If a tomb of Noah at Najaf in Iraq can be shown at Ayodhyā and its construction can be attributed to Alexander in the 4th century B.C. by predating it more than 2000 years, the attribution of the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque at Ayodhyā in 1660 by Aurangzeb to Babur in 1528 should not surprise readers.
In this book it is proved beyond all shades of doubt that Babur had no role to play either in demolition of any temple or construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā. In fact, he had no occasion or reason to visit the holy city. Inscriptions inside the mosque were fake and fabricated. Babur’s association with Musa Ashiqan and Mir Baqi in connection with the demolition of the Rāma temple is a fanciful story invented in the early 19th century and it has been continuing for the last 200 years without scrutiny by any historian. Thus, the demolition ghost has been haunting Babur so far because of several factors enumerated above. By borrowing the words of Lord Byron from his book ‘Don Juan’, it may be concluded thus:
“It’s strange-but true;
for truth is always strange;
Stranger than fiction.”
It is now hoped that truth will triumph over fiction.
Chapter Ten
A tale of two edicts (Tretā Kā Thākura and Vishnu-hari inscriptions)
[(1) Introduction (2) TOI report dated 1st Sept. 2001 (3) Treta Ka Thakur inscription found by A. Fuhrer (4) Dr. Jahnawi Shekhar Roy’s observation (5) A picture the inscription (6) Annual Report of Lucknow Museum (1950-54) (7) Pushpa Prasad’s article (8) The content of the inscription (9) Prof. Irfan Habib’s fallacious explanation (10) Verbatim translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription with ‘anvaya’ (11) Comments on the inscription]
(1) Introduction
After I had taken voluntary retirement from Indian Police Service on 31st May, 2001 Shri Dilip Padgaonkar, the patriarch patron of the ‘Times of India’, New Delhi met me in C.I.S.F. guesthouse in Delhi in June 2001 and asked many questions on the Ayodhyā dispute. One question was as to why the Hindu side did not produce clinching evidence which proved that there existed a temple at the disputed site before the construction of the mosque. I replied that when I was the O.S.D. on the Ayodhyā dispute in the Ministry of Home Affairs, I had suggested archaeological excavation of the adjoining land by an independent body like UNESCO. When the Ministry was mulling the idea, many scholars opposed it on the wild allegation that it was a conspiracy to demolish the Baburi mosque by digging trenches in the vicinity. Therefore, it could not be done. However, I informed Padgaonkar that there was still a key to the Ayodhyā solution and it was the stone edict discovered from the debris of the mosque during its demolition on 6th December, 1992. I told him that if by palaeographic test it was confirmed that the inscription was genuine and the script was of the 11th or 12th century; its content could lead to the conclusion that there existed a temple at the site. I further informed him that the place and date of the discovery of the inscription wass irrelevant, if it was found to be genuine, because its content confirmed the construction of a temple at the Rāma-janmabhoomi. The objection of some secular historians that the ‘Karsewak Archaeology’ would not be accepted does not hold ground because now the nation has got an inscription, whether found through a formal excavation or vandalism. It is immaterial whether it was discovered at Ayodhyā or Ambala on 6th December, 1992 or 10th January, 1980. If it belongs to the 11th 12th century, it is a strong proof that at this site Anayachandra, the Governor of Gahadavāla King Govindachandra (1114-54 A.D.) had built a magnificent temple at Ayodhyā.
I advised him to get it probed and if my argument held good, the edict ought to be examined by an independent, impartial team of UNESCO experts. Shri Padgaonkar took interest and two correspondents worked on the subject and a report was published in the Times of India on 1st September, 2001 with the caption ‘Stone writ could hold key to Ayodhyā’. TOI team had contacted the UNESCO team which informed them that if they got formal request, they would do this job.
(2) TOI report dated 1st Sept. 2001
The following is the report published in the TOI on the front page as the lead news on 1st September, 2001:
Stone writ could hold key to Ayodhya
NEW DELHI/PATNA: A 12th-century stone inscription recovered from the debris of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could hold the key to the resolution of the temple-mosque imbroglio. Experts believe the 20-line inscription comprising 30 verses in Sanskrit said to have been embedded in the lower portion of a wall of the structure that was demolished on December 6, 1992 could provide conclusive proof of the existence of a Rãma temple at the site in the 12th century and even earlier.
Although little has been heard of the inscription, believers in its ‘magical’ power to resolve the dispute include hardcore Sangh Parivar elements as well as religious leaders, among them Puri (sic.) Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, who have been working for a solution to the problem outside the VHP umbrella.
A leading proponent of the ‘inscription as key’ theory has been Acharya Kishore Kunal, who took voluntary retirement from the IPS recently and is now vice-chancellor of the Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. In his younger days as an IPS officer working in the Union home ministry, he acted as the Centre’s negotiator for the Ayodhya dispute.
Acharya Kunal, who was behind the renovation of the Hanuman temple at Patna, has been arguing that the authenticity of the inscription could be verified by an independent organisation like UNESCO. Once that is done, he says, it would be easier to persuade the Muslim leaders for a solution.
According to an article published in the journal, Itihas Darpan, in 1996, the inscription is written in the Nagari script which was in vogue in the 12th century. The inscription (verse 5) pays obeisance to the “janmabhùmi of that incarnation of Vishnu which possesses the highest and most desirable glory in this world and whose splendour was constantly enhanced by performing thousands of brave deeds.” There could be little doubt about this incarnation being Rãma .
The inscription (verse 21) refers to a temple of Vishnu-hari built by King Nayachandra. It says that stone slabs, chiselled out of solid boulders brought from the mountain peaks, were arranged to form “a unique temple the like of which had not been constructed by any other previous king.” It adds that the temple was crowned with a golden kalasa (copula) lending great beauty to it.
The inscription refers twice to the Gahadavala king, Govindachandra, who reigned in this part of the country from 1114 to 1154 A.D. Nayachandra appears to have been a vassal of the Gahadavala king.
The 1.10 m × 0.56 m buff sandstone, found broken into two pieces from the debris of the demolished structure, was inspected by a team of experts from the Archaeological Survey of India in March 2000 under instructions from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. It has since been kept at the Ram Katha Kunj under the seal of the high court. Ram Katha Kunj, which was the office of the VHP in the Janma-bhumi complex, prior to the demolition, is now part of the land acquired by the Central Government on January 7, 1993.”
When the TOI team contacted the UNESCO authorities, they informed them that they were ready to undertake the task, provided they were formally requested to do so by the appropriate authority. This was never done. Therefore, the dispute persists, although even established historians have not doubted the authenticity of the edict.
However, Syed Shahabuddin, a former IFS officer and an ex-M.P., who is convener of Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee, wrote to me the following DO letter dated 8th September, 2001:
“Dear Shri Kunal, 8th September, 2001
You had promised to see me in Delhi but you did not come. Now your name has been mentioned in the Times of India in connection with the fake tablet smuggled into the debris of the Babari Masjid by the karsevaks in December, 1992.
I would like to draw you attention to the article by Prof. Champa Lakshmi in a Frontline issue, perhaps in 1993, throwing doubt on the authenticity of the
tablet. She has now retired from the JNU and lives in Chennai.
Since no excavation was carried out under controlled conditions, I had myself objected in 1993 to this as well as other architectural artefacts being taken over by the Government from the VIP for safe custody.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Acharya Kishore Kunal,
Vice-Chancellor,
Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, (SYED SHAHABUDDIN)
Darbhanga”
I have high regards for Syed Shahabuddin for his tenacity of purpose and ever-searching zeal on the Ayodhyā dispute. I think no one can match him in the country in collecting and commenting on any article on the subject as expeditiously as he does. I do not object to his interpretation because that is always in consonance with his line of arguments.
After introducing a brief background of the Vishnu-hari edict, the Treta Ka Thakur inscription discovered by A. Fuhrer is discussed first at length.
(3) Treta Ka Thakur inscription found by A. Fuhrer
A. Fuhrer had found one inscription at Ayodhyā in the debris of the Treta Ka Thakur temple converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb. He thus wrote about this inscription:
“Inscription No XLIV is written in twenty incomplete lines on a white sandstone, broken off at either end, and split in two parts in the middle. It is dated Samvat 1241 or A.D. 1184, in the time of Jaychchandra of Kanauj, whose praises it records for erecting a Vaishnava temple, from whence this stone was originally brought and appropriated by Aurangzeb in building his masjid known as Treta-ki-Thakur. The original slab was discovered in the ruins of this Masjid, and is now in the Faizabad Local Museum.”
For doubting Thomases it is neccesary to quote Jas. Burgess, the then Director General of Archaeological Survey of India in the Preface (dated 5th February, 1889) of “The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur with notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and other places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh” wherein he highly appreciated the professional capability of Fuhrer in the following words:
“The bulk of the letter-press is by Dr. Fuhrer, whose trained and varied scholarship is a sufficient guarantee for its accuracy and research. The architectural descriptions of the buildings were prepared by Mr. Smith. My work has been to unite these into one connected account, to supervise the printing, and pass the drawings through the press. To the MS. of his report Dr. Fuhrer added a bulky appendix of forty-six inscriptions collected during his tour between 14th February and 31st March 1886. These were in Arabic. Persian and Sanskrit, many of which were unknown before. ‘Some of these inscriptions,’ Dr. Fuhrer mentions, ‘are of great historical importance, especially in settling the question of the time of the first appropriation of the ancient Buddhist and Hindu temples by the Musalmans.’ The Arabic and Persian inscriptions being mostly short, and belonging directly to the buildings described, have been engrossed in the text; the longer Sanskrit ones, as directed by Government, have been kept for separate publication in the Epigraphia Indica.”
Thus, it is clear that Fuhrer visited Ayodhyā and found the inscription. The D.G., A.S.I. testified to the fact that Fuhrer’s “trained and varied scholarship is a sufficient guarantee for its accuracy and research.”
Though Jas. Burgess, the Director General of A.S.I. and the editor of this Volume wrote in the Preface that the Sanskrit inscriptions found by Fuhrer would be published, yet it was never published either in the Epigraphia Indica or in any other journal or in any book on the Gahadavāla dynasty.
However, the Gazeteer-writers and historians went on writing that Tretā Kā Thākura temple was built by Jayachandra in 1241 Sa‚vat, i.e. 1184 A.D. and it was converted into mosque by Aurangzeb. Hans Bakker, too, wrote on the similar line and added:
“To my knowledge this inscription has never been published. The site is known as ‘Treta Ka Thakur’ (Skt. Tretanatha), Lord of the Tretayuga (i.e. Rãmachandra) but the Sanskrit name is not attested in any written source.” (pp. 52-53)
He further furnished this information:
“The inscription is now in possession of the State Museum in Lucknow (Arch. Dep. 53.4).”
(4) Dr. Jahnawi Shekhar Roy’s observation
Thereafter, Dr. J.S. Roy, a scholar of Varanasi, went to the Lucknow Museum and after examining the edict wrote ‘A Note on Ayodhyā Inscription’ in the book ‘Ayodhyā-History, Archaeology and Tradition’ published by All India Kashiraj Trust, Fort Ramnagar, Varanasi in 1994. In the article he wrote,
“We found the relevant No. 53.4 Mark on the stone. The inscription is about 2’8” in length and 10” in width. It is in two pieces. The original having been split during the excavation or otherwise, along an irregular crack. An ink impression was taken from the original inscription. The writing is in 10 lines, we give the text, as we could decipher, here. The portion on the text on the left half of the inscription is put under the column A and that on the right half under the column B.”
Then Roy made a very fragmentary and unsatisfactory reading which carries no meaning. Nevertheless he arrived at the following conclusion:
“It is clear from the above text that the inscription has nothing to do either with the temple Treta ka Thakur or with Maharaja Jayachandra. It seems that there has been some confusion in marking the inscription as No. 53.4.”
Roy further made the following erroneous observation:
“It will be interesting to note the differences between the present and the original inscription referred (to) by Fuhrer. The original was in twenty incomplete lines, while the present inscription has only ten lines. The original was broken off at either end, and split in two parts in the middle. The present one, though broken in the middle, does not break off at either as its ends are clear end cut.”
Roy’s conclusion that the writing is in ten lines is totally incorrect. Even from a visual observation it is clear that the inscription contains 20 lines and the break is in the middle of the inscription and the two parts are in vertical continuation. It is very clear from the angles of the broken pieces. Though they are not broken at 1800, yet the angles of the broken lower portion and the upper portion of the two parts are almost the same and even the broken letters of both the portions match each other.
(5) A picture of the inscription
I obtained a photograph of the edict from the Lucknow Museum and it is placed below:
The inscription discovered by A. Fuhrer
presently atLucknow Museum.
(6) Annual Report of Lucknow Museum (1950-54)
I checked the register of the entries of the edicts. This serial 53.4 has the following reading on page 63 of the Annual Report of Lucknow Museum, April 1950-March 1954:
Page-63
क्र.सं. रजिस्टर सं. संक्षिप्त विवरण प्राप्ति स्थान प्राप्ति साधन
५५ ५३.४ अभिलिखित खण्डित शिलापट्ट फैजाबाद फैजाबाद संग्रहालय से
(2’ 4” × 10.5”) जिसपर
दसवीं शती की देवनागरी लिपि
में २० पंक्तियों का एक लेख
खुदा है जो बहुत मिट गया है।
This record confirms that this inscription contains twenty (and not ten) lines as the Fuhrer’s inscription was reported to have contained. Likewise, it is broken in the middle as well as at the top because only one word from the first line is legible. The Lucknow Museum edict, too, is on a white sandstone like Fuhrer’s inscription. Fuhrer did not give measurement of the inscription; where as the Lucknow Museum inscription measures 2’4” in length and 10.5” in width. Moreover, the entry in the accession register confirms that this inscription came from Faizabad Museum. Thus, there is not a single element of doubt in this edict which goes against facts found by Fuhrer.
&nbs
p; (7) Pushpa Prasad’s article
Pushpa Prasad is another scholar who wrote an article ‘Three Recently Found Inscriptions at Ayodhyā’ which was published in the ‘Proceedings of Indian History Congress’, 2003, printed in 2004(pp.348-50). Pushpa Prasad’s article is full of fancies and fictions. How she took Jahnavi Shekhar Roy to be female is amusing. Jahnavi-Shekhar is an epithet of Lord Siva. In Sanskrit and Hindi ‘Jahnavi’ means the Ganges and Shekhara is forehead. In the attributive compound (Bahuvrīhi) it is derived thus: ‘He, on whose forehead Jahnavi exists i.e. Śiva’. She arbitrarily decreed that ‘the two blocks were not at all parts of the same inscription, and belonged to two independent epigraphs’. Then she made the following desertation:
Ayodhya Revisited Page 42