Vasiyatnama In English Pdf

[Latarsha Dorrance]

The Govt. of Bharat has asked both the parties to this dispute to submit all the relevant historical proofs and documents, as to whether any Hindu temple was destroyed for the construction of Babari Masjid? Evidence means that human or material testimonials, which is in favor of this party that there was a Hindu temple existing that was forcibly converted into a mosque; or alternatively, there was something other than a temple, say a vacant land; or that this Mosque was constructed without any intervention into the then existing modes or systems of worship.
We have submitted archeological, documentary and iconological evidence. According to this evidence, there was a Hindu temple. Abundant evidence of various types indicates the all-comprehensive tradition of this convention prevalent in the beginning of the 17th century that the Babari Masjid was built on such a sacred place of a Hindu temple that was forcibly destroyed and that there is a universal acceptance of the fact that it was the birth-place of Shriram.

But, we may be permitted to give our general comments with respect to the evidence submitted by the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee. Firstly, the most startling fact about these documents is that none of them have any evidentiary value for the issue involved here, for which the Committee was asked to submit its proofs. Yes, there are some intellectual arguments in some matters. Most of the documents presented are the composition of the people with political inclinations. But the opinion of the greatest of the men also is not considered to be evidence, until some factual evidence is not linked with it, on the basis of which they have formed a significant opinion of theirs. But unfortunately, there is nothing except mere opinion only.

Our next comment is that all these piecemeal evidence do not present any coherent picture about any thing. In fact, several documents refute each other. For example : certain ancient sources co-opt Ram Katha with the Bouddha traditions; whereas some other pamphlet-mongers say that Ramayan is the symbol of Brahminism over the Buddhism. Some say that there is no historical essence in it; whereas few others say that Ramayana is the dramatisation of Aryan victory over the south. Some say that Janmabhumi was a vacant plot; others say that there was a Buddhist Stoop on the site. A.I.B.M.A.Committee has not made it clear as yet whether this evidence is presented in favour of factual situation there.

Our third comment is that quantitatively the B.M.C.s evidence is enormously excessive. But in view of the main question i.e. whether it is sufficient either to prove or disprove as to whether there was a flourishing place of worship of Hindus prior to the construction of Babari Masjid, the evidence is clearly very scanty.
The legal narration is too longish through this part of the Evidence, thereby re-iterates the judicial issue; but it does not finally dispose off various rights and wrongs of the history attached with the question. But it certainly goes to prove that the Hindus have maintained their claim in the Court regarding this place.

The testimony is apparently missing from these documents that could show that Babar or any other Muslim Chieftain saw a vacant plot and since he was disgusted with its vacantness; he ordered construction of a Masjid there. There is not a single contemporary or near-contemporary testimony, which could show that Valmiki had created / invented the history of Shriram from a cipher. We have submitted the evidence of the fact that the ancient Hindu authors have considered Shriram as a historic character and treated him like that only. Whereas this was not the point of argument, for which any proof was demanded. But our friends in the Babari Masjid Committee while clandestinely making efforts to make the historicity of Shriram a topic of dispute; they never submit any evidence for this, but certain opinions (of certain people) which belong to a much much later period only. Hence these documents relate to other aspects of this topic than that of the existence of the temple prior to Masjid construction there; therefore they are all outside the preview of the matter under consideration.

But, we have submitted our comments based on the rebuttal of each one of the historical documents of all sorts submitted by the Babari Masjid Committee. We have confined our comments on the judicial documents so far as they are concerned with the historical facts and they are brief too.

[A-1] No evidence is given in the documents mentioned by C. Rajagopalachari. Only the statement of Gandhiji is mentioned therein that the events of Ramayana are the stories. but what of that? If we are not misled by the word story and go on reading the book, then we come across the fact that C. Rajagopalachari considered the mythical Shriram and historical Shriram as different.

[A-2a] No evidence is given in the quotations of Periyar E. V. Ramaswami. He considers Shriram as a person of mean character and a representative of the Aryan clan, which has been a most unscientific class. He has been condemned very badly. But basically Ramaswami does deny the historicity of the Ramayana, he only denies its holiness.
[A-2b] No evidence has been factually given in the documents mentioned in the name of Jawahar Lal Nehru. It only mentions that the separatist Dravidians, who stage the distorted version of Ramayana, are so propagate the modifided theories of the Aryan community only. In fact, this is the dramatisation of the historic events of northern victory over the south. Though this is not a proof of the historicity of the Ramayana. But this is at least a proof of the firm confidence of the contemporary people that historical elements are present in the Ramayana.

[A-3] Although the quotations of Dr. Sukumar Sen also do not persent any proofs, but we could meet at least one really intellectual from among those learned experts invited to prove the Babari Masjid Committees case. We come to know from whatever Dr. Sen has written that Valmiki is a historic character and the story of Shriram was existing prior to his times. Besides, we also come to know that there were many traditions of Shriram Katha and also many versions of Shriram Kathas; and Valmiki has created his extremely prestigious story by drawing from these materials. Despite the current efforts to posite Buddhism against Shriram, the fable of Shriram finds a place in Buddhist Akhyanas. It has been very proudly said in the Buddhist sources that Buddha belonged to the Ikshwaku clan as Shriram did.

The assertions that there are many versions of Ramayana, are no evidence against the historiciity of Ramayana. There are two different stories about creation in the Bible. Two different genealogies are given about Jesus. In fact, every story of Jesus life is given by authors differently in various Gospels. But no serious intellectual conclude from this that Jesus was never born.

[A-4] There is no evidence even in the description of P. S. Shridhar Murty. His articles are full of useless statements and meaningless propositions, which have been composed on the basis of the Hitlerian theory of the Aryan community.

These whimsical tendencies, which are mere surmises and un-testified, have been proved as completely conspiratorial in nature, when they mix up their internal disdain towards Brahmin / Aryan community with the gruesome fact that all the important characters in the Shriram traditions (like Shriram, Valmiki, Vishwamitra etc.) are all non-Brahmins and that crooked beast called Ravana was a Brahmin.

There need not be any coherence in the anti-Aryan theory of casteism of both Ramaswami Naicker and Shridhar Murthy. Because all the possible facts go to prove only one thing. Hence there is no necessity of co-ordinating among all their facts.

[A4a] There is not evidence in the mention of S.K.Chatterjee. He only gives an opinion, œthere is no historical fact below the surface. No learned person of Indian history now agrees that the hero of Ramayana, Shriram was any historic personality, which could be cast in any specific period of time. This opinion has been already rejected by all people including the intellectuals, who have said, that Ramayana is a dramatisation of œAryan victory of south India, which is considered as equivalent to a basis in the history. Hence this assertion of Chatterjee is a blatant falsehood.

[A-4c] The document produced by Dr. Jyotiprasad Jain also does not give any evidence. They only lay claim that all the temples in Ayodhya are Jain temples. But Dr. Jain concurs with our thought that Babar and other Muslim rulers have destroyed several Hindu temples [including Jain temples]. It is alright, Shri.Murty promises to invalidate this in subsequent pages. But in the next 29 pages, he never returns to this topic at all.

In fact, in spite of Murtys condemnation of the Gazeteers the Gazeteers prove that there was no reason for the British surveyors, who were generally impartial and discritionary people, to be suspecting the veracity of this local tradition that the Babari Masjid was constructed on a demolished Hindu temple. All the relevant British Gazeteers state the same fact that Babar or his henchmen had demolished the Hindu temple to build a mosque on that spot.

[A-5] There is no evidence in the documents mentioned by Dr. R. L. Shukla. His pamphlet begins with an exciting political lecture. Later on, he had condemned several archeologists and historians by calling them as fanatic, infamous, bragging, Antagonists to social changes, etc. and accused them personally. These have no relation, whatsoever, even remotest, with instant discussions. In fine, he is not a scientific personality and his pamphlet does not deserve to be taken as a piece of scientific evidence.

[A-6] There is no evidence in the documents pertaining to the Jatak Kathas. It appears to have been included since they inform that the clan of Dasharath and Shriram hail not from Ayodhya but Benaras. But there is no such living tradition for over last one millennium, that could claim that Shriram belonged to Benaras. Our claim over the site of Shriram Janmabhumi is based not only on some nondescript single script dug out from the pit of the oblivion, but it is firmly based on a well-established living tradition.

c80f0f1006