Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  This testimony of C. Mentelle is brought here before the history students in India for the first time. Though Mentelle appears to be an ardent critic of inhuman practices of the Hindus such as cutting their heads or tongues particularly at Devi Patan, yet his writing confirms the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā by Aurangzeb’s order

  (5) People’s perception at the time of Buchanan’s visit

  Buchanan visited Ayodhyā in A.D. 1813-14. Although on the basis of an inscription, a copy of which was given to him, he refuted the Hindus’ general belief prevailing at that time that all the three prominent temples at Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Mathurā were demolished by Aurangzeb, the fact remains that even around 1810 A.D. Hindus believed and rightly believed that all the three temples at Kāśī, Mathurā and Ayodhyā were demolished during Aurangzeb’s regime.

  After great efforts a copy of the survey report in manuscript has been obtained from the British Library, India Office. Buchanan’s original report in manuscript contains the following account:

  “Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzeb, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon 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 N1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurungzeb. This renders the whole story of Vikrama exceedingly doubtful, especially as what are said to be the ruins of his fort, do not in any essential degree differ from those said to have belonged to the ancient city, that is, consist entirely of irregular heaps of broken bricks, covered with soil, and remarkably productive of tobacco; and, from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to suppose that it was a part of the building actually erected by Rama.”

  Here it is important to mention that Buchanan himself writes that the mosque at Ayodhyā was by far the most entire, and had every appearance of being the most modern. How can a mosque built in 1528 A.D. be most modern in 1813, i.e. almost 300 years later? Since in Buchanan’s own testimony it is indicated that the mosque was most modern, it may be presumed that it was built around 1660 A.D. instead of 1528 A.D. Again Buchanan’s comment that the mosque was most entire shows his ignorance about the architecture of mosques or his haste in preparing the report. How can a mosque without minarets be called most entire?

  Similarly, his knowledge about Vikrama’s time is also very hazy. It appears that Buchanan lacked a sound knowledge of history. Moreover, his observations at times are biased and he may be accused of suppressing facts, e.g. he met the Mahanta of Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā, but he does not mention the Mahanta’s version here.

  Very few persons know that Buchanan wrote another book ‘An Account of the Nepal Kingdom’ which was published in 1819 A.D. after his departure from India. In this book, he has twice referred to the opinion of the Mahanta of the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā.

  On page 15 of the book he writes:

  “Concerning the colony from Chittaur I received another account, from the Mahanta, or prior of the Janmasthana at Ayodhya. He alleges that Chaturbhuja, a prince of the Sisaudhiya tribe, having left Chittaur conquered Kumau and Yumila, where he established his throne,”

  Again on page 287 he writes:

  “It was said by the Mahanta of the Janmasthana at Ayodhya that they first settled in the Almora country….”

  Here it is surprising that though Buchanan had intimacy with the Mahanta of the Janmasthāna, yet he has not quoted a single word of the Mahanta in his report on Ayodhyā. Had he done so, his report would have carried more conviction.

  Besides, there is a lot of confusion about Buchanan’s survey report and M. Martin’s published account. When Robert Montgomery Martin submitted the survey reports before the Court of Directors of the East India Company in February 1838, he made the following observation about the Buchanan’s survey in the introduction of the report:

  “During a period of seven years the survey was sedulously pursued by Dr. Buchanan, and then brought to a close, after an expenditure of about 30,000/- and when only a portion of the territories under the government of the Bengal Presidency were investigated. The materials collected and the observations made were forwarded by the Supreme Government to the home authorities in 1816 and have since remained in the East India. On my completion of the Marques’s Wellesley’s Dispatches, I asked and obtained permission to examine the manuscripts connected with this survey; that examination convinced me that a judicious selection from the documents and information collected would be extremely valuable, by placing before the British Public a minute and official description of the condition of the mass of the people; while it would also tend to promote such further inquiries in India as will, I trust, enable us ere long to obtain a complete insight into the social state of the millions of our fellow subject by whom it is inhabited.”

  In 1838 Martin published the book ‘The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India’ which included the edited version of Buchanan’s report and an additional survey report of Assam. But Martin did not give Buchanan explicit credit for his surveys. Therefore, many scholars are confused and they quote Buchanan’s report as that of Martin. It is really surprising that an avid reader and sound research scholar Hans Bakker never refers to Buchanan when he quotes from Martin’s book. Similarly, Prof. Sushil Srivastava is unaware of Buchanan’s survey when he takes excerpts from Martin’s book. In addition, readers are unaware of the original and edited portions in Martin’s book. The Bihar and Orissa Research Society separately published Buchanan’s original reports on Patna, Bhagalpur, Purnea and Shahabad districts but his report on Gorakhpur district, which includes Ayodhyā, is still lying in the manuscript form in the British Library, India House in London. For the sake of authenticity, a copy of the original report of Buchanan lying in the manuscript form was obtained by me from the British Library and it is found that there is little difference between the Buchanan’s manuscript and Martin’s published text on Ayodhyā. But Martin has omitted the copies of the two inscriptions given to Buchanan along with their translation and the interesting addition of the copier. In addition, ‘The Map of the Ruins of Ayodhyā’ prepared under Buchanan’s supervision is missing.

  (6) A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical Vol. 2, 1842

  This Gazetteer was written J.R. M’Culloch, ESQ, and published from London in 1842.

  “Oude, a town of Hindostan, in the above prov. and kingdom of which it was the former cap; on the Gogra across which an iron bridge, the materials having been brought from England is said to have been recently thrown 74 mile E. Lucknow; Lat. 26048’ N. Long. 8204’ E. It extends a considerable distance along the banks of the river, stretching as far as Fyzabad. It is said by Hamilton to be tolerably populous; but except along the river’s brink, it consists wholly of ruins and jungle, among which are the remains of various celebrated Hindoo temples. Hindoo pilgrims still visit Oude; and did so in great numbers, until Aurangzebe demolished most of their places of resort. A mosque erected by that monarch, and 2 tombs, greatly venerated by mohammedans are now the principal and almost sole remaining public edifices. ( Mod.Trav. ix, 312-315)”

  After the publication of Buchanan’s report on Ayodhyā in M. Martin’s book ‘Eastern India’ in 1838 all subsequent writers on Ayodhyā started associating Babur’s name with the construction of this mosque. This Dictionary is, however, one exception. When M’culloch says that a mosque erected by that monarch is the principal and almost sole remaining public edifice, he means th
e mosque at Rāma-Janma-bhūmi because the grand Svargadvārī mosque built by Aurangzeb had been badly damaged long before that time by Bairagi Sadhus, and it was in such a bad shape that Buchanan did not even take notice of it in 1813-14. From M’Culloch’s Dictionary it is indicated that no demolition had taken place before Aurangzeb’s reign. It attributes the construction of this mosque to Aurangzeb.

  (7) Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875

  This tradition of attributing the demolition to Aurangzeb did not die completely. The esteemed Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1875) refers to a photograph of a mosque built at the Janma sthāna by Aurangzeb. This photograph was forwarded by Ram Narayan along with his English translation of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya which was published in the Society’s Journal in 1875 A.D. In the Proceedings of the Society it is mentioned in the following words that this photograph had been exhibited:

  “The translation will appear in No. II of Part I of this year’s Journal. Four photographs forwarded by the author were also exhibited, viz., views of the Mosque which Aurangzib built upon Rama’s birthplace, of the Maniparbat, Svargadvar, and of an old Mosque in Faizabad.” (pp. 138-39)

  From this proceeding it is clear that Ram Narayan had sent four photographs which included one that showed ‘the Mosque which Aurangzeb built upon Rāma’s birthplace’. Thus, it appears that till 1875 A.D. the tradition, which believed that the mosque on Rāma’s birthplace was built by Aurangzeb and not by Babur, did not die.

  (8) Accounts of William Finch

  Finch visited the Ram Kot of Ayodhyā in 1610 A.D. He found the ruins of the castle and houses of the great God Ramchandra who took the incarnation to see the ‘tamasha’ of the world. In ruins Brahmans used to remain and record the names of devotees. There was no trace of the Baburi mosque during his visit which took place in the time of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. From the accounts of William Finch it is clear that the temple existed there and the mosque had not been built till 1610 A.D. His accounts have been quoted in Chapter IV of this book.

  (9) Joannes De Laet’s book

  Joannes De Laet’s book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’ was published in 1631. It is an authentic travel account. De Laet mentions the palace of Rāmachandra ‘who took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world’. It means that Rāmachandra was born there. He refers to the ‘worshipping of the idol’ in the vicinity. It shows that until 1631 there was no mosque in the Ram Kot area and the people were worshipping the idol of Lord Ram there.

  (10) Accounts of Thomas Herbert

  Herbert was a celebrated traveller. His book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ was first published in 1634. Thomas Herbert worte that there were many antique monuments at Ayodhyā and especially memorable one was the pretty old castle built by Rāmachandra about 9,94,500 years ago. There was no mention of any mosque until 1634 in Ram Kot area. If the temple in the Ram Kot area remained intact until the reign of Shah Jahan, it may reasonably be presumed that it was demolished during the rule of Aurangzeb.

  (11) Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi

  On account of the book ‘Hadiqe-i-Shuhada’, written by Mirza Jan, who quoted 12 lines from Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi, people get carried away that it is mentioned in Sahifah-i-chahal that Babur demolished the temple and constructed the mosque on the site of Rāma’s birth. However, a scrutiny of the writing in this book indicates that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple at Ayodhyā but nowhere it is mentioned that the temple was demolished by Babur; rather the tenor of the text suggests that it was demolished by Aurangzeb because the temples at Mathurā, Varanasi and Awadh are mentioned in a similar vein. Since Mirza Jan gave the credit of the demolition of the mosque to Babur in his own book; the ghost of the demolition further clung to Babur.

  ‘Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi’ is a fake text said to have been written by an unnamed daughter of Bahadur Shah ‘Alamgir’, the son and successor of the mighty Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. Twelve lines from this book on the disputed shrine have been quoted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’. Mirza Jan claims to have found a copy of the book on 11th July, 1816 A.D. (15th Shaban, 1231 A.H.) which was lying in the library of Mirza Haydar Shukoh, son of Mirza Sulayman Shukoh. He claims to have copied the following passage verbatim from the original book written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir I:

  IBĀRATI NASĪF, AT-I BIST-O PANJUM AZ SAHIFAH-I CHIHAL NĀSA’IH-I BAHĀDURSHĀHI KI BA-TĀRÍKH-I PÍNZDAHAM SHA’BĀN 1231 HIJRI NAQL SHUDAH DAR KUTUBKHANAH-I MIRZĀ HAYDAR SHUKOH IBN MIRZĀ SULAYMĀN SHUKOH DĀKHIL SHUD AZ KITĀB-I MADHKŪRAH NAQL KARDAH SHUD:

  “Bādshāhān ulu ‘I- ‘azm rā tazim ki… ghalabah-ī dīn-o Islām malliūz dāshtah hamah mushrikān rā matī-I Islām dārand, wa az akhdh-I jizyah ki bar kuffār-i fujjār ijrā’ yāftah ast dar mah guzarand, wa jamī rājgān rā az hukm-i ihdār-i roz-i īdayn wa piyādah istādah māndan bairin-i masājid ki dar ma’milah-i khud-hā ba-farmān-i bādshāhī sākhtah and tā inqidā-i namāz-o khu’tbah mu’afnah dārand. Wa mu’abid-hā-i mushrikīn-i Hunid wāqi’-i Mathurā wa Banāras wa Awadh waghayrah rā ki kuffār-i nābakār ba-i’ tiqād-i khud-hā jā rā mawladgāh-i kanhaiyā wa maqma-ī rā Rasoi-i Sītā wa makān-ī ra qarārgāh-i Hanumān qarār dādah and wa mī-giyand ki ba’d fath-i Lanka Rāmchandar Hanumān rā dar ān jā nishānīdah ast mismār gastah barā’i taqwiyyat-i Islām dar ān hamah jā masājid ta’mīr shudah and, ān masājid rā az jum’ah-o jamā’at khālī nah dārand, chumān-ki qadghan ast ki rasm-i butparastī ba-i’tān nah shawad wa sadā-i nāqus ba-gosh-i ahl-i Islām nah rasad.”

  (Sahīfah-i Chihal Nasā’ih-i Bahādurshāhī, quoted in Mirzā Jān, Hadīqah-i Shuhadā, p. 6)

  The Persian text in Roman transliteration and the English translation of the passage are from Harsh Narain’s article: “The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Urdu and Persian Sources” in the book “Ayodhyā : History, Archaeology and Tradition” published by All India Kashiraj Trust, Varanasi. The erudite scholar’s translation is as follows.

  Keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exemption to Hindu Raja-s from dancing attendance on ‘Id days and from waiting on foot outside mosques till the end of prayer (Namaz) and discourse (Khutobah), and ‘keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built to strengthen Islam after demolishing temples of idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Varanasi and Awadh, etc., which the wretched Kafir-s have, according to their faith adjudged to be the birthplace of Kanhaiya in one case, Sita Rasoi in another, and Hanuman’s abode in a third and claim that after conquest of Lanka Ramachandra established him there. And, as has been stressed, idol-worship must not continue publicly, nor must the sound of bell reach Muslim ears. (p. 318)

  This evidence is of dubious nature. Bahadur Shah I, the son and successor of Aurangzeb, ascended the imperial throne after the death of Aurangzeb. But he never declared himself to be Alamgir, although he himself called a ‘Ghazi’. He had one daughter whose name was Dahr Afroz Banu Begum who expired on 25th January, 1703 during the reign of Aurangzeb at the age of 40 only. It is intriguing to learn that Mirza Jan read the book ‘Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi’ and quoted profusely from it in his own work Hadiqa-i-Shuda but did not mention the name of the daughter of Bahadur Shah who has been called Alamgir. Mirza Jan further claims that he had seen this book in the year 1816 A.D. (1231 A.H.) in the library of Mirza Hyder Shukoh who was the son of Sulaiman Shukoh. Sulaiman Shukoh is a historical figure who was a very brave and handsome son of Dara Shukoh and fought heroically in the war of succession in favour of his august father Dara Shukoh. He had been married to the daughter of Raja Jai Singh’s sister in 1653 A.D. His one daughter by the name of Salima Begum was married to Prince Muhammad Akbar in June 1662 and another daughter was married to Khwajah Bah
auddin in 1668 A.D. Sulaiman Shukoh had two daughters and no son. He had been captured alive on December 27, 1660 and was slowly poisoned to death in May, 1662. Therefore, Mirza Hyder Shukoh is a fictitious person. Even if it is hypothetically supposed that Sulaiman Shukoh had any son by the name of Mirza Hyder Shukoh, he must have been born before December 1660, when Sulaiman was captured and kept in captivity. Therefore, it is not possible for Hyder to live until 1816 A.D. when Mirza Jan utilized his library. Besides, the fact is that Sulaiman Shukoh had no son.

  The following is the genealogy of Sulaiman Shukoh.

  Thus, Sulaiman Shukoh had no son and hence Mirza Jan’s claim is contradicted completely by historical facts. Here it is important to note that even if Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi is accepted as a genuine book, the information received is that three temples at Mathurā, Kāśī and Ayodhyā were demolished. Since Ayodhyā has not been separated from the other two, it may be presumed that it was razed to the ground by the order of the same emperor, i.e. Aurangzeb Alamgir. He is the ideal ruler Sahifah-i-chahal is referring to, as he had imposed the Jazia tax on the Hindus and subjected them to the utmost rigours. Though the book was fictitious in nature, yet Prof. Harsh Narayan is of the opinion that the book remained in circulation in the nineteenth century because another writer Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Sarur (1787-1867) in his book Fasana-i-Ibrat, written in 1860 circa but published first in 1884, writes:

  “And in the Sahifah-i Bahadurshahi it has come to be described in detail with reference. “Whoever may choose may look into it.” (Ayodhya History, Archaeology and Tradition, p. 319)