Ayodhya Revisited
Page 51
From the above account the following facts are found:
(i) Indians regarded Lord Rāmachand as their Highest God in the beginning of the 17th century.
(ii) There were ruins of the fort Ram Kot.
(iii) There was a palace of Ram Chandra in Ram Kot.
(iv) Lord Rāma took incarnation to see the tamasha of the world.
(v) Amongst the ruins of the Ram Kot lived certain Brahmans.
(vi) They used to record names of pilgrims who had bath in the river (Sarayū).
(vii) This custom was in practice for centuries.
(viii) From two miles from the river there was a cave within which there were hidden ashes of god (Rāma).
(ix) Pilgrims used to take away grains of charred rice as proof of their visit to Ayodhyā.
(x) They used to take away the charred rice after worshipping the idol.
(xi) There was no mosque there.
Now the question arises as to where this cave and the idol which was worshipped by pilgrims before taking away charred rice were located. Joseph Tieffenthaler informs that not far from the Janma-sthāna this cave containing charred rice was situated and it has been within Ram Kot from all sources. Since De Laet states that the cave contained the ashes of Lord Rāma, there could be no idol inside the cave because an idol cannot be kept at the place of ashes.
Therefore, the idol referred to by De Laet was the same which was placed in the Janma-sthāna Mandir and which was worshipped by pilgrims first. After worshipping the idol in the temple, they used to collect charred rice as a proof of their visit to Ayodhyā. From the account of De Laet there was a palace of Rāmachandra inside the Ram Kot. It contained an idol. Amongst the ruins of Ram Kot lived the Brahmans. All these facts are clear proofs that by the first half of the 17th century there existed no mosque inside the Ram Kot and the area was under the possession of the Hindus. Thus, the impression that an imposing mosque was built in the year 1528, in the Ram Kot area of Ayodhyā is not supported by historical facts.
(11) Accounts of Thomas Herbert (first published in 1634)
He was a celebrated traveller. The author of ‘Indian Antiquities’ Thomas Mourice in the ‘History of Hindostan’ has described him as a “traveller possessed of great learning and fidelity.” He was born at York around 1600 A.D., and commenced his collegiate studies at Jesus College, Oxford. But before he took his degree, he shifted to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he remained for a brief period. Immediately after he left the university, he applied to his relative William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, for going abroad as a traveller. The Earl was very much pleased with him for this proposal and sent him in 1626 for journey to Africa and Asia where he spent major part in Persia and India.
After four years of travel he returned to his country in 1630. He published the book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ in 1634. He got it again printed, after revision, in 1638 A.D. These travel accounts enjoyed a great reputation at the time of their publication and have since been considered the best that appeared in England prior to the close of the seventeenth century. After the Restoration, following the civil war, Herbert was awarded with a baronetcy. Subsequently, he devoted much of his time to literary pursuits. He died at York on the 1st March, 1682. This brief biography of Herbert is based on the book “The Literature and the literary men of Great Britain and Ireland” by Abraham Mills, New York, 1851.
The following is his account of Ayodhyā from the aforesaid book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ published under revised and enlarged edition by the Author in 1638.
The following is Herbert’s account of Ayodhyā published in the year 1632 A.D.:
“At this Oudee or Oujea (a citty in Bengala & felicitated by Ganges) are many Antick Monuments, especially memorable is the pretty old castle Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name about 994500 yeares ago after their accompt, from which to this the Bannyans have repayred to offer here and to wash away their sinnes in Ganges, each of which is recorded by name by the laborious Bramyns who acquaintes this Pagod with their good progressions and charitable offerings.” (p. 92) (emphasis added)
From the above accounts the following facts emerge:
(i) There were many antique monuments at Ayodhyā in c. 1630 A.D.
(ii) The most memorable was that pretty old castle built by Ranichand (Rāmachandra) 9,94,500 years ago.
(iii) From time immemorial to the visit of Herbert, i.e. 1630 A.D. merchants repaired to this place to wash away their sins in the river. Here ‘repaired to’ may mean either renovation or visit.
(iv) Each of such acts of virtue is recorded by sincere Brāhmanas.
(v) They took every pilgrim to this shrine and by their good professional skill got charitable offerings.
(vi) The Ganges has been used in the general form of a river which is Sarayū here and Bangla denotes the cantonment area as in case of Tieffenthaler’s accounts.
Thus, from Thomas Herbert’s account it is clear that there was a castle temple of Rāmachandra in the year 1630 A.D. There was no trace of any mosque at Ayodhyā till 1630 A.D.
The image of the title page of this book is reproduced here:
Title page of Thomas Herbert’s book.
Herbert further provides the following information which is the proof of Rāma’s popularity in this country:
Ducerat, who begat Ram, a king so famous for piety and high attempts, that to this day his name is exceedingly honoured, so that when they say Ram Rame, ’tis as if they should say, “all good betide you”. (p. 47)
That is, all good will fall on you. From addressing ‘Ram Ram’ it was expected that all good would fall on the caller and listener.
Herbert was not alone who mentions this way of saluting each other in this country. In the book ‘The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot’ the celebrated French traveller Thevenot, too, who was in India in around 1666 A.D., also confirms this practice of mutual salute,
“After all, the vulgar opinion of the Gentiles, touching the God Ram, is that he was produced, and came out of the Light, in the same manner as the Fringe of a Belt comes out of that Belt; and if they Assign him a Father whom they call Desser (Dasharath), and a Mother named Gaoucella (Kausalya); that is only for form sake, seeing he was not born: And in that consideration, the Indians render him divine Honours in their Pagods, and elsewhere; And when they salute their Friends they repeat his Name, saying Ram, Ram. Their Adoration consists in joining their hands, as if they Prayed, letting them fall very low, and then lifting them up again gently to their mouth, and last of all, in raising them over their head.” (Part III, p. 65)
The English version of the book was published in London in the year 1687 A.D.
Besides, John Fryer in his book “A New Account of East India and Persia, in Eight Letters Being Nine Years Crabels, Begun 1672, And Finished 1681” and J. Ovington in his book “A Voyage To Suratt, In the year, 1689.” have mentioned that the Hindus incessantly chant ‘Rāma Rāma’ during their funeral. The custom still prevails and the mourners in the funeral procession chant राम नाम सत्य है, i.e. Rāma’s name is the ultimate reality.
(12) French scholar C. Mentelle’s account of Ayodhyā
French scholar C. Mentelle’s book Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History was published in 1801. About Ayodhyā he writes:
“Avad, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indians name it Adjudea (अयोध्या) is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the banks of the river Ghaghra (घाघरा) and we consider that the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramji, whose father was the King of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage.
In those days at Ayodhyâ there was an edifice called the Celestial Temple, from where it is said that Ram or Ramji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of t
he city. This temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Augang-zeb, as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).”
Mentelle confirms that Rāma was incartation of Vishnu and Ayodhyā was his birthplace. It was Aurangzeb who demolished the Svargadvāra and other temples. Though he does not name the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple, yet he states that several other temples were demolished by Aurangzeb. During the reign of Aurangzeb there were three important temples at Ayodhyā-Svargadvara, Treta ka Thākur and Rāma-janma-bhūmi. Therefore, ‘other temples’ here include Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple also.
The texts cited above are adequate to prove that the existence of Rāma’s Janma-sthāna and a temple thereon is based on unimpeachable evidences. However, some more texts are scrutinized below to strengthen the conclusion.
(13) Buchanan’s report
During Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā the general perception of the people was that Aurangzeb demolished the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā. He writes:
“...and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”
Nevertheless, Buchanan fell in trap of some nobles and clergymen who were advocates of the theory that Babur built the mosque. It has been discussed at length earlier. But the following observation of Buchanan in the same paragraph has gone almost un-noticed:
“...from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to support that it was a part of the building actually erected by Rama.”
Accordingly, one can reasonably preserve Buchanan believed in the tradition that the Ram Kot was constructed by Rāma. The established historians who fire the gun on Buchanan’s shoulder should not overtook this remark of his report.
(14) Archaeological evidence
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court took a very correct decision that archaeological excavation was necessary in order to arrive at truth. Therefore, it was ordered that the Archaeological Survey of India would first get the disputed site surveyed by Ground Penetrating Radar and Geo-Radiology. Accordingly, an order was placed to Tojo-Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. for Ground Penetrating Radar Survey. The company conducted GPR survey and submitted report along with annexures on 17th February, 2003. On the basis of this report the High Court made the following conclusion in its order dated 5 March, 2003.
“In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 metres in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological trenching.”
Thus, it was clear from this GPR survey that the land near the disputed shrine was not a virgin land, as it was being claimed by many established historians.
Therefore, the High Court asked the Archaeological Survey of India to start excavation within one week from the order. The litigant parties were asked to appoint their nominees including Archaeologists to watch the excavation work. The A.S.I. excavated the area near the presence of the Ram Lalla as per the High Court’s directive earnestly and submitted its report promptly in 2003 itself. The following is the final finding of the ASI report:
“Chapter-X
Summary of Results
Excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhùmi-Babri Masjid was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003. During this period, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow 82 trenches were excavated to verify the anomalies mentioned in the report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking up the excavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with some of their baulks were checked for anomalies and anomaly alignments. The anomalies were confirmed in the trenches in the form of pillar bases, structures, floors and foundation though no such remains were noticed in some of them at the stipulated depths and sports. Besides the 82 trenches, a few more making a total of 90 finally were also excavated keeping in view the objective fixed by the Hon’ble High Court to confirm the structures.”
* * *
Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short-lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bass exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structure, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level-twelfth to sixteenth century A.D.). It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 × 30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the present excavation wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at present). The centre of the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly 15×15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this central point a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify the place where some important object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.
* * *
“The Hon’ble High Court in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site as stated on page 1 and further on p. 5 of their order dated 5 March 2003 and given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”
The A.S.I. report has been discussed in details in the second volume of this book. But here it would be sufficient to say that in the light of the archaeological excavation, the existence of a temple in the vicinity of the disputed site is proved.
(15) Janam Sakhi evidences of Guru Nanak Deva
In many Janam Sākhis of Guru Nanak Deva there are allusions of his visit to Ayodhyā which confirms that Ayodhyā was a pilgrim place. Janama Sākhī Bhāī Bā
lā was composed in 1715 V.S., i.e. 1658 A.D. In this book it is mentioned घभाई बाला! यह भी नगरी श्री रामचद्र जी की है। ऐघे श्री रामचद्र जी ने अवतार धार के चरित्र कीते हन सो देख के ही चलीए।च When Nanak Deva was on way to Ayodhyā, he told Mardānā that this Ayodhyā city belongs to Rāma and they should make a visit to it.” The latter asked him as to when Rāmachandrajī had taken every resident to the heaven, how could Ayodhyā be a living city. Guru Nanak Deva replied that he had taken the residents of Ayodhyā and nothing else with him. Then went to visit Ayodhyā and reaffirmed that Ayodhyā was the city of Rāma.
घतब बाबा जी अयुधिया को जात भए अर कहा कि मरदानिया! यह अजुधिया नगरी श्री रामचद्रजी की है। सो चल इसका दरसन करीए।च
This corroborates the assertation of the Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana that Ayodhyā was the city of Rāma. However, in this book there is no mention of Guru Nank Deva’s visit to the Rāma-janmabhūmi.
According to ‘Ādi Sakhian’ which was composed in 1758 V.S., i.e. 1701 A.D. Guru Nanak Deva visited 68 pilgrim places which included Ayodhyā, Prayāga, Dvārakā, Jagannāthapurī. He saw all the land and got fruits (फलु) of the virtues:
घफेरि बाबा अगलिया तीरथा नू चलिआ। गंगा, गुदावरी गइआ, पिरागु, गोमती, अजुधिआ, दुआरका, जगननाथि, उड़ीसा, अठसठ तीरथ कीए। सभना का फलु लीआ। इसनानु-कीआ, सभु धरती देखी।च