Allahabad High Court Verdict - P.W. 13 Suresh Chandra Mishra

On behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4), 32 witnesses have been examined in all which include Expert Historians (as they claimed) namely Suresh Chandra Mishra, PW 13; Sushil Srivastava, PW 15; Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, PW 18; and Prof. Shirin Musvi, PW-20.

P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said:

• “Babur was my favourite subject."
• "At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important."
• These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. 
• It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that 'the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier'. My today's statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.”
• "Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.”

The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian and on page 111 has also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”.  His statement on page 54 shows that Babar was his favourite subject. He is M.A. in Ancient History (Culture and Archeology) and Ph.D. He claims that having undergone a deeper inquiry and study on the dispute he concluded that the mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi and for this purpose there was no destruction of any kind at the disputed site. 

He referred to Skand Puran, Baburnama, his visit to Ayodhya before 1992 and the report (Exhibit D25, Suit-5) (Paper No. 110C1/96) submitted to the Government of India by Prof. R.S. Sharma, Prof. D.N. Jha and Prof. Suraj Bhan alongwith Prof. Athar Ali being his study material.  However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/ Babari mosque in Baburnama and it also contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written.

In his statement dated 14.07.1998 he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic. He attempted this Court to believe in his knowledge of History being an Expert Historian in Ancient History and that he has made a deep study on the subject which is like a research and therefrom he has come to know that the building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD by Mir Baqi but his cross examination shows that for arriving at the said conclusion, without any further inquiry into the matter, what was written about the inscriptions in Epigraphica Indica (1964-65) as well as Baburnama by Beveridge and on that basis he believed and concluded as above. 

The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. 

This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language.

The correctness of his statement can further be scrutinised in the light of what has been written by Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain in his paper published in Epigraphica Indica (1965) where he admits that the original two inscriptions were 1478 damaged in 1934 and replaced by new one. 

Therefore, in 1989/90 what PW 13 saw, were the inscriptions replaced in 1934 and not that text which was available to Mrs. Beveridge, she has quoted in her book published in 1921. The difference between the text of the inscriptions quoted by Beveridge and that which was available to Maulvi Ashraf Hussain which he published in Epigraphica Indica, we would be demonstrating a bit later. 

Suffice it to mention at this stage that the inscriptions which were available in 1989/1990, having been replaced in 1934 contains lot of difference. The alleged deep study/research of PW 13 thus become seriously suspicious and make this witness wholly unreliable.

From the entire statement of PW 13 this much is evident that in his opinion for the period of construction of the building, i.e., 1528 AD, and the person who got it constructed, i.e., Mir Baqi, the ultimate reliance is on the inscriptions (whether two or three, that would be discussed later on) and no other authentic material. The opinion of PW 13 in this regard, however, is based on the information which he received from the book “Baburnama” by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge and Epigraphica Indica (1965) from which he was satisfied and concluded his opinion. Beside that, he had no other reliable information to form the said opinion.

At this stage we may also mention that Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him. On page 44 he has also admitted that except Baburnama by A.S. Beveridge he has read no other translation at all. On page 31 he says that he has intellectually analysed and contemplated whether God is a reality or not and has come to the conclusion that there is no existence of God, since, he had no occasion to come face to face with God. On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. 

On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to a concrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation. 

From reading of the books enumerated he came to a conclusion that scholars opined that Islam appeared through revelation. On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term "revelation" and its meaning. At several places he sought to correct his statement made earlier which throw light on his knowledge of the matter, his confidence as also his memory. 

One of such aspect is about the constitution of ASI which he stated to be in 1934 on 14.07.1998 but later, on page 73/74, he admits the incorrectness in the earlier statement and rectify the same by stating that it was constituted in 18th century. In his research he admits of having not read any gazetteer or Government gazette (page 74-75). On page 88 he further contradicted to some extent his statement about his scientific temperament and says that in respect to “Allahoupanishad” he has made statement only on secondary basis. He also admits the falsity of statement that in 1968 he went to the disputed site alongwith his parents but did not go inside although the parents went.

On page 167 PW 13 said that there is nothing like Sanatan Dharm and on the same page he said that the word “Hindu” is a mixed term which comprises several type of people including those who had their origin somewhere outside and who have assimilated in it. Nobody was original Hindu. It is subsequent concept. It commenced from circa 4th or 3rd BC. 1346. 

Learned counsel for the defendants (Suit-4) pointed out to us that PW 13 was not an expert of Medieval History and this is evident from his admission on page 152/153 where he says that he is teaching students Ancient History and his Ph.D. was limited to the study of Kautilya's Arthshastra.

The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion. He admits to have done Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha who according to him was one of the signatory to the document “A Historians Report to the Nation” alongwith three others and on page 142 he admits that all these four persons he considered to be the top historians of the country and, therefore, place them above the published research of Hans Baker of Ayodhya. Prof. D.N.Jha in fact did not sign the letter. 

The other three took a partisan stand as we shall demonstrate later. He do not agree with Baker's conclusions though reason for such disagreement could not be given by him.