Ayodhya Revisited
Page 23
If a pious person, having bathed at the Svargadvar ghāTa, visits the Ramālaya i.e. the house of Rāma (where he was born?) is blessed with everything.
And in 1994 A.D. when many top Hindu religious leaders formed a trust for the construction of the Rāma temple at Ayodhyā, they got it registered in the name of Rāmālaya only. Abul Fazl recalls Rāma as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He includes Ayodhyā as one of the important pilgrim places of India and reminds readers that there is a big festival on the Rāmanavamī day. But nowhere does he mention that there is a mosque built by the grandfather of Akbar, the great, who was his friend and patron king. Had Babur really built any mosque at Ayodhyā in 1528-29, Abul Fazl would have definitely mentioned its existence, particularly, when he is writing about the two tombs of Seth and Job at Ayodhyā. Thus, it is a strong proof of the non-existence of the so-called Baburi mosque in the last decade of the
sixteenth century.
(4) Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha of Maheśa Thākura
Maheśa Thākur, the founder of Khand+avalā Kingdom of Mithilā which was handed over by Akbar to him through his(Maheśa Thākura’s) disciple Raghunandana, wrote “Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha”. He started the writing of the history of the Mughal dynasty in the 19th year of the reign of Akbar, i.e. in 1575 A.D. For this purpose he contacted all those persons who were in the know of the historical events and perused all the documents relevant to his subject. In the following paragraph he has mentioned his method of writing the history of the Mughal dynasty:
"यत् एतदीयेभ्यो बहुकालीनेभ्यः सत्यवादिभ्यः सेवकेभ्यश्चिराय पृष्ट्वा पृष्ट्वा तानि लिखितवान्। किं च नानादेशगतैस्तादृशै सेवकै सुरत्राणाज्ञातो लिखित्वा प्रेषितानि तान्यवगतवान्। ततश्च लेखितुमारब्धवान् सर्वशः। तन्मध्य एव सुरत्राणराज्यैकोनविंशतिमे वर्षे स एव प्रात्यहिककर्मकलापलिखनरीतिमाविश्चकार यां ‘बाकानबीशी’ इति जना व्याहरन्ति। ततः प्रभृति तत एव लेखनमकरवं यतितवांश्च राज्यारम्भदिनतः प्रभृति सुरत्राणाज्ञापत्राणि नानादेश्यानि तत्प्रतिपत्राणि तद्विज्ञप्तिपत्राणि व्रज्याश्च संग्रहीतुम्। संगृह्य च तेभ्यो लिखितवान्। अनाश्वासेन वान्येषु जन्मतः प्रथमवर्षान्तरं स्वीयसकलचरितप्रणिधातारं महासुरत्राणमापृच्छ्यापृच्छ्य निर्णीय लिखामि। वर्त्तते च मम प्रत्याशा सुरत्राणभक्तितो निर्व्यूढमेतद् भविष्यतीति।" (पृ.12-13)
I wrote this text after repeatedly asking those persons who were in king’s service for long and who were truthful. I also consulted the correspondences from the officials appointed in various territories. Then I started writing everything. Meanwhile the emperor (Akbar) in the 19th year of his reign established the system of taking down every event daily. This system was called ‘Bakanabishi’ (Waqya Navisi) by the people. Thereafter, I followed the same pattern of writing and started collecting the royal decrees from the beginning and letters and documents from various Kingdoms. After collecting them I wrote from them uninterruptedly. I have been (with an effort) writing every event from the first year of the emperor’s life after consulting the emperor intensively and then taking a decision. I hope that this text will be authentic because of my devotion to the emperor.
In the beginning he has written the history of Babur and Humayun and in the context of Babur’s attempts to chase and capture Biban and Bāyazīd, he has mentioned Ayodhyā several times. He has mentioned the killing of Bāyazīd in a battle during the days of Humayun in 939 A.H. i.e. 1534 A.D. Moreover, he has given one more information that Tulug Beg Mirza, son of Muhmad Sultan Mirza, had revolted at Ayodhyā and Humayun had sent his brother Hindal to crush the revolt. But nowhere does he mention the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā. Had Babur built any mosque at Ayodhyā, with or without demolishing any temple, it would have got a mention in his book. Very few people are aware of the existence of this important historical text which is written in the Sanskrit prose. It is not in the traditional style of Sanskrit poets who describe any event in hyperbolic tone in verses. It is a pure historical text written in Muslim historians’ style and is based on historical events.
It was published by Patna University in the year 1962. Dr. Subhadra Jha was its editor who did not translate it into English or Hindi. Therefore, it could not be accessible to a vast section of students of history. He writes that it is an abridged version of Akbarnama. I have compared it with Akbarnama and found that its chapter on Babur is based on the same source of Akbarnama and therefore their contents tally to a great extent. It is either an incomplete work or its subsequent folios are missing.
(5) “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh” of Badauni
Abdul Quadir Badauni was a contemporary of Akbar and Abul Fazl. He was born on August 21, 1540 A.D. at Toda. In 1558-59 he went to Agra and studied under famous Saikh Mubarak Naguri along with Faizi and Abul Fazl. After the death of his father Saikh Muluk Shah he went to Badaun where he mastered many subjects like music, history and astronomy.
In 1574 he joined Akbar’s court. But since he was an orthodox Muslim always fighting for the supremacy of Sharia law, he could not win that much favour of Akbar as Abul Fazl and Faizi did. Therefore, he was always disgruntled against the trio. Akbar asked him to translate the Rāmāyana which he did but with a lot of criticism of the scripture.
He mentions in his work the submission of Bāyazīd before Babur and the bestowal of jagir on the Afghan leader. He further refers to the flight and death of Biban and Bāyazīd who was earlier the Governor of Ayodhyā. Had Babur built a mosque at the site of Lord Rāma’s birthplace or even at any place of Ayodhyā, Badauni would have gleefully mentioned it with comments like “Look, the birth site of Rāma has been reduced to a non-entity by Babur and Mir Baqi.” But Badauni nowhere mentions the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā in his voluminous history book “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh.” Thus, it is an indication that no mosque was built by Babur at Ayodhyā. Had it really been so, it would not have escaped the notice of an orthodox Sunni chronicler like Badauni. He would have declared with pride and made the grandfather of his patron king a great hero.
It is in consonance with the following observation of the established historian K.N. Panikkar in his article ‘ A Historical Overview’ published in the book ‘Anatomy of Confrontation’:
“A chronicler like Abdul Quadir Badauni of the sixteenth century, who wrote his books with the professed objective of demonstrating how the glory of Islam was declining during the liberal rule of Akber, was unlikely to have remained silent about the construction of a mosque at the site of a temple of major significance, if such an event had taken place.”
In the similar tone another established historian Harabans Mukhia writes in an article ‘The Rama Janmabhumi-Babari Masjid dispute’:
“If Badauni, a courtier of Akbar, had the slightest inkling that the mosque’s importance lay in its displacement of a holy temple of the infidels, he would have written of it in hyperbole with his even normally a very facile pen; but he didn’t.”
Since no mosque had been built by then, Badauni was not in a position to mention it. Therefore, the observations of Pani
kkar and Mukhia are not correct.
(6) The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Similarly, Emperor Jahangir, the great grandson of Babur in his memoirs “The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri” has mentioned that Babur built a mosque at Agra across the Yamunā during his last days and had a plan to make a lofty building also but because of his death he could not complete it. The following is the excerpt from Jahangir’s Memoirs:
“When God Almighty bestowed the rule of India on this illustrious family, the late king, Babar, after the defeat of Ibrahim, the son of Sikandar Lodi, and his being killed, and after his victory over Rana Sanga, who was the chief of the Rajas of Hindustan, established on the east side of the Jumna, on improved land, a garden (charbagh) which few places equal in beauty. He gave it the name of Gul-afshan (Flower-scatterer), and erected in it a small building of cut red stone, and having completed a mosque on one side of it he intended to make a lofty building, but time failed him and his design was never carried into execution.” (The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri; or Memoirs of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Rogers, edited by Henry Beveridge (1909), pp. 4-5)
Had Babur built a mosque at Ayodhyā, it should have been mentioned by his great-grandson Emperor Jahangir.
(7) Rāmacharita Mānasa of Gosvāmī Tulasi Das
Another text is Rāmacharita Mānasa of Tulasi Das which indicates that there was no demolition of the Rāma temple and construction of the mosque by then. Gosvāmī Tulasi Das started its composition on the Rāmanavamī at Ayodhyā in Samavat 1631, i.e. in 1574 A.D. He himself gives the date of the beginning of the composition of the great epic:
संवत सोरह सै एकतीसा। करउँ कथा हरि पद धरि सीसा।।
नौमी भौमवार मधुमासा। अवधपुरी यह चरित प्रकासा।।
जेहि दिन राम जनम श्रुति गावहिं। तीरथ सकल तहाँ चलि आवहिं।।
असुर नाग खग नर मुनि देवा। आइ करहिं रघुनायक सेवा।।
जन्म महोत्सव रचहिं सुजाना। करहिं राम कल कीरति गाना।।
(Bālakānd+a: Dohā 34)
Here I am producing the translation rendered into English verse by Rev. A.G. Father Atkins:
In the year sixteen hundred and thirtyone bright,
With my head lowly placed at my lord’s feet I write;
On Tuesday, the ninth day of Chaitra, month pleasing,
In the city of Avadh my story releasing.
‘Tis the birthday of Rāma, as scriptures declare,
And the day when the pilgrims are gathering there.
All demons, birds, serpents, men, saints and gods too
There are meeting to bring their lord homage true;
On this festival day of lord Rama’s birth
They all sing with acclaim his high praises and worth.
Again only six lines after the above quotation Tulasi Das writes about Ayodhyā:
राम धामदा पुरी सुहावनि। लोक समस्त बिदित अति पावनि।।
चारि खानि जग जीव अपारा। अवध तजें तनु नहिं संसारा।।
सब बिधि पुरी मनोहर जानी। सकल सिद्धिप्रद मंगल खानी।।
विमल कथा कर कीन्ह अरंभा। सुनत नसाहिं काम मद दंभा।।
(Dohā 35)
This fair city opens to all Rama’s heaven,
The whole world knows well here is holiness given.
Beyond number souls from the four wombs are born.
But the souls who in Avadh die never return.
Well knowing this city the home of delight,
The giver of wealth, source of all that is bright,
Its history pure I’ll begin to relate;
Once heard it destroys passion, envy and hate.
This shows true nature of Ayodhyā which is a renowned pilgrim place. Even earlier in the managalācharana Tulasi Das remembers Ayodhyā as बंदउँ अवधपुरी अति पावनि। सरजू सरि कलि कलुष नसावनि।।This, too, confirms the holiness of Ayodhyā and it is related to pilgrimage.
At the end of the Lanakākānd+a, Tulasi Das describes Ayodhyā पुनि देखु अवधपुरी अति पावनि। त्रिबिध ताप भव रोग नसावनि।। In the beginning of Uttara-kānd+a Rāma says to his monkey friends and introduces Ayodhyā in the following words:
सुनु कपीस अंगद लंकेसा। पावन पुरी रुचिर यह देसा।।
जद्यपि सब बैकुंठ बखाना। बेद पुरान बिदित जगु जाना।।
अवधपुरी सम प्रिय नहिं सोऊ। यह प्रंग जानइ कोउ कोऊ।।
जन्मभूमि मम पुरी सुहावनि। उत्तर दिसि बह सरजू पावनि।।
जा सज्जन ते बिनहिं प्रयासा। मम समीप नर पावहिं बासा।।
अति प्रिय मोहि इहाँ के बासी। मम धामदा पुरी सुख रासी।।
(Dohā 4)
“Listen, Vibhishan, Angad, Sugriv! Pure and clean
“Is my city; my land is the fairest e’er seen!
“Tho’ for beauty men always of Paradise dream,
“And tho’ scripture, as all know, declares it supreme,
“Tho’ but few know the secret, yet this I declare-
“That dear to me is Avadh beyond all compare!
“Here’s my birthplace, this city delightful, secure;
“On the north River Sarju flows, sacred and pure,
“In which bathing, without any labours or pains,
“His abiding-place with me forever man gains;
“Very dear to my heart are all those who here dwell;
“They attain thus my realm, there and here all is well.”
Here, Rāma has declared in unequivocal language that nothing is as dear to him as Avadh, as it is his birthplace ‘जन्मभूमि मम पुरी सुहावनि’. It is a picture of a flourishing holy town which had not seen the agony of the demolition of a Rāma temple and existence of a mosque thereon. It is a scene of vibrant Ayodhyā.
Again in Uttara-kānd+a there is a detailed description of Ayodhyā after Dohā no. 26 were it is mentioned that: देखत पुरी अखिल अघ भागा।, i.e. just by seeing the city all sins disappear. This happens only in a tirtha i.e. pilgrimage place.
Again in the Uttara-kānd+a Awadh is described by Kākabhuśund+ī in the following words:
अब जाना मैं अवध प्रभावा। निगमागम पुरान अस गावा।।
कवनेहुँ जन्म अवध बस जोई। राम परायन सो परि होई।।
अवध प्रभाव जान तब प्रानी। जब उर बसहिं रामु धनुपानी।।
Despite the above descriptions many established historians have created confusion about Tulasi Das’s writings either due to ignorance or prejudice. “In ‘Communal History and Rāma’s Ayodhyā’ the eminent historian Prof. R.S. Sharma has commented on Ayodhyā in the following words:
“Tulasidas began writing the Ramacharitmanas at Avadhapuri, but he does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. In a verse (chaupa
i) he states that he began composing the manuscript at Avadhpuri, which could have been easily changed into Awadhtirtha without doing any damage to the metrical arrangement. He clearly specifies the place and the time when he wrote his famous Ramacharitamanas:
nawamī bhaumavāra madhumāsā,
Auadhpurī yah charita prakāsā
jehi din Rama janam śruti gāvamahi
tīratha sakal tahin chali āvamahi (Bālakānd+a)
The verses quoted above would show that he launched his manuscript on Tuesday, the ninth day of the second half of Chaitra. He adds whoever sings the story of the birth of Rama on that day obtains the merit accruing from his visit to all places of pilgrimage automatically, but he does not declare Avadhpuri a place of pilgrimage. He stresses the importance of the day when he started the book and not that of the place where he wrote. In the Ramacharitamanas of Tulasidas Ayodhya neither appears as a place of pilgrimage for the Hindus.”
This misunderstanding is due to many factors including the lack of proper appreciation of the Hindi expression. The mention– jehi din Rāma janama śruti gāvamahi, tīratha sakal tahin chali āvamahi- means in the literary style that on that day it becomes the supreme tirtha, i.e. place of pilgrimage. He is probably not aware of the similar expression in the Anuśāsana Parva of Mahābhārata where it is written:
दश् तीर्थसहस्राणि तिस्र कोट्यस्तथापराः।
समागच्छन्ति माघ्यां तु प्रयागे भरतर्षभ।।
In the Māgha month 10 thousand places of pilgrimage and other 30 crore centres of pilgrimage come to Prayag.
(Anuśāsana, 25/36)
Moreover, had he written Awadha-tirtha in place of Awadha-puri in the above chaupāī; there would have been clear Chhando-bhanaga i.e. digression in the metre.
The above quotations from Rāmacharita-mānasa confirm that in the literature of Tulasi Das, Ayodhyā was a place of pilgrimage par excellence. Many historians claim that since Tulasi Das did not mention the demolition of any Rāma’s temple at Ayodhyā no temple was demolished there. Here Harbans Mukhia leads from the front, when he states that if the mosque had been built at the site of Rāma’s birth itself with a temple to commemorate it, its demolition could only have driven Tulasi Das hopping mad. But the fact of the matter is that it was done around 1660 A.D., almost 37 years after his death. Then how could he mention it? During his time the Rāma temple was intact and there was no mosque at the Janma-sthāna of Rāma; so there is no such mention in his literature.