It is an irony that although I had been cited a Government witness before the Liberhan Ayodhyā Commission of Enquiry and I wrote several times to the Commission for calling me for deposition, I was never called in its long span of 16 years. Here a letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ayodhyā Division) U.O. No. 6095/JS(AY)/93 dt. 30-12-93 is partly quoted in this regard:
“It has been decided with the approval of the Home Minister that Shri Kishore Kunal, DIG, Central Industrial Security Force, Patna would be cited as witness on behalf of the Central Government before the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry. The Area to be covered in his evidence is indicated below:
He was O.S.D. to the then minister of the State for Home Affairs and was actively involved in the negotiations held during 1990 and Dec 90-Feb 91. In case these issues arise before the Commission, his deposition will be taken in this regard.”
Besides, I had been asked by the Home Ministry vide an order in a note-sheet dated 6th January, 1994 to scrutinize all documents and prepare an index for the Commission. A few lines from the note-sheet are quoted below:
“Shri Kishore Kunal, DIG, CISF is fairly knowledgeable in respect of the Ayodhya issue and he has already been requested to lend his assistance in this matter. DO (Ay-I) may work under the guidance of Shri Kunal. He and Shri Kunal may complete this exercise and put up the same preferably by Saturday, 8 January.
2. In addition to the above, every file relating to the above documents should also be identified and kept apart so that it is readily available for use in connection with the Commission’s proceedings. An index of all these files should be prepared, indicating very briefly but clearly the contents of each file and how it is related to the White Paper. This exercise may also be carried out by DO (Ay-I) under the general guidance of Shri Kunal and put up preferably by Saturday, 8 January, 1994. Shri Kunal may devise a suitable proforma for this purpose.”
It was issued by Shri Vinod Dhall, the then Joint Secretary, Ayodhyā in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it was I who had scrutinized all papers on Ayodhyā and made its index. It was a tragedy that I was not called by the Liberhan Commission, otherwise I could have thrown ample light on Ayodhyā before the Commission.
For long I was contemplating a proper cover design. A number of suggestions came from my friends and my young son Saayan Kunal but ultimately an impressive image from the book of Tieffenthaler prevailed because it is an authentic illustration of a little cluster of Hindu mutts in the 18th century.
Fig. Preface 2: A cluster of monasteries at Avadh
sketched by Tieffenthaler in 1767 A.D.
Tieffenthaler has captioned it in Latin as ‘Aedes cujusdam or Monachis Ethnicis qui Avadi degunt’ below the illustration. The Google translation is as follows:
“Certain heathen temples or monks who live their Avadi”
Prof. Kapil Muni Tiwary, a renowned, retired English Professor of Patna University, has translated it as:
“Some monasteries at Avadh where heathen monks live”
In Tieffenthaler’s account of Ayodhyā the word ‘heathen’ has been used for the Hindus.
The illustration on the cover page is marked XIII 1 in the Tieffenthaler’s book. Just below it, Tieffenthaler places the following illustration which is marked XIII 2:
Fig. Preface 3: Lavatorium named Mancancound at Ayodhyā.
Johann Bernoulli suggests that this lavatorium belongs to the same building which has been marked XIII.1 by Tieffenthaler. Tieffenthaler gives following captions at the bottom of this lavatorium:
(a) Lavatorium, quod Máncáncound appellant, id est fontem inaurium
(b) Meatus subterraneus, per quem aqua, Lavatorium subit.
(c) Aqua ductus, per quem aqua in Gamgam exonerator.
Prof. Tiwary’s translation into the English language is as follows:
(a) Washing-room which is called Manchancund (मचनकुण्ड), a gilded fountain.
(b) Underground ducts through which water enters the washing-room.
(c) Aquaduct through which water is discharged into the Ganges (river).
It appears that this beautiful water reservoir is a part of multi storeyed palace for Sadhus’ accommodation; whereas the first illustration XIII.1 appears to be a Hindu Mutt. This water reservoir reminds one of the Great Bath at Mohenjodaro. Even the present day Ayodhyā does not have any such technically sound water collection and discharge system.
After Tieffenthaler’s following account of Ayodhyā:
“On the South bank (of Deva) are found various buildings constructed by the nobles in memory of Ram, extending from East to West (a)” (p.252)
Johann Bernoulli, the editor and translator of Tieffenthaler’s original Latin work in the French and German, adds the following information in the footnote:
“(a) It is most likely that those shown in the illustration XIII nos. 1 and 2 belong to these buildings.”
The observation that Ayodhyā was in ruins and heap of dilapidated buildings is not correct because Ayodhyā in the 18th century was having many magnificent buildings like Svargadvārī mosque painted so beautifully by Hodges in 1783 and the above monastery with excellent water supply and discharge system.
Before I close it, I would like to throw some light on spellings of certain names and quoted paragraphs. I have preferred the spelling ‘Babur’ as it exists in many standard books including the translated version of Babur-nama by Beveridge, Annette Susannah. Readers will be surprised to see certain strange spellings in some quotations. These spellings belong to an era prior to 1800-1810. In fact, from 1810 A.D., the new spellings are in vogue. Therefore, if some strange spellings are seen in some quotations, it should be understood that they are taken in the original form, as they existed before 1810 A.D. The diacritical marks have been applied to Sanskrit words and by and large, they have been omitted in Persian and well-known words. At many of the places years have been indicated in the era which they represent. But where there is no such indication, they are to be understood as the years of the Christian era.
While preparing this brilliant book, I have received help from many corners. First, I would like to thank Pt. Bhavanath Jha, who is in-charge of the publication branch of our prestigious Mahavir Mandir, Patna. He has promptly discovered all the references to Ayodhyā sought by me from websites. Besides, he is one person I have consulted on the meaning of certain words of Vishnu-hari inscription and some other texts. It is my pleasant duty to record thanks to him.
Advocate P.N. Mishra is another stalwart who has been invariably informed about every new discovery on Ayodhyā. He was the most prominent counsel in the galaxy of legal luminaries before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. In fact, it was his brilliant skill of advocacy which turned the tide against the opposite side. I avail myself of this opportunity to record here my deep obligation to Mishra. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmed, the Director of Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna and a good friend of mine, promptly provided me all the required books available in his library. I owe a lot to Dr. Ahmad and Abu Muzaffar Alam, the Assistant Librarian of the prestigious library, who deciphered a number of Persian texts. I also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation extended by the librarians of Indian Council of Historical Research, Delhi and National Archives of India for providing photocopies of the relevent portions of the book and documents requisitioned by me.
It was Dr. Trinath Mishra, IPS (Rtd.) who was kind enough to go through the entire manuscript once. Similarly, Justice S.N. Jha (Rtd.) took interest in the book and went through many chapters. Prof. Brahmachari Surendra Kumar, a former Vice-chancellor of the K.S.D. Sanskrit University, Darbhanga where I served subsequently in the same capacity, also devoted sometime in proofreading. I am extremely thankful to them.
I can’t express my immense sense of gratitude in words to Justice G.B. Patnaik, a former Chief Justice of India, who has been very kind to write a ‘Foreword’ to this work. When I called on him and handed over the manuscript of this book at
Bhubaneswar, he assured me that he would go through it, and if it was found authentic and interesting, he would write the Foreword. Although he took his own time in going through the entire manuscript before writing the Foreword, I am elated to get such an appreciative assessment of the book from such a great legal luminary of the country. He has not only appreciated the work but also endorsed all the major conclusions of the book. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to him.
I myself have a vast library of books on Indian History and Sanskrit and it facilitated the writing of this book because confirmation of any reference from original sources was handy. Nine chapters of this book, germane to the Ayodhyā case, had been kept on the website www. mahavirmandirpatna.org for several months before the pronouncement of Ayodhyā Judgment and more than fifteen hundred persons had read its contents.
Since I am also the main proofreader of this book, I am afraid, it may contain composing mistakes because it has been typed by a Sanskrit scholar and Hindi typist. Besides, one is not good proof-reader of one’s own writing and the author has got no team of academicians who can correct the manuscript. I crave indulgence of readers for any error which still remains clung to the content or the print, despite meticulous correction made umpteen times. The Index has been prepared by Pt. Bhavanath Jha who once again deserves sincere thanks for the same. Readers may find some quotations and arguments repeated in some chapters. It has been done primarily to facilitate them to get relevant evidence in the same chapter. The publication of the book has been slightly delayed because of recurrent errors on the part of the British Library in sending correct images of certain documents requisitioned by me. For the error, Andrew Gough of the British Library was nice enough to tender apology to the present author through the following e-mail dated Feb. 24, 2015:
“Dear Kishore
Please accept our apologies for the error, I have sent the email with attachments onto the Managers of the service and asked them to investigate as a matter of urgency and then to confirm when the correct images are sent to you.
we apologise again.
Kind Regards
Andrew Gough”
Before I conclude this Preface, I would like to emphasise that the nation must heed to the concluding advice of the utmost sanity in the epilogue of Justice S.U. Khan’s verdict on the Ayodhyā dispute:
“...I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomized the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice). When prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.
However, the Quran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed. Under the sub-heading of demolition I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.
I quote two verses of Iqbal which were also quoted by Justice R.S. Dhawan in A.C. Datt vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1990 Allahabad 38:
वतन की फिक्र कर नादां मुसीबत आने वाली है।
तेरी बरबादियों के मश्वरे हैं आसमानों में।।
न समझोगे तो मिट जाओगे ऐ हिन्दोस्तां वालों।
तुम्हारी दास्तां तक भी न होगी दास्तानों में।।
An observation of Darwin is also worth quoting at this juncture (what an authority to quote in a religious matter/ dispute!):
“Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised.”
Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility – peace – friendship – tolerance - opportunity to impress others with the Message - opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible – or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not negligible minority (Maximum number of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either the Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict
at hand.”
(Ayodhyā Judgment, Justice S.U. Khan, pp. 277-80)
I hope that this book will transform the thinking of people on the Ayodhyā issue and will remove the toxin of communal canard in the country and there would lie the success of the author, who concludes with the following words of a ninteenth century Sufi saint Deen Darvish:
हिन्दू कहे सों हम बड़े मुसलमान कहे हम
एक मूँग के दो फाँड़ हैं कुन ज्यादा कुन कम।
कुन जियादा कुन कम करना नहीं कजिया
एक राम का भगत है दुजे रहमान से रजिया
कहे ‘दीन दरविश’ दोय सरितन मिल एक सिन्धु
साहिब सब दा एक है एक मुसलमान हिन्दु।।
The Hindu says, “I am superior”;
the Musalman says ‘I’.
Two halves of a grain of ‘mung’ they are;
which, then, is greater than the other?
Don’t quarrel over who is superior;
and who is not;
The one is the devotee of Ram,
the other of Rahman.
Deen Darvish says,
“the two unite in one ocean;
There is only one Lord of all.
The Hindu and the Musalman are one.”
Similar sentiment has been expressed by the revolutionary Bangla poet Kazi Nazrul Islam in the following verse:
एक ही वृन्ते दू टी कुसुम, हिन्दू मुसलमान।
हिन्दू तार नयन-मनि, मुस्लिम तार प्राण।।
Every writer has a lurking apprehension that unless his thesis is accepted by scholars, it is of little use, even though it has been prepared with all diligence and dedication. This sentiment is lucidly illustrated in the following verse of Kālidāsa in the beginning of his famous drama Abhijñāna-śākuntalam:
आ परितोषाद् विदुषां न साधु मन्ये प्रयोगविज्ञानम्।
बलवदपि शिक्षितानामात्मन्यप्रत्ययं चेतः।। (I.2)
I cannot feel satisfied with my performance until the wise are gratified. Even the best trained persons tend to lose confidence without their approval.
—Kishore Kunal
Ayodhyā
Janaki Navami, 2072
27 April 2015
Chapter One
Ayodhyā was never an abandoned city
[(1) Etymology (2) Location (3) Description of Ayodhyã(4) Mention in the Mahãbhãrata (5) Geneology of Ikshvãku rulers (6) Canonical literature (7) Allusion to Ayodhyã during the period of the Nandas and the Mauryas (8) Patañjali’s Mahãbhãshya (9) Yuga-purãna of Gãrgì Samhitã (10) Post-Sunga period(11) Suriratna, a Princess of Ayodhyã, became the Queen of the first Korean King (12) As´vaghosha, a native of Ayodhyã (13) Belgaun Memorial pillar inscri
ption of 105 A.D. (14) Greek Geographer Ptolemy’s Account (15) Ayodhyã during the Gupta period (16) Vasubandhu and Ayodhyã (17) Fahien’s account (18) Jãnakì-haranam of Kumãradãsa of S´rìlankã (19) Yuan-Chwang’s account on Ayodhyã (20) Ayodhyã during the post-Harshavardhana period (21) Reverberations in the South (22) References from Kashmir (23) Ayodhyã in Agastya-samhitã (24) Vikramãnkadeva-charitam of Bilhana (25) Dhanapãl’s ‘Tilaka-mañjarì’ (26) Ayodhyã in Alberuni’s “Kitab-ul-Hind” (27) Epigraphic connection of Chalukyan Kings with Ayodhyã (28) Gahadavala dynasty (29) Kritya-Kalpataru of Lakshmìdhara (30) Lal Darwaza Masjid inscription of Jaunpur (31) Vividha-tìrtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha Sùri (32) Rasika-rañjana of Kavi Rãmachandra (33) Yãtrã-prabandha of Samarapungava Dìkshita (34) An external evidence about Ramkot (35) Ayodhyã in Thailand]
Ayodhyā is an eternal city of the utmost antiquity and supreme sanctity. For the Hindus, it is one of the holiest tīrthas with most hallowed traditions in the country. The following śloka of Brahmānda Purāna finds mention in many Purānas with slight variations:
अयोध्या मथुरा माया काशी काञ्ची ह्यवन्तिका।
एताः पुण्यतमाः प्रोक्ताः पुरीणामुत्तमोत्तमाः।।
(4/40/91)
Ayodhyā, Mathurā, Haridvāra, Kāśi, Kānchī and Ujjain have been called the most sacred and foremost cities.
In the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudrayāmala, it is called the head of Lord Vishnu in the following śloka:
Ayodhya Revisited Page 6