Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  The first Nawab Sa’adat Khan shifted his residence to a place at a distance of 2 miles from Ayodhyā. The place was called Bangla and later Faizabad. When in 1766 A.D. Shuja-ud-dulah shifted his capital lock, stock and barrel from Ayodhyā to Faizabad, it was a great boost for the Hindu Bairagis because almost the entire Muslim clergy and bureaucracy left Ayodhyā and settled at Faizabad. Thus, Ayodhyā became a predominantly Hindu city, dominated by Rāmānandī Sādhus who substantially damaged the converted Svargadvāra mosque, so beautifully painted by William Hodges only a decade ago. Picture of the Svargadvāra mosque painted by Hodges in 1783 is shown in chapter XII and that of the mosque in the present condition is shown in chapter XVI of this book.

  In addition, Treta Ka Thakur temple, which had been converted into a mosque, was taken over and repaired by Rânî Ahalyâbâi Holkar who beautifully built the adjoining Ghât in 1784 A.D. A Qila was converted into Lakshmana temple by the Hindus during the same period. Amongst important mosques, only the mosque at the birthplace of Râma remained physically intact.

  Thus, the situation was really alarming for the Muslim clergy which devised ways to arrest this trend. The association of Babur’s name instead of that of Aurangzeb with the mosque was one such device to keep their claim on the mosque intact. Aurangzeb’s very name was despised by the Hindus, particularly by the Bairagi Sadhus, and anything associated with his name was targeted for demolition or damage.

  (3) End of the liberal attitude of Awadh Nawab after Asaf-ud-daulah

  With the death of Asaf-ud-daula in 1797 A.D. ended the eclectic policies of Awadh Nawabs and in 1819 when the Nawab Ghazi-ud-Din Haider (1814-1827) declared Awadh to be a Shia State, many restrictions were placed on the Hindus and the Sunnis. Nasiruddin Haydar (1827-37) and Amjad Ali Shah (1842-47) were religious bigots who persecuted both Hindus and Sunnis. The main reason for the conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis was the cursing of Caliphs during the Muharram festival, the duration of which was extended to 40 days. In 1828 A.D. Nasiruddin Haydar issued a warning that “those who could not passively hear the execrations against the Caliphs, either to quit the city, or strictly confine themselves to their own homes.” In the same year Muharram fell in July and on the 10th of the Muharram the Sunnis and Shias violently clashed at the Karbala of Makarim-nagar where six persons were killed and nine wounded. Thereafter, the Nawab Nasiruddin let loose his army on hapless Sunnis whose 400 structures were razed to the ground and properties were looted. Many respected Sunni religious leaders had to leave the Awadh court. In 1824 A.D. Maulana Hayder left Awadh court following a dispute with the King on religious matters.

  Since the lead in hatred against Hindus was taken by the Shia clergy and they had now the patronage of the Government from the beginning of the 19th century; they tried to strengthen their hold on religious shrines. Aurangzeb was an avowed Sunni and during his time most of the subedars were perceived to be Sunnis, it was, therefore, very difficult to claim any Shia right over this shrine. Since Aurangzeb’s reign had ended hardly a hundred years ago, it was not possible to make much tampering with the history of this period. On the contrary, Bābur’s rule was in distant past and very few incidents of his reign were in people’s memory, so they thought that they could take more liberty in attributing the construction of the mosque to him and his ‘Governor Mir Bāqī’. Thus, Bābur was shown to have built the mosque through an inscription which is now proved to be a fabricated one. Since Mir Bāqī was claimed by the clergy to be a Shia, the Imamship devolved on a Shia family.

  Dr. Francis Buchanan became an easy instrument who without examining the real or unreal fixing of the inscription in the structure wrote his conclusions merely on a translation of the reading of an inscription which was not even an eye-impression of the original, if that ever existed.

  The fact of the matter is that an elite section of the Muslim society took advantage of the opportunity of Buchanan’s survey and supplied him with two fake documents which associated Babur’s name with the structure. One was an interpolation to an inscription which gave credit to Babur for ordering Mir Baqi to build the mosque. Another write-up on the copy of the same edict was the story written by the copier of the inscription which associated Babur’s arrival at Ayodhyā before conquering Hindustan and becoming the emperor with Musa Ashiqan’s blessings. The following is the story written by the copier of the inscription. Many persons have got confused with this story and misunderstood it as a part of another inscription. However, it is not a part of any edict and is only a story, a mere myth and nothing more than that. It is quoted below:

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

  The king having sent written orders 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 becomes 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 Soobadar received His Majesty’s commands – Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soobedar, and he erected this Massjid.”

  For the unknown brain which could create such an improbable story, the scribing of an insription associating Babur’s name was a very easy job. But he did not know that Babur maintained a diary and never came to Ayodhyā. As the proverb goes >wB ds ij (;k iSj) ugha gksrs] i.e. untruth has got no wings and hence it is caught one day. This lie, too, has now been nailed and ill-cooked broth has been spoiled.

  (4) Mirat ul-Ahwal-i-Jahan Numa of Ahmed al-Behzahani

  Here an effort is made to identify the clergyman who supplied the fake inscription to Buchanan on the basis of a book ‘Mirat ul-Ahwal-i Jahan Numa’ written by Ahmad-al-Behbahani, a Shia ecclesiast and a native of Iran who came to India in May 1805 and lived here till February 1809 A.D. He spent major part of his stay in Awadh, mostly at Faizabad and Lucknow and wrote that Mir Abdul Bari was the Imam of Faizabad mosque at that time. Since he was the Imam of the powerful Faizabad mosque, he might have taken lead in the propagation that Mir Baqi, a name sounding similar to his own name, built the disputed mosque at the behest of Babur, the Emperor. Buchanan might have come in his contact and got the copy of the fake inscription. Behbahani narrates that at the time of his departure from Faizabad both the Hindus and the Muslims were weeping and sobbing. It was in October 1808 A.D. He gives the following account:

  “On the one side the Muslims and on the other side the Hindus both were weeping and sobbing. The Hindus because of the reason that one of the enemies of their Mahanth or priest had made captive and confined him in woods. They had approached me for help, and on the condition o
f their behaving well with the Muslims I had pleaded his case to the Nawab Wazir who got him freed and placed him in his seat.” (p. 219)

  It is not clear whether the adversary of the Mahanta was a Hindu or a Muslim. But this much is very evident that even in seating or unseating a Mahanta, the Shia clergy or the Nawab had a pivotal role. The book is translated by Prof. A.F. Haider and published by the famous Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, Patna (December, 1996).

  (5) Mirza Jan’s Hadiqah-i-Shuhada

  In his Urdu book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada, which was published at Lucknow in 1856 A.D., Mirza Jan attributed the demolition of the temple and construction of mosque to Babur. Thereafter, all the Urdu and Persian writers started singing in the same tune and credited Babur to have performed this crescentade. Mirza Jan was an active participant in the Jehad by Ameer Alim in 1855 for recapture of Hanuman-garhi during the reign of Wajid Ali Shah. His book was so inflammatory that the Governor General banned it. Mirza Jan wrote:

  “In short, even as the Muslim rulers cleared up Mathura, Banaras etc. from the dust and dross of Kufr, they cleared up Faizabad and Awadh also from the filth of false belief, inasmuch as it is a great place of worship and was the capital of Rama’s father. Here they broke the temples and left no stone-hearted idol intact. Where there was a big temple, there they got a big mosque constructed, and, where there was a small pavilion, there they erected a plain camp mosque/enclosure. Accordingly, what a majestic mosque Babar Shah has got constructed in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa ‘Ashiqan: Its date is ‘Khair-i Baqi. It is still known far and wide as the Sita Ki Rasoi mosque. (Ayodhya History, Archaeology and Tradition, p. 317)”

  Mirza Jan wrote that the mosque was constructed in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan. According to him, its date of construction is Khair-i-Baqi, i.e. 923 A.H.(1516-17 A.D.). Since Mirza Jan was a very popular Muslim leader and in his book he attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur, all the subsequent Muslim writers ascribed its authorship to Babur. However, Mirza Jan lacked the knowledge of history, particularly the date of Babur’s conquest of Hindustan, hence he placed the construction of the mosque 923 A.H. and it was blindly followed by other Muslim writers.

  (6) Fictitious composition श्री तुलसी दोहाशतक by Rāmabhadrāchārya:

  During his deposition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court Svāmī Rāmabhadrāchārya,Tulasī Pīthādhīśvara at Chitrakūta, cited eight dohas from “ Śrī Tulasi Dohā-śataka.” He claimed that it was composed by Gosvāmī Tulasi Das. Despite all respect to his great personality it is made clear here that Gosvāmi Tulasi Das never wrote this book; rather it is the creation of the genius of Rāmabhadrācharya. His deposition in the court is quoted below:

  तुलसीकृत ‘श्रीतुलसी दोहाशतक’ में गोस्वामी तुलसीदास जी ने स्पष्ट रूप से मुस्लिमों तथा बाबर के कृत्यों एवं अयोध्या में श्रीराम जन्म मन्दिर मीरबाकी द्वारा तोड़कर मस्जिद बनवाने का वर्णन किया है जैसे-

  मंत्र उपनिषद ब्राह्मनहुँ बहु पुरान इतिहास।

  जवन जराये रोष भरि करि तुलसी परिहास।।

  सिखा सूत्र से हीन करि, बल ते हिन्दू लोग।

  भमरि भगाये देश ते, तुलसी कठिन कुजोग।।

  बाबर बर्बर आइके, कर लीन्हे करवाल।

  हने पचारि-पचारि जन, तुलसी काल कराल।।

  सम्बत सर वसु बान नभ, ग्रीष्म ऋतु अनुमानि।

  तुलसी अवधहिं जड़ जवन, अनरथ किय अनखानि।।

  राम जनम महिं मंदिरहिं, तोरि मसीत बनाय।

  जवहि बहु हिन्दुन हते, तुलसी कीन्ही हाय।।

  दल्यो मीरबाकी अवध, मन्दिर रामसमाज।

  तुलसी रोवत हृदय हति, त्रहि त्रहि रघुराज।।

  राम जनम मंदिर जहाँ, लसत अवध के बीच।

  तुलसी रची मसीत तहँ, मीरबाकी खल नीच।।

  रामायन घरि घन्ट जहं, श्रुति पुरान उपखान।

  तुलसी जवन अजान तहँ, कियो कुरान अजान।।

  I salute to the beauty of these verses. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that they are fictitious. If it is not exposed, a time will come when these verses will be treated as the genuine composition of Tulasī Das.

  (7) Other motives for associating Babur’s name

  Now other motives associating Babur’s name with the mosque may be examined. The Shia clergy had soft corner for Babur because at one time in his career, Babur had accepted Shiism under the suzerainty of the Persian King Shah Ismail Safawi. Therefore, the natural presumption was that Babur would have appointed many Shia Governors during his reign in India. Thus, they perceived a Shia Governor in the name of Mir Baqi.

  Another reason ascribed to Babur’s association with the construction of the mosque, in view of Prof. Sushil Srivastava, was to “add respectability and strength to their claims over the mosque.” Aurangzeb’s name was a dreaded and despised one amongst the Hindus. But Babur commanded respect amongst the Hindus including Sanskrit poets. Therefore, the construction of the mosque was attributed to Babur instead of Aurangzeb.

  (8) Tarikh-i-Daudi

  Babur’s supposed association with Ayodhyā grew in phases and was based on fiction. The ‘Tarikh-i-Daudi’ written by Abdullah during the days of Jahangir is first such work and it is not a history book. Most of the texts contain stories and myths which he came to know through hearsay but termed them as history. The following is the account written by Abdullah in his book:

  “In one of the histories it has come to notice that in those very days Babar Badshah, whose name was Babar Qalandar, came to Dihli adorning himself with the garb of an ascestic and entered the royal palace. One of the courtiers brought it to the royal ears that a qalandar from among sages is standing in the court feasting on the elegance of the Sultan. Sultan Sikandar made some of his courtiers bring him in. When Babur Qalandar emerged from the door, he immediately shook hands with the Sultan, by the Sultan’s taking his hand into his, inferred the greatness of fortune in the Sultan’s hand, and felt in his heart that the affluence of his Sultanate is abundant. Sultan Sikandar asked him, “With what are faqir-s exalted?” Babar Qalandar said, “With Qalandar-hood.” The Sultan uttered this couplet extempore (rather sardonically):

  Hazar nuktah-i barik-tar ‘zi mu in-ja’ st

  Na har ki sar ba-tarashad qalandari danad.

  Here there are thousand finesses finer than hair. Not everyone with shaven head knows qalandar-hood). Babar Qalandar glanced at the Sultan with the feeling of being humbled and uttered this couplet:

  Na har kasi ki kulah kaj nihad-o tund nashist

  Kulah-dari-o a in-I sarwari danad.

  Not everyone who puts on an awry cap and sits tight knows cap-wearing and the way of kingship.

  “The Sultan was pleased at this and asked his courtiers to take due care of boarding and lodging of the faqir-s including Babar Qalandar. After a few days, the Sultan wanted to see Babar Qalandar, but the latter had left the very next day. The Sultan began to squeeze his hands in repentance and rema
rked that Huma (a bird of paradise) had fallen into his hand.” (but he let it escape)(quoted in Harsh Narayan’s article ‘The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute’). The bird Huma signifies great fortune.

  But here in Tarikh-i-Daudi Babur meets King Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517 A.D.) and not Musa Ashiqan. There is no mention of Babur’s association with the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque, till the reign of Jehangir, i.e. 1621 A.D. At best it highlights Babur as a darvesh.

  (9) Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya

  At the same time we find that in the beginning of the 19th century Maulawiyy Abdul Karim, who claimed to be in the line of mythical Mir Musa Ashiqan, wrote a book in Persian which was translated into Urdu by Maulaviyy Abdul Ghaffar under the title ‘Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya’. The Urdu translation was published in 1932. The information contained in this book is relevant and important and therefore it is quoted here:

  “When a boy, Sultan Babar, who belonged to the family of Amir Timur, came from Kabul to the town of Awadh in disguise, donning the garb of an ascetic. These days, the town of Awadh was under the Sultanate of Sikandar Lodhi and the place was a (second) capital of the Sultanate. Sultan Babar paid a reverential visit to His Holiness Shah Jalal and Sire Musa Ashiqan and solicited occult favour from them, so that the ancestral Sultanate of Hindustan might come into his hands thanks to the blessings of those saints. Prince Babar took leave of those personages, went to Kabul, mustered an army, brought it to Hindustan, and fought with Sultan Sikandar Lodhi (sic) at the (battle-) field of Panipat….”

  From the account it appears that Maulawiyy Abdul Karim might have created the story of Musa Ashiqan’s blessings to Babur before the latter’s conquest of Hindustan and he was instrumental in getting it forged on the second fabricated inscription. The idea behind associating Babur’s name with the construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā after demolishing a temple was to enhance the prestige of such Muslim saints, real or imaginary.