Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  “The Das´aratha Jãtaka has been widely commented upon during the last hundred years in the extensive discussion on whether it preceded the Vãlmìki Rãmãyana or was subsequent to it or whether it drew from the same sources as Vãlmìki.”

  It was the Gāthā portion of the Daśaratha Jātaka which had borrowed from the Vālmiki Rāmāyana. Now there should be no doubt about it.

  It is only ‘atthakathā’ portion which has the variation in the Rāmāyana story. Since marriage beween brothers and sisters was not despised and unknown amongst the Śākya clan of the Ikshvāku dynasty because of certain racial and geographical factors, Rāma and Sītā were portrayed as brother and sister.

  This denigrated portion of the Rāmāyana in the Daśaratha Jātaka has been highlighted by established historians but even enthusiastic historians have failed to search the soul of this ‘Gāthā’ of Daśaratha Jātaka. No one has attributed the reason for denigration of the Rāmāyana story by the Ceylonese writers which they did as a revenge to the portrayal of residents of Lankā (Ceylon) as Rākshasas in the Rāmāyana.

  Rāma has always been reverentially remembered by Indians in all ages. This is the reason that when the Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution were preparing the Indian Constitution, they placed the following illustration of Rāma on the top of the third chapter, i.e. Fundamental Rights of the Constitution. The illustration shows the return journey of Rāma from Lan•kā to Ayodhyā after killing Rāvan.a and his accomplices.

  Fig. Preface 1: Illustration of Rāma in the Indian Constitution.

  This book has got the rare distinction that before its publication its major thesis that Babur had nothing to do with the construction of the so-called Baburi mosque at Ayodhyā was accepted in toto by Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court through the marvellous presentation of Advocate P.N. Mishra. Another conclusion that the inscriptions inside the mosque were fake and hence unreliable in nature were accepted not only by Justice Agarwal but largely by the outstanding Judge Justice S.U. Khan also. Some parts of their judgments and quoted in Chapter XII of this book.

  I would like to remind readers that India has imbibed the best tradition of tolerance, which can be hardly surpassed in any other part of the world. It is best illustrated in the history of Somanātha. Inhabitants of Prabhāsa, where Somanātha temple is situated, were so generous that in the 13th century even when the Muslim rule had not been established in Saurashtra, a Śaiva Pāśupatāchārya not only granted land for the construction of a mosque but also built shops and houses for the maintenance of the mosque. From an inscription of Junagadh-Uparkot dated 1288 A.D. it is known that Prabhāsa-Pāttana, where Somanātha temple is situated, was a great port where Muslims from various parts of India used to assemble for embarking onward pilgrimage (Haj) to Mecca and come for trade from Iran and Arab countries. They used to stay there for several days but had no mosque for offering Namaz. Therefore, their leader Nuruddin Firoz after having obtained permission from the Amir of his native place Hormaz Ruqannuddin applied to the Pāśupatāchārya, i.e. the pontiff of the Pāśupata Śaiva cult, for granting a piece of land for constructing a mosque. When the Pāśupatāchārya received the request of the Muslims, he immediately granted land and handed it over to the Muslim leader in the presence of the leading Mahajanas, such as Thakker Sri Rāmadeva Valujideva, Rana Sri Somesvaradeva, Thakor Bhīmasimha and Prince of Chhada who all were made witnesses to this land-grant. In addition, the Pāśupata pontiff donated him shops and buildings, so that from their income, the Muslims could build the mosque and maintain it without any financial strain.

  The significance of this generous land grant can be appreciated better in the historic background of the great havoc caused by Mahmud of Ghazni in the January of 1026 A.D. In defence of the Somanātha temple, 50,000 devotees had laid down their lives and Mahmud had broken the famous Jyotirlinga of Lord Somanātha. The iconoclastic act of Mahmud has been accurately described by the great writer Alberuni who had accompanied him in his Indian campaigns in the following words:

  “The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may god be merciful to him! In A.H. 416 he ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into hippodrome of the town, together with the Chakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somanatha lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet.”

  In this horrendous background it was remarkable that a religious leader, Pāśupatāchārya, granted land for construction of a mosque and gifted shops for its maintenance. Salute to such an embodiment of supreme tolerance!

  Similarly, it was Mulla Abdul Hakim who had represented to the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan that the mosque built by Aurangzeb when he was the Governor of Gujarat after desecrating and partly demolishing the Chintamani temple could not be considered a mosque in accordance with the Islamic law because the property belonged to Shanti (Sati) Das Jauhuri. Accordingly, a firman was issued by Shah Jahan and it was ordered that the temple be handed over to Shanti Das who should be in the possession of it as before; and he may worship there according to his creed. The firman is dated July 3, 1648 and quoted in the fourteenth chapter of this book. This firman confirms that many clergymen up to the reign of Shah Jahan were liberal in interpreting the Islamic law.

  It will be difficult for many readers to accept the fact that Baba Abhiramadasji who was instrumental in placing the idols of Ram Lallā and other deities in an almost abandoned mosque in December, 1949 was gifted a chunk of 50 acres land by a munificent Muslim Qeyum Kidwai in 1955 at village Kandhipur in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh. There Baba Abhiramadas built a magnificent Hanuman temple which is now managed by his disciple Dharmadas. It shows that the conversion of the mosque into a practicing temple had not alienated a majority of the Muslim population.

  Protagonists of Ayodhyā dispute must appreciate and reciprocate this mutual understanding and sentiments, and learn from such examples of Pāśupatāchārya, Mulla Abdul Hakim and Qeyum Kidwai.

  I have been an avid reader from childhood and I have keen interest in History and Sanskrit. In fact, it was my love for history and Sanskrit which impelled me to decline admission in an engineering college and opt for these subjects instead of the science stream. It was again this avocation which was a catalystic factor in my taking voluntary retirement from the coveted Indian Police Service almost a decade before my due date of superannuation. However, even in the hectic days of police service I continued my interest in these two subjects – History, particularly Indian History and Sanskrit. Therefore, it was extremely appalling to read biased and distorted articles and books on Ayodhyā which have produced controversial contents quite contrary to historical facts.

  Historians of all hues have been harping upon the theme that Ayodhyā was an abandoned city for long, whereas the historical fact remains that Ayodhyā has always been an eternal and blissful city which can rightly boast of its prosperous continuity since the reign of the Ikshvākus. Similarly, it may be amazing for many to learn that the temples at Ayodhyā remained intact, by and large during the entire Sultanate period. It may sound ironical when they go through this book and learn that it was the introduction of the Sunni Hanafi law in India which lessened the legal and practical severity on the Hindus in this country.

  In this book it has been established for the first time that there existed a temple at the disputed site. It is confirmed by the following ślokas of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala:

  सरयूतीरपूतानां जन्मभूम्याः विलोकिनाम्।

  दर्शनात् पातकं तेषां कल्पकोटिशतायुतान्।।35।।

  राममन्दिरमासाद्य दर्श�
�ं क्रियते नरै।

  मनसापि स्मृं येन मुच्यते चरणत्रयात्।।36।। (XIIth canto)

  Again, this book has the credit to present the accounts of Thomas Herbert and Joannes De Leat on Ayodhyā for the first time. Herbert’s accounts were written in 1632 A.D. and published in 1634 and again in 1636 A.D. According to him there were many ancient monuments at Ayodhyā and the most important of them was the temple of Rāmachandra built in the Tretā Age. De Laet’s accounts published in 1631 A.D. confirm that Rāma was considered the supreme god who was born at Ayodhyā to see the tamasha of the world and devotees from all parts of the country used to visit the site and after worshipping the idol used to take away charred rice as proof of their visit.

  Janma-Bhūmi-māhātmya from only one source, i.e. the Skandapurāna had been produced before the court, whereas the Janma-sthána-māhātmya has been produced in this book from at least four sources – the Skanda-Purāna, the Rudra-yāmala, Satyopākhyāna and the Avadhavilāsa of Lal Das.

  Then the tale of two inscriptions is very interesting. One Vishnu-hari inscription confirms the existence of a temple at Ayodhyā on the eve of the Muslim conquest and the debate on another indicates how far our established historians can distort facts while making arguments.

  Many will be amused to learn that the so-called Baburi mosque does not figure in any text for more than 240 years and the inscriptions inside the mosque, often quoted in books on Ayodhyā or Babur, were fake in nature. They were fixed in the mosque 280 years after its supposed construction in 1528 A.D. These inscriptions were fixed or shown to have been fixed in the mosque on various dates and repeatedly replaced. Contents and placements of these inscriptions differed from time to time. Contrary to the common belief, Babur never visited Ayodhyā and, in fact, he had no occasion to visit it. Similarly, Mir Baqi of the inscriptions is different from Baqi of Babur-nama and he was never the Governor of Ayodhyā. In fact, Baqi Tashkindi was a petty commander (Beg) of a small troop of Babur and in constant chase against the rebel governor of Awadh Bāyazīd and his companion Biban. Babur was so angry with Baqi because of the latter’s failure against Bāyazīd at Lucknow that on 20th June, 1529 he dismissed him from service along with the Awadh troop which was at his command to annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban. Thereafter, Baqi Shagawal/Tashkindi was never heard of. No person by the name of Mir Baqi was a historical figure. Similarly, Musa Ashiqan, who is credited to have blessed Babur to be the emperor of Hindustan and is said to have later directed him to demolish the Râma-Janma-bhūmi temple, is a fictitious person.

  Babur was not a religious fanatic and his visit to the Gwalior temples is a testimony to his liberal outlook. Babur had no role either in the demolition of any temple at Ayodhyā or in the construction of a mosque at the site. This may sound very startling but I am constrained to conclude so on the basis of incontrovertible historical facts. The question then arises as to who demolished the temple, if any, and built the mosque. All the three major Hindu shrines at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvāra, Tretā Kā Thākura and Janma-sthána temples were intact during the entire Sultanate period and the major part of the Mughal rule. But they could not survive after the accession of Aurangzeb to the Delhi throne in 1658 A.D.There are many evidences to prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb when Fedai Khan was Governor there. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh twice; first in 1658-1662 A.D. and thereafter in 1669-1670 A.D. It has been discussed in detail in chapter VIII as to how the temples at Ayodhyā were razed to ground during the first stint of Fedai Khan. The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque on the Janma-sthána site during the reign of Aurangzeb was known to the general public till 1813-14 A.D. when Buchanan made the survey and was misled by a claimed inscription which was not properly examined by him.

  After his report on Ayodhyā was published in Martin’s book ‘History, Topography, Antiquities & c. of Eastern India’ in 1838 A.D. scholars started attributing the construction of the mosque to Babur. The gossip had already started around 1770 A.D. when Joseph Tieffenthaler wrote that though the temple was demolished by Aurangzeb, yet some people ascribed it to Babur. Since Tieffenthaler himself was a scholar of Persian and there was no inscription by then in the mosque, he could not write emphatically as to who the real builder was. But by 1813 A.D. the Shia clergy had faked an inscription and predated the construction of the mosque to the distant period of Babur and made Mir Baqi as the real builder. They subsequently claimed Mir Baqi to be a Shia and took the control of this mosque.

  All Mughal Emperors except Aurangzeb were liberal and during the period of Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan there was a considerable prosperity amongst nobility and the Hindus enjoyed reasonable religious freedom. However, soon after Aurangzeb’s accession to the throne in 1658-59 A.D. the process of the reversal of the religious policy of tolerance commenced. The iconoclastic zeal of Aurangzeb resulted in the demolition and forcible conversion of almost all important temples of North India into mosques. There is a very disturbing trend that our established historians have been defending the iconoclastic activities of Aurangzeb and Mahmud of Ghazni by misleading interpretation and, at times, by concoction of stories which are portrayed as facts. It has been amply demonstrated at appropriate places in this book.

  It is a historical fact that during the liberal rule of the first four Awadh Nawabs, viz. Sa’adat Khan, Safdar Jung, Shuja-ud-daulah and Asaf-ud-daulah, the Rāmānandī Bairāgī sādhūs succeeded in retrieving most of the lost sites associated with the life of Rāma and constructing new grand temples. However, it is equally true that the Shia clergy got ascendancy during the reign of subsequent Nawabs to such an extent that despite the liberal policy of Wajid Ali Shah the two communities came to clash in 1855 A.D. on the imaginary claim over Hanuman-garhi by the Muslims. How a rumour could create a permanent rupture in the relations between two communities is best illustrated by this unwarranted confrontation. The British Government’s arbitrary decision to stop the Hindu practice of performing rituals in the disputed shrine created discontent amongst the Hindus who felt alienated and attempted repeatedly to take possession of the disputed shrine and the site. It was reflected in the forcible possession of the shrine in 1858 A.D. by Nihang Singh along with 25 Sikhs who fixed a ‘Niśāna’ there and after performing rituals wrote ‘Rāma’, ‘Rāma’ on the walls of the disputed shrine.

  The first volume of the book had ended there. But on the eve of its publication I learnt that a booklet titled “History and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid Case” prepared by Aligarh Historians Society was in circulation. In this booklet Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment on historical matters has been subjected to such an unsubstantiated and misleading criticism that I had to write a new chapter “Aligarh Historians’ Contumelious Criticism of the Ayodhyâ Verdict is devoid of substance.” It is agonizing to see that the established historians have stooped very low in unjustifiably attacking the verdict of a well-read and reputed Judge. Therefore, these historians’ indictment required a rebuttal based on incontrovertible evidence which finds place in the last chapter of this book.

  Since historians of both the shades have done injustice to the writing of history on Ayodhyā dispute I had to expose them at appropriate places. In this book I have coined two words ‘established’ and ‘enthusiastic’. By ‘established’ historians I mean self-proclaimed secular, progressive or left historians who have established an academic empire and try to stifle any voice of dissent or truth. At times, they obfuscate matters. Similarly, I have called the historians of the opposite group as ‘enthusiastic historians’ in place of nationalist or conservative historians. In this camp the standard of historians’ writing history except that of a few of them is far from satisfactory because they lack the skill of sifting the grain from husk. This is the reason that they, too, have failed to do justice to the history of Ayodhyā, and hence the dif
ference on Ayodhyā between the two groups of historians is very thin. The first group asserts that the victorious Babur built the mosque on a barren plot, whereas the other group claims that Babur erected the mosque after demolishing a temple. Thus, both groups claim that it was a creation of Babur or his Governor Mir Baqi! An innocent Babur has suffered the ignominy, hatred and pernicious perdition for decades for a crime which he never committed. In this book the liberal and carefree warrior stands exonerated from such an insinuation.

  This work is an extensive research of more than two decades. I am satisfied that I have been able to present a large number of new evidences which have not been utilized so far. I have churned the ocean of all the literature on Ayodhyā and succeeded in taking out the nectar to revive the dead history of Ayodhyā. Here I am reminded of one verse of the last chapter ‘An Account of the Author’ in the Ain i-Akbari:

  A wondrous work herein behold

  That wisdom’s treasures all enfold;

  So fair upon its page they show

  That he who reads shall wiser grow. (p. 523)

  The book has appropriately been named ‘Ayodhyā Revisited’ and is in two volumes. In the first volume I have concentrated on historical evidence only, lest the new thesis should be besmirched in the midst of unnecessary controversies. Archaeological evidence, which should have been incorporated in the first volume, has been omitted here to limit its size. Out of more than a thousand pages in the first volume I had to edit and edit many times to contain it within 700 pages. While doing so, I am afraid that at places the sequence might have been disturbed, though utmost care has been taken to prevent it. Like the first volume, the second, too, contains many interesting topics of deep research which will really lead readers to conclude that it is a rediscovery of the history of Ayodhyā. In addition, it contains many undisclosed developments of Ayodhyā negotiations and the Government’s attempts to solve the contentious issue.