Ayodhya Revisited
Page 43
“The purported single inscription is actually an assemblage of two different inscriptions, each incomplete. The upper segment is broken from all the sides and it is most likely that it forms the middle part of some stone inscription. Its text on paleographic grounds relates to a land grant of the Gahadavala dynasty.”
She further commented:
“The lower block is broken from the top and right side and contains an invocation to a god or goddess. It seems to be associated not with the Gahadavala but with the Chandella dynasty, on paleographic grounds.”
According to her, the Lucknow Museum inscription is an assemblage of two different inscriptions, each incomplete. Her presumption is not correct because the two parts, when put together, show that the broken letters are continuous on both parts. It is clearly seen in the 11th line that although four letters दि व म तः are broken yet they are in continuity in the upper and lower parts of the inscription. It is conclusive evidence to prove that both upper and lower parts of the inscription are complementary to each other. In addition, the width of the two parts is almost the same. Besides, both are sandstones. Thus, they are parts of the same inscription without any doubt. Like Fuhrer’s inscription, it is incomplete. The upper or lower part is not broken from all sides and it does not form the middle part of some inscription. It is in the Śardūlavikrīdita metre and from its study it appears that it is the left side of an inscription which must have been four times larger in width. The top left side is not broken by a fall but it is deliberately cut by a sharp-cutting weapon. Its motive is discussed subsequently in this chapter only.
(8) The content of the inscription
The content of the inscription is composed in Śardūlavikrīdita metre and not a single group of words deciphered so far carries any concrete meaning on account of incomplete sentences. It does not relate to any land grant by the Gahadavāla dynasty. Whatever decipherment has been made by her does not carry any such sense. To substantiate it, her reading is produced below:
Text of the upper inscription:
तथ.... मत्र भाग दयता
9. Not clear
10. Not clear
B. Text of the lower inscription:
1. Not clear
2. Not clear
3. व दान हति विहति कीडित वद्व
4. सोयं... जलधि..... तेज निर्वि मन
5. दिपु। सुनाग........... जयति दिपु म
6. नाथ जनन्य...........चण्डचिरिश्यण्डक
7. विम दनः ........... भय पावनं।। न्य
8. रं सरस्वत्यपि। मे...... सरसि-संगम
9. ना कारि सुरारि वैरो चरण (वैरोचन) नाम्रात्मनः
10. यकायक्षः शा
About the lower block she has written that it contains an invocation to a god or goddess. It, too, is not correct because whatever she has deciphered and published does not carry any element of invocation to any god or goddess. Moreover, her decree that the upper part belongs to the Gahadawāla dynasty and the lower to the Chandella dynasty on paleographic grounds, too, is not convincing because she has not cited such differences which are embedded in the edict. Her contention that both the inscriptions are written and engraved by two different scribes or engravers, too, is not correct, because the hand-writings don’t look different apparently.
The contention that sizes of letters in the lower part of the inscription are bigger than those of upper part also does not hold good because on measurement it is found that the size of letters in the top portion of the inscription is the smallest and the size in the middle part of the inscription is larger than the top portion and the size of the lower portion has increased further. Therefore, all are parts of the same inscription. If the hand-writings don’t differ, then it could be the discretion of the scribe who might have started with a particular size, but after engraving some portion, he might have come to the conclusion that the space was more than the required engraving, so he might have enlarged the size of the letters to cover the space. Variations in the size of letters are found in many inscriptions, e.g. Prayaga-praśasti of Samudragupta contains letters of different sizes.
It is clear from the Museum records that this edict came from Faizabad Museum in 1953. The presumed date of the inscription shown in the register is the tenth century, whereas the inscription found by Fuhrer is that of the twelfth century. When the Museum officials were asked as to how this discrepancy had arisen, they explained that those who made entries presumed the dates on the general nature of the inscription and not on their actual readings. What Roy or Pushpa Prasad could decipher did not make any meaning. Pt. Bhavanāth Jha deciphered almost the completely available edict but we, too, have not succeeded in having any meaningful content because of the following factors:
(i) The width of the edict, which is available at present, is only one-fourth of the complete inscription. It is presumed on the fact that most of the writings are in Śardūlavikrīdita metre and words found are hardly one fourth of the metre. It is confirmed by the reading कालिन्दीसुरसिन्धुंगम...in the 18th line which is followed by नाकारिसुरारिके... in the 19th line. Many words are missing between these two words.
(ii) Someone has deliberately deleted around 40% of the content in the first five lines from the top. It is not broken by a fall. It is cut either by a saw or by a chisel. It is deliberately done to obliterate certain unfavourable content. It is very evident from the view of the edict. Even the two loops seen on the top right side or left side of the bottom cut are not on the face but in the back. It may be possible that the date of the inscription 1241 samavat might have been mentioned in this portion and on the basis of this date Fuhrer might have presumed that it related to King Jayachandra. Since the content available indicates the praise of some king, he presumed that it contained the eulogy of King Jayachandra and since it was found in the debris of Tretā-Kā-Thākura mosque, it was presumed that it related to the construction of this temple.
But the question arises as to when this tampering was made? Although J.S. Roy does not inform us that this portion was deliberately obliterated or broken in the top-left portion of the edict, it is clear from his deciphered text that it was missing during his inspection also. In fact, he has read thus ¶1. पया....................तिपंकविपिच्छिच''. He has read it in the first line, although it is actually in the second line. The first line is almost completely broken off. What J.S. Roy has read is the content after the chiseled portion. It is पया...... In other lines upto the fifth one his deciphered portion starts after the cut part only. Therefore, the tampering in the white sandstone had already taken place before J.S. Roy had an ink estampage. Thus, it seems that this tampering had been made before 1953 A.D. when it was in Faizabad Museum. There only, some unscrupulous person did this mischief before 1953 and probably after December, 1949.
The following points indicate that it is the same edict which was found by Fuhrer and mentioned in his report:
(i) This edict of Lucknow Museum, too, is of white sand-stone, as mentioned by Fuhrer.
(ii) It is in twenty incomplete lines as reported by Fuhrer.
(iii) It is broken off at the top to the extent that the first line is hardly visible. Even at the bottom, the reading is not clear.
(iv) The deliberately obliterated content creates doubt that the lost portion alluded to the date and construction of the temple.
(v) Now there is no record of pre 1953 inscriptions of the Faizabad Museum. In fact, the old grand Faizabad Museum is not in existence now. Its pre1953 articles were transferred to Lucknow Museum and nothing remains at Faizabad. But the officials of the Tulasi Smāraka Bhawan at Ayodhyā, which now
houses all discovered articles since 1982, informed me that there was no article prior to 1953 in this Museum. The officials of Lucknow Museum replied that there is no other portion of the inscription left in any part of the Museum.
The text of the inscription, as deciphered by Pt. Bhavanath Jha, is as follows:
1. ++++++++++++++मम++++++
2. +++++++++++प्रग्रापनृतिपकविपिहि
3. +++++++++++त्नांसकां कः शशध(र)
4. +++++++++++येत्सिन्धो सन्ततपं
5. +++++++++++नि आशिखे(षे)वे यं शंतो
6. लकलि+नल्पकल्पपृक्तप्रक्लेश
7. रोत्थः+++करमये वाहिनी यत्र पंके
8. +तत्वयः ग्रसदावारपारगः। शाशीद्दास
9. तीन्द्र।।अ+(ग)मसमररंगासद्मतुल्य
10. तीभग्नमु+++ताशेषुविपक्वस्यासु+
11. सुधास्यन्दिदिक++दिवमतः।। मूला
12. ++++++जवाद्धिजाता+++
13. पद्धामद्धाध+तिविहितक्रीडितकृ
14. सौर्यजलधि+++गतेजोनिधिः
15. दिषु। सुनागसु+ह्यत्रिशान्तादिषुव
16. नादुक्त्वा लक्ष++++खण्डविरि (?)ण्डक
17. विमर्दनः परप+++सतःपावनं।। न्य
18. रंसरस्वत्यपि।। कालिन्दीसुरसिन्धुंगम
19. नाकारिसुरारिके+चरणन्यस्तात्मन
20. यकायस्थःशा++ननन्दनःशु
Despite deciphering it, there is no coherent meaning of the apparently unintelligible content because the sentences are not complete. As stated above, the available edict is only one fourth of the original inscription in width from the left.
(9) Prof. Irfan Habib’s fallacious explanation
On 6th December, 1992 when Baburi Mosque was demolished, an inscription was found containing 20 lines in the debris. Thereafter, a lot of controversy has been generated about its genesis and content. Historians proclaiming lack of its authenticity stress more on the mode of its discovery than the genuineness of its content or palaeographic certainty. Prima facie, the edict seems to contain the epigraphical style of the 11th-12th centuries. Therefore, no doubt can be created about its time. Again, another doubt is deliberately created that it might have been located elsewhere and after having brought it from that place to Ayodhyā it was shown to have been recovered from there. But it does not appear to have been brought from some other place. Even if it is supposed that it came from some other place, the historical value of its content would not be diluted because of its palaeographic certainty. Had this inscription been known earlier, it could have been declared then with all the pride. Even an established historian Pushpa Prasad examined and found it of the 12th century on the palaeographic ground. The language of the inscription cannot be attributed to a modern composer because its style is different from the modern day versification.
However, one allegation has been strongly made by the established historians that “this is really the inscription found by Fuhrer, surreptitiously removed from the Lucknow Museum and paraded off as a find from the Babri Masjid.” These noted historians may realize that the broken inscription deposited in the Lucknow Museum and marked as 53.4 is still available there. If the allegation of the theft of Fuhrer’s edict has to be substantiated, it has to be presumed that it was stolen from Faizabad Museum and not from Lucknow Museum and that, too, in pre-1953 period. Therefore, it does not sound reasonable at all that an inscription as important as the Vishnu-hari temple inscription was stolen in pre-1953 period and kept secret for almost 40 years and was suddenly ‘paraded off as a find’ on 6th December, 1992.
Even if Prof. Irfan Habib’s allegation is accepted that Karsewaks deliberately damaged the Vishnu-hari edict to erase the date of the installation of the Vishnu-hari inscription; it cannot be the same edict because it does not contain any praise, nay even the name of Jayachandra anywhere. The inscription mentions the name of King Govindachandra who was the greatest of the Gahadavāla kings and whose date is almost certain (1114 to 1155 A.D.). This inscription refers to the king Govindachandra and none else. But it mentions his many subordinates at Ayodhyā such as Sallakshana, Alhana, Anayachandra and Āyushchandra. The temple was constructed by Anayachandra but the content was inscribed during the days of Āyushchandra. However, Prof. Habib has explained the content of the inscription in the following words:
“The inscription that had been noticed by Fuhrer, had carried, as its date the year 1241 Samvat, corresponding to AD 1184. The extant inscription allegedly found at Babri Masjid has the date portion chopped off. If this has been done to ward off suspicions about its being the same as Fuhrer discovered inscription, then we must infer that it had carried the same date, viz. 1241 Samvat/AD 1184. If so, the ‘Govindachandra’ of this inscription cannot be identical with Govindachandra, the Gahadavala ruler, who reigned from 1114 to 1155, as Professor Pushpa Prasad suggests, but must be a Gahadavala prince of the same name who claimed paramountcy over this territory in 1184 as a rival to king Jayachandra. This is strongly suggested by the casual way Govindachandra is referred to in lines 15-16 in the phrase: Govindachandra-ks+tipãla-rãjya-sthairyãya, & c., ‘for the stability of Govindachandra’s kingdom’. No titles of a paramount ruler are affixed to him, especially when this was an age when fantastic titles were the vogue – such as Parambhattaraka, Maharajadhiraja, Parameshvara, Paramamaheshvara, Ashvapati, Gajapati, Narapati, Rajatrayadhipati, Vividha vidya vichara vachaspati, which were ‘usually employed by the Gahadavala kings’ (e.g. Epigraphia Indica, XIV, p.193; Pushpa Prasad, Sanskrit Inscriptions of Delhi Sultanate, Delhi, 1990, p.56). It is, therefore, most unlikely that the ‘Govindachandra’ of this inscription is the same as the earlier imperial Gahadavala ruler of that name. Rather, he seems to have been some weak Gahadavala princeling of whom Anayachandra, the local chief of Ayodhya, was a major supporter at this time.” [p. 35]
[Prof. Irfan Habib’s article ‘Ayodhyā (Awadh) down to the Mughal Ocupation’ published in the ‘Proceedings of the Indian History Congress’, 67th Session 2006-07]
Now it is a fantasy to state that the Govindachandra of this inscription (Vishnu-hari) cannot be identical with the great Gahadavāla emperor Govindachandra because he has been called Govindachandra-kshitipāla-rājya-sthairyāya. It has been misleadingly translated by them as ‘for the stability of Govindachandra’s kingdom’. The correct translation will be “for the stability of the kingdom of Govindachandra, who is the king of the earth.”Kshiti in Sanskrit is earth and pāla means ‘a protector, guardian, keeper’ (Apte, Sanskrit – English dictionary). In addition, Govindachandra has been called धरणीद्र (Dharanīndra) also in this Vishnu-hari inscription. Now a king of Central India has been called धरणीद्र, the master of the whole world and even then Prof. Habib calls it ‘the casual way’, whereas he has no doubt about the authenticity of the fake inscriptions of the Baburi mosque wherein the name of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi was not even properly recorded.
Prof. Habib should realize that his observation that Govindrachandra seems to have been some weak Gahadavāla princeling of whom Anayachandra, the local chief of Ayodhyā, was a major supporter at this time is a total fancy because the Sāketa-mandala was obtained by Anayachandra, the builder of the grand temple, on the birthplace of Rāma, by the grace of his master Govindachandra who was called the owner of the earth. Even then,
Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry.
Similarly, the following observation of Prof. Habib is completely untenable:
“Since the presumed princeling Govindachandra is not further heard of, it is possible that Ayodhya passed under the control of Jayachandra after A.D. 1184.”
Ayodhyā was under the Gahadavāla kingdom at least since 1092 A.D. when the great grandfather of Jayachandra, Chandradeva visited it on pilgrimage in 1090-91 (vide Chandrāvatī plates of Chandradeva of V.S. 1150, E.I. vol. xiv, pp.192-196) and remained under it till 1194 A.D. when Jayachandra was defeated and killed in the battle with Muhammad Ghori at Chandawar in Etawah district. Uttarakosala, i.e. Ayodhyā has been mentioned in many inscriptions of Gahadavāla Kings including those of Govindachandra. Thus, the above suggestion of Prof. Habib is contradicted by historical facts.
Again, either the content in the inscription has been misunderstood or readers have been misled by making the following observation-
“The inscription begins with the praise of Lord Shiva; and attributes the beauty of Ayodhya, to “the presence of Avimukta (i.e. Shiva), goddess Visalakshi (i.e. Parvati) and Lalita (Durga)” with no mention of Lord Rama. Even when referring in one sentence to Vishnu, his praise covers his four incarnations: “who killed Hiranyakashipu, subdued Bana in battle, destroyed the prowess of Baliraja and performed many such deeds, he killed the wicked Dasanana (Ravana), who could be more than ten.” (For the text and translation of the inscription see Pushpa Prasad, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Mysore, 2003 (IHC, Patna, 2004), pp.351-359). Clearly, even to the builders of the Vishnu-Hari temple, Rama, as incarnation of Vishnu, did not require to be mentioned separately or specifically despite the temple being in Ayodhya. Indeed, the presiding deity at Ayodhya was held to be Shiva, not even Vishnu.”