1. What is the significance of Ayodhya the city?
Ayodhya is situated on the banks of the Saryu
river in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India.
The Brahamanda Purana dentifies Ayodhya as the
premier amongst the six holy cities for the
Hindus. The other five are Mathura, Haridwar,
Kashi, Kanchi, and Ujjain. These holy cities
are places of pilgrimage from where the Hindus
seek inspiration of their great civilisation
and culture. Visits to these places also
assure them of Moksha or Nirvana.
2. Was Shri Rama a person or a mythical
figure?
According to the Hindu tradition, Shri Rama is
the seventh avtaar (incarnation) of Lord
Vishnu. He was born to King Dashratha of
Ayodhya to deal with the setting of adharma
(unrighteousness) in the trethta Yug, the
second of the four Yugas. Hence he is not a
mythical figure. In every nook and corner of
India there is a unique citation of Shri Rama
having visited their place.
The belief in Shri Rama as a person has an
antiquity of more than 3000 years, and this
tradition is a continuous one. Shri Rama is
accepted as a maryada purushottam all over the
country, and
also wherever Hindu civilisation had spread,
as in Indonesia. Many of the incidents that
have been mentioned in the Ramayana are being
established on the basis of archaeology,
attesting to
the historicity of the various events that
live today in the traditions relating to Shri
Rama.
3. Why is Shri Rama called a Maryada
Purushottam?
As a person, Shri Rama personifies the
characteristics of an ideal person who is to
be emulated. He had within him all the
desirable virtues that any individual would
seek to aspire. For example, he gave up his
rightful claim to the throne, and agreed to go
into exile (vanvas) for fourteen years, to
fulfil the vow that his father had given to
Kaikeyi, one of King Dashratha's wives. This
is in spite of the fact that Kaikeyi's son,
Bharat, begged him to return back to
Ayodhya and said that he did not want to rule
in place of Shri Rama. But Shri Rama
considered his dharma as a son above that of
his own birthright and his life's ambition.
For
such supreme sacrifices, and many other
qualities, Shri Rama is considered a maryada
purushottam.
4. How long is the antiquity of the belief in
Shri Rama prevalent?
Archaeology has established that the antiquity
of the belief in Shri Rama to be more than
3000 years, and that too on a continuous
basis. However, the Hindu literature places
the date back
even further. Even the later figure would make
the belief to be based on history, and not
myth. The submerged city of Dwarka, which was
recently discovered by a marine archaeological
survey, has always existed in the collective
consciousness of the Hindus. Many other events
in different parts of the world have been
accepted as facts on the basis of traditions
(parampara)
which are even younger than the belief in Shri
Rama.
5. Is there any archaeological evidence to
establish the antiquity of the Shri Rama
janmabhoomi site?
Yes. In 1975-80, the Archaeological Survey of
India, under the leadership of Prof B B Lal,
took up extensive excavations, in different
parts of India, to establish the various sites
mentioned in Ramayan. Similar excavations were
undertaken in Ayodhya, including in two places
around the Babri structure. The team was able
to establish that the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi
site was occupied prior to 7th century BC.
6. Is there any proof of destruction of a
mandir in honour of Shri Rama at Ayodhya in
1528 AD?
Yes. Muslim records attest to the fact of the
destruction. European visitors, prior to the
British rule, mention the fact of the
destruction. Archaeological studies have found
the existence of buildings prior to the
construction of the Babri structure. Land
revenue records, maintained by the British,
have identified the site as Janmasthan. There
is even legal judgement of 1886 that avers the
fact that the structure was constructed on a
site that was holy to Hindus.
In December 1990, the above facts, along with
many others, were compiled by the VHP and
presented to the Government of India. A copy
was given to the All India Babri Masjid Action
Committee, and was also published by the VHP.
Neither the committee, nor the so-called
secular historians have refuted the evidence.
7. How can one say that Babur destroyed a
mandir in Ayodhya?
Destruction of the indigenous places of
worship has been a norm for the Islamic
invaders all over the world. India and the
Hindus have not been an exception in
experiencing these barbaric
practices. It is, thereore, difficult to
believe that Babur would have behaved any
differently, as can be seen from his diary,
Babur Nama. Babur did not come to India merely
to loot the wealth of our nation. He had a
religious motivation too, as is the case with
many other Islamic invaders. His motivation
can be well
judged by his actions and what he wrote in his
diary called Babur Nama. He says:
"For Islam's sake, I wandered in the wilds,
Prepared for war with Pagans and Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr's death,
Thanks be to God! a Ghazi I became."
Whether Babur himself supervised the
destruction of the temple at Shri Rama
Janmabhoomi is difficult to say, since the
pages in question from his diary relating to
his presence at Ayodhya
have been lost. However, the pages that are
available show that he was near Ayodhya just
prior to the destruction of the temple, and
that Ayodhya was planned for attack. The fact
that the
structure was named after Babur also points
out to the role of this Islamic invader from
outside, in the destruction of the temple in
honour of Shri Rama in 1528 AD.
8. Was the Babri structure deliberately built
over ruins of a temple in Ayodhya?
Yes. Construction of structures, either
religious or secular, over sites vandalised by
the invaders has been a standard practice of
both Islam and Christianity all over the
world. The
Hindus have been no exception to this barbaric
practice. The objective of the new structure
is to show the conquered people that the
invaders were the new masters, and hence the
structure
had nothing but a political message. To draw
any other meaning clearly signifies that the
programme of trampling of the sentiments of
the indigenous people is sought to be
continued.
This is no way to have cordial relations
between groups. In the English translation of
the Persian diary of Babur Nama, Annete
Beveridge mentions specifically the
destruction of the
temple. She says that Babur was impressed with
the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu
shrine at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi. She also
says that as an obedient follower of Mohammed,
Babur regarded the substitution of the temple
by a mosque as Mohammed, Babur regarded the
substitution of the temple by a mosque as a
dutiful and worthy action.
9. It is said that the act of destruction by
Babur was not a religious one, but had a
political motive. Please comment.
The act has to be interpreted in terms of the
one who committed it. From what Babur has
written about himself in his Babur Nama, it is
clear that his intention was also to spread
Islam. His actions after his victories also
attest to this fact. It is true that he had a
political mantle in terms of being a ruler.
But in Islam most of the rulers also did take
all actions to propagate their religion. This
is something that has happened all over the
world, and the treatment meted out in India to
the Hindus is no exception.
If Babur was purely a political person, there
would have been no need, one, to destroy a
place of worship of the indigenous people and,
two, to construct an alien place of worship
and/or
victory monument where such destruction took
place. The fact that the Babri structure was
built after destroying a temple in honour of
Shri Rama establishes the religious nature of
the act. Whether it is destroyed for a
religious reason or for a political one, the
Babri structure, supposed to be a Muslim place
of worship, would still be termed as a
monument of the slavery and subjugation of the
Hindus. Also, since it was built after
destroying Shri Rama's temple, the recovery of
the site is still justified. The Hindus are
not asking for the return of the thousands of
the vandalised sites, but only three that are
the most important to them in their tradition.
10. What was the significance of Ram Chabootar
and Sita-ki-Rasoi?
These were built during the time of Akbar,
that is within fifty years of the destruction
of the temple in honour of Shri Rama in 1528
AD. The Sita-ki-Rasoi was built at the
original site. The Ram Chabootar was built
slightly away from where the garbha griha
(sanctum sanctorum) existed. Hindus accepted
this as a second best option, because they did
not want to give up their claim of the site,
and wanted to establish their right by their
presence there. This is a clear indication of
the attachment of the Hindus demonstrated to
the place where Shri Rama was born. Akbar's
acceptance of the demand also indicates that
he respected the Hindu sentiments
for the site Throughout the existence of the
Ram Chabootar, continuous worship of Shri Rama
took place. There are numerous accounts of Ram
Navami (Shri Rama's birthday) being celebrated
from 1700 onwards.
+be+offered+to+Deity+Hanum%C4%81n.jpg)
