↑

Babri Mosque Or Ram’s Birth Place

As previously mentioned, there is a lack of evidence supporting the existence of Ram, let alone providing proof of his birthplace.

There are no historical records indicating the date of Ram’s birth. Hindus claim the Babri mosque to be the birthplace of Ram simply because a mosque stands there. If the mosque had been situated 25 kilometers away from its current location, Hindus would have asserted that spot as the birthplace of Rama.

There is no single historical document demonstrating that the Babri mosque was constructed over the remains of a temple, nor does the Baburnama make any mention of it.

While there is evidence that people in the 16th century visited the banks of the Sarayu River for pilgrimage, there is no evidence that people visited the specific location where the Babri mosque was built for pilgrimage.

It is noteworthy that Mir Baqi, Babur’s commander, constructed the Babri mosque 500 years ago, so there should have been some historical records of people visiting the site before the construction of the mosque. Considering its relatively recent age of 500 years, there should be historical evidence to prove that the Babri mosque was built after the destruction of Ramjanmabhoomi.

In the 16th century, two well-known Hindu scholars, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and Tulsidas Goswami, an ardent devotee of Ram who wrote the Tulsi Ramayana, do not mention the demolition of a Ram temple. Instead, Hindu scriptures locate the birthplace of Rama far away from the site of the Babri mosque.

Skanda Purana 2.8.10.16b-19, states,

“To the west of it, the devotees should worship Vighnesvara by seeing whom not even the least obstacle remains (in the affairs) of men. Hence Vignesvara, the bestower of all desired benefits, should be worshipped. To the northeast of that spot is the place of the birth of Rama. This holy spot of the birth is, it is said, the means of achieving salvation, etc. It is said that the place of birth is situated to the east of Vighnesvara, to the north of Vasistha, and to the west of Laumasa.”

Historians, in the following passage, have utilized versions of the Skanda Purana from the Vrindavan manuscripts and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The version used for the passage is different from the one you mentioned.

The Ayodhya-Mahatmya section of the Skanda Purana, as presented in the printed version, was not compiled by a single person. There are inconsistencies in the description of the pilgrimage sites, and the glorification of Ayodhya suddenly starts in the middle. The description of Janamsthan appears to be a later addition. Despite these inconsistencies, even if we accept the location of Rama’s birthplace as stated in the Ayodhya-Mahatmya, it does not align with the site of the Babri mosque.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya case stated that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) failed to establish whether a temple was demolished to construct the mosque. The verdict was based on the faith of Hindus rather than factual evidence. It was widely expected that the verdict would favor the Hindu party due to the religious majority in India and the court’s inclination towards the Hindu side. Only the Muslim community was questioned in the Supreme Court, and not the Hindus.

A river stream was found beneath the Ram temple site, which raises questions about whether Ram was born in the middle of a river or on a boat. It also raises the possibility that the river changed its course for Kaushalya to deliver Ram.

Renowned historian Sarvepalli Gopal writes, “It is quite evident that no temple-mosque controversy was known in Ayodhya till the nineteenth century. Local stories were put into circulation and claims were raised over the places of worship in Ayodhya. The British played a significant role in strengthening the claim by providing the local stories with a historical basis. The British in Faizabad and Ayodhya had come to stay after AD 1816. The devepments in Ayodhya were an extension of whatever was happening in the adjoining district of Banaras, where a great riot had occurred in 1809. By then the British had been in the area for over twenty five years. It is therefore certain that the attempt of the British writers to provide a historical basis to the circulating local myths, fostered the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhumi issue in Ayodhya.” [Anatomy of a confrontation: the rise of communal politics in India, p.48, by Sarvepalli Gopal, Palgrave Macmillan, 15-Oct-1993]

“It seems probable that in the nineteenth century the idea started developing in Avadh that Babur had destroyed the Ramjanmabhumi temple and erected a mosque in its place. In 1838, Montgomery Martin wrote that the people of Ayodhya maintained that a mosque had been raised by Babur. Martin added that as in other parts of North India, in Ayodhya too, Aurgangzeb was blamed for the destruction of several Hindu temples. However, it was Babur’s mosque that attracted Martin’s attention most. He wrote that in the construction of the mosque, carved black stone pillars had been used and as they were un-Islamic they confirm the destruction of temples by Muslim zealots. However, Martin felt that the Babri Masjid had not been built from the debris of the temple said to have been erected by Vikrama of Ujjain. The story of Babur and his mosque started gaining significance in the nineteenth century. In 1819, John Leyden translated the memoirs of Babur and he wrote that Babur had encamped near Ayodhya on 28 march 1528. In 1826 Erksine remarked that he had found a document that confirmed that Babur remained in Ayodhya for a fortnight and was involved in building activites. The remarks by these two confirmed the local myth that Babur had destroyed the Ramjanmabhumi temple during his stay in Ayodhya. In 1866, H.M. Elliot asserted that Babur came to Ayodhya and destroyed the famous temple. He added that the mosque was constructed about the time of his expedition to Bihar. It was on the basis of these writings that the idea gained popularity. Most of the British officials and scholars who tried to put together a history of Ayodhya highlighted the desecration of the temple commemorating the birthplace of Rama. This idea became so strongly entrenched in the psyche of the British officials and the local people that it was difficult to dislodge it.” [Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India, p.47, By Sarvepalli Gopal, Palgrave Macmillan, 15-Oct-1993]

Hindus have a tendency to claim every monument as their own and associate it with their religion. For instance, they consider Vatican City to be a distorted word for “Vatika” and Taj Mahal to be “Tejo Mahelya,” even when there is historical data showing the construction of the Taj Mahal from its foundation. Also read, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Historical-evidence-ignored-say-historians/article13481395.ece