The Nihang in Ayodhya — Supreme Court’s Wild Goose Chase
The Hindu Parties in the Ayodhya Case, in their bid to claim the land of the Babri Mosque, have unnecessarily dragged Sikhs into the issue. Leaving the consequences of the judgement aside, the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of “Sikh-related” evidence is being propagated and used by right wing Hindus to further their agenda of Oceanic Hinduism, which is a belief that the Sikh, Buddhist and Jain religions are part of Hinduism, and in some circles this scope is enlarged to include Islam, Christianity, Judaism and all the other religions as well.
The above is a screenshot of a post by a notorious right-wing Hindu publication, Swarajya. Is the title: “Nihang Sikhs who Performed Ram-Nam Havan” and the caption: “the first ever FIR (which refers to First Investigation Report) stated that the Nihangs inscribed, ‘Ram Ram’” accurate according to the evidence? We will get to that question soon, but first let’s look at the evidence itself.
For some context, there are multiple reporters here; one is Sheetal Dubey, a Thanedar (police official) of Oudh, another is Syed Muhammad Khateeb, the Muazzim (mosque official) of the Babri Masjid, and the last main one is Mir Rajjab Ali, whose occupation is not stated.
The First Incident
The first report by Sheetal Dubey is dated 28 November 1858 and its reproduction below has been derived from the Ayodhya Verdict, which may or may not contain the complete report.
Today, Mr Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Panjab, organized Havan and Puja of Guru Gobind Singh and erected a symbol of Sri Bhagwan, within the premises of the Masjid. At the time of pitching the symbol, 25 Sikhs were posted there for security. Deemed necessary so requested. May your regime progress. Pleasure.
[Sheetal Dubey, pg 64 of the Verdict]
The following reproduction of the report by Syed Muhammad Khateeb dated 30 November 1858 has also been derived from the Verdict, and this like the last report may or may not have been cited completely in the said Verdict. Also, typos are reproduced as they are.
Near Mehrab and Mimber, he has constructed, inside the case, an earth Chabutra measuring about four fingers by filling it with Kankars (concrete). Lighting arrangement has been made…and after raising the height of Chabutra about 11/4 yards a picture of idol has been placed and after digging a pit near it, the Munder wall has been made Pucca. Fire and been lit there for light and Puja and Hom is continuing there. In whole of this Masjid ‘Ram Ram’ has been written with coal. Kindly, do justice. It is an open tyranny and high handedness of the Hindus on Muslims and not that of Hindus. Previously the symbol of Janamsthan had been there for hundreds of years and Hindus did Puja. Because of conspiracy of Shiv Ghulam Thandedar Oudh Government, the Bairagis constructed overnight a Chabutra up to height of one ‘Balisht’ until the orders of injunction were issued. At that time the Deputy Commissioner suspended the Thanedar and fine was imposed on Bairagis. Now the Chabootra has been raised to about 11/4 yards. The sheer high-handedness has been proved. Therefore, it is requested that Murtaza Khan Kotwal City may be ordered that the himself visit the spot and inspect the new constructions and get them demolished (sic) and oust the Hindus from there; the symbol and the idol may be removed from there and writing on the walls be washed.
[Syed Muhammad Khateeb, pg 64–65 of the Verdict]
There are other reports by Sheetal Dubey which are summarized in the judgement, which will be quoted, but let’s first analyze these two reports. An important thing to notice is that there is no mention of a Nihang in the report by Khateeb, which also mentions the placement of a “picture of an idol” and the conduct of “Puja and Hom”. The report by Dubey is the one where we see the first mention of a Nihang with the name: “Mr Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa”, which sounds suspicious in itself. “Nihang Singh” is a person’s affiliation and it’s not part of one’s name. Does this indicate that Dubey is not familiar with Nihangs and the Akali Order?
Dubey goes on to mention “Havan and Puja of Guru Gobind Singh” and how the Nihang “erected a symbol of Sri Bhagwan”. Now, there is no such thing as a Havan or Puja of Guru Gobind Singh. The recital of selected compositions (panj-banian) of the Sikh Gurus is called Path and not Puja or Havan; and this is something that Nihangs and baptized Sikhs in general are expected to do everyday. Does this again point out Dubey’s lack of knowledge of Sikhi? Also, the reference to the symbol of Sri Bhagwan is surprisingly vague. Bhagwan is a generic word of God and this does not clarify what exactly was erected by the Nihang, and the report by the Muazzin does not help on this issue either. Finally, the report by Dubey lacks the crucial detail of the word “Ram Ram” being painted on the Masjid walls.
The following is a reproduction, derived from the Verdict, of the summaries of later reports related to Dubey.
(iv) An order was passed on 30 November 1858, pursuant to which Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar visited the disputed premises and informed Nihang Singh about the order but he replied that the entire place is of Nirankar and the government of the country should impart justice.
(v) On 1 December 1958, Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar submitted a report in case number 884, describing that when he took the summons order dated 30 November 1858 addressed to Nihang Singh Faqir for leaving the place, he received no reply. He reported what had actually transpired and sought instructions from the higher authorities;
(vi) An order dated 5 December 1858 was issued in case number 884 wherein a direction was issued by the court in furtherance of the order dated November 30, 1858 (wherein it was directed that the Faqir sitting in Babri Masjid should be ousted) directing the Police Sub-Inspector Avadh that in case the Faqir is not removed from the spot, he must be arrested and presented in court;
(vii) On 6 December 1858, a report was submitted by Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar Oudh recording the appearance of the Faqir in court; and
(viii) On 10 December 1858, an order was passed recording that the Jhanda (flag) was uprooted from the masjid and the Faqir residing therein was ousted.
[pg 801 of the Verdict]
Before we dive into anything else, let me assure that the year of 1958 in Item (v) is not an error on my part. This is the exact date quoted in the Verdict. This should tell you how careless these judges were when dealing with this evidence. The correct year is 1858.
Item (iv) is the first where we get to hear something from the mouth of the Nihang himself, albeit quoted by Dubey and then summarized by the judges. When the Nihang is notified of the order to remove him, the Nihang replies that “the entire place is of Nirankar and the government of the country should impart justice.” “Nirankar” is a generic word for God often used by Sikhs, however the Nihang makes no mention of Rama Chandra or Rama’s birth-site when describing his reason to be there. What he does mention is a request for justice. Now, we must remember that this time period was in the immediate aftermath of the Mutiny. Was there some injustice or perceived injustice during the Mutiny that this Nihang is protesting against? It’s hard to say; however, what is clear is that the Nihang was not there to liberate Rama Chandra’s birth site from the “Muslim Occupiers”.
Item (vii) mentions that the Faqir was ousted and “the Jhanda (flag)” was uprooted from the Masjid. People familiar with Sikhs and Nihangs would recognize that the flag (which is referred to as Nishan Sahib by Sikhs) is something that is erected at Sikh institutions. Could that be the reason the Nihang was there? Did he think, or was he led to believe, that the site of the Masjid is actually one where there was a Gurudwara originally? Also, in that Item, there is no mention of a “picture” or a “symbol” being removed. Is it the case that when Dubey was referring to the “symbol of Sri Bhagwan”, he had in his mind this flag?
The Second Incident
About two years later, there was another incident at the Mosque, in which a Sikh played a role. These reports were made by Mir Rajjab Ali, and their summaries, which are derived from the Verdict, are reproduced below.
684. Case no 223 filed on 5 November 1860 by Mir Rajjab Ali: On 5 November 1860, an application was filed by Mir Rajjab Ali against Askali Singh in Case number 223 complaining about a new “Chabootra” being constructed in the graveyard. In this application it was stated that:
a) A small “Chabootra” had been constructed in the graveyard adjacent to Babri Masjid by one Nihang. He was told not to do so but he did not refrain and became violent;
b) Previously, about a year and a half earlier, Hari Das (Mahant of Hanuman Garhi) tried to build a house forcibly and was made to execute a bond/undertaking for non-interference. The said undertaking is still available in the files;
c) The Commissioner also found a flag which had been pitched within the grounds of Babri Masjid and upon seeing it, got the flag removed;
d) Nowadays, when the Moazzin recites Azan, the opposite parties begin to blow conch shells; and
e) The newly built “Chabootra” should be directed to be demolished and an undertaking/bond should be taken from the opposite party that they will not unlawfully and illegally interfere in the masjid property and will not blow conch shells at the time of Azaan;685. On 12 March 1861, an application was filed by Mohd Asghar, Rajjab Ali, and Mohd Afzal, in furtherance of the previous application, stating that Imkani Sikh had illegally occupied the lands of the plaintiffs and had erected a “Chabootra” without permission near Babri Masjid. Even though on the previous application, orders were issued to evict Imkani Sikh from the “Chabootra”, but the hut where he was staying still remained. It was submitted that whenever a Mahant will go there or stay in the hut, a cause for dispute will arise. It was therefore prayed that an order be issued to the Sub-Inspector that after the eviction of Imkani Sikh, the hut/kutir should also be demolished and precaution should be taken so that a foundation of a new house is not allowed to be laid;
(i) On 18 March 1861, the Subedar tendered a report regarding the execution of an order dated 16 March 1861. It was stated that not only has Imkani Sikh been evicted from the Kutir (hut) but the hut has also been demolished; and
(ii) Thereafter on 18 March 1862, the application dated 12 March 1861 preferred by Mohd Asghar, Mir Rajjab Ali and Mohd Afzal was directed to be consigned to the records.[pg 801–803 of the Verdict]
In the report by Mir Rajjab Ali, a Nihang creates a “chabootra” in the Masjid graveyard, and also installs the Nishan Sahib (flag of the Khalsa) inside the Masjid and subsequently, both of these are removed and the Nihang is ousted. However, there is a naming mismatch in the two reports. In the first report, the name of the accused is Askali Singh which by the second report changes to Imkani Sikh. Both of these are bizarre names for a Sikh or a Panjabi. What seems likely is that these names are erroneously derived from the word Akali, which is another word for a Nihang. Now, was the error made by the original reporter, or by the translator of the report. In any case, what other errors were made? Also, was this the same Nihang who was there two years ago?
Is the portrayal by Swarayja magazine accurate?
The Article by Swarajya states that: “According to an FIR dated 30th November, 1858, written by the Thanedaar (Policeman) of Awadh on complaint of Superintendent of Babri Masjid, 25 Nihang Sikhs had entered the Babri Masjid structure. The FIR stated that the Nihangs were performing Hawan and other religious rituals there. It further stated that they inscribed,“Ram! Ram!” with charcoal on the walls of the Masjid.”
The title of the Article reads “Ram Janmabhoomi: Here’s All About Nihang Sikhs Who Performed Ram-Nam Havan Inside Babri-Structure In 1858”
Having seen the first evidence, we can say that this Swarajya is guilty of misrepresentation. There are other distortions of Sikh history in Swarajya’s article, but in this discussion, we will limit our attention to the case of this Nihang. First of all, there were not 25 Nihang Sikhs; the report by Dubey mentions only one. The mention that is made of 25 Sikhs is in reference to security, and the interpretation that makes more sense here is that these 25 Sikhs were the soldiers of the empire who were posted there for peacekeeping in the aftermath of the Mutiny. Panjabis in general were one of the few people who — having no sympathy for the cause of the 1857 Mutiny, which aimed to re-establish the authority of the Mughal emperor — sided with the British. If there were 1 + 25 Nihangs, why would an order of arrest and court summon be issued only for one? Wouldn’t there have been legal follow-up for the other 25 accomplices as well?
As far as the title is concerned, no report mentions or alludes to any “Ram-Nam Havan”. The report by Dubey makes mention of a “Havan and Puja of Guru Gobind Singh”, but as already discussed, it most likely refers to Path (or recital) of the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh, which Dubey being unfamiliar with Sikhs and Sikhi misinterpreted as Havan. In any case, Guru Gobind Singh is not the same as Rama Chandra.
Regarding the act of inscribing Ram Ram on the Masjid walls, the Article author conveniently uses the context of the Ayodhya dispute to mis-portray the incident and lead people to believe that the intentions of the Nihang were the same as the intentions of right-wing Hindus today. However, Ram (In addition to many other terms) in Sikhi is used as a generic word for God, and there is no indication from any report whatsoever that the Nihang was there to liberate Rama Chandra’s birth site. And from the Nihang’s own words, as reported by Dubey, “the place belongs to Nirankar” (and not to Rama Chandra by virtue of it being his birthplace) and he was there to seek justice for something. A host of other hypotheses could be proposed here and, given the evidence, they would be more likely than the one that this Nihang was the pioneer of the Ramjanambhoomi Liberation Movement.
Conclusion
The evidence as cited in the Verdict, raises more questions than it answers. The Supreme Court judges, who go on to use parts of this evidence have shown themselves incompetent when it comes to dealing with questions of history. And the way this evidence is being used by right wing Hindu groups and magazines makes a good example of how historical evidence can be distorted and misrepresented to serve political agendas.
Sources
- The Ayodhya Verdict: https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf
- The Article by Swaraya: https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/in-pictures-brave-sikhs-warriors-who-kept-shastra-vidya-alive-all-about-nihangs-with-magnificent-turbans
- The Facebook Post by Swarajya: https://www.facebook.com/swarajyamag/posts/2647394548659905
