Ayodhya Revisited
Page 39
Thus, it is gathered from a contemporary source that no sooner had Aurangzeb ascended the throne than he started harassing the Hindus by imposing taxes and demolishing temples. It is corroborated by his iconoclastic activities in 1661 and 1662 A.D. In 1661 the famous temple of Kuch Bihar was razed to ground and in its place a mosque was built. In 1661-62 Abdul Nabi, faujdar of Mathura, destroyed a Hindu temple and constructed a mosque on its site. Therefore, there should be no surprize that Fedai Khan demolished the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D.
When Aurangzeb decided to raze the temples of Bundelkhand to ground, he called Fedai Khan and entrusted this job to him. It has been vividly described by Lal Kavi in his book in the following words:
ठौर ठौर के गिरे दिवालैं। स्नुत हिये हिन्दुन के हालै।।
पातसाह फरमान पठायौ। हुकुम फिदाई खां कौं आयौ।।
दोहा- नगर औड़छें में सुने हिंदू धरैं गुमान।
ते नित पत्थर पूजिकै फैलावत कुफरान।।
ऊंची धुजा दिवालिन राजै। घंटा संख झालरै बाजै।।
छापै देत तिलक दै ठाढ़े। माला धरै रहत मन बाढ़े।।
ऐसा हुकुम सरे का नाहीं। क्यो ऐ करत चित्त की चाही।।
जो कहुं कान संख धुनि आवै। मुसलमान तौ भिस्त न पावै।।
सीसौ औटि कान जौ नावै। तौ दोजख तैं खुदा बचावै।।
ताते ढाहि दिवाले दीजै। तिन के ठौर मसीदैं कीजै।।
सुलना तहां निवाज गुदारै। बाँग देहि नित सांझ सकारै।।
न्याउ चुकावै फाजिल काजी। जाते रहै गुसांई राजी।।
दोहा- सुनत कान फरमान यह, कही फिदाईखान।
हुकुम चलाऊं साह कौ, मेटि कुल्ल कुफरान।।५५।।
ढाहि दिवालै कुफर मिटाऊं। पातसाह कौ हुकुम चलाऊं।।
जा कहुं बीच बुंदेला आवे। तौ हममो पर फतै न पावै।।
जौ मानी मनसूबनि मौजे। जोरन लगे ग्वालियर फौजै।।
महस अठारह तुरी पलानै। धूमघाट पर धुज फहरानै।।
यह सुनि महाबीर रस छायौ।। बन बांधि धुरमंगद धायौ।।
Its translation by Pogson is as follows:
“The power and authority of the Emperor had been generally acknowledged and established, the temples and holy places of the Hindoos pulled down, and their hearts trembled at beholding the sacrilegious destruction of all they held sacred and dear; for, an impenal mandate had been received by Fidaee Khan, stating, that ‘in the city of Oorchha the Hindoos practiced the rites of idolatry, sounding the Sunkh, ringing bells, making offerings to the manes of deceased ancestors, putting marks on their foreheads, wearing necklaces, and conducting themselves with contumely, pride, and presumption; that by the toleration of such rites, infidelity remained in the world; that the sound of the Sunkh prevented Moohummudans going to heaven; and that it had therefore become expedient to suppress those customs, and to decree that their temples should be destroyed, and mosques built on their sites; that if the temples were new or repaired, their upper parts should be demolished, and minarets erected, in order that they might become mosques for Mohummudan worship; that Moollahs should be appointed to read in them the glorious Qooran, pray morning and evening with a loud voice, and that Qazees should be nominated for the administration of justice; for with the equity of the Qazee God is well pleased;’ it being obvious, that when their temples no longer existed, their faith would dwindle away.
On the receipt of this decree, Fidaee Khan prepared to carry it into execution. Apprehending, however, that the Boondelas would assemble in defence of their religion, he collected the imperial forces, amounting to eighteen thousand men; and vowing the destruction of the infidels, should they oppose the imperial mandate, unfurled his standard, and encamped at Dhoom Ghaut.”
Thus, it is established that Fedai Khan was an expert at demolishing temples and therefore Mirza Jan and other subsequent writers were right in attributing the demolition of some temples at Ayodhya to Fedai Khan. From the account of Lal Kavi the mode of turning temples into mosques is revealed. After demolishing the upper parts of temples, minarets were erected in their places to make them mosques.
The mosque built by Fedai Khan at Lahore shown in this chapter later, resembles the so-called Baburi mosque to a large extent. Besides, 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-sthāna temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militiamen of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D.
(24) Conclusion
Thus, there are many evidences which prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by the order of Aurangzeb. From the Ayodhyā-māhātmya it appears that it was the most magnificent temple. It does not appear probable that any group of marauders which came to Ayodhyā for the demolition of one temple could leave another equally important temple at a short distance. Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts. Since there are positive evidences of Tieffenthaler, Mentelle and many Muslim authors that Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb, it is but natural to presume that the Janma-sthāna temple, too, was demolished by him only.
The demolition of temples was taking place since the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign, nay, from his Viceroy’s days, when he had demolished the Somanâtha and Chintâmani temples in Gujarat. In 1661 when the King of Kuch Bihar was defeated by Mir Jumla, Aurangzeb’s Governor of Bengal, the principal temple of the capital of Kuch Bihar was demolished and a mosque was built thereon. The name of the capital was changed to Alamgir-nagar. In 1661-62 A.D. Abdun Nabi Khan, Aurangzeb’s Faujdar at Mathura, built a Jama Masjid in the heart of the city on the site of a mandir which was different from the famous Keshav Rai’s temple. It seems that after the execution of Dara Shukoh on 30th August, 1659 there was a jubilation in the conservative Muslim camp because he was executed for apostasy by the victorious Emperor Aurangzeb. Once Aurangzeb was in the saddle, his foster brother Fedai Khan, who was the Governor of Ayodhyâ, demolished all temples there at the Emperor’s command and built mosques at those places as marks of the triumph of the ‘true faith’ over the infidelity. It must be remembered that except forged inscriptions there is no contemporary or early evidence to link Babur with the demolition of any temple, whereas contemporary chronicler Niccolo Manucci, Tieffenthaler, who was the first person to mention the Baburi mosque, Francis Buchanan, who found the general perception that Aurangzeb razed the Râma-janma-bhûmi temple to the ground, the French Scholar Mentelle and J.R. M’culloch&all attribute the demolition of Ayodhyâ’s temples to Aurangzeb. Similarly, Fedai Khan, and not Mir Baqi, is given credit by Muslim writers for the demolition of the Hindu temples and construction of mosques at Ayodhyâ. Therefore, we should conclude that it was the year1660 A.D. when the temples at Ayodhyâ, including the Râma-janma-bhûmi temple, were demolish
ed and mosques were built on those sites by Fedai Khan at the behest of Aurangzeb.
It must be indicted in the words of Antoine Boulay Dela Meurthe, who had exclaimed on the execution of the Duc d’ Enghien in 1804:
“C’est pire qu’un crime.”
i.e. it is worse than a crime.
Chapter Nine
How has demolition ghost been haunting Babur
(1) Galta Conference (2) Ascendancy of Bairagi Sadhus at Ayodhyã (3) End of the liberal attitude of Awadh Nawab after Asaf-ud-daulah (4) Mirat ul-Ahwal-i-Jahan Numa of Ahmed al-Behzahani (5) Mirza Jan’s Hadiqah-i-Shuhada (6) Fictitious composition श्री तुलसी दोहाशतक by Râmabhadrâchârya: (7) Other motives for associating Babur’s name (8) Tarikh-i-Daudi (9) Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya (10) Buchanan’s survey report (11) Other British authors (12) Persons associated with Babur’s authorship to the mosque (13) Dates associated with the temple’s demolition by Babur are incorrect (14) Lad Khan Temple of Lord Úiva (15) Tomb of Noah.
(1) Galta Conference
It has been shown in the last chapter that it was Aurangzeb Alamgir who demolished the Hindu temples at Ayodhyā and built the disputed mosque at the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. When Francis Buchanan made a survey of Ayodhyā in 1813-14, he found that the demolition of the temple at the birthplace was generally attributed by the Hindus to Aurangzeb. Now the question arises as to how Babur’s name got associated with this disputed shrine. One needs to probe historically this development. Though the first four Oudh Nawabs were, by and large, very liberal in their religious dealings, yet one factor, which gradually aggravated the communal tension at Ayodhyā and other places, has largely escaped the notice of historians. This little noticed factor is the Galata (near Jaipur) conference which was held in 1718 (some say 1723) under the patronage of Amber’s Raja Sawai Jay Singh (1699-1743 A.D.), the founder of the city of Jaipur.
This Galata conference witnessed the final ascendancy of the Rāmanandī sect over Rāmānuja’s Śrī Sampradāya in North India. Svāmī Bālānanda Das, a very dynamic leader of the sect, was entrusted with the organization of the Vaishnavas not only on the spiritual but on the military level also. Thereafter, the Vaishnavas, particularly the Rāmānandīs, started spreading to various Vaishnava pilgrim centres for retrieving their holy places from the Śaivas and the Muslims. Immediately after this conference Abhayarāma Das strengthened the Nirvānī Akhāda at the Hanumān tīla in Ayodhyā, Govinda Das established Nirmohī Akhāda at Rāmatīrtha (Rāmghat) and Rāmaprasāda Das expanded the Badā Sthāna in the heart of Ayodhyā, not very far from the disputed mosque. Bairāgī Vaishnavas established their ascendancy at Ayodhyā in the middle of the 18th century. It was a marked difference from the position which they had faced in the beginning of the 18th century when they had been brutally belaboured by Śaiva Samanyāsīs.
The situation of the Bairāgīs was so precarious in the beginning of the 18th century that persons in Samanyāsī garb attacked them so ruthlessly on the eve of the Rāmanavamī festival that Raghunātha Prasāda of the Badā-sthān, in the book ‘Śrī-mahārāja-charitra’, had to bewail thus:
वही समय संवत जो गावा। रामजन्म अवसर जब आवा।।
जुड़े लोग कौशलपुर जाई। बरनि को सकइ भीर बहुताई।।
तहा वेष सन्यास अपारा। आयुध धरे बीर बरियारा।।
जटा विभूति धारे सब अंगा। अनी अपार सुभट रन रंगा।।
बैरागिन सन बैर बिगारा। व्यर्थ बैर बिन किये विचारा।।
कीन्ह अनीति तहा तिन जाई। वेष विराग भये दुखदाई।।
गयउ निकसि सब वेष विरागा। तिनके त्रास अवधपुर त्यागा।।
जहा बैराग वेष कहू पावही। ताहि भाति बहु त्रास देखावही।।
तिनके डर सब लोग डेराने। जहा तहा बैठि एकान्त लुकाने।।
बदलि वेषि छाप छपाई । कोइ निज-भाति न देहि देखाई
बदलि वेषि निज छाप छपाई। कोइ निज-भाति न देहि देखाई।।
(2) Ascendancy of Bairagi Sadhus at Ayodhyā
These Bairagis, after the Galata conference, turned the tide and became a dominant force not only in Ayodhyā but in the whole Awadh Province within 50 years. The Samnyāsi mendicants were evacuated from Ayodhyā, and shrines, which were dilapidated or neglected for long, were taken possession of. Bairagis moved not only in sadhu garbs but joined the Awadh army also in a large number. All these developments were adequate to signal alarm in Muslim camp which was dominated by the Shia clergy and intellectuals in the Awadh court.
Carnegy gives a list of 203 Hindu religious institutions that were established in Ayodhyā until 1870 A.D. and writes that ‘great astonishment has been expressed at the recent vitality of the Hindu religion at Ajudhia’. (Appendix A to his book ‘A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’ )
The emergence of Vaishnava Bairagis was really a matter of great concern for the Muslim religious leaders of Ayodhyā and in order to retain their hold on the converted places of worship, they started fixing fake inscriptions on the structures. Since this mosque was built within the Ram Kot area on the ‘janmasthān’ of Lord Rāma, they started safeguarding their claim in all possible ways. We know from the testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler that despite the fact that the temple had been converted into a mosque-like structure, the Hindus did not forego their right of worshipping inside the mosque. They used to worship the ‘Bedi’ and prostrate in front of the site of Rāma’s birth and make ‘pradakshinā’ around it. Carnegy has categorically written that until 1858 both the Hindus and the Muslims were offering prayers and namaz inside the disputed shrine. It has been repeated in the official district gazetters subsequently and repeatedly that both Hindus and Muslims used to offer prayers inside the disputed mosque.
Since Awadh Nawabs professed the Shia faith, the Awadh clergy were dominated by the Shias. Till the death of the liberal Nawab Asafud-dullah in 1797 A.D. the clergy did not have ascendancy over the state affairs because the eighteenth century Nawabi State of Awadh owed as much to Hindu ascetic warriors as to the Shi’i Qizilbash cavalry’. 87% population of Awadh was constituted of the Hindus. Therefore, all the Awadh rulers from the first Nawab Sa’adat Khan to Asaf-ud-dulah were favourably disposed towards the Hindus.
Now, the clerics combined and their leader Sayyid Dildar Ali harboured an intense animosity towards the Hindus. He was not ready to consider the Hindus a protected minority. He wanted instant persecution of the Hindus. All this was bound to result in communal clashes. In 1807 A.D. there was a communal riot between the Muslims and the Hindus at Lucknow. Thereafter, the gap got further widened between the two communities.
As stated, the clergy under the liberal rule of the first four Awadh Nawabs were always apprehensive that if it is proved that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb after demolishing the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple and if a claim was made by the Hindu Bairagis that under the Islamic law no mosque could be built over a forcibly occupied land, the just and liberal Awadh Nawabs would restore it to the Hindus by an order or with an acquiescence. They were witness to the gradual takeover of many alienated places of worship by the Bairāgīs. Therefore, during the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in 1770 A.D. although it was known to everyone that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, yet some persons had started propagation that it was done by
Babur. But it could not gain momentum because even on the eve of Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā in 1813-14, the general perception of people was that it was Aurangzeb who had demolished the temple at Ayodhyā. When people could not be convinced with Babur’s association with the mosque through gossip, they were to be convinced by fake inscriptions which were produced before Buchanan who, without scrutinizing its authenticity, pronounced a judgment which became the gospel truth in the subsequent period.
The Muslim clergy had helplessly seen that in the heart of Ayodhyā a Rāmānandi Bairāgī Sādhu Abhyarama Das was not only allowed to construct a grand Hanuman temple at a tila (mound) by early Nawabs of Awadh but was given revenue-free land grant also for constructing residential houses for Bairāgī sadhus at Hanumān-tīlā. Bairāgī Govind Das succeeded in establishing Nirmohī Akhada which consistently fought cases against the Muslim groups.
In addition, the Nawab Asaf-ud-daullah granted 1 acre of land to Dayarama for the establishment of the Khākī Akhādā and adequate land (0-1-0) to Kishan Datt Pande for the establishment of Nārāyana on Lakshmana ghāt. Because of consistent insistence on Rāma-janma bhūmi by the Hindus one Mir Masum-ali Mafidar granted 1-1-0 land to Rāmadāsajī of Gudar sect for the establishment of the Janma Asthān temple and worship of Rāmachandra. In addition, so many Muslim Landlords granted land to a several temples at Ayodhyā, e.g. Azhar Husain Mafidar gave 2-3-0 acre of land for the establishment/expansion of the hermitage (Asthan) of Rāma-prasāda and Mir Omadali Jemindar gave a grant of 2 acres to Ram Charan Das for his Thākura dwāra and 4 acres of land for his akhāra. Naval Rai, the Prime Minister and Army Commander of the second Nawab, renovated and built the magnificent Nageshwar temple at Ayodhyā.