Acharya Kishore Kunal Quotes

Even then, Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry.

Thus, there is ample evidence in the Rudrayāmala, Skanda-purāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa to conclude that the birth-site of Rāma has been regarded as a sacred spot for more than a thousand years.

Svargadvāra temple is called Rāma-darbar by many Muslim writers and it is reported that it was demolished by Fedai Khan, the Governor of Aurangzeb.

P. Carnegy has written that Ayodhyā is to the Hindus what Mecca is to the Mahomedon and Jerusalem to the Jews. R.T. Griffith, the celebrated translator of Vālmīki Rāmayana, was of the opinion that ‘Ajudhyā is the Jerusalem or Mecca of the Hindus’.

It is now learnt that Ram Narayan had a photograph [in 1875] which showed a mosque at Rāma’s birthplace built by Aurangzeb. Thus, the association of Aurangzeb’s name with the construction of the mosque at the site of Rāma-Janma-bhūmi has a long tradition.

The scholarly Professor Panikkar should go through the text thoroughly before making such comments or stop misleading readers deliberately.

It is an irony that though there are indigenous literary sources, foreign travellers’ accounts, a detailed inscription and archaeological excavation reports, all supporting the existence of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā, yet established historians have been misleading the nation by spreading unsubstantiated propaganda incessantly that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the claim that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple existed thereon.

Thus, on 28th February, 1659 when according to Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar Emperor Aurangzeb issued the firman of the religious tolerance through the office of his son Muhammad Sultan, the Emperor was in Rajasthan and the Prince was in Eastern India! How the twain met to consider sympathetically the condition of the Hindus of Benaras and issue a Firman from the imperial seat is beyond comprehension!

Java’s capital at ‘Jogya karta’ for centuries has been named after Ayodhyā. ‘(A)Jogya’ is named after Ajodhya and karta means city. The main river in Java is called Serayu, which is apparently named after the Indian Sarayū on the bank of which Ayodhyā is situated. A cave in its proximity is called Kiskanda of the Rāmāyana. Similarly, a town Situbenda after the Setubandha is located in the extreme east of the principality.

When Prof. Ali knows that these valiant Rajputs had sacrificed all these assignments and were ready to die, then such calumny against a valiant race is a gross injustice to them and a daunting distortion of historical facts.

It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the ‘report to the nation’ were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their ‘report to the nation’ they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice.

Similarly, for the last two decades I have been mutely witnessing the excruciating death of the real history of Ayodhyā on account of false and misleading interpretation of historical facts. Earlier I kept silent primarily because in the early nineties I was officially associated with the negotiations on Ayodhyā between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Since I did my duty diligently and punctiliously in the official capacity I remained aloof from the historical debate. But in the last leg of the legal proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, I thought that as our national motto is सत्यमेव जयते, truth alone triumphs, I must intervene in the Ayodhyā dispute... (Preface)

In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).(M.C. Joshi, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, ,quoted in Preface)

The question then arises as to who demolished the temple, if any, and built the mosque. All the three major Hindu shrines at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvāra, Tretā Kā Thākura and Janma-sthána temples were intact during the entire Sultanate period and the major part of the Mughal rule. But they could not survive after the accession of Aurangzeb to the Delhi throne in 1658 A.D.There are many evidences to prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb when Fedai Khan was Governor there. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh twice; first in 1658-1662 A.D. and thereafter in 1669-1670 A.D. (...) the temples at Ayodhyā were razed to ground during the first stint of Fedai Khan. The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque on the Janma-sthána site during the reign of Aurangzeb was known to the general public till 1813-14 A.D. when Buchanan made the survey and was misled by a claimed inscription which was not properly examined by him.

It appears that this worship in the Baburi mosque started in 1720 A.D. when Girdhar Bahadur was the all-powerful Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. Thus, the worship of the Hindus in the disputed shrine started 13 years after the death of Aurangzeb and sixty years after the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque and both the puja and Namaz continued until the proclamation of the British rule in August 1858. The take-over of the shrine by the Sikhs from the Punjab in November 1858 was the expression of the prevailing Hindu resentment.