Women of Sāketa saluted him with folded hands.
He stayed in the sprawling garden of Sāketa.
He entered into Ayodhyā full of women who had come to see Sītā.
Thus, Ayodhyā was described in Sanskrit literature long before the Gupta period. The claim that Sāketa was renamed Ayodhyā by Skandagupta after he moved his residence to the holy city is totally baseless. There is not a single historical evidence to support this hypothesis.
The identity of Ayodhyā with Sāketa has been discussed by Alexendar Cunningham also in his book ‘The Ancient Geography of India’ in the following words:
“The identity of Sake ta and Ayodhya has, I believe, always been admitted; but I am not aware that any proof has yet been offered to establish the fact, Csoma de Koros, in speaking of the place, merely says “Saketana or Ayodhya”, and H.H. Wilson, in his Sanskrit Dictionary calls Saketa “the city Ayodhya” But the question would appear to be set at rest by several passages of ‘Ramayan’ and ‘Raghuvansa’ in which Saketnagara is generally called the capital of Raja Das´aratha and his sons. But the following verse of the Ramayana which was pointed out to me by a Brahman of Lucknow, will be sufficient to establish the identity. Aswajita, Father of Kaikeyi, offers to give his daughter to Das´aratha, Raja of Saketanagara:
Sãketam nagaram rãjã namnã das’aratho balì.
Tasmai deyã mayã kanyã Kaikeyì nãmato janãh (p. 341)
Since, I believe in maintaining impartiality and objectivity in writing history I have no hesitation in declaring that this verse is not found anywhere in the prevalent Vālmīki Rāmāyana. Here Cunningham was apparently beguiled by a Brahmin of Lucknow as Buchanan had been misled by his Maulavi friend in the context of the alleged presence of inscriptions inside the disputed structure.
(3) Description of Ayodhyā
Vālmīki Rāmāyana is the first ‘laukika’ text which gives a detailed description of Ayodhyā. It also indicates the location of the Janma-bhūmi at Ayodhyā. Lord Vishnu, who is called the Supreme God, contempalated his own Janma-bhūmi, i.e. the birthplace while agreeing to take incarnation as a human being. It is mentioned in the following śloka of the Bālakānda.
एवं दत्वा वरं देवो देवानां विष्णुरात्मवान्।
मानुष्ये चिन्तयामास जन्मभूमिमथात्मनः।। (15.30)
Thus, having granted boon to gods Vishnu contemplated about his place of birth in the human form.
In the fifth canto of the Bālakānda Ayodhyā has been lucidly described from the 4th to 22nd śloka. Here the following few ślokas are quoted.
कोसलो नाम मुदितः स्फीतो जनपदो महान्।
निविष्टः सरयूतीरे प्रभूतधनधान्यवान्।।4।।
अयोध्या नाम नगरी तत्रासील्लोकविश्रुता।
मनुना मानवेद्रेण या पुरी निर्मिता स्वयम्।।5।।
आयता दश च द्वे च योजनानि महापुरी।
श्रीमती त्रीणि विस्तीर्णा सुविभक्तमहापथा।।6।।
It has been lucidly translated by R.T. Griffith in English verses with rhyms. The translation is produced below:
On Sarjú’s bank, of ample size,
The happy realm of Ko¶al lies,
With fertile length of fair champaign
And flocks and herds and wealth of grain.
There, famous in her old renown,
Ayodhyā stands, the royal town,
In bygone ages built and planned
By sainted Manu’s princely hand.
Imperial seat! her walls extend
Twelve measured leagues from end to end,
And three in width from side to side,
With square and palace beautified.
Her gates at even distance stand;
Her ample roads are wisely planned. (canto 5)
The description of Ayodhyā in this canto impressed Samuel Clegg (1781-1861) so much that he concluded one of his lectures on architecture by citing this description from the Rāmāyana. Samuel was a British civil engineer who became a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1829 and took a prominent part in the discussions at its meetings. His lecture II was published in 1850 in London in “Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazetter”. Vol. 13 and carries the following eulogy on the city of Ayodhyā:
“I shall conclude this lecture with the description of an ancient Indian city, as given in the ‘Ramayana’: – “On the banks of the Sarayù is a vast, fertile, and delightful country, called Cosala, abounding in corn and wealth. In that country is a city, called Ayodhya, greatly famed in this world, and built by Manu himself, the ‘lord of men’. This great and prosperous city was twelve yojanas (nine miles) in length, and three yojanas in breadth, and stored with all conveniences. The streets and lanes were admirably disposed, and the high roads were well sprinkled with water. It was adorned with arched gateways, and beautiful ranges of shops; it was fortified with numerous defences and warlike machines, and inhabited by all sorts of skilful artists. It was beautiful with gardens and groves of mango trees, and enclosed with high walls. It was surrounded by impassable ditches, and secured by fortifications difficult of assault by foreign kings. It was ornamented with palaces of exquisite workmanship, lofty as mountains, and enriched with jewels; abounding with beautiful houses consisting of several stories; and it shone like Indra’s Heaven. Its aspect had an enchanting effect; and the whole city was diversified with various colours, and decorated with regular avenues of sweet-scented trees. It was filled with buildings erected close to one another, and without intermediate voids; and situated on a smooth, leveled ground. This city truly surpassed any that was ever beheld on earth.”
(4) Mention in the Mahābhārata
In the Mahābhārata, Ayodhyā is mentioned as the capital of the Ikshvāku kings at many places. However, in the list of places of pilgrimage the description of the Gopratāra Ghat, which was a part of Ayodhyā, is found in the following ślokas –
गोप्रतारं ततो गच्छेत् सरय्वास्तीर्थमुत्तमम्।
यत्र रामो गतः स्वर्गं सभृत्यबलवाहनः।।
सा् च वीरो महाराज तस्य तीर्थस्य तेजसा।
रामस्य च प्रसादेन व्यवसायाच्च भारत।।
तस्स्तींर्थे नरः स्नात्वा गोप्रतारे नराधिप।
सर्वपापविशुद्धात्मा स्वर्गलोके महीयते।।
(Vanaparva, 84/70-72)These ślokas find place in the critical edition of the Mahā-bhārata also. The meaning is as follows:
Thereafter one should go to Gopratāra which is the best pilgrim place (tīrtha) on the Sarayū river where Rāma went to heaven with all his followers along with the splendour of that tirth. By the grace and efforts of Rāma, a man attains heaven by taking bath in Gopratāra and becomes pure from all sins.
Thus, Ayodhyā was a pilgrim centre during the days of the composition of the Mahābhārata also. It is a different matter that during that period Gopratāra was the most important pilgrim centre at Ayodhyā. The importance of pilgrim centres changes from time to time, e.g. the Sankata-mochana Mandir at Vārānasī is not mentioned in any important text until a century ago, but today it is the most popular temple after Viśvanātha temple at Vārānasī.
The Gopratāra is now called Guptar Ghat which is at Faizabad near C
antonment area. The photograph of the Rāma temple at Gopratāra Ghat taken sometime during the last quarter of the 19th century and published in the book ‘Padri Elliot of Faizabad: A Memorial’ in 1906.
Fig. 1.1: Photograph of Gopratāra Ghat temple.
Here it will not be out of place to mention that even Śringaverapura of Rāma’s friend Nishāda Guha’s capital is mentioned as a tirtha. It says that here Rāma, the son of Daśaratha, had crossed Gangā and one is purified from all sins by taking a dip in the Gangā here:
ततो गच्छेत राजेद्र शृङगवेरपुं महत्।
यत्र तीर्णो महाराज रामो दाशरथिः पुरा।।65।।
तस्स्तींर्थे महाबाहो स्नात्वा पापै प्रमुच्यते।
गङगायां तु नरः स्नात्वा ब्रह्मचारी समाहितः।।66।।
विधूतपाप्मा भवति वाजपेयं च विन्दति।
(Mahãbhãrata; Vana Parvan: 85)
O king! Then one should go to Śringaverapura where Rāma, the son of Daśaratha had crossed the river Gangā long back. By taking bath in this tirtha one gets liberated from all sins. If a man, by maintaining celibacy, takes bath in the Ganga, he becomes free from all sins and gets benefit of the Vājapeya sacrifice.
Being a student of history I knew the fact for long that during the excavation of the Rāmāyana sites Sringaverapura emerged as the most ancient site. Therefore, I went to visit this sacred place and found the following information furnshed by the Archaeological Survey of India at the site:
Ancient Site Sringaverapura
“The ancient site near village Singraur has been identified with ancient ‘Sringaverapura’ which finds its mention in Ramayana. Sringaverapura is situated 35 kms upstream from Allahabad, on the banks of the river Ganga.The ashram of Sringi Rishi is also believed to have existed here. It gained significance, as it was here that the local chieftain Nishad Raja helped Rama to cross river Ganga during his exile. The site was excavated on a large scale between 1977 and 1985 under the project “Archaeology of Ramayana sites’ by ASI. The excavation has revealed the remains of a large rectangular brick tank which is a unique example of Indian Hydraulic Engineering 2000 years ago. The engineers harnessed the water of the Ganga bringing into the tank through a feeding channel specially dug for the purpose. Thereafter, the water passed through a silting chamber and a preliminary tank which was made for silt to be settled down. This purified water overflowed and entered into the main tank where it was retained.
There is a circular tank also on the other end of the complex, which was perhaps used for ritualistic purpose. Finally, the excess water was drained through spill-channel back to river Ganga towards east.
The excavation in the habitational area at this site has given the evidence of occurrence of Ochre Colored Ware in the easternmost part of the country. The cultural sequence is also continued since the earliest habitation in the 11th century BC to the recent time. In the 2nd century BC-1st century AD, the site reached its zenith as indicated by the extensive remains of that period and a long hydraulic brick tank.”
Fig. 1.2: The ancient site of Sringaverapura.
When Śringaverapura, where Rāma crossed the Gangā, was considered as a tīrtha, the suggetion that Ayodhyā, where he was born was not a tīrtha, is difficult to digest.
In 1989 a team of 25 historians led by Sarvepalli Gopal published a “The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid Ramajanmabhumi Dispute. An analysis by twenty -five historians” wherein they stated:
“(vi) In a way, the local tradition of Ayodhya recognizes the ambiguous history of its origin. The story is that Ayodhya was lost after the Treta Yuga and was rediscovered by Vikramaditya. While searching for the lost Ayodhya, Vikramaditya met Prayaga, the king of tirthas, who knew about Ayodhya and showed him where it was. Vikramaditya marked the place but could not find it later. Then he met a yogi who told him that he should let a cow and a calf roam. When the calf came across the janmabhùmi, milk would flow from its udder. The king followed the yogi’s advice. When at a certain point the calf’s udders began to flow, the king decided that this was the site of the ancient Ayodhya.”
There is not a single inscription or literary source which confirms that any of the Vikramādityas ever made any search and discovered Ayodhyā which had been abandoned for long and covered with forests. There is no mention in any text or inscription that any Vikramāditya after search succeeded in establishing the marks of the old site and constructed 360 temples at Ayodhyā. In fact, Ayodhyā was quite a flourishing town continuously for five-six centuries before Vikramāditya and therefore any such tradition first heard by foreign writers and later reiterated by Indian historians has no foundation at all. However, the most surprising and shocking part is that modern historians of all shades have quoted and confirmed this without any scrutiny. Thus, History has been overtaken by myths and fiction.
For readers’ information it is stated that there are a large number of references to Ayodhyā as the capital city of Ikshvāku dynasty in the Purānas and literary works. But they are ignored here, lest the book should be bulky.
(5) Geneology of Ikshvâku rulers
Despite these modern statements the fact of the matter is that Ayodhyā has never been an abandoned city. Ayodhyā was established by Manu, the progenitor of mankind. Ikshvāku was his eldest son and the Ikshvāku dynasty ruled from Ayodhyā for long. According to Pargiter’s calculation Rāma was 63rd king in the line of Ikshvāku. In the same dynasty Lord Buddha, too, was born. Guru Gobind Singh also claimed in his biography ‘Bachitra Nātaka’ that he, born in the Sodhi clan, was the descendant of Lava and Guru Nanak Deva, born in the Bedi clan, was the descendant of Kuśa. In the Jain tradition, too, Ayodhyā has been the birthplace of five Tīrthankaras. Thus, Ayodhyā is an eternal, sacrosanct centre for all the sects which emanated in India.
The general misconception that after the departure of Lord Rāma to the Vaikuntha and establishment of the capitals of at Kuśāvatī (near the Vindhya mountain) by Kuśa and at Śaravatī Śrāvastī) by Lava Ayodhyā became desolate and it remained so until its discovery by Vikramāditya is far from truth. The fact is that when Kuśa was ruling from newly established capital Kusāvatī; the Nagaradevī of Ayodhyā one night went to see Kuśa and narrated her woes and requested him to restore the capital at Ayodhyā. Next morning, Kuśa left for Ayodhyā (अयोध्याभिमुखः प्रतस्थे) and rebuilt Ayodhyā with his guild of artists in such a way that it looked as grand as it was in Rama’s time. Kālidāsa has described it eloquently in Raghuvamśa in the 16th canto in these words:
तां शिल्पिसंघाः प्रभुणा नियुक्तास्तथागतां संभृतसाधनत्वात्।
पुं नवीचक्रुरपां विसर्गान्मेघा निदाघग्लपितामिवोर्वीम्।।38।।
By the order of the king Kuśa guilds of artisans, with their advanced instruments, renovated Ayodhyā, as if clouds, by the order of Indra, made the hot earth green by rain-fall.
वसन्स तस्यां वसतौ रघूणां पुराणशोभामधिरोपितायाम्।
न मैथिलेयः स्पृहयांबभूव भर्त्रे दिवो नाप्यलकेश्वराय।।42।Ð
Ayodhyā looked as beautiful as it was earlier. There the son of Maithilī, i.e. Kuśa attained such happiness that he had no desire left for becoming the master of the paradise and the Alakapuri.
Descendants of Kuśa ruled from Ayodhyā; whereas those of Lava from Śrāvastī. King Brihadbala, who was killed by Abhimanyu in the Mahābhārata war, was in the line of Lava
. Here the genealogy of Ikshvāku clan from the line of Kuśa as given by Kālidāsa in Raghuvamśa is produced:
कुश > अतिथि > निषध > नल > नभ > पुण्डरीक > क्षेमधन्वा > देवानीक > अहीनगु > पारियात्र > शिल > उन्नाभ > वज्रनाभ > शंखण > व्युषिताश्व > विश्वसह > हिरण्यनाभ > कौसल्य > ब्रह्मिष्ठ > पुत्र > पुष्य > ध्रुवसन्धि > सुदर्शन > अग्निवर्ण
The following is the line of descendents of both Kuśa and Lava from Purānas and other sources:
Rāma
This geneology is based on the Purānas. The names of the descendants of Brihadbala from Brihatkshaya to Rāhula are given in the following geneology based on several texts which have been scrutinised by many authors of Indian history:
बृहद्बल Brihadbala > बृहक्षय Brihatkshaya > उरुक्षय Urukshaya > वत्सव्यूह Vatsavyūha > प्रतिव्योम Prativyoma > दिवाकर Divākara > सहदेव Sahadeva > बृहदश्व Brihadasva > भानुरथ Bhānuratha > प्रतीताश्व Pratitashva > सुप्रतीक Supratīka > मरुदेव Marudeva > सुनक्षत्र Sunakshatra > किन्नराश्व Kinnarāśva > अन्तरिक्ष Antariksha > सुषेण Sushena > अमित्रजित् Amitrajit > बृहद्राज Brihadrāja > धर्मी Dharmī > कृतञ्जय Kritañjaya > रणञ्जय Ranañjaya > सञ्जय Sañjaya > शाक्य Śākya > शुद्धोदन Śuddhodana > सिद्धार्थ Siddhārtha > राहुल Rāhula
It is accepted that there may be variations in the names of kings in the geneology and it is also accepted that one cannot be sure that all these kings might have really ruled in the sequence. But the geneology is indicative of the fact that Ayodhyā was never supposed to be a desolate city because it always had kings and thus had the status of a capital city.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 8