the failed Jihad. Mirza Jan tells us: “Wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs.

“Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too, from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father (Dasaratha). Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque... Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan!”

Even more illustrative is a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor, Aurangzeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada, just cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from her work:

“Spoken like a true child of Aurangzeb.... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh.”

From all this, it is clear that the mosque was built (after demolishing the temple) as a mark of humiliation of the Hindus. It was never intended as a place of worship for the Muslims, for whom it carries no sanctity.

It is in the interests of everyone, not least Muslims, to acknowledge this irrefutable history and earn the goodwill of the Hindu community by cooperating with them. They have nothing to gain by following the misleading propaganda of Leftist scholars who have their own agenda of stoking the emotions of Muslims to promote themselves. They will not be there if things get out of hand. This sophistry of Good Hindu vs Bad Hindu will fool no one.