Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  Before we examine his second observation, his third description is scrutnized. He writes that after making a drawing of the mosque he along with his uncle Thomas went to see the Noah’s tomb which was 17 Guz in length. He could not give the correct measurement of a structure which was before his eyes and which was only 9 Guz in length. Thus, there is an enormous inaccuracy even in a simple measurement. This Tomb of Noah has been described by Colonel Wilford in the following words:

  “According to the account of the venerable Durvesh who watches over the tomb of Nuh, it was built by Alexander, the Great, or Sikandar Rumi. I sent lately (A.D. 1799) a learned Hindu, to make enquiries about this holy place; from the Musalmans he could get no further light.”

  However, he could get information from Brahmins that where the Tomb of Noah stands, there was a Ganeśa temple earlier. The further information received by Colonel Wilford in 1799 A.D. was that ‘these tombs are not above 400 years old; and owe their origin to three men called Nuh, Ayub, and Shis, who fell there fighting against the Hindus. These were of course considered as shahids or martyrs; but the priests who officiate there, in order to increase the veneration of the superstitious and unthinking crowd, gave out that these tombs were really those of Noah, Job and Seth of old.” We do not find such details, in Daniell’s account, rather it contains superficial narration. However, we get an exactly correct measurement of the tomb in the report of the National Repository, Volumes 5-6, 1879. It reads, “Ayodhyā contains a tomb of Seth, one of Job, and one of Noah. Noah’s grave is twenty-seven feet long and two feet wide.” Today also, the tomb’s length is twenty-seven feet only and in common parlance it is called नौ गज्+शुद्ध tomb. But Daniells, who claim to have visited it, state that it is 17 Guz, i.e. 51 feet in length. Thus, William’s defective description of the Noah’s grave is enormously erroneous.

  The second observation is that from the Gauts they went to a mosque built by Baba (sic) on the site of a minar which the Brahmins told them that it reached to heaven. Even if it is accepted that Baba stands for Babar and by heaven Daniell meant the heavens, i.e. the sky, it is not clear as to which was the location near the Baburi Masjid which has been painted by them.

  Having said all this we should now examine the historical knowledge of Daniells. William Daniell has made an engraving which he has called ‘Tomb of Baber Padasah at Sambhal’. Even an ordinary student of history is fully aware of the fact that Babur’s grave is not at Sambhal but at Kabul. After his death in 1530 A.D. Babur was hurriedly buried at Agra in the Garden of Eight Paradises, now called Arambagh, opposite the present Taj Mahal. According to Babur’s will his dead body, after having been taken out from his Agra grave, was interred at Kabul around 1543 A.D. during the reign of Sher Shah. Babur’s son Kamran had visited his grave at Agra in 1539 A.D. (946 A.H.); whereas it is on record that in 1544 A.D. (952 A.H.) his dead body was lying at peace in his selected place of Kabul. The following is the superb piece of art by William Daniell:

  ‘Tomb of Baber (Padshah) at Sumbul’.

  This engraving of William Daniell, which he calls the Tomb of Babur, is not Babur’s tomb at all. Babur’s tomb at Kabul is shown in the following picture:

  Babur’s tomb at Kabul.

  If history is written on the basis of the accounts of painters like Hodges and Daniells, the Hindus’ icon who lived at Ayodhyā, would be Krishna instead of Rāma and the epic depicting his saga would be Mahābhārata and not Rāmāyana, and the dead body of Babur which is lying at Kabul may be turning in the grave after William has shown it at Sambhal.

  Another instance of the lack of general knowledge on the part of Daniells relates to their depiction of the famous Sun temple at Deo in Bihar as the Śiva temple. In the book ‘Oriental Scenery’ which contains ‘One hunderd And Fifty Views of The Architecture, Antiquities, And Landscape Scenery of Hindustan Drawn And Engraved By Thomas And William Daniell’ they depict the Sun temple at Deo in the following words:

  “AN HINDOO TEMPLE AT DEO, IN BAHAR

  DEO is a small village in the neighbourhood of Gya, in the province of Bahar. The temple is dedicated to Seeva, and reported to be of considerable antiquity, although from the nature of the material of which it is built, (being of hard grey granite) it is but little impaired by time : a coping, however, projecting from above the pilasters, had evidently, at some former period, sheltered the entrance; the ornamental parts in some places have likewise given way. It appears to have had formerly a covering of stucco, the remaining part of which is become of a much darker colour than the stone.”

  (Part Fifth, No. V, p. 28)

  If Daniell can call the famous, centuries-old, magnificent Sun temple at Deo in Bihar as the Śiva temple, then his depiction of the mosque at Ayodhyā as Baburi mosque on a minar should not shock anyone.

  Again Daniells have confounded his fans by making the following factually erroneous caption:

  “A PAVILLION, BELONGING TO A HINDOO TEMPLE; AND A MINAR AT GOUR”

  “A Pavillion, belonging to a Hindu

  temple; and a minar at Gaur.”

  From this caption it appears that there is a pavillion of a Hindu temple and there is a minar, which is the above structure situated in front, at Gaur. And the minar is a part of the Hindu temple.

  Details of this painting have been given as follows:

  ‘Lot Description

  Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)

  A Pavillion, belonging to a Hindoo Temple; and A Minar at Gour (Abbey Travel 420, nos. 72, 74) hand coloured aquatints, published by T. Daniell, London, 1808, S. 21¼ × 16 in. (54 × 40.6 cm.) (2)’

  The mix-up shows their casual and careless approach which is further corroborated by William’s writing ‘Baba’ in place of ‘Babar’.

  It appears that William Daniell, who was a young man of 20 years only and was not well-acquainted with Indic languages, had problem of properly comprehending the communication made in local languages. Probably, this is the reason that he misconstrued Sūrya as Śiva at Deo in Bihar, as he had heard and seen many Śiva temples earlier but had hardly seen a Sūrya temple. Therefore, he wrote Deo Sun temple as Śiva temple. It can be well presumed that no local man would have ever told him that it was a Śiva temple. Similarly, at Ayodhyā he, after having seen a mosque might have misconstrued ‘mandir’ uttered by Brahmins as minar because no Brahmin would ever appreciatively tell anyone that a minar reached heaven. Sanskrit pandits pronounce हृस्व इ ( ) tenuously different from ¥ and therefore मन्दिर could be easily heard like ‘mandar’ and since Daniells were near a mosque William mistook it for Minar. I am suggesting so because after going through William’s Journal I find that his mode of interaction with the local people was through either British officers who had been in India and well versed with the local languages and who accompanied him in his journey or through a Dubash who interpreted the reply of the local persons. In his Journal for the journey on April 24, 1792 he informs how his Dubash, i.e. the Dubhãshiyã (Indian interpreter) had given them a slip for two days:

  “24. As our Dubash had not made his appearance since Yesterday we have reason to believe that he has given us the slip-a circumstance that often occurs when they have money of other servants in their possession as in the present instance”.

  Daniells started their journey for Ayodhyã very early in the morning and may have gone without any Dubash or British officer of long standing and this is the reason that Daniells had problem in communicating with and comprehending replies from the local people. Thus, they failed to trace the ghat painted by Hodges and find the exact measurement of the grave of Noah. Similarly, when they directly interacted with the Brahmins, as William writes explicitly that ‘Brahmans told them’, the communication of the word Mandir which could have been otherwise translated as Temple, might have been misconstrued as Minar. Daniells had heard Minar on many occasions during the visits of mosques and have mentioned Minar or Minarot in the J
ournal several times but the word Mandir has never been used in the Journal. It is always written Temple. Therefore when they heard Mandir, pronounced almost as Mandar, William understood it as Minar.

  Even if it is supposed that Daniells heard ‘minar’ from the mouth of Brahmins, it is made clear that minars do not necessarily stand for Muslim structures. Minar from manār in Arabic generally means ‘a tower or turret found especially in India’; whereas minaret is defined as ‘a lofty, often slender, tower or turret attached to a mosque’.

  In Hindu and Buddhist structures there are many tall pagodas/columns which are called ‘minars’ such as Chakri minar and Surkh minar at Kabul.

  Chakri Minar and Surkh Minar in Afghanistan

  before destruction in 1998

  In an article “Memoir on the Topes and Sepulchral Monuments of Afghanistan” written by C. Masson, ESQ. published in the book A Descriptive Account Antiquities And Coins Afghanistan, which was edited by H.H. Wilson, the writer equates a ‘minar’ with a ‘pillar/column’ in the following description:

  ‘Amongst the topes of the Shevaki group, and immediately contiguous to an inferior one, is a column of masonry called Surkh Minar, or the red pillar, from the colour of the materials employed in its construction, which were taken from the rock on which it stands.... On the crest of the range also above the principal tope of Shevaki is another column called Minar Chakri, superior in altitude and in preservation. Of this I annex a sketch, the better to convey an idea of it. The original form of Surkh Minar was probably identical, but its upper parts have fallen beneath the injuries of time.’ (p. 114, 1841 edition)

  Unfortunately, the Minar-i-chakri met the total destruction by a rocket launched by Talibanis in March 1998.

  In the article “Recent Archaeological Discoveries from Afgha-nistan Destructon of Cultural Heritage” written by Osmund Bopearachchi which is published in the book Bamiyan: Challenge to World Heritage edited by K. Warikoo, the writer furnishes the following information:

  “Almost all pre-Islamic archaeological sites have been looted and destroyed by clandastine digs over the last twelve years. The Minar-e-Chakari, the Buddhist pillar, also called the Alexander pillar, dating back to the first century of our era was hit by a rocket and it tumbled to the ground in March 1998. None will see again its eternal beauty.”

  Similarly, the historical ‘Chehul Minar’ in Persia was a palace of the Parsi Kings. In India also, the use of Minar is not restricted to the mosques of the Muslims alone but is extended to the tall towers (spires) of Hindu temples also.

  In the Samāntara Kośa prepared by Arvind Kumar with the assistance of Kusum Kumar and published by National Book Trust of India, Delhi, the meaning of ‘minar’ in Hindi is given as follows:

  मीनार - गगनचुंबी भवन, पहरा मीनार, प्रशस्तिस्भं, भवन, मीनार (द्वितीय, पृ. 871)

  इसी शब्दकोष में विमान के पर्याय के रूप में मन्दिर और मीनार को भी लिखा गया है। मन्दिरों में सबसे ऊँचे भाग को विमान कहते हैं। इस प्रकार मीनार शब्द से मन्दिर और इसके शिखर का भी बोध होता है।

  There is a Hindu temple called Lanka Minar at Kalpi in Bundelkhand area of Uttar Pradesh. It was built by Mathura Prasad Nigam in 1885 A.D.

  Lanka Minar at Kalpi Rāmalīlā ground.

  The height of this Hindu Minar is 225 feet which has 80ft. high statue of Rāvana. In north India this is probably the lone temple containing such a large statue of Rāvana. It was built as a part of the popular Rāmalīlā. It was the dream project of Mathura Prasad Nigam who used to play the role of Rāvana very lively. The entire sprawling area was divided into Lan¢kāpurī, As´oka-vātikā, Janaka-vātikā, Avadhapurī, etc. All the important characters of Lan¢kā Kānda have been embossed on the walls of this minar temple.

  In India there are a number of Hindu temples whose towers are having close resemblance with minars. Here photographs of two such temples are placed:

  The first one is Hangseshwari (ã¢âðEÚè) Temple at Bansheria in Hooghly District of West Bengal. It is a Hindu temple dedicated to goddess Hangseshwari. Its construction was started by Raja Nrisingha Deb Roy Mahasay in c. 1788 A.D. and completed by his widow Rani Sankari.

  Wikipedia furnishes the information that ‘the Hangseshwari temple has a distinctive architecture different from the usual pattern in this area, consisting 13 minars or Ratnas’. Thus, this temple has as many as 13 minars and if someone talks about this minar, the structure should not be misconstrued as a mosque.

  Hangseshwari Temple in Hooghly District of West Bengal.

  Similarly, the following photograph of the tower of Hutheesing Temple at Ahmedabad in Gujarat has striking resemblance with a minar. It is a Jain temple dedicated to Dharmanātha, the fifteenth Jain Tīrthan¢kara. The construction was initiated by Sheth Hutheesing and after his death at a young age of 49 years, it was completed by his widow Shethani Harkunwar in c.1850 A.D. Its tower has almost exact resemblance with a minar. The name of the architect of this minar-shaped temple was Premchand Salat.

  Hatheesing Jain Temple

  Now, if someone says that its minar touches the heavens, he means a temple and a temple only. Thus, if a Brahmin said that the minar touched the sky, he meant a Mandir only and nothing else. The very fact that Daniells saw Brahmins only and no Muslim in the vicinity confirms the same status seen by Tieffenthaler almost twenty years earlier. The shrine was under the control of the Hindus on both occasions.

  It is to remember that when Tieffenthaler visited the disputed shrine in c. 1767 A.D. he was informed by the local people that it was built by Aurangzeb or, according to some, by Babur after demolishing Ram Kot and the natal home of Rāma. The French scholar C. Mentelle (1801 A.D.) repeated that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple. When Buchanan made a survey in 1813-14, he found that the general impression was that Aurangzeb demolished the temple and built the mosque thereon, although Buchanan disbelieved this perception on the basis of a factitious inscription and attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur. All the Muslim writers in the 19th century asserted that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple on the birthplace of Rāma. Thus, there is neither any tradition nor any evidence which even indirectly supports the writing of William Daniell.

  Daniells stayed during day time at Ayodhyā, and during this short period he drew paintings of many monuments. Their concentration was on those structures and not on collecting correct history, as was done by Tieffenthaler who wrote the book after staying more than 6 years in Oudh and 22 years in the country. Tieffenthaler wrote his Ayodhyã account in 1768 A.D., Daniells in 1789 A.D. and Colonel Wilford collected his information in 1799 A.D. Tieffenthaler and Wilfred conducted deep probe; whereas William Daniell made a cursory enquiry. There are historical blunders galore in his Journal.

  Martin Hardie and Muriel Clayton, who enthusiastically edited William Daniell’s Journal, accurately assessed his personality in the following words:

  “William Daniell, it must be accepted, was not an acute observer, and he seldom achieves real vividness of description.”

  Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, while giving the example of ‘an acute observer’, provides its meaning ‘intelligent and quick to notice and understand things.’ Thus, Hardie and Clayton, after reading William’s Journal written intermittently in India from 29th August, 1788 to 30th January, 1790 and from 10th March 1792 to 3rd July 1792, did not find him intelligent and quick to notice and understand things. This is the reason that William Daniell has committed many blunders, and all his three observations on Ayodhyā do not really stand up the scrutiny of historical facts and deserve to be dismissed forthwith.

  (8) Rama’s popularity in
the country is since time immemorial

  (i) The pamphlet titled ‘The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid – Rāma Janma-bhūmi Dispute’ issued by the historians of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1989 contain many errors which include the fallacious submission that equates the genesis of Rama’s worship and popularity with the establishment of the Rāmānandī sect in the thirteenth century. J.N.U. historians write with an aura of authenticity!

  “The cult of Rama seems to have become popular from the thirteenth century. It gains ground with the gradual rise of the Ramanandi sect and the composition of the Rama story in Hindi.”

  (ii) The antiquity of Rama’s worship has been discussed comprehensively in the second volume of this book. However, it is very briefly discussed here. Rambakia of Arrian identified with Rambagh by A. Cunningham in his book ‘The Ancient Geography of India’ shows that the cult of Rāma was extended to the west of the Indus at so early a period as the time of Alexander in the fourth century before Christ. Here Cunningham is quoted to drive it home:

  “In the bed of this river there are several jets of liquid mud, which, from time immemorial, have been known as Ram-Chandar ki-kup, or “Ram Chandar’s wells.” There are also two natural caves, one dedicated to Kali, and the other to Hingulaj, or Hingula Devi, that is, the ‘Red Goddess’, who is only another form of Kali. But the principal objects of pilgrimage in the Aghor valley are connected with the history of Rama. The pilgrims assemble at the Rãmbãgi, because Rama and Sita are said to have started from this point, and proceed to the Gorakh Tank, where Rama halted; and thence to Tongabhera, and on to the point where Rama was obliged to turn back in his attempt to reach Hingulaj with an army. Rãmbagh I would identify with the Rambakia of Arrian, and Tongabhera with the river Tonberos of Pliny, and the Tomerus of Arrian. At Rambakia, therefore, we must look for the site of the city founded by Alexander, which Leonatus was left behind to complete. It seems probable that this is the city which is described by Stephanus of Byzantium as the “sixteenth Alexandria, near the bay of Mo Nearchus places the western boundary of the Oritse at a place called Malaria, which I take to be the bay of Malan, to the east of Rãs Mãlãn, or Cape Mãlãn of the present day, about twenty miles to the west of the Aghor river. Both Curtius and Diodorus mention the foundation of this city, but they do not give its name. Diodorus, however, adds that it was built on a very favourable site near the sea, but above the reach of the highest tides.