Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  When Syyed Mohammad Asghar, the Khatib and Mutawali of the masjid, had filed the petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad on 13th December, 1877 A.D. he claimed the existence of a lone inscription which read ‘Allah’ only. It was the sole evidence in support of his case. Had there been any other inscription in the mosque, he would have certainly mentioned it forcefully to buttress his claim.

  Besides, in a counter affidavit filed on the 22nd December, 1885 in the suit Raghubar Das, Mahant Nirmohi Akhara vs. Sarkar Bahadur, Kaisar-i-Hind and Mohammad Asghar, Khatib and Mutwali, Jame Masjid, the defendant Asghar claimed before the Sub Judge, Faizabad that when Baburshah, the Master of the country and King of the time built the mosque and got the word ‘Allah’ engraved on its entrance door no one else could claim the right of ownership. Here also Mohammad Asghar emphatically claims that King Babur had got only ‘Allah’ inscribed on the entrance of the door. Were there any inscription in existence anywhere in the mosque Mohammad Asghar would have certainly referred to it.

  Similarly, when the mosque was officially inspected by the Sub-Judge of Faizabad, Pandit Hari Kishan on 24th December, 1884 in the presence of both the Hindu and Muslim parties, he did not find any inscription except a superscription ‘Allah’ on the entrance to the enclosure. Similarly, when the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier inspected the mosque on 18.3.1886 in the presence of both the parties, he, too, found the same superscription of Allah and nothing else. Had the inscription, a copy of which was given to Buchanan in 1813 14, really existed in any part of the mosque, the Muslim party would have shown it to the inspecting Judges with pride and promptness.

  When A. Fuhrer visited the mosque in 1889 A.D. he found two inscriptions besides one bearing Kalma. But inscriptions seen by him substantially differ from those of Beveridge and Ashraf/Desai. The date of the construction of the mosque in one inscription seen by Fuhrer above the entrance door of the Masjid was 930 H. i.e. 1523 A.D. which is before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan. The name of the builder of the mosque given in another inscription was Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi.

  In “Annual Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra” submitted by Maulvi Shuaib in 1906 A.D. it is recorded that three inscriptions existed in the disputed mosque. The present writer is the first person who has produced Shuaib’s report on inscriptions in the Ayodhyā debate. After an analysis of the positions of these three inscriptions it appears that the inscription seen by Fuhrer which contained the date 930 A.H. was seen by Shuaib also. However, its place was changed and it was found below the pulpit of the mosque in 1906 A.D. Another inscription seen by Shuaib contained kalmāh instead of mere ‘Allāh’. About the third inscription Maulvi Shuaib writes that it records ‘the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram chandra was.”

  In 1921 A.D. Beveridge procured copies of two inscriptions through the D.M. of Faizabad. One inscription was complete and beautifully translated by her. It has been highlighted and oft quoted in several books. The second inscription obtained by her was incomplete and, thus, under the process of tampering. Therefore, Beveridge could not get the complete copy of this inscription. The content of the second edict is at variance with that of Ashraf/Desai.

  Similarly, two edicts cited in Faizabad Regular Suit no. 29 of 1946 have contents different from the text of Beveridge. Herein the date of the construction of the mosque is 923 Hijri i.e. 1516-17 A.D. In the judgment it is clearly mentioned that the date was physically verified by the Court which had deputed a Persian scholar who had read it after standing on a ladder. This date 1516-17 is an impossibility.

  In his survey report Francis Buchanan wrote in 1813-14 that there was an inscription on the ‘walls’ of the mosque and got it translated by his unnamed Maulvi friend. But his Maulvi friend gave him the translation of five texts including two inscriptions. How Buchanan was not aware of the existence of the second inscription is intriguing, because he had been given the translation of both edicts. Though the content of the translation of one added text was similar to that seen by Beveridge, the appearance of the two inscriptions was quite different. Similarly, the second inscription, the copy of which was handed over to Buchanan, was quite different from subsequent inscriptions shown on the mosque. It appears that the presentaion of the translated version of supposed inscriptions was a creation of some fertile brain which beguiled Buchanan in believing it to be a genuine one. Thus, not only the contents of the inscriptions differed from each other but their locations and appearances also varied substantially from time to time. However, since the publication of Buchanan’s testimony in M. Martin’s book ‘Eastern India’ in 1838, the construction of the mosque has been ascribed to Babur.

  After this brief introduction the existence and non-existence of inscriptions inside the disputed shrine on various dates are analysed below at length:

  (2) Non-existence of any inscription during Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s visit (c.1770 A.D.)

  The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler was the first person who mentioned the existence of the Ayodhyā mosque in his Latin book: “Description. Historique Et Geographique De L’ Inde”, which is an authentic text on geography in the context of Indian sub-continent. There is a general misconception amongst readers that Tieffenthaler was merely a traveller, who visited Awadh between 1766 and 1771. It is true that he came to India in 1742 but he remained here until his death in 1780 after spending around 38 years in this country. During this period he learnt and mastered many languages of the sub-continent.

  E.A.H. Blunt, I. C.S., has written in his book “List of Inscriptions on Christian Tombs and Tablets of Historical Interest in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” about Tieffenthaler’s academic advancement in the following words:

  “He was a man of considerable linguistic attainments, he spoke German, Italian, Spanish and French, wrote good Latin, and acquired a great knowledge of Urdu, Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit. He eventually composed a Sanskrit-Persian dictionary and wrote some treatises in Persian.”

  Tieffenthaler had sound knowledge of Persian, as he had compiled a ‘Sanskrit Persian Dictionary’ and had written many texts in Persian. He wrote his observations in his diary after inspecting the structure. Some excerpts from his writings are quoted below:

  “Emperor Aurangzeb got the fortress called Ram Kot demolished and got constructed at the same place, Muslim temple (Masjid) with three domes. Some believe that it was constructed by ‘Babbar’. Fourteen black stone pillars can be seen there, which existed at the site of the fortress. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque while two of the 12 (pillars) are placed at the entrance of the cloister, two others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It was narrated that these pillars, or rather the debris of the pillars skillfully made were brought from the island of Lanca or Selendip (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, the king of monkeys.

  On the left is seen a square chest, raised five inches from the ground covered with lime, about 5 ells in length by not more than 4 in breadth.

  The Hindus call it Bedi i.e. ‘the cradle’. The reason for this is that once upon a time, there was a house in this place where Befohan was born in the form of Rama besides his three brothers. Subsequently, Aurangzeb or according to another belief, Babbar, got this place destroyed in order to deny them the opportunity of practicing their superstitions. However, there still exists some superstitious cult in some place. For example, in the place where native house of Rama existed, they go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor.”

  He has mentioned Bedi i.e. a crib and given its accurate measurements. He has described the Kasauti pillars. He has made several other minor observations. Tieffenthaler has written that Aurangzeb demolished it; but some people believed that it was done by Babur. Had there been any inscription on the wall of the structure, he, after reading it, must have declared that in view of the inscription the people’s perception that Aurangz
eb had demolished it was incorrect. But the uncertainty about the builder of the mosque continued in his writing. Therefore, it is clear that there was no inscription in the building till 1770 A.D. Some scholars argue that even if there were an inscription on the mosque, its caligraphic writing would have been difficult to be deciphered by Tieffenthaler. But they should realise that he had that much talent like Buchanan’s to get assistance from an expert in Persian to clear his doubt and uncertainty.

  (3) Buchanan’s Report (1813-14 A.D.)

  The first mention of an inscription on the mosque’s wall was made by Francis Buchanan who conducted the survey of Gorakhpur Division in 1813-14 A.D. But rarely any historian of eminence has examined the authenticity of the two claimed inscriptions, the translation of which was given to him. Here for the first time they are being examined systematically.

  About the inscription in the mosque Buchanan wrote thus in the survey report:

  “Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of their remains to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benarase and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take up on myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill-founded. The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples, but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given (drawing N 1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurangzabe.” (emphassis added) (Buchanan’s original report, pp. 116-17)

  Drawing N1 has been omitted in Martin’s published book. But when Buchanan’s drawing N1 was obtained from his original manuscript lying in the British Library, London and examined by me with the help of Persian scholars, it was found that Buchanan had been given the translated version of two inscriptions instead of one. They are preserved in British Library Oriental and India Office Collections. The reference is MSS. EUR. E 73. After getting permission from the British Library, London they are produced below:

  The first inscription from

  Buchanan’s manuscript.

  The second inscription from

  Buchanan’s manuscript.

  The following is the handwritten translation made by Buchanan’s Maulvi friend:

  Handwritten translation of Persian texts

  made byBuchanan’s friend.

  For the sake of smooth reading the typed version of the hand-written portion is placed below:

  Gorukhpur Inscript

  No. 1--

  Translation

  1st.

  By order of King Babur whose justice is a building reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of the angels was erected by Meer Baquee a nobleman impressed with the seal of happiness.

  This is lasting Charity in the year of its construction what declares in manifest “that good works are lasting.”

  N.B. The word (Bavad Khair Baqee) signifying “There is lasting charity” or “good works are lasting” also mean “The charity of Baqee” and form an anagram of the year of the erection viz: 935.

  From the Tughra

  There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophetof God-

  Say, O’ Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.

  2d.

  Nustalick

  The victorious lord, Mooheyooo Din, Aulumgir, Badshah, the destroyer of Infidels, the son of Shah Juhan, the son of Juhangeer Shah: the son of Ukbar Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah, the son of Babur Shah; the son of Oomar Sheikh Shah; the son of Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohammad Shah; the son of Meeran Shah, the son of the Shaib-i-Qiran Meer Tymoor.

  N.B. Sahib-i-qiran is applied to a Prince who has reigned above 30 Years.

  From the Tughra

  In the name of God, most merciful I testify that there is no God but God. He is one, and without equal. I also testify that Mohammad is his Servant and Prophet.

  (This was engrossed) upon the propitious date of this noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah.” The words in the parenthesis are not on the Insc., but understood.

  Nustalick writing

  We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted with these facts that there was formerly a Prince named Saif Khan of the dignified throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The conforter of Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity.

  The King having sent written orders and gurds for the purpose of seizing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “This World is nothing.” He gave orders that all the people should plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the plundering was over, he enquired whether anything remained. The attendants told him that there remained some grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut, upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. ‘That’ said he “will be of use to me.” In short having taken and torn although the middle and threw it over his shoulders (or neck) he became a Durvish.

  Babur, one of the Princes, hearing the report of his becoming a Durvish and the other circumstances, privately presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats to eat and (addressing him) ‘thou’, said his Highness “shalt be King” Babur arose and having made his Salam, was departing. His Highness again said: “I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells. When thou becomest King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.

  Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobedar received His Majesty’s commands- Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soobedar, and he erected this Massjid.

  My dear Sir!

  I have the pleasure of returning the inscriptions with a translation as close as I could make.

  There seems to be some mistake in the transcript of that part translated “There is lasting charity” or which may mean “There was an instance of charity which perishth not, in the year of its construction” viz. the erection of the Musjid. However, this is not of much importance – It is also possible that one of the words which I have included in the date may not properly belong to it; in which case the number 923 would result instead of 935. You will easily ascertain which date is more correct.

  The nustalik writing in the second inscription must either have been added by the copier engraved on the building at a date much prior to that of the Tughra – as the artist in graving his name positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building.

  Dr. Buchanan Yours truly

  Sd. (Illegible)”

  All the translated materials have been divided into six segments by me in order to sift the husk from the grain.

  Here it is important to note that out of six texts the Persian scholar translated five and considered them meterials of two inscriptions. However, the following three lines at the bottom of the first inscription were not explained by him.

  Three lines at the bottom of the first inscription.

  These lines contain the contents of the claimed two inscriptions in segments 1&2 but are written in a simpler style. Six lines of the first inscription have been shown in a line and a half here. The remaining portion repeats the content of the second segment. Though there are a few variations in the spellings of the two writings, they are minor in nature.

  Buchanan mentioned o
nly one inscription in his survey report, although he was given the translation of five texts and four out of them were having varied contents. Even then, he did not get alarmed and compare them with original inscriptions, if any, fixed on the mosque’s wall.

  If these translations are minutely observed, it is clear that out of six segments only the text in segment 2 appears to be the inscription which might have been brought to his notice. The translation of this inscription is reproduced here for better appreciation of the factual position:

  “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophet of God-

  Say, O’ Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.”

  In addition, the translation of segment 5 gives an impression of an inscription because it is written in a beautiful Tughra style and contains the kalma akin to the above inscription. However, the remaining four (1,3,4 & 6) are hand-written contents in a simple script on paper. The writing in segment six at the bottom is so long and written in such a style that it cannot be a part of the inscription. It is a fanciful story written by the copier of the inscription which appears to be based on the legend which he had heard before copying the ‘inscription’. Even Buchanan’s translator friend has suggested that it might have been added by the copier. If he could add long fanciful story in the second inscription, how could he have been prevented from adding Baqi story in the first inscription? When we read the translation of the content of segment 6, we would learn the fabrication and long flight of imagination the copier of the inscription has taken.