Mughal Emperor Babur neither visited Ayodhya nor ordered the demolition of the temple to build a mosque in 1528 at the disputed site of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid, a Hindu body claimed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
New Delhi: Mughal Emperor Babur neither visited Ayodhya nor ordered the demolition of the temple to build a mosque in 1528 at the disputed site of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid, a Hindu body claimed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti, a defendant in a lawsuit brought by a Muslim party in the case, referred to historical books as Tuzuk-i-Baburi or Baburnama, Humayunnama, Akbarnama and Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri before a constitutional bench of 5 judges, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, to stress that none of them spoke about the existence of Babri Masjid.
Advancing the submissions on day 14 of the decades-old case, senior lawyer PN Mishra, appearing for the Hindu body, said these books, in particular Baburnama, spoke neither of the destruction of the temple nor of the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya by Mir Baki, the commander of the first Mughal emperor.
âBabur did not enter Ayodhya and therefore he did not have the opportunity to direct the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque in AD 1528 and furthermore, there was no one with the Mir Baqi’s name as commander, âMishra said at the bench which also included judges SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.
Mir Baki was not the commander who led Ayodhya’s invasion, Mishra said as he led the bench to ask him what he was trying to prove by referring to these historical books.
Baburnama is the first historical book regarding the case of Muslims, Mishra said, adding: âI, being the defendant, want to refute their case. They said our temple be declared a mosque. If a building is to be declared a mosque , they will have to prove that Babur was the wakif Of the place.”
Mishra said that Baburnama deals with the 18 years of the emperor’s life, but does not mention any mosque in Ayodhya and furthermore, when the so-called mosque was ordained, the king was in Agra.
âA man can lie, but circumstances don’t lie,â Mishra said.
Babur defeated Awadh’s Muslim ruler Ibrahim Lodi and killed him, then made his brother the commander of the region, he said, adding that Muslims in the case said Mir Baki was Babur’s commander, which is not true.
He then said that the inscriptions, which are said to relate to the existence of the mosque there, were first seen in 1946 when a magistrate visited the place and he claimed that these inscriptions had been tampered with.
Mishra then referred to Ain-i-Akbari, written by Abul Fazal and said in 1576 that he wrote about “Ramkot” in Ayodhya which was revered by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram.
“Corn, Ain-i-Akbari, does not refer to any mosque in Ayodhya, âhe said, adding that although this book does note the smallest details of three tombs in neighboring localities.
“Made Ain-i-Akbari mention other mosques â, asked the judiciary. To this, the lawyer said he would come back with the details.
Then the lawyer quoted Humayunnama, written by Babur’s daughter, Gulbadan Begaum and Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri of Babur’s great-grandson and pointed out that these two books also did not mention anything about the construction of the mosque in Ayodhya.
âWhat is your theory on the claim that the building has the characteristics of both a mosque and a templeâ¦ you say the structure was destroyed by Aurangzeb,â the bench asked.
It was established that Babur did not make the mosque and that it was built by Aurangzeb who destroyed temples in places like Mathura and Kashi, Mishra replied, adding that in a civil lawsuit the duty of the defendant is to refute the complainant’s case.
One of Aurangzeb’s commanders said that the Mughal emperor destroyed four famous Hindu structures.
The bench then asked what would happen to the Muslim party’s prayer requesting the declaration of the place as a mosque after the structure was demolished. The lawyer said he is seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of incorrect pleadings.
Referring to Tulsi Das, who had written Ramayana, the lawyer said he was the contemporary, but nothing is written about the Babri Masjid. He then said he would refer to Islamic law and Hadith to establish the fact that the “usurpation” of the property of others in Islam was’haram ‘ (prohibited).
Mishra objected to the argument of senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, a lawyer for Muslim parties, that the books, which were not exposed to the High Court, cannot be cited in the Supreme Court, claiming as the evidence law permitted.
Referring to the concept of Darul Islam, Mishra said that when Babur won the Awadh from Muslim ruler Lodi, he did not have the right under Islamic law to confiscate the properties of the kafirs (non-believers).
The advancement of arguments would continue on Thursday.
The Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 judgment on four civil suits, had divided the disputed 2.77-acre land equally between the three parties – Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Fourteen appeals were filed with the Supreme Court against the verdict.