Rear view of the Babri Mosque, pre-1992
Coordinates: 26°47?44?N 82°11?40?E? / ?26.7956°N 82.1945°E? / 26.7956; 82.1945Coordinates: 26°47?44?N 82°11?40?E? / ?26.7956°N 82.1945°E? / 26.7956; 82.1945
Location Ayodhya, India
Established Constructed – 1527
Destroyed – 1992
The Babri Mosque (Hindi: ????? ??????, Urdu: ????? ????), Babri Masjid or Mosque of Babur was a mosque in Ayodhya, on Ramkot Hill (“Rama’s fort”). It was destroyed in 1992 when a political rally developed into a riot involving 150,000 people, despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people were killed in ensuing riots in many major Indian cities including Mumbai and Delhi. The mosque was constructed in 1527 by order of Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan (“mosque of the birthplace”). The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, an area with a substantial Muslim population, including the Hazrat Bal Mosque constructed by the Shariqi kings, the Babri Mosque became the largest, due to the importance of the disputed site. The political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque and whether a previous temple was demolished or modified to create it, is known as the Ayodhya Debate.
Architecture of the mosque
The rulers of the Sultanate of Delhi and its successor Mugal Empire were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of ‘later Tughlaq’ architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur.
Babri was an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, developed after the Delhi Sultanate was established (1192). The square CharMinar of Hyderabad (1591) with large arches, arcades, and minarets is typical. This art made extensive use of stone and reflected Indian adaptation to Muslim rule, until Mughals art replaced it in the 17th century, as typified by structures like the Taj Mahal.
The traditional hypostyle plan with an enclosed courtyard, imported from Western Asia was generally associated with the introduction of Islam in new areas, but was abandoned in favour of schemes more suited to local climate and needs. The Babri Masjid was a mixture of the local influence and the Western Asian style and examples of this type of mosque are common in India.
The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls, running parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet water. On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian declaring that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coarse-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. Both these structural ingredients are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand.
The Central Courtyard was surrounded by lavishly curved columns superimposed to increase the height of the ceilings. The plan and the architecture followed the Begumpur Friday mosque of Jahanpanah rather than the Moghul style where Hindu masons used their own trabeated structural and decorative traditions. The excellence of their craftsmanship is noticeable in their vegetal scrolls and lotus patterns. These motifs are also present in the Firuyyz Shah Mosque in Firuzabad (c.1354) now in a ruined state, Qila Kuhna Mosque (c.1540, The Darasbari Mosque in the Southern suburb of the walled city of Gaur, and the Jamali Kamili Mosque built by Sher Shah Suri this was the forerunner of the Indo Islamic style adopted by Akbar.
 Babri Masjid acoustic and cooling system
“A whisper from the Babri Masjid Mihrab could be heard clearly at the other end, 200 feet [60 m] away and through the length and breadth of the central court” according to Graham Pickford, architect to Lord William Bentinck (1828–1833). The mosque’s acoustics were mentioned by him in his book ‘Historic Structures of Oudhe’ where he says “for a 16th century building the deployment and projection of voice from the pulpit is considerably advanced, the unique deployment of sound in this structure will astonish the visitor”.
Modern architects have attributed this intriguing acoustic feature to a large recess in the wall of the Mihrab and several recesses in the surrounding walls which functioned as resonators; this design helped everyone to hear the speaker at the Mihrab. The sandstone used in building the Babri Mosque also had resonant qualities which contributed to the unique acoustics.
The Babri mosque’s Tughluquid style integrated other indigenous design components and techniques, such as air cooling systems disguised as Islamic architectural elements like arches, vaults and domes. In the Babri Masjid a passive environmental control system comprised the high ceiling, domes, and six large grille windows. The system helped keep the interior cool by allowing natural ventilation as well as daylight.
Legend of the Babri Mosque’s miraculous well
The reported medicinal properties of the deep well in the central courtyard have been featured in various news reports such as the BBC report of December 1989 and in various newspapers. The earliest mention of the Babri water well was in a two line reference to the Mosque in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which says “There are no significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim has Miraculous properties.” There is significant similarity between the supposed miraculous properties of the water from the Babri mosque well and Kaaba’s Zamzam Well.
Ayodhya is a pilgrimage site for Hindus and the annual Ram festival is regularly attended by over 500,000 people of both the Hindu and Muslim faiths, and many devotees came to drink from the water well in the Babri Courtyard. It was believed drinking water from this well could cure a range of illnesses. Hindu pilgrims also believed that the Babri water well was the original well in the Ram Temple under the mosque. Ayodhya Muslims believed that the well was a gift from God. Local women regularly brought their new born babies to drink from the reputedly curative water.
The 125 foot (40 m) deep well was situated in the south-eastern section of the large rectangular courtyard of the Babri Mosque. There was a small Hindu shrine built in 1890 joining the well with a statue of Lord Rama. It was an artesian well and drew water from a considerable distance below the water table. Eleven feet (3 m) in radius, the first 30 feet (10 m) from ground level were bricked. It drew water from a reservoir trapped in a bed of shale sand and gravel, which would explain the unusually cool temperature of the water. The water contained almost no sodium, giving it a reputation of tasting ‘sweet.’ Accessing the well involved climbing onto a three foot (1 m) platform, where the well was covered with planks of thick wood with an unhinged trapdoor. Water was drawn by means of a bucket and long lengths of rope and due to its claimed ‘spiritual properties’ was used only for drinking.
Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya both considered the Babri Mosque Complex a haven of peace and spiritual tranquillity. Many people in the area, of both faiths, had a profound belief in the miraculous properties of its cold and pure underground water, which was reinforced by abundant local folklore.
 Hindu account
When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Ferghana in 1527, he defeated the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri, using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the region, leaving his general, Mir Baqi, in charge as viceroy.
Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate Rama’s birthplace, and built the Babri Masjid, naming it after Emperor Babur. Although there is no reference to the new mosque in Babur’s diary, the Baburnama, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babur’s troops “demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi”
Palaeographic evidence of an older Hindu temple on the site emerged from an inscription on a thick stone slab recovered from the debris of the demolished structure in 1992. Over 260 other artifacts were recovered on the day of demolition, and many point to being part of the ancient temple. The inscription on the slab has 20 lines, 30 shlokas (verses), and is composed in Sanskrit written in the Nagari script. The ‘Nagari Lipi’ script was prevalent in the eleventh and twelfth century. The crucial part of the message as deciphered by a team comprising epigraphists, Sanskrit scholars, historians and archaeologists including Prof. A.M. Shastri, Dr. K.V. Ramesh, Dr. T.P. Verma, Prof. B.R. Grover, Dr. A.K. Sinha, Dr. Sudha Malaiya, Dr. D.P. Dubey and Dr. G.C. Tripathi.
The first twenty verses are the praises of the king Govind Chandra Gharhwal (AD 1114 to 1154) and his dynasty. The twenty-first verse says the following; “For the salvation of his soul the King, after paying his obeisance at the little feet of Vamana Avatar (the incarnation of a god as a midget Brahmana) went about constructing a wondrous temple for Vishnu Hari (Shri Rama) with marvelous pillars and structure of stone reaching the skies and culminating in a superb top with a massive sphere of gold and projecting shafts in the sky – a temple so grand that no other King in the History of the nation had ever built before.”
It further states that this temple (ati-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya.
In another reference, the Faizabad District Judge on a plaint filed by Mahant Raghubar Das gave a judgment on 18 March 1886. Though the plaint was dismissed, the judgment brought out two relevant points;
“I found that Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya…. It is most unfortunate that Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 358 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.”
 Jain account
According to Jain Samata Vahini, a social organization of the Jains, “the only structure that could be found during excavation would be a sixth century Jain temple”.
Sohan Mehta, the General Secretary of Jain Samata Vahini, claims that the demolished disputed structure was actually built on the remnants of an ancient Jain temple, and that the excavation by ASI, ordered by Allahabad High Court to settle the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute, would prove it.
Mehta quotied writings of 18th century Jain monks stating Ayodhya was the place where five Jain teerthankars, Rishabhdeo, Ajeeth Nath, Abhinandanji, Sumati Nath and Anant Nath, stayed. The ancient city was among the five biggest centres of Jainism and Buddhism prior to 1527.
 Muslim account
Muslims generally dispute the legitimacy of Hindu claims to the site and their significance. They believe the archeological reports relied on by the Hindu nationalist groups Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Hindu Munnani to lay claim to the Babri Masjid site are politically motivated and inherently biased against Islam.
 Disputes over the site
The first recorded incident of violence over the issue between Hindus and Muslims took place in 1853 during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh.
According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, it is said that “up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one.”
Efforts in 1883 to construct a temple on this chabootra were halted by the Deputy Commissioner who prohibited it on January 19, 1885. Raghubir Das, a mahant, filed a suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. Pandit Harikishan was seeking permission to construct a temple on this chabootra measuring 17 ft. x 21 ft., but the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Faizabad District Judge, Colonel J.E.A. Chambiar who, after an inspection of spot on March 17, 1886, dismissed the appeal. A Second Appeal was filed on May 25, 1886, before the Judicial Commissioner of Awadh, W. Young, who also dismissed the appeal. With this, the first round of legal battle fought by the Hindus came to an end.
During the “communal riots” of 1934, walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged. These were reconstructed by the British Government.
At midnight on December 22, 1949, when the police guards were asleep, statues of Rama and Sita were quietly brought into the mosque and erected. This was reported by the constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station. The following morning a large Hindu crowd attempted to enter the mosque to make offerings to the deities. The District Magistrate K.K. Nair has recorded that “The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen were rushed off their feet. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The sadhus recklessly hurled themselves against men and arms and it was with great difficulty that we managed to hold the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and police force was strengthened (5:00 pm).”
On hearing this news Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, to see that the deities were removed. Under Pant’s orders, Chief Secretary Bhagwan Sahay and Inspector-General of Police V.N. Lahiri sent immediate instructions to Faizabad to remove the deities. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders.
Following these efforts by the Hindu groups to occupy the mosque, a suit was filed before Faizabad’s civil judge on January 16, 1950, by one Gopal Singh Visharad, asking for unrestricted access. The senior saint and former Ramjanmabhoomi Trust chairman, the late Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans also filed a similar suit.
In 1985 the Rajiv Gandhi government ordered the locks on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to be removed. Until then, only a Hindu priest had been permitted to perform yearly puja for the idols there in 1949. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to what they consider the birthplace of Rama, and the mosque resumed its function as a Hindu temple.
In 1984, the VHP launched a massive movement for the opening of the locks of the mosque, following which the Faizabad session judge on February 1, 1986, allowed Hindus to worship at the site and the locks were opened.
 Archaeology Society of India report
Main article: Archaeology of Ayodhya
Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large Hindu complex existed on the site.
In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The Archaeology Society of India was asked to conduct a more indepth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble. The summary of the ASI report  indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered “distinctive features associated with… temples of north India”. The excavations yielded:
“ stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure”  ”
The Muslims strongly criticized the report, claiming that it failed to mention any evidence of a temple in its interim reports and only revealed it in the final report which was submitted during a time of national tension, making the report highly suspect.. This view was shared by many Muslim religious groups including the Sunni Waqf Board and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Examining the ASI’s conclusion of a mandir (Hindu temple) under the structure, the VHP and the RSS stepped up demands for Muslims to restore the three holiest North Indian mandirs to Hindus.
On 6 December 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It has been the longest running commission in India’s history with 48 extensions granted by various governments. The commission submitted its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 30 June 2009, more than 16 years after the incident.
Contents of the report were leaked to the news media in November 2009. The report blamed the high-ranking members of the Indian government and Hindu nationalists for the destruction of the mosque. Its contents caused uproar in the Indian parliament.
The Liberhan report has pieced together a sequence of events as they happened on December 6, 1992, the day the Babri Masjid was demolished by Kar Sevaks.
On that Sunday morning, LK Advani and others met at Vinay Katiyar’s residence. They then proceeded to the disputed structure, the report says. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Katiyar reached the puja platform where symbolic Kar Seva was to be performed, and Advani and Joshi checked arrangements for the next 20 minutes. The two senior leaders then moved 200 metre away to the Ram Katha Kunj. This was a building facing the disputed structure where a dais had been erected for senior leaders.
At noon, a teenage Kar Sevak was “vaulted” on to the dome and that signaled the breaking of the outer cordon. The report notes that at this time Advani, Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia made “feeble requests to the Kar Sevaks to come down… either in earnest or for the media’s benefit”. No appeal was made to the Kar Sevaks not to enter the sanctum sanctorum or not to demolish the structure. The report notes: “This selected act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and all being to accomplish demolition of the disputed structure.”
The report holds that the “icons of the movement present at the Ram Katha Kunj… could just as easily have… prevented the demolition.” 
1528: The Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, a nobleman of Babur’s court
1855: The Hanumangarhi episode. Hindu-Muslim conflict as a consequence of an attempt by Muslims under the leadership of Shah Gulam Hussain to oust the Hindu Bairagis from the Hanumangarhi temple on the grounds that the temple had supplanted the mosque. The Muslims were deafeated. The dispute was not over the Babri Masjid.
1857: Soon after the Revolt, the Mahant of Hanumangarhi takes over a part of the Babri Masjid compound and constructs a chabutra.
30 Nov 1857: Maulvi Muhammad Asghar of the Masjid submits a petition to the magistrate complaining that the Bairagis have built a chabutra close to mosque ( similar complaints are made in 1860, 1877, 1883 and 1884)
1859: The British Government erects a fence to seprate the places of worship of the Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus are to enter from the East gate and the Muslims from the North.
29th January: The Mahant files a suit to gain legal title to the land in the mosque and for permission to construct a temple on the chabutra.
24th December: The Mahant’s suit and appeals are dismissed. His claim for the proprietorship of the land in the compound of the Masjid in also dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner.
25th May: The Mahant appeals again to the highest court in the province.
1st November: The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the Mahant’s appeal again.
1936: An inquiry conducted by the then Commissioner of waqf’s under the UP Muslim Waqf Act, and it is held that the Babri Masjid was built by Babur who was a Sunni Muslim.
22-23rd December: In the night of an idol of Rama was installed by the Hindus inside the mosque. The Government proclaims the premises as disputed area and locks the gates.
16th January: A suit is filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, praying that he is entitled to worship in the Ramjanmabhumi.
24th April: The District Collector of Faizabad, J.N. Ugra, files a statement in court that the property in suit has been in use as a mosque and not as a temple.
3rd March: The Civil Judge orders that the idols should remain. The High Court confirms this order on 26 April 1955.
18 December: The first civil suit by Muslims is filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the delivery of the possession of the mosque by the removal of the idols and other artices of Hindu worship.
7 and 8 April: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) sponsored Dharma Sansad in a session at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi gives call to liberate the Ramjanamabhumi.
To create national awareness in support of the liberation of the Bhumi the VHP organizes a rath-yatra of Sri Rama Janaki Virajman on a motorized chariot from Bihar 25 Sept 1984 to reach Ayodhya on 6 October 1984. But Indira Gandhi’s assassination later that month leads to a suspension of the yatra.
1986: Umesh Chandra Pandey files an application in the court of the munsif seeking the removal of the restrictions on the puja. The application is turned down.
1st February: K.M. Pandey, District Judge, Faizabad, orders the opening of the locks to the Hindu for worship. The Muslim community is not allowed to offer any prayers.
March: The Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) is formed. This is followed by a countrywide Muslim ‘mourning’.
12th May: The Sunni Central Waqf Board files a writ petition against the District Judge’s order.
11 December: The State of Uttar Pradesh applies to the Allahabad High Court that the hearing of the two writ petitions be deferred and the four civil suits be withdrawn from the court of munsif sadar and tried by the High Court.
March: At New Delhi’s Boart Club three lakh Muslims gather to demand handing over the Babri Masjid.
April: The Hindus gather at Ayodhya to pledge the liberation of the shrine.
December: The Babri Masjid Action Committee splits to form Babri Masjid Movement and the BMAC.
November: The Shilanyas is held at Ayodhya on 9th Novemeber and the foundation of the temple is laid next day. The plinth is dug 192 feet away from the mosque.
On 11th November the VHP leaders declare that the construction of the temple is being deferred and it would be decided in January 1990.
December: A coalition of the Janata Dal, the Bhartiya Janata Party and the Communist Party of India forms the Government at the the Centre after the general elections.
15 February: The new government constitutes a committee to talk to the various groups and find an amicable solution.
October: A rath-yatra, from Somnath to Ayodhya led by the BJP leaders start.
The BJP withdraws support to the Janata Dal Governmet.
In the Shilanyas procession and the kar seva on 30th October performed amidst tight security, several people are killed and injured in the police action.
November: The BJP and the VHP decided to resume the Kar seva on 6thDecember.
8th December: An attempt to blow up the structure by Suresh Kumar was made, which was foiled.
28th February 1991: Intelligence Bureau perceived imminent threat to Babri Masjid and sent a security plan.
26th June 1991: Kalyan Singh assuemed Chief Minister office in UP.
10th July 1991: The UP government under the garb of promoting tourism and providing amenities for the visitors; acquired 2.77 acres of land in front of disputed structure.
1st October 1991: VHP proposed a Bajrang Maha Rudra Yagya from 1st Oct to November. On 31st October, Karsevaks climbed the domes of the disputed structure by jumping over the security cardons. They were removed from there along with their flags.
2nd Nov 1991: In a meeting of the National Integration Council, Kalyan Singh gave an assurance
” as regards the disputed structure I want to make it clear that I assured you the entire responsibility of the protection of the disputed structure in ours. We should be vigilant about the disputed structure. We have strengthened the arrangements for its protection. Now nobody will be able to go there. No incident would be allowed to be repeated when three person climbed on the top of the dome. I want to convey this assurance to you through this council. Overall, it is our clear submission regarding the court; we will abide by the order given by the court. We do not want to do anything by violating its order”
30the December 1991: Road barriers were removed from the feeder roads leading to the disputed structure. Removal of barrier allowed freedom of movement to the larger member of public visiting the disputed structure. Barbed wires and barriers,especially those immediately behind the disputed structure, were removed on or about 2nd of January 1992.
17th Feb 1992: Construction by UP government of the security wall know as Ram Dewar measuring 8 to 10 feet in height, on the three sides of acquired land at Ayodhya including the disputed structure commenced. An overall impression was created that construction of Ram Dewar was a major step taken for construction of temple by the state.
4th May 1992: Barbed wire, concertina rolls and iron pipe barricades were removed from western, eastern and southern sides and from the road outside the complex.
11th July 1992: Ministry of Home Affairs pointed out as man as 12 serious security lapses and deficiencies.
13 to 15th July 1992: S.B. Chavan the Home Minister of India informed the Lok Sabha that UP government had violated the court’s order. The Supreme Court aked for the details as to whether any permanent construction had been made etc. The High Court directed construction to be stopped. The administration however failed to implement this order although it proclaimed to have made attempts to implement it.
23rd August 1992: K alyan Singh in spite of being Chief Minsiter declared that ” If the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to Ram temple would be against the emotion of Hindus, we will make a separate law for the construction of temple”
September 1992: It was announced that Charan Paduka Puja would commence from 26th of September and go on till the 25th November. Sadhus would carry Charan Paduka to 6,00,000 villages for recruiting 60,00,000 Karsevaks. Karsevaks recruited were required to swear an oath that they would not return from Ayodhya before the construction of temple was complete.
October 1992: Commissioner SP Gaur Faizabad was of the perception that the call for Karseva given by VHP was for construction of temple on 2.77 acres acquired land and at the disputed site. He sought appropriate directions for security of the disputed structure in view of these changed circumstances. A reminder was sent by him on the 14th October.
An assurance was given by the state to the Supreme Court that no construction would be carried out in the acquired land.
Bal Thackeray took a decision on 25th October 1992 to participate in the Karseva. It was announced that this was not going to be a mere symbolic Karseva, but the actually Karseva at the spot by construction of temple.
On 29th October, the negotiations collapsed.
VHP called and organized a meeting of the Dharam Sansad on the 30th October for deciding the future course of action. Sants wanted the Prime Minister to hand over the disputed structure to Hindus. Acharya Dharmendra Dev Stated that he had already decided the 6th December 1992 for the Karseva, which decision was later approved by all sadhus.
November 92: The Chief Minister refused to associate the CRPF or the Intelligence Bureau in reviewing the security, asserting that State Government was competent to secure the disputed structure.
On 1st November, the Prime Minister had assured the AIBMAC that the government would not allow karseva and that the law would take its own course.
On 3rd November, A K Saran formed the opinion that approximately 1,50,000 karsevaks would be coming to Ayodhya on the 6th of December and therefore wrote to DIG Faizabad asking him to make arrangements for security, crowd management and traffic management.
The Allahabad High Court, concluded hearing the challenges to the acquisition on 4th November, and reserved judgment. The judgment was slated to be pronounced on the 29th November but was later postponed to the 5thDecember and to the 11th December. It was finally pronounced on the 12th of December 1992.
The BJP and RSS suspended all other programmes with effect from 15thNovember in order to clear the decks for the 6th December.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, to take stock of the situation Cabinet Committee meeting of Arjun Singh, Sharat Pawar and SB Chavan took place on 20th and 26th of November 1992. By now, the number of Karsevaks likely to come to Ayodhya was estimated to be 4 to 5 lakhs.
It was reported in media that the IB had, in its dispatches dated 22nd of November, stated that the Sangh intended to demolish the structure.
In view of the threat perception the Central Government had, by the 24th of November stationed 195 companies of paramilitary forces around Ayodhya. The Chief Minister on the 25th November objected and protested against the stationing of forces at Ayodhya and demanded the withdrawal.
The Supreme Court invited an assurance from the VHP leaders and the State Government to the effect that no construction of either permanent or temporary nature would take place.
On the 28th November, the UP Government undertook to comply with the court’s order dated 25th of November, to the effect that no construction of permanent or temporary nature would take place, though to assuage the religious feeling of Ram Bhakts, construction at some other place would take place.
VHP leaders Chinmayanad and Vijay Raje Scindia filed affidavits in the Supreme Court undertaking that neither any construction would be done nor any construction material would be carried in the Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid complex. They accepted that the Karseva would only be symbolic and only for assuaging the feelings of the Karsevaks.
Kalyan Singh called an emergency meeting of Ministers and directed them to mobilize Karsevaks in UP, at least 10 people from each Gram Panchayats of which were 75,000.
It was obvious and categorically admitted that no effort to restrict, check or regulate the number of Karsevaks in Ayodhya or Faizabad was made. The Karsevaks were using the graveyards to defacate. Karsevaks entered into the old mosque and stoned the scooter borne peace rally organized by Congress. Mazar of Maqi Shah, Babri Mazar and another Mazar at Ram Katha Kunj were damaged and graves leveled.
On 29th November, ringing of thalis, blowing of conches, ringing of bells etc was carried out
1st December 1992: The DM informed the government that between 6 and 7 am hours about 35 unknown people damaged 3 graves situated in Kuber Tilla and on the corner of southern side road of the State Park.
2nd December 1992: About 60,000 Karsevaks were present in Ayodhya. The district administration asked for more force to deal with these numbers which was declined by the State Government.
5th December 1992: CM Kalyan Singh,once again and in writing this time, ordered against the use firearms specifically on the 6th of December.
6th December 1992:
On that Sunday morning, LK Advani and others met at Vinay Katiyar’s residence. They then proceeded to the disputed structure, the report says. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Katiyar reached the puja platform where symbolic Kar Seva was to be performed, and Advani and Joshi checked arrangements for the next 20 minutes. The two senior leaders then moved 200 metre away to the Ram Katha Kunj. This was a building facing the disputed structure where a dais had been erected for senior leaders. Religious leaders and others had been making fiery speeches at Ram Katha Kunj for some time.
At noon, a teenaged Kar Sevak was “vaulted” on to the dome and that signaled the breaking of the outer cordon. The report notes that at this time Advani, Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia made “feeble requests to the Kar Sevaks to come down… either in earnest or for the media’s benefit”. No appeal was made to the Kar Sevaks not to enter the sanctum sanctorum or not to demolish the structure. The report notes: “This selected act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and all being to accomplish demolition of the disputed structure.”
The demolition was accomplished by smashing holes inside the walls of masjid. Ropes were inserted through these holes in the walls under the domes; the walls were pulled down with these ropes, bringing down the domes as well.
The Idols and cash box removed to safe place before the Karsevaks went inside the domes were placed at their original place at about 7 pm. The construction of a temporary make-shift temple commenced at about 7:30 pm through karseva.
Chief Minister Kalyan Singh announced at 6:45 pm that he had resigned. The Central Government on the other hand claimed that the Chief Minister Kalyan Singh was dismissed.