Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  Since Sarur claims in his book that he is in the direct lineage of Musa Ashiqan, it appears that he was the person who fabricated the fanciful story of this fictitious saint on the inscription supplied to Buchanan’s translator.

  (12) Mention of Saif Khan in the interpolated portion of Buchanan’s inscription

  It is interesting to learn that Buchanan, who had seen only one inscription in the mosque, got the translation of five texts from his friend. But he made no query, as he was in a hurry to complete the survey. In segment six of the inscription there is a fanciful story of Saif Khan and Musa Ashiqan. The latter is said to have been betrothed to the daughter of the vazier of Saif Khan credited to have blessed Babur to become the Emperor of Hindustan and then instigated the King to get the Rāma temple demolished and a mosque constructed on that site. It is stated in the interpolated portion that Musa Ashiqan was betrothed to the daughter of the Wazir of Prince Saif Khan. The following four Saif Khans are known to Mediaeval Indian History:

  (i) Saif Khan Koka – He was born during the period of Akbar and died at a very young age of 18 in 1572 A.D. Thus, he could not be the preceptor of Babur.

  (ii) Saif Khan Saiyid Ali Asghar – He was a favourite noble of Emperor Jahangir. Therefore he, too, could not be a contemporary of Babur.

  (iii) Saif Khan Mirza Safi – He was married to the sister of Mumtaz Mahal who has been immortalized by her husband Shah Jahan with the construction of the world-famous Taj Mahal. Thus, he, too, could not be the mentor of the Mughal monarch Babur.

  (iv) Saif Khan, son of Tarbiyat Khan, was the favourite of Aurangzeb. When Dara Shukoh and his son Sipihr Shukoh were brought to Agra in the 2nd year of Aurangzeb’s reign, Saif Khan was commissioned to put Dara Shukoh to death, and this was effected on 30th August, 1659. Next day, he conveyed Sipihr Shukoh to the fort of Gwalior by the order of the Emperor. On return, he was appointed the Governor of Agra in 1659. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Awadh and these two cruel Governors combined to demolish temples at Ayodhyā including the shrine at the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi. This Saif Khan, too, might have been partly instrumental in the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā. Therefore, the name Saif Khan might have been conected with this episode.

  (13) Genealogy in the Buchanan’s inscription

  Genealogy on the second page of the inscription given to Buchanan is as follows:

  “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.”

  Had it been written during Babur’s reign, the genealogy would have ended with Babur’s name. Since it has continued till the reign of Aurangzeb, the natural presumption will be that either it was written during the reign of Aurangzeb or the writer had the knowledge that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s time. Even if it is supposed that it was added on the eve of Buchanan’s visit in 1813 14, this Mughal genealogy should have come upto 1813-14 when the Mughal King Akbar II was reigning. Since it did end with the name of Aurangzeb, it may well be presumed that even the copier had the impression that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb.

  (14) Hadiqa-i-shuda of Mirza Jan

  In 1855-56 Mirza Jan wrote a book ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’ wherein he claimed thus:

  और राम दरबार की मस्जिद फिदाई खाँ सूबेदार की बनाई थी जिसको काफिरों ने यहाँ तक सताया है कि एक दो मिनारी और मुत्तहूदी दीवार अलग कर दी है; बल्कि अमजद अली शाह के वक्त में उसकी तामीर का हुक्म भी हुआ था मगर उसकी मौत फी मोहलत जुल की फुर्सत मुदई यह हसरत साथ कही गयी और किले की मस्जिद कि बालफाल किला लच्छमन महन्त को मुआफ हो गया है और मस्जिद को भी गोशा खुमार में मकान हो गया है। वहाँ सदर मुसलबा खान मीर से वह महन्त ने फिर ले ली। ऐसी मस्जिदों का हाल, जो कब्जा अख्त्यार हनूद में हों, जाहिर है।

  The mosque of Ram Darbar was built by Fedai Khan. It has been damaged by the infidels who have torn the two minarets and the wall. During the days of Amjad Ali Shah, orders had been issued for its reconstruction. But with his sudden death, he took this wish along with him, while the Qila Masjid was given to the Mahant of the Qila as muafi. The mosque has been converted into a house. The possession of mosques under the Hindus is well-known.

  Svargadvāra temple is called the Rāma-darbar by the Urdu writers of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, from this testimony of Mirza Jan it is known that Fedai Khan, the Governor of Awadh had demolished the Svargadvar temple and constructed a mosque thereon. Fedai Khan was the fauzdar/subedar at Ayodhyā during 1658-62 and 1670-72. His full name was Fedai Khan, Azam Koka. He was the foster brother of Augangzeb and his great favourite. It was he who had blocked the march of Sulaiman Shukoh near Haridwar and succeeded in preventing Sulaiman from joining his father in 1659 A.D. He was also assigned the task of chasing Shuja in the east. Again, he was made the Governor at Ayodhyā in 1670 A.D. It appears that he demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D. Since the Svargadvar temple was the most magnificent, it is specifically named and other temples are clubbed together. It has been argued earlier that had the Janma-sthāna temple been demolished in 1528, there was no reason to keep the Svargadvar temple unmolested then because it stood at a short distance from the Janma-sthana temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militia men of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D.

  (15) Muraqqa-i-khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami

  The writing of Mirza Jan was followed by subsequent Muslim authors. Sheikh Muhammad Azmat Ali Kakoravi Nami wrote Muraqqa-i-khusrawi in 1869 A.D. Its one chapter is relevant and some extracts are produced here:

  और राम दरबार में मस्जिद फिदाई खाँ सूबेदार ने बनायी थी, इस्लाम की बुनियाद जमायी थी और उसके मुत्तसिल एक टीला था। राजा राम चन्दर ने वह मुकाम हनुमान अपने रफीक को बसिला फतह लंका दिया था।च

  फिर मस्जिद बाबरी में, जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी, शिर्कत की ऐलानिया पूजा होने लगी। मुन्तजम चाँदी के जूते खाके सरंगों हुए। किसी ने खबर न की। पहले तो शेख अली हजी का कौल मुवाफिक हुआ था-

  बिबी करास्ते बुतखाना ए मरा ऐ शेख।

  कि चूँ खराब शवद खाना ए खुदा गर्दद।।

  फिर इन्कलाब फलक से ऐसा जमाना हुआ कि मस्जिद तोड़ के बुतखाना हुआ। यहाँ जफलत का पर्दा ऐसा आँखों पर पड़ा कि किसी को न सूझा।’’

  And Fedai Khan Subedar built a mosque at Ram Darbar and strongly laid the foundation of Islam there. There was a mound opposite to it. King Ram Chandra, being pleased with the conquest of Lanka, bestowed it upon his loyal friend Hanuman.

  Then in the Baburi mosque, where there was Sītā Rasoi
, started the worship openly. Officers, after taking bribe (silver shoes) , became their loyal servants. No one took notice. First the saying of Shaikh Ali Haji was true to the situation—“The butkhana on the way that was considered a bad place became the abode of God!”

  Thereafter, a drastic change occurred—mosques were pulled down and temples were constructed there. But there was a veil of neglect on our eyes and we remained in slumber.

  Now from this observation in the book it is clear that the Hindus had started worship in the so-called Baburi mosque openly for long and the officers were siding with the Hindus allegedly after taking bribe. The Muslims were negligent and no one took its notice and they remained in slumber till 1855 A.D.

  (16) Tarikh-iAwadh (Hissā Doyam) of Allama Muhammad Nazamul Gani Khan Rampuri

  In Tarikh-i-Awadh (Hissa Doyan) of Allama Muhammad Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859-1932 A.D.) the following extract is quite relevant:

  ‘‘जब इन्तहा को दर्शन सिंह की हकूमत पहुँची तो अजोध्या में कई बरस तक अजान और गावकुशी बन्द रही। शायद अहद हकूमत मुहम्मद अली शाह में फिर अजान की रस्म जारी हुई और गावकुशी भी बदस्तूर रही हो।

  अल गर्ज यहाँ तक हंगामों की नौबत आयी कि सिवाए मस्जिद मुंहदिमा हनुमान गढ़ी के मस्जिद बाबरी जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी, इसके सेहन में भी हिन्दुओं ने बुतखाना बनाया और मस्जिद वाक्या रामघाट दरया को भी खराब करके इसके सेहन में अपने मस्कन बनाये। मस्जिद में कूड़ा डालने लगे और मुसलमानों की सैकड़ों कब्रं तोड़कर इऔटों और पत्थरों से बड़ी शान व शौकत के बुतखाने बनाये।

  Translation:

  During the rule of Darshan Singh no Azaan was ever held and the cow-slaughter was stopped. Perhaps during the reign of Muhammad Ali Shah the Azaan and cow-slaughter were allowed.

  At last, the tussle went to such an extent that except the mosque adjacent to Hanuman-garhi, the Hindus made Butkhana even in the corridor of the Baburi mosque where Sītā Rasoi existed. The Hindus damaged Ram Ghat mosque also and in its corridor constructed a temple. They started placing garbage in the mosque and constructed magnificent temple from the bricks and stones after digging hundreds of graves of the Muslims.

  After Galata conference in 1718 A.D. Rāmānandi Bairagis became so active that they recovered most of the temples alienated to the Muslims or Saiva saints. P. Carnegy was astonished to see the new vitality of the Hindu religion. He wrote thus in his famous book on Ayodhyā: “Great astonishment has been expressed at the recent vitality of the Hindu religion at Ajudhia.” P. Carnegy has given details of 203 Hindu sacred places in the Appendix A of his book.

  (17) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

  Lal Das composed Avadha- vilāsa in Awadh in sa‚vat 1732, i.e. 1675 A.D. He writes in the first Viśrāma:

  संवत सत्रह सय बतिस सुदि बैशाष सुकाल।

  लाल अवध मधि रहि रच्यो अवध विलास रसाल।।46।।

  Lal Das has not directly mentioned the demolition of the Janma-sthana temple, nor even that of the Svargadvar one. The question arises why he has not mentioned the demolition of any temple. There are many reasons for this non-mention. Right from the days of Alexander’s invasion of India, the writers and poets of this continent have seldom mentioned any act of ignominy. Secondly, when Lal Das reached Ayodhyā in 1765 A.D., the demolition of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was a fait accompli. Therefore, he made it prudent not to mention it specifically. Thirdly, Lal Das has made it clear in the beginning of his epic that after due deliberation he is of the opinion that one should not reveal secrets, as wise women do not show their breasts but keep them hidden.

  गूढ़हि भली न प्रकासही बानी लाल बिचारि।

  जिमि कुच प्रकट न गुप्त ही राखति नागरि नारि।। (I. 35)

  Lal Das was aware of the wanton destruction of temples, pundits’ abodes of learning, ponds, wells, etc. during the reign of Aurangzeb and depicted them in the following words:

  बापी कूप तड़ाग तुराबै। विप्र ग्रेह देवल भहरावै।। (VI. 253)

  In the following lines the poet has given enough indication about the upheaval at Ayodhyā:

  सात बरष रह्यो अवधहि माहीं। जानि पाप कीए कछु नाहीं।।

  तब मम हृदय भई इह बानी। राम धाम की कथा बखानी।।

  मेष राशि भयो शनि दुखदाई। तीरथ शरण रह्यो मैं जाई।।

  ग्रह के गुण भयो चित्त विक्षेपा। तातें ग्रंथ यह कीन्ह संक्षेपा।।

  जो शनि मोंहि विक्षेप न करतो। तौ कछु बहुत बात मैं धरतो।।

  जो न हौं तीरथ सरन रहातो। तौ शनि मोहिं मारि लै जातो।।

  जो कोउ तीरथ सरन रहावैं। ताकि बात जमहू न चलावै।।

  राम भक्त निर्दोष मन जग सों रहत उदास।

  लालदास ता भक्त की तीरथ करत हैं आस।। 390।। (XII. 390)

  Though the poet blames the arrival of Saturn (sani) in the Mesha (Aries) rashi for all his woes, yet it may easily be gleaned from these lines that in the wake of the upheaval at Ayodhyā, following the demolition spree of the three important temples at Ayodhyā, the poet had to abandon his plan of composing the epic on a larger scale. He might have come to Ayodhyā with a high hope of composing a large epic and settling there forever. But he had to shorten the epic in the background of those developments. These lines are very important and loaded with a lot of meaning.

  ग्रह के गुण भयो चित्त विक्षेपा। तातें ग्रन्थ यह कीन्ह संक्षेपा।।

  जो शनि मोहिं विक्षेप न करतो। तौ कछु बहुत बात मैं धरतो।।

  On account of the demerit of the Saturn planet which represented Emperor Aurangzeb, the poet was very sad at heart. But for this development, the poet would have inculcated many matters in the epic. The demolition of temples is skilfully indicated by the poet in the previously mentioned depiction. The very fact that in the Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das, only Janma-sthāna and no temple thereon is mentioned indicates that in 1675 A.D. when he composed the Avadha vilāsa, the temple had been demolished and this has been obliquely referred to in the aforequoted chaupais.

  In the pathetic wailing of Lakshmī (y{eh&foyki) immediately after the above passage, one is reminded of the pathos of the poet following the heart-breaking acts of demolition at Ayodhyā:

  पुनि सब देव गये हरि लोका। लक्ष्मी बैठि करति मन शोका।।

  लागत सून भवन बिनु साइऔ। भोग सुंध कछू न सुहाइऔ।।

>   चितवति रहति कछू नहिं बोलै। विरह लहरि कै परी झकोलैं।।

  मन में बहुत हीनता आनी। छीन शरीर भयो पियरानी।।

  बैठी ऊंचे लेत उसांसा। कर कपोल चित उड़त अकासा।।

  जानैं और पीर नहिं कोई। भई आइ पिय बिछुरत जोई।।

  मनहीं मन महि करति बिचारा। पुरुषारथ अब कौन हमारा।।

  कछु नहिं कह्यो गए केहुं देसा। आवति है मन माँहिं अंदेसा।।

  काधौं भयो केहुं भरमाए। कैसे मोहि तजत बनि आए।।

  सदा समीप रहत मोहि लीये। राषत रहे बहुत सुष दीये।।

  आजु कहा मन महिं कछु आई। पूछौं काहि कहै समुझाई।।

  अस को नारि और जग माहीं। राषैं रोकि आवतै नाहीं।।

  अवधविलास (XII. 392)

  Though this lamentation is in a different context, yet it lucidly depicts the void created by the demolition.

  But the most important factor of the direct non-mention of the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā is the general age-old psyche of the authors of the country.

  Here it is remarkable to note that all the references to the demolition of temple at Ayodhyā have been made by foreign dignitaries viz. Niccolo Manucci, Tieffenthaler, Francis Buchanan and C. Mentelle. Even in the Indian texts the demolition of Janma-sthāna temple can be inferred from the fact that wherever there is a mention of only Janma-sthāna or Janma-bhūmi and not of any temple or building, it indicates the state of the non-existence of the temple and construction of the mosque on the demolished site. This is the reason that some recenssions of the Ayodhyā māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das are silent on the subject. It can be easily appreciated when one is apprised of the historical reality that there is hardly a mention of any defeat of Indian rulers since the days of Alexander or demolition of any temple since the shocking sack of the Somanātha shrine. Here I am giving instances of three occasions when the demolition of the Somanātha shrine by the iconoclast Mahmud of Ghazni should have been mentioned but instead a false and self-satisfying explanation was given.