It was copied from the deed in the possession of Nizamul Bahadur Fateh Jung who is living a luxurious life, whose meetings are attended by good persons, whose Vazirs are scholars and good counsellors, who is amongst a select few, whose upbringing is good, whose assistance is vital, whose orders are solid and far from filth. People’s expectation is from him. Mir Jumla Muazzam Khankhana Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan got it copied.
Jamatul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jung Sipah Salar and Sharfuddaulah Iradatmand Khan Sadik Bahadur Tahavvur Jung signed it after consulting each other on 17th Zilhijjah of the exalted reign. Besides, it carries the signature of Umdatul mulk Madarul maham Nizamul mulk Baharud Fatah Jang Sipah Salar from whose Sanad it was copied.
The small portion of this Sanad in margin reads as follows:
1. Az ruye Sayah bahr Samsamuddaulah Amiruddaulah Bahadur ki bailtimas Abhay Ram Faqir az rahi Fazlokaram
2. dar bab atai Shash bigha zamin andarun Subah Awadh Hanuman Tila hukm Shud ki barai imarat farman wala shan
3. yaftah haqir basabab kas faqr aan namud dadogasht kharch yaumiah baguzarand ummidwar ast
4. ki sayae marhamat shawad ki zamine mazkur didah wa danista bayad wa muye ilaih dar nazar guzashta … arraqam
5. itmam marhamat shud ma’a dastkhat Bakhshiul Malikul Muluk badihad naql aqdas zasirr mastur hukm.
The following is its English translation:
1. Under the shadow (protection) of Samsamuddaulah Amiruddaulah Bahadur, at the request of Abhayarāma faqir, as a gesture of kindness and generosity;
2. In connection with six bighas of land inside the Subah of Awadh at Hanuman Tila (for which) construction order was granted;
3. The exalted farman was received. The faqir (humble one), due to his need, is thankful for the graciousness and is (further) hopeful of (grant of) daily expenses;
4. That the shadow of mercy is extended as the mentioned (grant of) land is seen (by) and known (to) me and has passed before my eyes… arraqam (as written)(?)
5. Graciously concluded with the signature of Bakhshiul Malikul Muluk; given the renewed copy of the order written above.
From this Sanad it is known that on 28th March, 1600 the Mughal Emperor Akbar granted 6 bighas of land for the construction of the Hanuman Tila. Sadhu Abhayarāma Das filed a petition for the renewal of this grant in perpetuity and it was renewed on 8th July, 1723.
A photo-copy of the second Sanad is produced below:
The second Mughal sanad for Hanumangarhi.
Its Roman transliteration is produced below:
Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah
Darin waqt-i-maimãnat Anzman faramãn wãlã shãn wajib-al-idghan sãdir shud. Ki shash bigha zamin mausuma Hanuman tila andrun-i- suba Awadh bil istiqlãl banãma Abhayarãm faqìr bakhshidem wa mu’ãf faramu dem. Fakìr mazakur rã lazim ke barãi istiqamãt ki ayan-i-zel khud tãmìr-i-ãn tilã sakhta badiljamãi-i- tamãm o’qãt-i-khud rã wa du’ã-i baqai-i aj adyãda-i- jãho hashamat wa ikawãla mashghul wa masaruf sãzad. hukkãma wa ummal hãla wa istiqbal rã bayad az zamìnaisultãnì wa takãlìf-i-dìwãnì mazãhim na shawanda wa har sãla sanada-i-mujaddad na talband. Pãnjadahum Rabi-al-awwal sãl panjum julus-i-iqawãla mãnus taharìr yãft.
Its English translation is as follows:
Be it known that this sanad was issued specially for Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarama in perpetuity, with an order of exemption from taxes. It is imperative for the Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarāma to build residential houses for his fellow Faqirs (Bairagis) on the mound and remain engaged in praying for the perpetual glory, grandeur and good fortune of the King. The present officers and employees and the future ones should not claim royal dues or civil claims from the mentioned land and should not demand the sanad for renewal every year.
The sanad was issued under the seal of Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah and dated 15th Rabi-ul-Awwal of the fifth regnal year, i.e. on 13th December, 1723.
From the perusal of this Sanad it is clear that Sadhu Abhayarāma of Ayodhyā was further granted 6 bighas of land in perpetuity at Hanuman Tila for the construction of the residential houses of the fellow bairagi sadhus. In lieu of this land grant they were expected to pray for the glory and grandeur of the Mughal Empire. Though these grants relate to the Hanuman Tila, yet it signifies the importance of Ayodhyā during the days of Akbar who granted 6 bighas of land for the construction of Hanuman Tila. During the time of Muhammad Shah also, who gave 6 bighas of land to Abhayarāma for the construction of residential houses of the fellow sadhus, its importance was not diminished. The use of the word maulud = जन्मभूमि in the first Sanad is significant, for it shows that it has not been coined in the recent past but was in use even in the Persian language almost 300 years ago.
(36) Maulvi M. Shuaib’s Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1906-07
Maulvi M. Shuaib was an Archaeological Surveyor who submitted his detailed Annual Report for the financial year 1906-07. In his survey report he had mentioned the three inscriptions which he had seen in the disputed shrine (Fig. 5.8).
About the eleventh inscription which was on a stone slab on the inside of the central arches of the Emperor Babar’s mosque he writes that the edict contains sacred words (Kalmah). It was dated A.H. 935, A.D. 1528. Similarly, on a stone slab below the pulpit of the mosque of Babar his remarks are: ‘The date of its erection is given in a chronogram.’ This inscription is dated A.H. 923, A.D. 1523.
However, about the 10th inscription which was on a stone slab on the outside of the central arch of Emperor Babur’s mosque he gives the following remarks:
“Records the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where the old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram Chandra was.” This edict is dated A.H. 935, A.D. 1528.
From the remarks of Shuaib It appears that the inscription, which he saw, recorded the construction of the mosque on the same spot which was the Janmasthan of Rāma and where the old temple of Rāma existed. It confirms two basic facts of the existence of Rāma-janmabhūmi on the same site where the mosque was built and the demolition of the old temple of Rāma. Since the contents of inscriptions varied from inscription to inscription from the time of Buchanan to Ashraf/Desai there may be a possibility of the existence of such an inscription seen by Shuaib. Since Shuaib was himself an Archaeological Surveyor the chance of misreading or misinterpreting an edict is bound to the minimum. Even it is accepted that the remarks of Shuaib were not contained in the edict, it is beyond doubt that an expert archaeological surveyor Shuaib, who was not a member of any organization agitating for the temple, was of the considered view in 1906 that the mosque was built on the Rāma-janmabhūmi after demolishing a temple dedicated to Rāma.
(37) Sea of humanity at Ayodhyā on the Rāmanavamī day
Rāmanavamī is the day of incarnation of Lord Rāma and lakhs of pilgrims have been visiting the birthplace of Rāma on this day for centuries.
In all versions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya the religious significance of the visit to Rāma-janmabhūmi has been highlighted:
नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।
स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।14।।
If people fast on the Rāmanavamī day, bathe in the Sarayū and make donation, they are liberated from the bond of birth.
Similarly, the Satyopākhyāna furnishes the following information on the subject:
नवमी चैत्रमासस्य शुक्ला चाद्य प्रवर्तते।
तस्या व्रतप्रभावेन शरयूस्नानतः पुनः।।
दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्य जन्मभूमेर्विलोकनात्।
नाम्ना सान्तानको लोको विमानैस्तत्र ते गताः।।35.6-7।।
In c. 1592 A.D. when Ain-i-Akbari was written, Abul Fazl did not fail to mention that ‘on the ninth of the light half of the month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held’.
In 1767 A.D. when Tieffenthaler visited Ayodhyā he saw a big gathering of pilgrims and wrote thus in his book, “On the 24th of the Tschet month, a big gathering of people is taken here to celebrate the birthday of Rama, so famous in entire India”.
Though Tieffenthaler has not mentioned the number of pilgrims, he calls it a big gathering and adds that this Rāmanavamī fair is famous throughout the country.
In 1631 Joannes De Laet wrote that ‘Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshipping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit.’
From Butter’s“Topography of Oudh” it is known that the population of Oudh in 1858 was 8000 which included 500 Muslims. When Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar visited the Rāma-janmabhūmi on 10th April, 1859, he saw some seven to eight lakhs milling pilgrims and holy men in the city.
Thus, the Hindus were in the overwhelming majority of 94 percent in Ayodhyā. Against this population of 8,000 at Ayodhyā the number of pilgrims during the Rāmanavamī and some other festivals varied from 4 lakhs to 1 million. ‘The Imperial Gazetteer of India’ edited in 1881 by W.W. Hunter C.I.E., L.L.D., the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India informs, “Little local trade is carried on; but the great fair of Rāmnavamī held here every year is attended by about 5,00,000 people.” (Vol. I, p. 106)
In 1879 the National Repository, vol. 5-6 furnished the following information:
“The great fair of Ramnammi, which is held annually at Ayodhya, has recently closed. It attracted this year nearly a million of pilgrims. The name of the place means “The unconquerable city of God.”
This is an authentic statement issued by the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India and the assemblage of five lakh pilgrims on the single Rāmnavamī day is an indicator of the unprecedented popularity of Rāma in the country.
In the book ‘Picturesque India: a handbook for European travellers’ published by George Routledge and Sons Limited, London in 1891, it is written, “There are a great number of temples and shrines, to which some 400,000 pilgrims repair at the time of the great Rāmnavamī Mela.” (p. 299)
Likewise The Imperial Gazetteer of India published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council from Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1908 states, “There is little or no trade; but three great fairs take place annually in March-April (i.e. Rāmnavamī), July-August (i.e. Jhulan in Sawan) and October-November (i.e. Kārtika parikramā) which are sometimes attended by 4,00,000 persons. At special fairs, the attendance has been estimated at as many as a million.
Thus, on the Rāmanavamī Ayodhyā has been attracting a large number of pilgrims ranging from four lakhs to one million for centuries and they have been performing pūjā at the Rāma-janmabhūmi site and even then, self-proclaimed impartial historians postulate that there is no evidence. It is ridiculous.
Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Chapter Twelve
The thesis discussed above has found an echo in the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court andwill now put quietus to the
disquieting dispute
[(1) Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan (2) Judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal (3) Unsubstantiated claim of 76 battles (4) Baba Ram Charan Das and Amir Ali (5) Girl’s Pagoda at Ayodhyã(6) William Hodges’s painting of Ayodhyã (7) Daniells’ paintings of Ayodhyã(8) Rãma’s popularity in the country is since time immemorial]
(1) Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan
It is very gratifying to see that a radical thesis which uproots well-established but erroneous conclusions is accepted by a High Court before it is published in a book form and for this the credit goes to an outstanding Advocate P.N. Mishra who argued some of its contents brilliantly before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in the Rāma-janma-bhūmi – Baburi Masjid dispute. Justice S.U. Khan, the Presiding Judge of the Ayodhyā Bench, who is a Judge of exceptional honesty, integrity and impartiality, accepted the dubiety and lack of authenticity of the three inscriptions which were fixed in the disputed shrine subsequently and replaced repeatedly. The following is the relevant excerpt from the Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan:
“However, the authenticity of these three inscriptions/copies is highly doubtful.Moreover A.S.I. Epigraphia Indica of 1964 and 1965 being post litem motam cannot be given much weight vide State of Bihar Vs. R.K. Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 & Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. D. Prasad, AIR 1956 SC 305. The manner in which Epigraphia Indica 1964 and 1965 and the book claim to have obtained the copies of the originals is such that not much reliance can be placed thereupon.
There is also vast variation in different inscriptions/copies. It is alleged that the inscriptions were in Persian verses denoting the date of construction (in Persian language every alphabet is allotted a number and addition of the numbers of alphabets of all the words denotes the year). The names of some persons are also selected in such manner that by adding the numbers of the alphabets of their names, their year of birth is ascertained. (Such names are called historical names). Relevant words in the Persian on one of the copies of the inscription are stated to denote 935 Hijari corresponding to 15.09.1528 to 05.09.1929 A.D.
However, as the inscriptions given in the above book and the reports have not been proved to be true copies of originals and they cannot be termed as authentic, hence on the basis of these inscriptions alone it cannot be held that either the building was constructed by or under orders of Babur or it was constructed in 1528. In this regard detailed reasons have been given by my learned brother S. Agarwal, J. with which I fully agree.” (pp. 204-06)
The excerpts from the judgments have been taken from the net exactly as they are and hence if there are any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, they are lapses of typescripts. They have not been corrected for the sake of authenticity.
(2) Judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal
Very few Judges in the country are so well-read, probing and appreciative in the Court as Justice Sudhir Agarwal. When the lawyer of the Nirmohi Akhara failed to place relevant replies to his probing questions, he got such a hostile treatment by Justice Agarwal that the latter was perceived as an anti-temple Judge with the consequence that all lawyers of the defending Hindu side did not appear for some time on some pretext or the other. It paved the way for P.N. Mishra to argue the case continuously for 23 days. The relevant paragraphs from Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment are quoted below.
“1636. Thus, the very basis of forming the view that the disputed building was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or at his command by his agents founded solely on inscriptions whose authenticity itself is not creditworthy.
1637. Unlike the historians who without any further probe, proceeded on the observations of Dr. Buchanan as published by Martin in 1838, we do not find it possible to record a finding that the building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or any of his agents.
1638. If we summarize our reasons, we find firstly that Babar in his chronological detail (to the extent it is available) in ‘Baburnama’ has mentioned var
ious buildings which he got constructed mainly at Agra where he stayed and made his headquarter and in the nearby areas or else. Obviously, if some construction or alteration in an existing building was made by any of his army officers or non-army officers who accompanied him from Farghana, there could not have any occasion for him to mention about the same in a work in which he recorded his daily affairs. His period of rule in the then Hindustan is very short, i.e., slightly more than four years. He being the founder of the dynasty, later known as Mughal dynasty, obviously was more interested in expansion of his reigning territory and not to indulge in avoidable confrontation which strategically may have added to his agony. A careful study of Baburnama show that wherever possible he made friends among non-muslims also so as to lessen rebels. Of course this was subject to the acceptance of those non-muslim Rulers about his supremacy. Besides the fact that no army commander of the name of ‘Mir Baqi’, as such is mentioned in Baburnama, we find that Baqi Shaghawal who was made incharge of Oudh (Ayodhya) territory did not have any rest at Ayodhya. From 28. 03.1528 and onwards, for a sufficiently long time, he remaed on his toes chasing Bãyazìd and others. He was granted leave in June 1529 AD by Babar. It is the admitted case of the muslim parties that in a legendary work of Gosvami Tulasidas on Lord Rama, i.e. ‘Ramcharitmanas’ which came into existence in a very short time after Babar, there is no mention of construction of a huge mosque at Ayodhya by Babar or anyone else. We are using the term “huge mosque” in the context of the place where the disputed building was constructed.
1639. Then in two traveller’s account of Finch and Tieffenthaler also, this conspicuous miss cannot be overlooked. The first reference of Ayodhya and in particular the fort of Lord Rama at Ayodhya in the travellers account just after about 75 years and more, i.e., of “William Finch” who visited India between 1608 to 1611 AD. It is nobody’s case that besides the area which is known today as Mauja Ramkot there was any other place where it was ever believed or seen by anybody the alleged house or fort of Lord Rama. On the contrary, what has been pointed out that in the first settlement of 1861 the site in dispute was part of plot no. 161 which had a total area of more than 9 Bighas. William Finch did not mention about any recently constructed Islamic building or mosque in this area and instead has referred to a house or fort which according to him was constructed about 400 years ago and belief of Hindus as birthplace of Ramchandar (Lord Rama). The period he mentions may be approximate, i.e., may or may not be very accurate but it carries the period of the then existing building to 11th or 12th century when Ayodhya was under the rule of Gaharwals. He also mentions about Pooja and worship being performed by Hindus (Brahmans) in the said area but there is no mention about the existence of muslims or their religious place of a recent construction in the said area. It is difficult to believe if such a huge construction was existing at that time, the same would have gone unnoticed by a person who has given so much details of the area he visited at Ayodhya.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 56