However, an accomplished writer like William R. Pinch gives publicity to such unfounded propaganda by including it in his article ‘Soldier Monks and Militant Sadhus’ published in the book ‘Contesting the Nations: Religion Community and the Politics of Democracy in India’ edited by Devid Ludden. Pinch quotes the claim of Baba Ramlakhansharan from his pamphlet circulated in 1976 in the following words:
“Series of sixty-five battles during Mughal rule between Muslims and Hindu soldier monks over the site—beginning with five in Babar’s reign, ten in Humayun’s, twenty in Akbar’s, and peaking with thirty in Aurangzeb’s.”
Pinch further states:
“This pro-longed warfare is said to have climaxed with a confrontation between Aurangzeb’s forces and Hindu soldier monks, wielding chimtas, large, iron pincers with sharpened ends.”
He further quotes from the pamphlet:
“When Aurangzeb became the emperor of India after Shah Jahan, his attention fell first on the janmabhùmi and he immediately dispatched a formidable army there under the generalship of Jambaj Khan. At this time there resided at Janaki Ghat in Ayodhya one Mahatma Shishya Vaishnava Das, a disciple of Shivaji’s venerable and capable Guru Shri Ram Das. With him was allied a powerful group of 10,000 chimta-wielding sadhus, fully versed in the martial sciences. When this group of sadhus learned that Aurangzeb’s army was rapidly approaching Ayodhya to destroy the janambhumi, they immediately took it as a question of honor and spread the news like electricity throughout the surrounding countryside. Consequently, thousands of Hindus prepared to take up arms to defend their integrity and formed a fierce force comprised of sadhus and grihastas [householders] and faced the Mughal army at Urvashi pond. In a vicious, seven-day battle, the Mughals were forced to retreat in desperation from the deadly chimtas. (Ramlakhansharan 1976, n-12)”
Pinch then adds without a pinch of salt:
“Aurangzeb learned of this defeat and amassed a much larger force of fifty thousand troops under Saiyyid Hasan Ali Khan to raze the Ram janmabhoomi. Hearing this, Vaishnava Das is said to have approached Guru Govind Singh, the tenth guru of the Sikhs, for assistance in opposing the Mughal army.” “Together”, the pamphlet concludes, “Sikhs, Hindus, and sadhus completely routed the Mughal force in a dreadful battle that left no Muslim survivors.”
Though Pinch admits that he has “come across no records of the conflicts described by Baba Ramlakhansharan”, yet he writes:
“From the strictly topographical perspective, it is not at all surprising that the Ram janmabhoomi should be linked with armed sadhus in the minds of Vaishnavas familiar with Ayodhya as a pilgrimage center. The site is located very near to north India’s main headquarters of Vaishnava soldier monks, the Hanuman Garhi, and any pilgrim visiting Ayodhya would encounter and perform puja (ritual offerings) at or near both in quick succession (Lal 1869, 19-22). And, indeed, there is even a historical record of conflict between armed sadhus and Muslims involving the Babri Masjid, though it comes to us not from the Mughal period but the middle of the nineteenth century.”
Pinch should have discarded it outright. It is surprising to learn that during the reign of Akbar as many as 20 conflicts are claimed to have taken place. Had Baba Ramlakhansharan known the content of the sanad available with the Hanumangarhi, he could have learnt that Akbar had granted six bighas of land for the construction of the Hanuman Tila shortly after the Rāmanavamī in 1600 A.D. Since there was no damage to the Vishnu-hari temple until 1600 there arose no question of providing any relief to the Hindus on the Rāma-janma-bhūmi site. He was such a great, liberal monarch that it is preposterous to think that 20 battles were waged to liberate the Rama-janma-bhūmi during his reign.
Here it will not be out of place to mention that two books in the Hindi language Śrī Rāma Janmabhūmi kā Rakta Ranjit Itihasa by Late Pt. Śrī Ramgopal Pandey ‘Viśārada’ and Śrī Rāma Janmabhūmi: Sachitra Prāmānika Itihāsa written by Dr. Radheshyam Shukla are best sellers at Ayodhyā. But these two books contain materials which are rubbish in nature. Their contents are, by and large, far from historical facts and deserve to be trashed. They create communal tension in the minds of readers. It was agonizing to see that the counsel of the Nirmohi Akhara was placing his arguments on the authority of these baseless books before the Hon’ble High Court. Almost all the references from this book appear to be farce.
(4) Baba Ram Charan Das and Amir Ali
There is a popular story that after the annexation of Awadh there was great resentment amongst both the Muslim and Hindu communities and it was reflected in the intense revolt throughout the territories of Awadh. It is said that there was an agreement between Maulana Amir Ali said to have been a resident of Hasanu Katara, Faizabad (different from the person of the same name who led the agitation against Hanumangarhi) and Baba Ram Charan Das of Ayodhyā that after the overthrow of the British rule, Rāma-janma-bhūmi would be handed over to the Hindus. It is mentioned in many books and articles including the ‘Rama-janma-bhumi Mandir/Babri Masjid: A Historical Perspective’ written by the eminent historian K.S. Lal and published in ‘The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003’ by A.G. Noorani:
“During the uprising of 1857 the Hindus and Muslims worked together against the British. One of the Muslim leaders, Amir Ali, pleaded on behalf of the Hindus for the restoration of Ramajanmabhùmi to them on the ground that it was originally a Hindu shrine. But he along with the Hindu leader Ram Charan Das, was hanged. Later on the Hindus were denied the right of worshipping in the temple.” (vol. 1, p. 27)
For its authenticity he refers to the Sultanpur Gazetteer (p. 36). But it is unfortunately not available in the Sultanpur Gazetteer published in 1878 and 1903 by A.F. Millett and H.R. Nevill respectively. The story and introduction of Baba Ram Charan Das and Maulana Amir Ali have been written by Amrit Lal Nagar in his popular Hindi book ‘Gadar ke Phool’. But it is based on some unsubstantiated information given by Ram Gopal Pandey ‘Visharad’ who has written ‘अयोध्या का रक्तरंजित इतिहास’ which hardly contains any historical fact. Therefore, this story appears to have no substance. Nevertheless, Nagarji has made it quite popular. I tried my best to locate the story in any book of history or article related to the rebellion of 1857 but could not get success. Therefore, it appears that this story has got no historical substance.
(5) Girl’s Pagoda at Ayodhyā
Meenakshi Jain in her well-documented book ‘The India They Saw’ has shown the Ram-Marion idol mentioned in Jean Baptiste Tavernier’s book ‘Travels in India’ at Ayodhyā. But it is not correct. Tavernier’s original book in the French was translated by Valentine Ball and published by Cambridge University in 1689. For better appreciation of the idol and its location Tavernier’s account is produced below:
“In this country there is another pagoda, well-built and very ancient, and ornamented within and without with many figures, which are representations of girls and women only. Men never go there to worship, and on that account it is called the girls’ pagoda. It has an alter in the middle like the other pagodas, and upon this altar there is an idol of massive gold about 4 feet high, which represents a girl, standing, whom they call Ram-Marion. She has on her right an image of a child, standing, made of massive silver, and nearly 2 feet in height, and it is said that this girl living a holy life, the infant was taken to her by the Brahmans to learn her creed and how to live well; but at the end of three or four years, during which the child had dwelt with the girl, it became so clever and accomplished that all the Rajas and Princes of the county wished for it, and, at last, one of them carried it off one night and it has not since. This idol has on her left, at the base of the altar, another idol representing an old man, whom they say had been the servant of Ram-Marion and the child, and the Brahmans pay great reverence to this idol. They come to it only once a year for worship, and it is necessary for them to arrive on a prescribed day, which is the first day of the moon in November, because the pagoda is only ope
ned at full moon. During the fifteen days which intervene all the pilgrims, both men and women, must fast at times, and bathe three times everyday, without leaving a single hair on their bodies, all being easily removed by the use of a certain earth with which they rub themselves [use of lime and arsenic and depilatories. (Vol. II, pp. 238-39)
In the translation of Tavernier’s book Ram-Marion has been identified as Goddess Kāli (Ram-Maran), whereas Meenakshi Jain has taken it to be Ram-Narayan. The account of Tavernier is very vague here. But this much is clear that he is referring to a Girl’s idol. It appears that this idol was not located at Ayodhyā because Tavernier has travelled from Benaras and gone northward after eight days’ journey. The following is the account of the location of the idol narrated by Tavernier:
“At eight days’ journey from Benaras, due northward, a Mountainous Country is entered, which in the intervals has beautiful plains sometimes 2 to 3 leagues wide.”
This description of the place where the pagoda existed does not tally with that of Ayodhyā because Ayodhyā is not at eight days’ journey from Benaras. It is neither a mountainous country nor is Northward from Varanasi. Thus, this pagoda was not located at Ayodhyā but at a place in the mountainous terrain.
(6) William Hodges’ painting of Ayodhyā
It is remarkable to note that William Hodges, R.A., who visited Fyzabad and Ayodhyā in 1783, made the well known painting of the Sarayū bank with Svargadvārī mosque.
He, however, wrote wrongly that Ayodhyā was established by Krishna and it is mentioned in the Mahābhārata. On account of this wrong reporting of the painter Hodges, many subsequent writers before Brooks were misled and they observed erroneously that Ayodhyā was built by Krishna and it is frequently mentioned in the Mahābhārata. The following account of the painter William Hodges created all the confusion:
“Nearly adjoining Fyzabad are the remains of the very ancient city of Oud, which is said to have been the first imperial city of Hindostan, and to have been built by their hero Krishen. In Colonel Dowe’s translation of Feritsha’s history, it is mentioned as the capital of a great kingdom, one thousand two hundred and nine years previous to the Christian Era; and it is frequently mentioned in the famous Hindoo work in Shanscrite, (the learned language of the Bramins) the Mahaberet, under the name of Adjudea.”( Travels in India,: during the years 1780, 1781, 1782, & 1783, By William Hodges, pp. 105-106, London, 1793)
A view of a part of the City of
Oud painted by William Hodges.
Confusion created by Hodges is worse confounded by the following incongruous observation of the British Library:
“This is plate 1 from William Hodges’ book ‘Select Views of India’. Hodges visited the ancient city of Ayodhya, then known as “Oudh”, at the end of 1783. This view shows the Lakshmana Ghat on the banks of the Ghaghara river. The mosque at the top of the hill is the Babri Masjid, constructed by Babur, the first Mughal king of India, who ruled between 1526 and 1530. The mosque was infamously destroyed by militant Hindus on 6 December 1992.”
Here, the Svargadvārī mosque built by Aurangzeb has been astonishingly identified as Baburi mosque by the renowned British Library. It is on their website at least since 2009. Tomorrow, if one declares Svargadvārī mosque to be the Baburi mosque on the authority of the British Library, many will tend to believe it.
Now, readers should be ready for a series of shocking observations shoddily made by Daniells.
(7) Daniells’ Drawings of Ayodhyâ
While this book was on the verge of completion, the author did have an occasion to see per chance a painting of Thomas Daniell for auction on the website of ‘Christie’s The Art People’. The painting is captioned ‘Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar, Oud’. But no mosque or temple is visible in the painting. A big mound with trees and a deep trench are prominently seen here. Thomas Daniell along with his nephew William Daniell came to India in 1786 and visited many parts of the country. He made drawings and paintings of a number of historical monuments with the assistance of William, who was in his teens on his arrival in India. They left India in 1794 and never returned.
Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar, Oud.
The website gives the following description of the painting:
‘Lot Description
Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)
Near the Musjid of Sultan Babar, Oudh
inscribed and numbered ‘N.123 Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar Oud’ and with a further inscription ‘Near the Musjid built by Babar Oud’ (on the reverse)
pencil, grey and brown wash on paper, watermarked ‘J. WHATMAN’
15 × 21¼ in. (38.1 × 54 cm.)
The website for auction further advertises in a caption Lot Notes: ‘The Daniells set out for Oudh on 11th July, 1789. William mentions in his journal that ‘From the Gauts we went to a Mosque built by Baba on the site of a Minar which the Bramins told us reached to heaven. Made drawings of the Mosque....’ Since William’s Journal could not be traced by me on the website or in any important library of the country in early stage, its veracity could not be confirmed. However, some portion of the Journal was seen on Google books in snippet view. I had read somewhere that the book ‘The Indian Journals of William Deniell’ by J.P. Losty was to be published in 2008 by the British Library. I tried my best to trace the book. But when I did not succeed I wrote to the British Library and I got the following reply on Feburary 17, 2014:
‘Dear Sir
The book on ‘The Indian Journals of William Daniell’ by J P Losty that we announced for publication in 2008 has not actually been published.
You will receive a separate email in answer to your other request.
David Way
Publisher
The British Library’
Losty could not be contacted because his email is not available on the net and thus the ‘Lot Descrption’ made by Christie’s The Art People’ remained unconfirmed.
However, as the adage goes ‘where there is a will, there is a way’. After the world-wide search I succeeded in getting a used copy of the journal ‘Walker's Quarterly’ Nos. 35-36 which published the Journal of William Daniell in 1932 under the caption “Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840), William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837), by Martin Hardie, R.I., R.E. and Muriel Clayton, M.A.” After going through the Journal it is learnt that William’s Diary published in the Walker’s Quarterly is not the exact account of William Daniell. It is rather an abridged version of Daniell’s writings which have been reduced and edited by Hardie and Clayton. The Editors have made their job clear by clarifying their method of producing William’s Journal in the following words:
“The following extracts necessarily give the diaries of William Daniell in a condensed form. The more interesting and spectacular parts, such as his interview with Sindia and his visit to Srinagar, have been printed almost in full. Other extracts have been selected to show roughly the course pursued by the two artists on their journeys and the nature of their daily life. Nothing is lost by the omission of entries which are merely repetitions of the same type of occurrence or work; and we have been careful to see that nothing of importance in their lives or in the tasks which they set themselves has been omitted.”(p. 35)
Thus, the published Journal is not the original travel account of William but a condensed, reduced version of the original and therefore it cannot enjoy the status of an original document. For the search of the original Journal written by William Daniell one will have to make more endeavor to trace it.
However, from the condensed version of William’s Journal it appears that Daniells had visited Ayodhyā on 11 July, 1789 for a day.
His brief account of Ayodhyā is as follows:
“Set out very early for Oud ( the birth place of Ram one of the principal Hindoo Deities) & spent the day there. Could not find the Veiw of one of the Gauts which Hodges has made an Aquatinta print of, there not being one of them like
what he has represented. From the Gauts we went to a Mosque, built by Baba on the site of a Minar which the Brahmins told us reached to heaven. Made drawgs of the Mosque, from thence went to see a very long tomb 17 Guz which they tell us was built over the Wood of part of Noahs Ark that rested there.” (p. 64)
In his narrative he furnishes the following informations:
(i) According to William, the Ghat represented by Hodges in his Aquatinta print was not seen by him during his visit.
(ii) He visited a mosque which was built by Baba (sic) on the site of a Minar.
(iii) He saw a very long tomb which was 17 Guz, i.e. 51 ft. in length.
All the three observations of William contain enormous errors.
First, he says that he could not find the ghat painted by Hodges. William, or rather his uncle Thomas, too, has made a painting of a part of Ayodhyā situated on the bank of the Sarayū river. In both paintings of Hodges and Daniell, the tall minarets of the Svargadvārī mosque are prominently visible. A similar ghat is also seen but with two differences.
An engraving of ‘A part of Ayodhyā’ by William Daniell.
When Hodges visited Ayodhyā in 1783 it was at the end of the year and the water in the river had receded considerably; whereas Daniells visited Ayodhyā on 11th July, 1789 when the Sarayū may have been in full flow because of the rainy season. Since the river was away from the bank, the ghat appeared very lengthy to Hodges with a number of steps. However, when Daniells went for making an aquatinta-print, the ghat was flooded with water and no steps were in sight and it gave a different look. It is very vivid by observing their coloured paintings.
Moreover, some huge structure seems to have come, left to the ghat between 1783 and 1789. That also changed the scene of the ghat. If William would have thought deeply, he would have comprehended it easily that it was the same ghat which was painted by Hodges. Therefore, his observation smacks of immaturity.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 59