[1] Koenraad Elst: "The Ayodhya Debate", in Gilbert Pollet, ed.: Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its Impact, Peeters, Leuven 1995. As is all too common with conference proceedings, this book was assembled only three years after the conference, so the published version of my paper was finalized only in 1994.

[2] In the 1961 Faizabad Gazetteer, Mrs. E. B. Joshi, while not yet denying the traditional account relayed in the earlier Gazetteers, suppresses it without giving any reason for doing so, probably on orders of the Government of India under Jawaharlal Nehru. But neutral scholarly publications like the 1989 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittannica (entry Ayodhya) confirm the temple destruction scenario.

[3] One of the first scholarly publications on the dispute was my Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict (Voice of India, Delhi, July 1990), partly a reply to the statement The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, by Bipin Chandra and 24 other historians of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. A large part of my book has been included in Vinay Chandra Mishra and Parmamand Singh, eds.: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid, Historical Documents, Legal Opinions & Judgments, Bar Council of India Trust, Delhi 1991.

[4] The VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad, "World Hindu Council") was founded by Guru Golwalkar, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, "National Volunteer Corps") as an instrument for the spread of Hindu culture and religion. It takes its guidelines from an assembly of traditional religious leaders.

[5] Prof. B. B. Lal has formulated this conclusion on different occasions including articles in Puratattva no. 16, 1987, and in Manthan, October 1990. In a letter to the Times of India, published on 1-3-1991, he concludes that "what is known as Ayodhya today was indeed the Ayodhya of the Valmiki Ramayana".

[6] Prof. Kamal Salibi of Beirut has proposed the theory that all the Biblical sites including Abraham's Hebron and king David's Jerusalem, were situated in the Hijaz area of Western Arabia (in his 1985 book The Bible Came from Arabia: A Radical Reinterpretation of Old Testament Geography). The double political motivation is obvious: undermining Israel's historical legitimacy and giving a foundation to Islam's claim to an Abrahamic heritage including the Ka'aba. Established Bible scholars have dismissed this theory as wishful thinking.

[7] The Ayodhya dispute and the Rushdie affair are indeed connected. The ban on The Satanic Verses was a part of a package of concessions by the Rajiv Gandhi Government to calm down Syed Shahabuddin, who had threatened a Muslim "march to Ayodhya" on the same day when the VHP would hold a rally there.

[8] Quoted for rebuttal from Shahabuddin's own monthly Muslim India by Harsh Narain in his article Ram Janmabhoomi: Muslim Testimony published in the Lucknow  Pioneer (5-2-90) and in Indian Express (26-2-90), and included in S. R. Goel: Hindu Temples, Vol. 1, 2^nd ed., Voice of India, Delhi 1998. In the ensuing debate between Prof. Narain, Mr. A. K. Chatterjee and Syed Shahabuddin, the latter has never denied nor cancelled his offer.

[9] Prof. R. S. Sharma: Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, People's Publishing House, Delhi 1990.

[10] R. S. Sharma et al.: Ramajanmabhumi Baburi Masjid, A Historians' Report to the Nation, People's Publishing House, Delhi 1991, p. 4

[11] The VHP evidence bundle, its rebuttal of the BMAC argumentation, a press brief, and some articles generally supporting the VHP viewpoint, have been published as History versus Casuitry, Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishva Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91, Voice of India, Delhi 1991. Most of it was also included in Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples. Vol. 1. at least in its second edition, Voice of India, Delhi 1998. The BMAC evidence bundle has not been published.

[12] Will Durant: Story of Civilization, Vol. 1, New York 1972, p. 459

[13] This incorporation of Hindu temple materials in mosques is cynically held up as a showpiece of "composite culture" and a "living evidence of secularism" by the friends of Islam such as Congress MP Manu Shankar Aiyar, cited to this effect by Swapan Dasgupta, Sunday, 10-5-1992.

[14] A testimony to the same effect is also given by the Portuguese historian Gaspar Correa, who describes the site of the Kapalishwara temple on Mylapore beach (Madras), even after the temple had been forcibly replaced with a Catholic church, vide Ishwar Sharan: The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple, Voice of India, p. 18-19 (1^st ed., 1991) or p. 93-94 (2^nd ed., 1995).

[15] A. G. Noorani: "The Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi Question" (originally published in Economic and Political Weekly), in A. A. Engineer ed.: Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, Ajanta, Delhi 1990, p. 66.

[16] Mirza Jan: Hadiqa-I Shahada ("The Garden of Martyrdom"), Lucknow 1856, included in the VHP evidence bundle: History versus Casuitry, Voice of India, Delhi 1991, p. 14

[17] Indian Express, 13-3-1990.

[18] A. K. Chatterjee: "Ram Janmabhoomi: some more evidence", Indian Express, 27-3-1990. It is included, with the whole ensuing polemical exchange with Syed Shahabuddin, as appendix 4 in History versus Casuitry.

[19] The title of the princess's text is given as Sahifa-I Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi (Persian: "Letter of the Forty Advices of Bahadur Shah". It is included in the VHP evidence bundle: History versus Casuitry, p. 13-14

[20] Percival Spear has the effrontery to declare: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend" (Penguin History of India, vol. 2, p. 56). The contemporary records show Aurangzeb as a pious man who faithfully practiced his religion and therefore persecuted the unbelievers and destroyed their temples by the thousands. About the denial of Islamic crimes against humanity, vide Sita Ram Goel: Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, Voice of India, Delhi, 1984.

[21] A. Shourie: "Take over from the experts", syndicated column, included in History versus Casuitry as appendix 1, and in A. Shourie: Indian Controversies, ASA, Delhi 1992, p. 411-418

[22] Quoted by the VHP-mandated experts in their rejoinder to the BMAC: History versus Casuitry, p. 61

[23] This text does not figure in the original BMAC evidence bundle, but its words "very ill-founded" are quoted by Prof. Irfan Habib in a speech to the Aligarh Historians Group (12/2/1992, published in Muslim India, 5/1991). The paragraph containing these words (but not the entire relevant passage) is quoted by R. S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D. N. Jha and Suraj Bhan, the historians for the BMAC, in their joint publication: Ramajanmabhumi Baburi Masjid, A Historians' Report to the Nation, People's Publishing House, Delhi, May 1991, p. 20-21).

[24] Cited in Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p. 8, emphasis added. Father Joseph Tieffenthaler records that the temple destruction was being attributed to Aurangzeb by some, to Babar by others, but this minor confusion never affected the consensus that the mosque had forcibly replaced a Hindu temple.

[25] In 1608, William Finch (quoted in the VHP evidence bundle: History versus Casuitry, p. 19) had witnessed the "ruins of Ramkot", i.e., of the Hindu temple which kept alive the tradition that that very site had once been Rama's castle. The entire hill was called Ramkot, "Rama's castle", and the temple complex was certainly larger than the Babri Masjid, so that Finch may well have seen some leftovers standing there beside the mosque.

[26] Francis Buchanan's report has been put into perspective by Mr. A. K. Chatterjee, in an article intended as an episode of his Ayodhya debate with Syed Shahabuddin on the opinion page of the Indian Express, sent on 14-8-1990 but not published; but included in History versus Casuitry, appendix 4.

[27] For instance, Syed Shahabuddin blames "propaganda by the British" (Indian Express, 12-5-1990), and according to Md. Abdul Rahim Qureishi, secretary of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, "The Britishers*..planted false stories and succeeded in misleading the masses to believe that Babri Masjid stood in the premises of a Rama temple which was demolished by Babar" (Indian Express, 13-3-1990).

[28] For a rebuttal of the British conspiracy hypothesis, vide K. Elst: "Party-line history-writing", The Pioneer (Lucknow edition), 19/20-12-1990, reproduced in History versus Casuitry, app. 6.

[29] It should be borne in mind that the Qur'an contains dozens of injunctions to wage war against the unbelievers, e.g." 'Make war on them until idolatory is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme" (2:193 and 8:39); "Those who follow Mohammed are merciless to the unbelievers but kind to one another" (48:29); "Enmity and hate shall reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone" (60:4), etc. The same attitude is found in the jihad chapters of the Hadis collections and the Islamic law codices. In Indian history, these verses and the precedent set by the Prophet have been systematically invoked to justify persecutions and temple demolitions.

[30] A. G. Noorani (A. A. Engineer ed.: Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy; p. 65) claims that Tulsidas "was over thirty in 1528 when the mosque was built. He lived and wrote his great work [the Ramacharitmanas] in Ayodhya." In fact, he wrote it in Varanasi, on what is now called Tulsi Ghat, and he died in 1623, which means that he was born after 1528.

[31] Sushil Srivastava: The Disputed Mosque, Vistaar Publ., Delhi 1991, ch. 5; R. Nath: The Baburi Masjid of Ayodhya, Historical Research Documentation Programme, Jaipur 1991. The latter has clearly stated that this revision of who built the Masjid, in no way invalidates the claim that it had replaced a Hindu temple: "I have been to the site and had had the occasion to study the mosque, privately, and I have absolutely no doubt the mosque stands on the site of a Hindu temple on the north-western corner of the temple-fortress Ramkot." (letter in Indian Express, 2-1-91).

[32] Srivastava (in A. A. Engineer ed: Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy; p. 36) quotes Shamsur Rehman Farooqui, a scholar of Persian, who considers the inscription written in a younger style of calligraphy common in the 19^th century, and by someone not well-versed in Persian. The latter observation may as well be explained by the fact that Babar's Turkish scribes had only recently learned Persian; whereas most literature Muslims in 19^th century India were very well-versed in Persian.

[33] Sri Ram Sharma: Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors (1940), p. 24-25. The same position has been taken by Mrs. Beveridge, the translator of Babar's memoirs, and other historians. Several hypotheses of who forged this "testament" and why are explored in J. N. Tiwari and V. S. Pathak (BHU): "Rama Janmabhumi Bhavana. The Testimony of the Ayodhya Mahatmya", in Lallanji Gopal, ed.: Ayodhya, History, Archaeology and Tradition, papers presented in the Seminar held on 13-15 February 1992, All-India Kashiraj Trust, Varanasi 1994, p. 282-296

[34] Quoted in Mrs. A. S. Beveridge: Babur Nama, Delhi 1970 reprint, p. 574-575. Ghazi has the same meaning as mujahid, though it is often used in the more precise sense of "one who has effectively killed infidels with his own hands".

[35] Prof. B. P. Sinha claims to know how this disuse of the Masjid came about: "As early as 1936-37, a hill was introduced in the legislative council of U. P. to transfer the site to the Hindus (*) the bill was withdrawn on an unwritten understanding that no namaz [be] performed." (in annexure 29 to the VHP evidence bundle, unpublished)

[36] A. Shourie: "Take over from the experts", syndicated column, 27-1-91, included in History versus Casuitry as appendix 1. Shourie was sacked as Indian Express editor, apparently under government pressure, after revealing that, in October 1990, Prime Minister V. P. Singh had aborted his own compromise arrangement on Ayodhya under pressure from Imam Bukhari, a prominent member of the BMAC.

[37] Cited in Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p. 157, with reference to New York Times, 22-12-1991

[38] Though the Taj Mahal was obviously never a Hindu temple, the story of its construction may be a bit more complicated than simply one of an original Indo-Saracen construction on virgin land, vide Marvin H. Mills (Professor of Architecture, Pratt Institute, New York): "An architect looks at the Taj legend", a review of Wayne Edison Begley & Ziyauddin Ahmad Desai: Taj Mahal, the Illumined Tomb, University of Washington Press, Seattle 1989.

[39] Padmini Kumar: "Another twist to the issue!", Maharashtra Herald, 9-12-1990, based on an interview with P. N. Oak

[40] B. G. Tilak: Arctic Home in the Vedas, 1903, and M. S. Golwalkar: We, Our Nationhood Defined, 1939

[41] Aditya and Mrdula Mukherjee: "No challenge from communalists", Sunday Observer, 15-3-1992

[42] It may be noted that the no-temple school is not necessarily less communalist, for it imposes explanations by religious conflict where no such conflicts existed, e.g., in his president's address before the Panjab History Conference held at Patiala in March 1999, "Against communalizing history", D. N. Jha communalizes history by repeating the myth of Saint Thomas' "martyrdom" at the hands of Hindus as a "well known" fact.