The British, they prepared revenue reports, that means every area, what is the revenue due? Who has to pay for that revenue? That was the systematic report done for every area. For Babri Masjid the first settlement report was done in 1861. And after that the settlement report is done, revised every 10 or 15 years, depending on the situation. In the revenue reports, from 1861 onwards for village Ram Kot, there is no mention of Babri Masjid. Babri Masjid does not get mentioned in the revenue records of the British from 1861 onwards. The land, that land is shown as government land and the Mahants are shown as the under proprietors. This situation is not challenged all the years of the British rule in India, this, because these reports are made public but nobody from Babri Masjid challenges the report and the subsequent report which show the land as government land and the under proprietor as the Mahants.
But what is interesting is that at some point, I do not know when, but somebody tampers with the records. So, wherever Janmasthan is written, somebody has added Babri Masjid. How can you make out? Because the ink color is different, the nib thickness is different and the ink, handwriting is different. It’s not possible for anyone to go and make some additions in a government records. They are not just lying on the table that you can walk in and make changes. So, somebody has calculatedly allowed this to happen. When and how? We don’t know. And the more interesting thing is that another set of these documents kept at the other office did not have these changes. So, this is a very clear case of attempting to manipulate the evidence.
Then there is another. In 1944, the government of the united provinces, it published a list of all the mosques, Masjid’s in the united provinces. The list named the building, the year it was constructed, who constructed it and the last column was the Waqf, that was created for the maintenance of the building because every building, every Masjid will require maintenance, some money for the maintenance. So, it’s always the case that you create a Waqf. Income from that Waqf may be used to maintain the building. In the case of Babri Masjid, column four was left vacant. The name of the ruler is given, Babar. The year was given 1528. But where is the Waqf? That is not given. So, the Allahabad High Court asks the pro Babri parties that how do you explain that there is this column is blank and the pro Babri parties could not give any explanation of why this column was blank. So, the Allahabad High Court said that this is the major weakness in your argument, where you cannot show a Waqf that has been created for this building.