The Babri Mosque (Template:Lang-ur, Template:Lang-hi), or Mosque of Babur was a mosque constructed by order of the first Mughal emperor of India, Babur, in Ayodhya in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace").^[1] The mosque stood on the Ramkot ("Rama's fort") hill (also called Janamsthan ("birthplace"). It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992.

It was alleged that Babur's commander-in-chief Mir Baki destroyed an existing temple at the site, which Hindus believe was the temple built to commemorate the birthplace of Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu and ruler of Ayodhya (See Ram Janmabhoomi.). Interestingly the mosque shared a wall with a Rama Temple. The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some thirteen 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 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 is 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 Firuz 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.

The Babri Masjid with its bold and graceful style was universally praised and widely followed.

"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' 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 surroundings 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 integrates other ingenious design components and techniques, such as air cooling systems disguised as Islamic architectural elements like arches, vaults and domes. In the Babri Masjid the high ceiling, domes, and six large grill windows (see picture) all served as a passive environmental control system that brought down the temperature and also allowed in natural ventilation as well as daylight.

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.”

Ayodhya, a pilgrimage site for Hindus has an annual fair attended by over 500,000 people of both faiths, many devotees came during the annual Ram festival 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 in question was situated in the South Eastern Courtyard of the large rectangular courtyard of the Babri Mosque. There was a small Hindu shrine built in 1890 joining the well with a statute 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; this could explain the unusually cool temperature of the water. The water contained almost no sodium explaining its reputation that the water was ‘sweet.’ To access the well one had to climb on to a three foot (1 m) platform, 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’ used only for drinking.

Even though the medicinal properties of artesian wells can be explained by the high amount of calcium and mineral content in the water it, is significant that Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya 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. Folklore is said to contribute much to the legends of the healing waters.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|August 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Hindu partisan historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babur came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies.

After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. His general, Mir Baqi was incharge of the region. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu.

Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after King Babar.

The claim of the destruction of this temple and the erection of a mosque in its place is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The advocates say that many Indians - and even many of the educated Indians - are unaware of this truth. Indian History books at School and College do not tell the story in its true detail. Hindu advocates allege that the Government of India has 'shamelessly' pandered to the muslims in this and other issues in order to secure the minority electoral bloc as part of their partisan vote bank politics, the VHP especially voicing this concern.

Advocates also allege that the excessive sypmathy for muslims in this issue is due to a zeitgeist of Pseudo-secularism in Indian society brought about by communist thinking, where struggles between Hindus and Muslims are viewed as a "class struggle" rather than a communal one. This identification of muslims as an "opressed underclass" are viewed as fallacious, since many Indian muslims are quite wealthy and well-represented in many walks of life.

They claim that the muslims claims to the region are unfounded, in violation of common law and based on the beliefs and practices of Islamic Fundamentalism. They allege that this is part of a malicious agenda of hate against Hindus and is an attempt to delegitimize the Hindu ethos in India.

Until 1989 when the BJP made into a political issue there had been no question about the site’s history [1]. All the written sources, whether Hindu, Muslim or European, were in agreement about the pre-existence of a Rama temple at the site. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. However, this text was changed in subsequent editions. Neither was there any document contradicting this scenario: no account of a forest chopped down to make way for the mosque (already unlikely in the centre of an ancient town), no sales contract of real estate to the mosque’s builder, nothing of the kind. By contrast, there were testimonies of Hindus bewailing and Muslims boasting of the replacement of the temple with a mosque; and of Hindus under Muslim rule coming as close as possible to the site in order to celebrate Rama’s birthday every year in April, in continuation of the practice at the time when the temple stood.

In case authors of testimonies may be unreliable, there was also the archaeological evidence: in the 1970s, a team of the Archaeological Survey of India led by Prof. B.B. Lal dug out some trenches just outside the mosque and found rows of pillar-bases which must have supported a larger building predating the mosque. Moreover, in the mosque itself, small black pillars with Hindu sculptures had been incorporated, a traditional practice in mosques built in forcible replacement of infidel temples to flaunt the victory of Islam over Paganism.

The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528. The most likely scenario is the one well-attested at another famous temple site: the Somnath temple in Gujarat. No less than nine times did Hindus reclaim it as a temple, until Muslims retook it and turned it into a mosque again. Since Ayodhya was a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, opportunities for wresting the site from Muslim control were certainly more limited than in the case of the outlying Somnath temple. Then again, the frequent infighting among the Muslim elite may have given rebellious Hindus some opportunities too. From peculiarities in the architecture of the Babri Masjid, art historians on both sides of the debate (Sushil Srivastava, R. Nath) have deduced that the main part of the structure had been built well before the Moghul invasion, probably in the 14th century. In that case, the tradition that it was built by Mir Baqi may be based on the following scenario: towards the end of the Sultanate period, Hindus may have managed to recapture the site and to turn it into a functioning temple, until Babar and his lieutenant Mir Baqi firmly imposed Muslim control again and gave some finishing touches to the mosque architecture in replacement of any Hindu elements that had come to adorn it. But this must for now be kept inside speculative brackets. What is certain is that a major Hindu temple at the site was demolished by Islamic iconoclasm and replaced with a mosque symbolizing the victory of Islam over Infidelism. Of that, evidence is plentiful and of many types.

Muslims and Muslim partisan sources claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case as claimed above.

They claim that is clear that the allegations, on which, the demands of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Hindu Munnani are based for laying claim to Babri Masjid are biased against Islam.

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."

Some Hindus in 1883 wanted to construct a temple on this chabootra, but the Deputy Commissioner prohibited the same on Jan. 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. 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.

On mid-night of December 22, 1949, when the police guards were asleep, idols of Rama and Sita were quietly brought into the Masjid and were planted. This was reported by constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station.

The following morning (Dec. 23, 1949), a large Hindu crowd made a "frantic attempt" to enter the Masjid on in order to offer puja 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 dieties 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 dieties. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders.

They have taken to arguing about the law, where they allege that Hindus have been hypocritical in the issue of the Babri Masjid, claiming adherence to common judicial law while allegedly breaking it during the demolition.

The summary of the ASI report [2] showed definite proof of a Hindu temple under the mosque. In the words of ASI researches they stated "discovery of distinctive features associated with... temples of north India".The temple suspected to be under the mosque though, was surmised to be a Shiva temple. The Muslim's attacked the report, stating that it pandered to certain interests. The VHP grew emboldened by the proof of a mandir under the structure and stepped up demands for Muslims to restore the three holiest North Indian mandirs to Hindus.

The date of the construction of the Babri Mosque is disputed. Before the 1940s, the Mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan. It is presumed that Babur built the mosque, based on an inscription. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary, the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is possible that the mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. However, the construction of the mosque must have been between 1194 and 1528. The Ghorid conquests reached Ayodhya in 1194.

It is generally thought that the Mosque was built by Babur after demolishing the Rama temple, because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (Babur Nama), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is also alleged that the Mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babar's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi".

Most Western, Indian Secular, and Muslim observers see the controversy surrunding this mosque within the framework of Hindu fundamentalism and Hindu Revisionism. It was commonly believed by Hindus until about 1990 that the mosque stood on an ancient Hindu temple, though some commentators disagree and say that although the judiciary has been debating on the dispute of Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya for more than 40 years, it had remained a nonissue until the mid-1980s [3]. The Encyclopædia Britannica of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace. ^[2] According to their view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by the Muslims, Indian secular, Marxist ^[3] and mainstream Indian historians since the early 1990s.

Muslim claims over the site are largely represented by the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, demanding the restoration of the site and the mosque. It also holds that the case should be decided by the courts and if it is proved that a Hindu Temple existed at the spot the same will be handed over to the Hindu party; while the Hindu parties have been asking the minority Muslims to show magnanimity by handing over the land for the construction of the temple.Some Muslim members of the Hindu nationalist party BJP do not share the views of the Babri Masjid Action Committee like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, president of the so called Muslim Youth Conference, an organisation known for its cooperation with the Hindu parties but equally unpopular with the Muslims who believe he is not Muslim, he said: "It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord Rama to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire community... It is the duty of all nationalist Muslims to expose such designs and accept the truth.” (Indian Express, 21/9/1990.)

Hindu parties have also cited that a Muslim scholar Asghar Ali Engineer wrote: "The Muslims, in my opinion, should show magnanimity and [make] a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque... (“Communalism and Communal Violence in India (Ajanta Publ., Delhi 1989), p.320.)However, a majority of Muslims question this idea saying as minority community and thereby deprived - they should themselves be shown magnanimity.

One option discussed was also to build the temple next to the mosque or to relocate the mosque to another site (many mosques in Islamic countries have been relocated for reasons such as road expansion).However, Indian Muslim parties claim that the place of prayer is what is constituted by the mosque and not the structure.

A large number of prominent people, many of them sympathisers of the Communist/Congress party oppose the destruction of the Babri Mosque e.g. Anand Patwardhan, Gyanendra Pandey, Pujari Laldas etc. But it is claimed by some other Hindus associated with the BJP led movement that at the time the structure was felled, it did touch a chord with millions of Hindus who looked to this incident as a fountainhead of Hindu religious nationalism in India. Muslims on the other hand regarded this as a black day for the Indian nationhood and Indian secularism. While Muslims observe December 6 , when this historic mosque and monument was felled as a Black day, Patriotic Hindus observe this as the Shourya Divas - Victory Day.

Some Hindu observers claim that a large number of Hindu religious leaders do not subscribe to the policies of the BJP and the VHP. These seers and religious leaders are opposed to the politicizing of the Ram Mandir issue and want to construct the new temple in a civilized manner. The Akharha Parishad, which is the supreme body of the sadhus of different Hindu sects, has not only boycotted BJP meetings but has also sharply criticized the RSS-BJP-VHP troika for politicizing and inflaming the issue. The All India Akharha Parishad and Bharat Sadhu Samaj have made it clear that they have refused any affiliation with the Dharama Sansad, which is a religious council set up by the VHP.

Muslims on the other hand have claimed that this issue is just the crest of an iceberg.The Hindu parties whether shunning violence or doing it are just waiting for another moment to repatriate other Muslim places of worship.They cite many places where actions by the right wing Hindu party BJP and its affiliate religious and militant organisations have either led to the closure of these places of worship to the Muslims or partial curtailment of the prayers to a few days in a week or limiting the number of people who could perform the prayers.

The situation regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by the Middle East scholar and Islam critic Daniel Pipes [4]. In particular, Pipes writes:

"Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)."

The descriptions of temple destructions in Muslim chronicles have been the matter of some controversy.

Moreover, the Shah Bano controversy that turned down the divorce provisions of Muslim personal laws in India and the aftermath in which the Indian parliament enacted a law to reinstate them contributed to some Hindus claiming that Muslims were enjoying a favoured status. Some observers see this as the major factor for the flare of this movement at the same time the Muslims regarded this as an attempt to curtail their religious freedom.

The Hindu nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming these Muslim buildings and calls this period a period of Hindu slavery and foreign rule. This is often unpalatable to the minority Muslim community and secularists who consider this period as culturally Indian noting that these rulers made India their own home and enriched India's varied traditions.

More than 3000 places of Muslim worship have been built over Hindu & Jain temples^{[citation needed]} and in the immediate VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal are asking for three of them, Ram Janmbhumi -Ayodhya, Kashi Vishwanath- Varanasi and Krishna Janmbhumi - Mathura .^[4] Forced by this situation and enggeged in the politics of Minority Appeasement, Congress government under P.V.Narsinharao enacted a law to maintain status quo of all the religious places as on 1947 except Ramjanmbhumi- Babri Masjid which is sub judice. Even then there have been a spate of controversies including Bhojshala,Baba Budan Giri,Hubli Idgah are some of them.

The legal case continues on the title deed of the land tract which is for the major part a Muslim trust (Wakf Board) or government controlled property; while the Muslim parties have not agreed to hand over the land (not unlike the Masjid Shaheedganj case in Lahore) even if it is proven a temple existed and demanding it be proven that it is indeed Ramjanmbhumi (i.e. Ram was born on this site), the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have it constructed saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi can not be decided in a court of law.

Riots in Gujarat in 2002 were caused as a consequence to Godhra Carnage where more than 57 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt to Death in a train while returning from Ayodhya . ^{[5] [6]} led to more than 2000 people dead , mostly Muslims in a BJP ruled western state and was censured by Human Rights groups and the European Union ^[7]

The Ayodhya debate also had effects on neighbouring countries. In 1992 there were incidents of loot, arson, rape and temple destructions committed against the Hindu community in Bangladesh. ^[8]

• Communal Politics: myths versus facts. by RAM PUNIYANI. Sage Publications, 2003.
• Bacchetta, Paola. "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid Affair." Growth & Change. Spring2000, Vol. 31, Issue 2.
• Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
• Swapan Dasgupta et al.: The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 81-85990-30-1
• Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies. ISBN 81-86041-02-8 hb ISBN 81-86041-03-6 pb
• Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India. [5]
• Emmanuel, Dominic. 'The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle', National Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, August 27 2003).
• S.R. Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Voice of India, Delhi 1991. [6] [7]
• Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
• A.G. Noorani. 2003. The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: 'A Matter of National Honour'. New Delhi: Tulika Books.
• Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India
• Romey, Kristin M., "Flashpoint Ayodhya." Archaeology Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 57, Issue 4.
• Thapar, Romila. 'A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama' in Thapar (2000).
• Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History (New Delhi: Oxford University, 2000) ISBN 0-19-564050-0.
• Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
• History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.

• The Babri riots are depicted in the 1995 film Bombay.
• Nasrin, Taslima: Lajja

• Ayodhya 6 December 1992 (ISBN 0-670-05858-0) by P. V. Narasimha Rao

• Ram Janmabhoomi
• All India Babri Masjid Action Committee
• Ayodhya
• Babur
• Vishwa Hindu Parishad
• Indian secularism

• Ayodhya and Politics of Indian Secularism
• Political Implications of Babri Masjid Demolition
• Found and Lost: the Ayodhya Evidence
• [8]The Ayodhya Debate: Focus on the ‘No Temple’ Evidence; Two sides to the story
• Suppressing Indian History
• Above article in HTML

• Holy work destrys peace in India - Time Magazine
• "The wrath of Rama - Time Magazine
• 'In the Name Of God, Ram Ke Naam', Film by Anand Patwardhan on Ayodhya issue(December 16 2005) Retrieved Friday, December 16, 2005 11:19:08 PM
• Ayodhya: Question of History -By K.P. Prakasam
• Critique of the archaeology at the site
• The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir [9]
• White paper on Ayodhya
• Ayodhya
• Articles on the Ayodhya Debate
• Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama
• An extract from the Diary of Babur (Babur Nama)
• 'Timeline: Ayodhya crisis', BBC News (October 17 2003). Retrieved June 21 2005
• 'Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute', BBC News (November 15 2004). Retrieved June 21 2005
• CNN Article search on Babri Mosque