The occurrence of the name of Rambagh at so great a distance to the west of the Indus, and at so early a period as the time of Alexander, is very interesting and important, as it shows not only the wide extension of Hindu influence in ancient times, but also the great antiquity of the story of Rama. It is highly improbable that such a name, with its attendant pilgrimages, could have been imposed on the place after the decay of Hindu influence. During the flourishing period of Buddhism many of the provinces to the west of the Indus adopted the Indian religion, which must have had a powerful influence on the manners and language of the people. But the expedition of Alexander preceded the extension of Buddhism, and I can therefore only attribute the old name of Rambakia to a period anterior to Darius Hystaspes.”
The fact that Rambakia was visited by the great Greek warrior Alexander after his victory over the country of Oreitai and recorded by Arrian (96 A.D. to 180 A.D.) has been quoted by the famous historian R.C. Majumdar in his book ‘The Classical Accounts of India’:
“He then encamped near a small sheet of water, and on being joined by the troops under Hephaistion still continued his progress, and arrived at village called Rambakia, which was the largest in the dominions of Oreitai. He was pleased with the situation, and thought that if he colonized it, it would become a great and prosperous city. He therefore left Hephaistion behind him to carry his scheme into effect.” (pp. 82-83)
(iii) By the second century A.D. the Rāma-kathā had become popular in many parts of India. Kalpanā-mandītikā is an important Buddhist text by the great scholar Kumāralāta and it mentions the regular recitation of the Rāmāyana in Central India. However, it took a new turn, when Edouard Huber published the translation of Aśvaghosha’s Sūtrālan¢kāra from the Chinese into the French in 1908 A.D. Sūtrālan¢kāra had been translated into the Chinese by Kumārajīva in c. 400 A.D. In the French translation Huber claimed that the text known as Kalpanā-mandītikā of Kumāralāta is, by and large, the replication of Aśvaghosha’s Sūtrālan¢kāra composed in the 1st century A.D. This text, too, confirms the regular recitation of the Rāmāyana in Central India. This regular recitation of the Rāmāyana is mentioned in the 24th chapter of the text. A regular recitation of a book is made only when it gets the status of a scripture. Thus, the Rāmāyana had obtained the status of a religious scripture in the second century A.D. Besides, Rāma and the Rāmāyana are mentioned at many places in the text. One such reference is quoted below:
“Rāma fit un pont d’herbe (sic)
Pour pouvoir arriver dans la ville de Lan¢kā (p. 86)”
i.e. Rama made a bridge of grass (sic)
To arrive in the City of Lan¢kā
The confusion of grass in place of stones in the translation appears to have occurred in translating from Sanskrit to Chinese.
(iv) The recent discovery of a Prākrita inscription from Kausambi is another proof that Rāma was synonymous with Nārāyana. This inscription is on a sandstone slab which is in a slightly broken state. It reads as follows:
(i) …duvase 10+2 gahapati.... (...दुवसे १०+२ गहपति...)
(ii) …saha dārakena Iddaghosena... (...सह दारकेन इद्दघोषेन...)
(iii) … bhagavato Rāma-Nārāyana... (...भगवतो राम-नारायन...)
It appears that the house owner, i.e. grihapati Indraghosha along with his son either constructed Lord Rāma Nārāyana’s temple or had the darśana of his pratimā on the pious occasion on the dwādaśī day. Dvādaśī is the pāranā day of the ekādaśī ritual and very sacred for Vaishnavas. The speculation of scholars has been that since the word ‘bhagavato’ is in the genitive form, so probably it was for the construction of some Rāma-Nārāyana temple. But since Indraghosa is with his son; so the natural presumption should be that they came for the ‘darśana’ of Rāma-Nārāyana temple. The year of the inscription is not available because the relevent portion is broken and lost. However, from the palaeographic features, the mode of dating and the nature of Prākrita it is ascertained that the inscription belongs to the second century A.D. Dr. B.C. Shukla of Allahabad presented a note on this inscription at the Indian History Congress Session in Calcutta in 1990. In an article ‘The Earliest Inscription of Rāma Worship’. published in ‘Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India’ B.C. Shukla made this suggestion on its palaeographic features:
“---the use of serif in Brãhmï script was a result of Śaka influence. It came into prevalence in India in the 1st c. B.C. Letters of the present inscription are similar to the letters of Kausãmbi inscription of Bhadramagha. The inscriptions of this ruler are dated in Śaka era 81, 83 and 87 corresponding to 159, 161 and 165 A.D. respectively. On the other hand the medial signs used in the inscriptions of Bhimavarma of Kaušãmbì, dated in Śaka era 122 to 139, i.e. 200 to 217 A.D., show the more developed tendency of ornamentation than the present inscription. Hence, this inscription may be put in the later part of second century A.D.”
(v) Gadhawa inscription, which was discovered by Cunningham in 1875 A.D. is another evidence of an early deification of Rāma. It was issued in the 118th year of the Gupta era, i.e. 467-68 A.D. on the 21st day of Māgha month. It appears to be in the reign of Skandagupta. For his religious benefit some devotee had established a temple of Ananta-svāmī, i.e. Vishnu but in the same inscription it is mentioned Chitrakūtasvāmi-pādiya-koshthe, i.e. in the chamber of Chitrakūtasvāmī, i.e. Rāma. Therefore, in the fifth century either Vishnu and Rāma had become identical or in the same temple complex another sanctum of Chitrakūtasvāmī had been constructed. The devotee had given land grant for the use of dhūpa, ‘gandha’ and ‘srag’ (garland) in the temple which had a śikhara also. Thus, it is clear that Rāma’s temple was built along with Vishnu’s in the fifth century A.D.
(vi) An idol of Rāma pertaining to the fifth century A.D. was recovered from Nacharkherha, Haryana. It is now preserved in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, U.S.A. with the following details:
“S107. The God Rama Haryana, Nacharkherha (?); fifth century Brown terra-cotta; 18.1/2 in (47.0 cm) Gift of Marilyn Walter Grounds; M. 83.221.6
The Gupta-period Brahmi inscription near the figure’s left thigh identifies him as the god Rama. Hero of the Sanskrit epic the Ramayana, Rama had come to be regarded by the Gupta period as a god and avatar of Vishnu. He has remained the ideal Hindu king, and Gupta emperors very likely modeled their popular archer-portrait con types after the image of Rama.
As was quite common in the art of the Gupta period, Rama is dressed as a warrior in a tunic like that worn by Gupta monarchs (C28a-c) and possibly wearing pajamas. In addition, he wears across his chest a cross-belt (channavira), characteristic of a hero. His principal attributes are the bow, half of which remains attached to his left hand, and arrows, placed in a quiver behind his right shoulder. His raised right hand displays the gesture of reassurance; very likely he was addressing of confronting another person in the complete composition.” (Indian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, ed. by Pratapaditya Pal, University of California Press, 1986)
Rāma’s idol of Gupta period at Los Angeles
County Museum of Art.
This idol contains the name Rāma on its left portion and is in the abhaya mudrā (the posture granting fearlessness). These two factors are conclusive proofs that Rāma had aquired divinity and the status of an incarnation in the fifth century A.D.
(vii) Varāhamihira is a well known astrologer who wrote his ‘Pañchasiddhāntikā’ in 427 Śaka sam¢vat, i.e. 505 A.D. His Brihat-sam¢hitā is a very celebrated book. In the chapter ‘Pratimā-Lakshana’ he writes that the image of Rāma, the son of Daśaratha and Bali, the son of Virochana should be of 120 an¢gulis ’ and of others should be 12 an¢gulis less, i.e. 108 an¢gulis. Thus, the size of Rama’s image has been prescribed 120 an¢gulis in the following śloka.
दशरथ-तनयो रामो बलिश्च वैरोचन
िः शतं विंशम्।
द्वादशहान्या शेषाः प्रवरसमन्यूनपरिमाणाः।।30।।
(बृहत्-संहिता, प्रतिमालक्षणाध्याय, श्लोक ३०)
It shows that the worship of Rāma was quite prevalent in the beginning of the 6th century in this country. Had his image-worship not been very popular, Varāhamihira would not have dilated on the dimension of the image of Lord Rāma.
(viii) Alberuni was aware of the deification of Rāma, as he gives the measurement of Rama’s icon based on Varāhamihira’s Brihatsam¢hitā. He knew that Rāma was the incarnation of Vishnu who built a setu across the sea and killed Rāvana. He also highlighted the consecration of the Sivalin¢ga by Rāma at Rāmeśvaram. While narrating the incarnations of Vishnu he wrote about Rāma:
“...in Treta-yuga in the shape of Rama alone, for the purpose of spreading fortitude, to conquer the bad, and to preserve the three worlds by force and the prevalence of virtuous action.” (chapter XLVI)
(ix) The claim that Rāma’s temples are of recent origin, too, is not correct. Almost all prominent temples of North India were razed to the ground by the iconoclastic marauders, invaders or rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb.
However, some temples like the Rājīva-lochana temple at Rajim near Raipur in the newly created State of Chhatisgarh which is one of the oldest surviving Rāma temples in the country are wellknown. It is situated near the confluence of Pairi and Mahanandi rivers. There is an inscription in the temple dated 3rd January, 1145 (Kalachuri year 896). Jagpal, a minister of Kalchuri King Prithvīdeva II, had founded this temple for Lord Rāma, the son of Daśaratha.
(x) Here some temples of Rāma from the South are cited to show the popularity of Rama’s worship in the distant part of the Peninsula. Foreign travellers have given details of some temples in their travel accounts. About the famous Rameshwaram temple Francois Martin, the French author of ‘India in the Seventeenth Century’ (Social, Economic and Political) or popularly called Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694) writes:
“This island is very well known to the Hindus. There is a temple here dedicated to the celebrated monkey so famous in their stories, for whom they reserve special veneration. It is a centre of pilgrimage and sometimes as many as 200,000 pilgrims are known to have converged on this island in the course of single year. (p. 1310)
Samuel Purchas (1577–1626) in his voluminous book ‘Purchas: his pilgrimage or Relations of the world and the Religions observed in all ages and places discoursed creation into this present’ which was published in 1614 A.D. has written about a Hanuman temple in the following words:
“They yeelde Divine honours to divers of their deceased Saints, and build Temples unto beasts. One of which (dedicated to an Ape) hath large Porches, and hath (faith e Massaus) seven hundred Marble Pillars not inferior to those of Agrippa in the Raman pantheon. It seemeth that the ground in that palace is not of so quesie watry a stomack but that it can digest deepe foundations.” (The first book, Chapter 10, Asia, P 491) (The old English language)
This Hanuman temple, which is mentioned nowhere in Indian texts, had 700 marble pillars.
Samuel Purchas further narrates a very interesting incident. He writes,
“Heere happened a strange accident, the same day the jesuits departed, the occasion of which was this. There is in this Citie aTemple of Perimal, wherein they worship an Ape called Hanimant, whom they report to have beene a God, and (for I know not what) together with many thousands of other gods, to have remained there, being all transformed into Apes. Now when this principall Ape was forced to passe into the Hand Zeilan, and wanted a ship, he leaped, and at every leape left an Hand or heape of land behind him, so making way for his apish traine to Zeilan. The tooth of this Ape was kept for a great relique in that Iland, with great resort of Pilgrims thereinto: and in the yeare c.1554 was by the Portugals, (who made a roade thither, in hope of great bootie) taken away. The Indian Princes offered the Viceroy three hundred thousand (or as Linsechoten telleth, sevenen hundred thousand) ducats, for the ransome of this Ape’s tooth, but the Arch bishop disswaded the Viceroy; who thereupon burnt the fame before those Indian Ambassador, and threw the ashes into the Sea. Not long after a Baniane of Cambaia perswaded the Indians, that hee by Divine Power had taken away that holy Tooth, being invisibly present, and had left another in the roome which was burnt, Superstition is credulous, and the King of Bisnagar gave him a great summe of gold for that Apes tooth, wherewith he thus apishly had bitten and mocked them, which was after holden in like veneration as the former.” (The first book, Chapter XI, Asia, P 499) (The old English language as spelt in the original)
(xi) It is made clear in the following narrative of “A true and exact Description of the most Celebrated East-India coast of Malabar and Coromandel and of the Island of Ceylon, with all the adjacent Countries” written by Philip Baldaeus, (1631-1671 A.D.), a Dutch Minister. It was translated from the High Dutch and published in 1704 A.D. in ‘A collection of Voyages and Travels’. The relevant excerpt is as follows:
“This Ape has divers celebrated pagodes erected to he him by the Indians. We read in the Portuguese Histories, that in 1554, when they plunder’d the famous Pagode upon the Adams Mount in Ceylon, they found an Ape’s Tooth, (the most sacred Relick of the Pagans of Pegu, Ceylon, Malabar, Bengale, Coromandel and Bisnagar) enclosed in a Box set with precious Stones, which they carried to Goa; some of the Indian Princes offer’d 700000 Ducats to redeem it, but it was not accepted of, by reason the Bishop of Goa apposed it. (Vol. II, p. 839) (The old English language as spelt in the original)
The Portuguese plundered a temple in Ceylon in 1554 and took possession of the tooth of an Ape (Hanumanji). The Hindu Princes were ready to pay 7,00,000 Ducats to redeem it.
Hanuman has been worshipped as a very popular deity in this country for centuries. Since he is perceived to be an ape, it is considered sacrosanct and nobody dares kill it, lest it should bring evils. General Sleeman narrates an anecdote in his book ‘Journey through Oudh’. He writes that he had been told by his informant that “Mumtaz-ud-davula might have been king of Oudh, had his father not shot that monkey.” (II, 133)
The worship of or reverence to Rama has been prevalent in the country from North to South and East to West in a very popular form. Monier Williams (1819-99), the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, wrote about the Rāmāyana in his book ‘Religious Thought and Life in India’ in the following words:
From Kashmir to Cape Comorin the name of Rama is on everyone’s lips. All sects revere it, and show their reverence by employing it on occasions. For example, when friends meet it is common for them to salute each other by uttering Rama’s name twice. Then no name is more commonly given to children, and no name is more commonly invoked in the hour of death. It is a link of union for all classes, castes, and creeds. (Monier Williams 1974: 11).
One may conclude this sub-chapter with the observation of Mauriz Winternitz (1863-1937), an eminent Austrian Orientalist, who accepted the antiquity and universality of the Rāmāyana in the following inspiring words:
“Since more than 2000 years the poem of Rama has remained alive in India, and it continues to live in all strata and classes of folk. High and low, princes and peasants, landlords and artisans, princesses and shepherdesses, are well versed with the characters and stories of the great epic.” (A History of Indian Literature, by Moriz Winternitz, volume 1, p. 455)
Chapter Thirteen
Ayodhyā rarely witnessed demolition of temples
during the Sultanate period
[(1) Hanafi Law in India (2) Salar Masud (3) Bakhtiyar Khalji (4) Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori (5) Malik Kafur (6) Sultan Iltutmish (7) Razia Sultan (8) Nasiruddin Mahmud (9) Balban (10) Amir Khusrau (11) Khalji period (1290-1320) (12) Tughlaq Sultans (13201414) (13) Lodi dynasty (1451-1526) (14) Kamaleshwar’
s “Kitane Pakistan” (15) Barani’s observation]
(1) Hanafi Law in India
For the proper appreciation of Muslim rule in India one should remember that in India Hanafi law has been in force since the conquest of Sindh in 712 A.D. Hanafi is one of the four schools of religious jurisprudence (fiqh) within the Sunni Muslim tradition. It is considered the oldest and most liberal school of law.
India during the Sultanate period had become the Darul-Islam State. Had the Hanafi law not been in existence, the Hindus would have faced far more inhuman torture and severer of religious rights with an option of conversion or death. It is true that many Muslim marauders and some monarchs transgressed the Hanafi law at times, yet it was a big sobering effect on them.
Under the Hanafi law, Hindus were given the status of protected people, provided they paid poll tax (jazya). It is true that they were not allowed to build new temples or repair old ones. But they were not to be demolished deliberately either. This is the reason that when William Finch who visited India after four hundred years of Muslim rule found the shrines in utter ruins. The jazya tax itself was not very burdensome but the method of its collection was certainly humiliating and this is the reason that it was opposed toothandnail by the Hindus.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 61