Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  Even in distant Malabar, where he got information for writing travel account, pilgrimage to Ayodhyā by devotees was portrayed under the title “The idolatry of the East India Pagons.” Philip Baldaeus writes:

  “Another meritorious Act of the Pagans is the visiting their celebrated Pagodes and other holy Places (like the Pilgrimages of the Romanists) as the famous Pagode Rammanakojel, the Adams Mountain in Ceylon, and divers other Places Suratte, Davarca, Mottera, Casi, Bengale, and Ayotia, 12 Leagues from Casi; for which reason it is, that the rich erect Pagodes, Jans (call’d Ammalams) and Cisterns for the Convenience of the travelling Men and Beasts. (p. 896)

  Here one finds that pilgrims from the extreme South such as Malabar and Coromandel visited Ayodhyā which had many Pagodas in the first half of the seventeenth century. It is pleasing to note that the author Philip Baldaeus has appreciated this meritorious act of the Hindus.

  (28) Some other foreign accounts

  (i) Thomas Pennant - (14 June 1726 - 16 December 1798) was a Welsh native who wrote the book entitled ‘The View of Hindoostan’ in two volumes which were incorporated in his longer work ‘Outlines of the Globe’. It was published from London and printed by Henery Hughs in 1798 A.D. Pennant writes about Ayodhyā in the 2nd volume of this book as follows:

  “The city of Oide stands directly opposite. The author of the City of Oude Ayeen Akberry, ii. 41, says, that it was in his time the largest city in Hindoostan; he mentions it as a place of peculiar sanctity. Feristhta boasts of its existing two thousand two years before the Christian era.” (Volume 2, Page 219)

  (ii) Thomas Maurice (born in 1755) was a noted oriental scholar and historian, and assistant-keeper of MSS at the British Museum (1798-24). He wrote many books on Indian history.

  His description of Ayodhyā in the second volume of his book ‘History of Hindustan’ is as follows:

  “In fact, Ram, or Rãma, was the sovereign of Ayodhya, or Audh, a city in the most ancient times of wonderful extent and magnificence, as may be inferred from the present Lucnow’s having been, according to the Brahmin accounts, only a lodge for one of its gates; that he is celebrated as a conqueror of the highest renown, and the deliverer of nations from tyrants, as well as of his consort Sita, from the giant Ravan, king of Lanca; that he was commander-in-chief of a numerous and intrepid race of those large monkeys, which some of our naturalists have denominated Indian satyrs; that the name of his general was Hanumat, the prince of satyrs; and that, by the wonderful activity of such an army, a bridge of rocks was raised over the sea, a part of which the Hindoos suppose still to remain; and he thinks it is probably that series of rocks, which, by Mussulmen and Portuguese, is mistakenly called Adam’s, for it should be Rama’s, bridge. “Might not,” subjoins Sir William, “this army of satyrs have been only a race of mountaineers, whom Rama, if such a monarch ever existed, had civilized.”

  (iii) William Wakefield was a doctor who came to India with a troop of army in January 1874. In India he stayed for many years and visited several places. He wrote two books during his stay in India: ‘Our Life and Travels in India’ and ‘The Happy Valley: Sketches of Kashmir and Kashmiris’. The first book was published from London in 1878.

  In this book ‘Our Life and Travels in India’ he writes about Ayodhyā in these words:

  “The only remains that appear to be of any great antiquity are three large earthen mounds, supposed to have been formed by the legion of monkeys when assisting Rama, and two large tombs made of brick, the occupants of which are unknown. With these exceptions there is nothing very notable in the place; the numerous temples filled with Brahmans and fakirs are, as already stated, of modern erection; and Ajudhya only interests us now from the fact that in the dark period of India’s history, it was the scene of most important political and social events.”

  (v) St. Bartholomew, also known as St. Paulinus von Bartholomäus or Paulinus Paulinus von Heilig Bartholomäus or Sancto Bartholomaeo, was born in Austria on 25 April 1748 and died on, 7 January 1806. He was a missionary, Orientalist and historian. He was well versed in several languages. He spoke German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, English, Sanskrit and some dialects of India. He taught oriental languages for seven years at the College of Propaganda Fide in Rome and in 1776 he was sent to Malabar, in India, where, among others, he studied the Sanskrit language. He was one of the first to detect similarities between Sanskrit and Indo-European languages. He returned to Italy in 1789. He also wrote an extensive essay in Italian on India (Journey to the East Indies) which was translated into English by William Jonston with notes and illustrations given by John Reinhold Forstor and published fron London in 1800.

  In this book his writing on Ayodhyâ is as follows:

  “Ayodhya, an ancient Indian city, where the first Indian monarchs on the Ganges resided, was situated on the river Deva, in the latitude of 250, exactly in the spot where Faizabad now stands. It was the birthplace of Shirama, or Rama, an Indian hero, or the younger Bacchus, whose heroic achievements were celebrated in songs before the times of the Pagan Indians.”

  (v) Major General Sir W.H. Sleeman (born in 1788). He came to India as an infantry cadet in the Bengal army in 1809 and finally became Major General in 1854. He is remembered for his outstanding work for the suppression of the thugs. His famous line on the crime situation in Rohtas district (where men are shot like birds and jail is the best alibi) was quoted by the present author, while he was the Superintendent of Police there, in his various reports. Sleeman was posted as British resident at Lucknow during the reign of Wajid Ali Shah. His travel account was published in two volumes of the book titled ‘A Journey Through The Kingdom Of Oudh (1849-1850)’ from Richard Bently Press, London in 1858. In this book Sleeman describes Ayodhya on 23rd January, 1850 in the following words:

  “The old city of Ajoodhea is a ruin, with the exception of a few buildings along the bank of the river raised by wealthy Hindoos in honour of Ram, who once lived and reigned there, and is believed by all Hindoos to have been an incarnation of Vishnoo.” (Vol. 2, p. 27)

  Baburi mosque did not attact this dynamic officer.

  (29) Testimony of early Gazetteers

  (i) Brookes General Gazetteer (Abridged, London. 1796 A.D.) confirms the sanctity of Ayodhyā:

  “OUDE, an ancient city of Hindoostan Proper, in the province of Oude, the remains of which are seated on the Ganges, nearly adjoining Fyzabad. It is said to have been the first imperial city of Hindoostan; but whatever may have been its former magnificence; no traces of it are left. It is considered as a place of sanctity; and the Hindoos frequently come hither, in pilgrimage, from all parts of India.”

  (ii) The Universal Gazetteer, by John Walker, 2nd edition, 1798

  This Gazetteer also testifies to the fact that Ayodhyā was the first imperial city and the pilgrim place of the highest importance-

  “But whatever may have been its former magnificence, scarcely any traces of it are left. It is considered as a place of sanctity; and the Hindoos frequently come hither in pilgrimage, from all quarters of India.”

  Here one is reminded of the poignant poem “The Ruins of Rome” written by John Dyer in 1740:

  Fallen, fallen, a silent heap; their heroes all

  Sunk in their urns:—Behold the pride of pomp,

  The throne of nations fallen; obscured in dust

  Even yet majestical.—The solemn scene

  Elates the soul!

  (iii) Walter Hamilton’s Gazetteer (1828 A.D.)

  Walter Hamilton’s East India Gazetteer was first published in 1815 A.D. and the second edition followed in 1828 A.D. Very few people know that in between he published a book ‘A Geographical, Statistical, and Historical Description of Hindostan’ in 1820. The extract on the holy city of Ayodhyā from his book, which was exactly reproduced in his gazetteer’s second edition, is quoted below:

  “Oude—The ancient capital of the province of Oude, situated on the south side of the Gog
gra, seventy-nine miles east from Lucknow; Lat. 26° 48’ N., Lon. 82° 4’ E. By Abul Fazel in 1582 it is described as follows. “Oude is one of the largest cities of Hindostan. In ancient times this city is said to have measured 148 coss in length and thirty-six coss in breadth. Upon sifting the earth which is round this city small grains of gold are sometimes found in it. This town is esteemed one of the most sacred places of antiquity.

  Pilgrims resort to this vicinity, where the remains of the ancient city of Oude, the capital of the great Rama, are still to be seen; but whatever may have been its former magnificence it now exhibits nothing but a shapeless mass of ruins. The modern town extends a considerable way along the banks of the Goggra, adjoining Fyzabad, and is tolerably well peopled; but inland it is a mass of rubbish and jungle, among which are the reputed sites of temples dedicated to Rama, Seeta, his wife, Lakshman, his general, and Hunimaun (a large monkey), his prime minister. The religious mendicants who perform the pilgrimage to Oude are chiefly of the Ramata sect, who walk round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools, and perform the customary ceremonies.” (pp. 4596-97)

  From its perusual it is crystal clear that Ayodhyā was a holy city of the Hindus. It also indicates the existence of the temples of Rāma, Sītā, Lakshmana and Hanuman. It confirms the preponderance of Rāmānandī Bairāgīs at Ayodhyā.

  (iv) A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of East India Company – by Edward Thornton, 1854

  Sir Edward Thornton (1817-1906 A.D.) was a prominent British diplomat who held many posts in Latin America, Russia, and Turkey, and served as Minister to the United States. He wrote several books which include ‘The History of British Empire in India’. It narrates the history from the appointment of Lord Hardinge to the political end of East India Company.

  He describes Oude as a town in the Kingdom of the same name, situated on the right bank of the river Ghogra. He then informs that at a distance of one km. from the river is “an extensive establishments, called Hanumangarh, or Fort of Hanuman, in honour of the fabled monkey-god, the auxiliary of Rāma”. According to him, it has an annual revenue of 50,000 rupees, settled on it by Shuja-ud-daulah, formerly Nawaub Vizier and it is managed by a Malik or abbot, the spiritual superior. He further informs that the revenues are dispensed to 500 bairagis or religious ascetics, and other Hindoo mendicants of various descriptions.

  Thereafter Thornton makes the following revelation:

  “No Mussulman being allowed within the walls.” From this Gazetteer of 1854 A.D. it is known that till 1854 A.D. the Muslims were not allowed to enter within the walls of Hanuman-garhi, and probably most of the Ram Kot area. Neither during the visit of William Finch nor during the scrutiny of the disputed mosque in 1770 A.D. by Joseph Tieffenthaler any semblance of the Muslim presence was found in the entire Ram Kot area.

  Then Thornton informs that “Close to the town on the east, and on the right bank of the Ghoghra, are extensive ruins, said to be those of the fort of Rāma, King of Oude, hero of the Rāmāyana, and otherwise highly celebrated in the mythological and romantic legends of India.” After quoting Buchanan profusely he follows the latter’s conclusions:

  (a) The ruins still bear the name of Ramgurh, or Fort of Rāma.

  (b) The most remarkable spot in the Ramgurh was a place from where, according to the legend, Rāma took his flight to heaven, carrying with him the people of the city.

  (c) Consequently, Ayodhyā remained desolate until rebuilt by Vikramaditya, king of Oojein, who built 360 temples.

  Then he writes in the fashion of Francis Buchanan: “Not the smallest traces of these temples, however, now remain; and according to the native tradition, they were demolished by Aurungzebe who built a mosque on part of the site”.

  Thus, he also re-iterates the perception of the people that Aurangzeb had demolished all those temples, but does not accept it on the basis of a fake inscription on which Buchanan had relied.

  Thornton further writes,

  “A quadrangular coffer of stone, white washed five ells long, four broad, and protruding five or six inches above ground, is pointed out as the cradle in which Rama was born, as the seventh avatar of Vishnu; and is accordingly abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of the Hindoos.”

  Thus, Thornton’s testimony, too, testifies to the tradition that Ayodhyā has been a revered pilgrim place for the Hindus of all corners of India since time immemorial. However, he makes a startling reference. While mentioning Rāma as the seventh avatar of Vishnu he refers to Shakespeare by writing thus: “Shakespeare, v. col. 169.” Again in the beginning of the article “Oude’, he writes thus at the footnote: “Oude is Ayodhyā of Shakespeare, and Awadh of the same”. We tried to trace Ayodhyā or Rāma in the works of Shakespeare but could not succeed. Since the two references to Shakespeare were quite incorrect, they were deleted in the 1858 edition.

  Thornton further adds, “Ayodhyā or Oude is considered by the best authorities to be the most ancient city in Hindostan; and Prinsep mentions that some of its coins in the cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal are of such extreme antiquity that the characters in which their legends are graven are totally unknown. According to Elphinstone, “from thence the princes of all Indian countries are sprung.”

  (30) P. Carnegy’s writings

  P. Carnegy, who was the Settlement Officer and Officiating Commissioner of Faizabad, wrote a book ‘‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’’ published in 1870 A.D. On page 21 of the book he wrote the following:

  “Hindu and Musalman differences – The Janmasthana is within a few hundred paces of the Hanuman Garhi. In 1855 when a great rupture took place between the Hindus and Mahomedans the former occupied the Hanuman Garhi in force, while the Musalmans took possession of the Janmasthana. The Mahomedans on that occasion actually charged up the steps of the Hanuman Garhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus then followed up this success, and at the third attempt, took the Janmasthana, at the gate of which 75 Mahomedans are buried in the ‘Martyrs’ grave’ (Ganj-Shahid). Several of the King’s Regiments were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahemodans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahemodans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”

  From this report the following facts emerge:

  (i) The Hindus and the Muslims used to worship alike in the disputed shrine till the Nawabi rule which ended in January, 1856 by the avaricious design of Lord Dalhousie.

  (ii) Since the proclamation of the British rule in 1858 A.D. a gross injustice was done to the Hindus that they were not allowed to worship inside the disputed shrine, whereas the Muslims were allowed to do so.

  (iii) It was done to prevent disputes and not to adjudicate any dispute in a court of law.

  (iv) The railing was erected to force the Hindus to worship on a platform outside the fence. The Hindus apparently could not do anything against the dictate of a mighty empire.

  (v) It negates the notion that after the British rule the Hindus were shown favours by the Government. In fact, nothing more mischievous and arbitrary could have been done against the Hindus by depriving them of their customary right to worship inside the disputed shrine. This was the main reason of the Hindus losing the case in 188586 A.D.

  The arbitrary order of the British authority was in contrast to the neutral stand of the Wajid Ali Shah’s Government.

  Carnegy’s book was published in 1870 A.D. He was Settlement Officer of Faizabad since 1865 at least. His account of offering prayers by both Hindus and Muslims is, therefore, quite reliable. It has been reiterated in subsequent Gazetteers:

  (i) “It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Muhammadans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to preven
t disputes, within which, in the mosque, the Muhammadans pray; while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (W.C. Bennet’s Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, Vol 1, Lucknow, 1877 A.D.)

  (ii) “It is said that up to this time both Hindus and Musalmans used to worship in the same building; but since the mutiny an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform which they have raised in the outer one.) (“Fyzabad A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4), Chapter V)

  (31) Puja and Namaz in the same shrine of Bijapur built by Ibrahim Shah

  One should not get amazed to find the performance of puja and namaz in the same shrine. There was a temple in Bijapur State built by the King Ibrahim Shah who was called Jagat Guru because of his liberal religious policy. From ‘ A Handbook for India’ which is an account of the then three Presidencies and the Overland Route intended as Guide for travellers, officers, and civilians the following details of this temple are produced:

  “There is a curious hybrid temple here, built by Ibrahim Shah, Jagat Guru, of Bijapur. This place of worship is frequented both by Muslims and by Hindus. The Hindus worship in the inner temple in the centre of the court, while the Muslims perform their rites in the court itself. A little shrine in front of the gateway contains the lingam, and is surmounted by the crescent. Ibrahim Shah was warned, so the people of this town affirm, to destroy no more Hindu temples, and this edifice was one of the first fruits of his tolerant spirit. His policy was evidently to conciliate the Hindus, from among whom the Maratha chiefs were then rising into power; and his name is still held in affectionate remembrance by the Hindus around Bijapur. The Hindu temple in the centre of the court has a dome like a Muhammadan tomb. The temple is, in fact, an embodiment of the principle of toleration.”(Part II – Bombay, pp. 419-20)