Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  But when Sulaiman-charitra was composed Lad Khan was the master (अधिपति) of Ayodhyā. Kalyāna Malla calls him अयोध्या-पुराधिनाथ at the end of every patala of this book and hence he has to be believed. It is accepted that even if he was appointed Governor of Jaunpur by Ibrahim Lodi, he might have lost the job during the Mughal conquest of Hindustan. However, during the reign of Sher Shah he might have been appointed the Governor of Ayodhyā. There is a difference of 14 years only between the conquest of Babur in 1526 A.D. and the ascendancy of Afghan hero Sher Shah in 1540 A.D. Lad Khan belonged to Lodi dynasty and Sher Shah had high respect for Ibrahim Lodi and other Lodis. Therefore, there should be no surprise that Lad Khan was made the Governor, the master of Ayodhyā and this is the reason that Kalyāna Malla addresses him in that style.

  Nevertheless, the patronage of Kalyāna Malla by a Muslim Governor indicates that the Hindus got favour from Muslim rulers. About the generosity of Lād Khan Kalyāna Malla writes ‘विद्वद्विशेषं विज्ञाय दानमानादिभिश्च तान्’ i.e. he (Lād Khan) used to honour scholars by gifts, etc.

  (14) Kamaleshwar’s ‘Kitane Pakistan’

  Here it will not be out of place to examine the story narrated in Kamaleshwar’s ‘Kitane Pakistan’. In this book Kamaleshwar has written that the so-called Baburi mosque was built by Ibrahim Lodi in the memory of his grandmother who was a Hindu. It is true that his grandmother, who was the mother of Sikandar Lodi, was a Hindu, goldsmith by caste. It is also true that she had taken active part in the installation of Sikandar Lodi to the throne. But there is not a single evidence to corroborate the story that Ibrahim Lodi had built this mosque in commemoration of his grandmother. On the other hand, Sikandar Lodi, the son of a Hindu mother, became a fanatic.

  It is more unfortunate that despite the fact when Sikandar Lodi was still a prince and had the idea of raiding the sacred tank of the Hindus at Thaneshwar, Maulana Abdullah Ajudhani had clearly taught him the lesson that Islam did not permit such interference. Nevertheless, after becoming the King he went on a demolition spree and razed the famous temple at Nagarkot to ground and gave idols to butchers for using them as weights. He is said to have harassed Saint Kabir for long.

  However, there is no evidence that he demolished any temple at Ayodhyā.

  (15) Barani’s observation

  Thus, we have surveyed the religious policy of all important Sultans of the Delhi Sultanate period and found that except the Jain Ādinatha Mandir no other temple at Ayodhyā was demolished or damaged during the Delhi Sultanate period, whereas a large number of temples from Delhi to Benaras and Bengal were demolished. Now the question arises as to why temples at Ayodhyā remained unmolested. It is difficult to answer. One reason may be that some powerful rulers like Iltutmish, Balban, Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq took a very pragmatic approach and they did not allow the clergy to take over the reins of power. On the payment of the poll taxes temples, except in a few cases, were allowed to remain unmolested. Such policy decisions, independent of extreme Muslim clergy men, were highly resented by them. Ziyauddin Barani, the author of Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi and Fatwa-i Jahandari (rather a continuation of the first) has expressed his ire at several places in his book against such kings. In Fatawa-i Jahandari, Barani laments:

  “But the desire for overthrowing infidels and knocking down idolators and polytheists does not fill the hearts of the Muslim kings (of India). On the other hand, out of consideration for the fact that infidels and polytheists are payers of tribute and protected persons (Dhimmis), these infidels are honoured, distinguished, favoured and made eminent; the kings bestow drums, banners, ornaments, cloaks of brocade and caparisoned horses upon them, and appoint them to governorships, high posts and offices. “And in their capital (Delhi), owing to the status of which the status of all other Muslim cities is raised, Muslim kings not only allow but are pleased with the fact that infidels, polytheists, idol-worshippers and cow-dung (sargin) worshippers build houses like palaces, wear clothes of brocade and ride Arab horse caparisoned with gold and silver ornaments. They are equipped with a hundred thousand sources of strength. They live in delights and comforts. They take Mussalmans into their service and make them run before their horses. The poor Mussalmans beg of them at their doors, and in the capital of Islam, owing to which the edifice of Islam is elevated, they are called rais (great rulers), ranas (minor rulers), thakurs (warriors). How under these conditions can Faith prevail over false creeds or truth be established at the centre?” (pp. 46-48)

  Again Barani bemoans that in the reign of Jalaluddin Khalji, even in the capital and provincial centres, the idols were publicly worshipped and processions were openly taken and he was helpless in stopping them:

  “The Hindus pass beneath the wall of the royal palace in processions, singing, dancing and beating drums to immerse the idols in the Yamunã, and I am helpless, he said.”

  Barani futher says that any attempt to use force had no effect on the Hindus. He uses a very apt simile. He says that ‘though cowed down, they have plucked Islam from their hearts as a hair is discarded while kneading flour’.

  

  Chapter Fourteen

  Many Mughal monarchs were magnanimous rulers

  [(1) Introuduction (2) Akbar’s greatness (3) Akbar in the liberal mould of Faizi and Abul Fazl. (4) ‘Infallibility Decree’ (5) Tauhid-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi (6) Bhãnuchandra-gani Charita of Jain ascetic Siddhi Chandra Upãdhyãya (7) Akbar’s patronage of the Hindus (8) Masiri-i-Rahimi of Abdul Baqi Nahavandi (9) Rãma-Siya coins of Akbar (10) Akbar in Sanskrit and Hindi poems (11) Ayodhyã Sanad (12) William Finch’s visit to Akbar’s tomb (13) Jahangir’s generosity (14) Jahangir’s reverence to many Hindu ascetics (15) Farmans patronising Jain monks (16) Derisive remarks on the Jains in his Memoirs (17) Persecution of Sikh Guru Arjan Deva (18) Khusrau’s rebellion (19) Jahangir’s ten commandments (20) Jahangir’s Chain of Justice (21) Harideva Mis´ra’s Jahãngìra-virudãvali (22) Kes´ava Dãsa’s Jahãngìr-Jasa-Chandrikã (23) Magnificent monarchy of Shah Jahan (24) Construction of the Taj Mahal (25) Shah Jahan’s liberal policy (26) Abolition of pilgrimage tax on Kavìndrãchãrya’s representation (27)Patronage of Panditarãja Jagannãtha (28) Raghudeva Mis´ra’s S´ãhijahãñ-virudãvalì (29) Jaipur Inscription prohibiting the low-caste people from drawing water (30) Shah Jahan’s Farman in response to a complaint made by the Mahajans of the Lumpaka sect (31) Shah Jahan’s Farman to restore a temple]

  (1) Introuduction

  Mughal emperors except Aurangzeb were, by and large, liberal rulers. Babur’s non-fanatic attitude has been shown in the third chapter. Humayun’s image of a liberal ruler is best reflected in the story of the Rānī Karnāvatī of Chittore who sought his help by sending him a rakhi. Humayun proceeded; but, being a fickle-minded person, stopped on the way and did not render help to the Rānī. He was engaged in battles against almost all Muslim rulers. Personally, he was a large-hearted man. His successors – Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jhan – all were liberal monarchs. After Aurangzeb imposed Jaziyā on the Hindus, Shivaji, the architect of the nascent Hindu State, wrote a highly spirited letter in eloquent Persian to Aurangzeb in the middle of 1679 A.D. In this letter he praised the policies of Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan in the following words:

  “That architect of the fabric of empire, [ Jalaluddin] Akbar Padishah, reigned with full power for 52 [lunar] years. He adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony (sulh-i-kul) in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Dadu’s followers, sky-worshippers (falakia), malakia, materialists (ansaria), atheists (daharia), Brahmans and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So, he became famous under the title of Jagat-Guru, ‘the World’s spiritual guide.”

  “Next, the Emperor Nuruddin Jahangir for 22 years spread his gracious shade on the head of the world and its dwellers, gave his heart to his friends an
d his hand to his work, and gained his desires. The Emperor Shah Jahan for 32 years cast his blessed shade on the head of the world and gathered the fruit of eternal life, — which is only a synonym for goodness and fair fame, — as the result of his happy time on earth.” (Verses)

  He who lives with a good name gains everlasting wealth,

  Because after his death, the recital of his good deeds keeps his name alive.

  (“Shivaji and His Times” by Jadunath Sarkar, pp. 251-52)

  (2) Akbar’s greatness

  Akbar was such a great emperor that very few monarchs in the world history can match him in magnanimity and farsighted statesmanship. His contemporary rulers in the world were Elizabeth of England, Henry IV of France, Sulaiman the Magnificent of Turkey and Shah Abbas the Great of Persia. But Akbar stood head above shoulder among these monarchs. Voltaire had written, ‘Happy the writer who shall tell the history of Catherine II’. And happier will be the historian who narrates the epoch-making events of Akbar’s life. Akbar with his principle of peace for all (Sulh-i-kul) was in advance of his age by centuries.

  For a conqueror of the battle at Panipat where he defeated and killed the Hindu King Hemu who had the distinction of ascending the throne of Delhi after an interval of 364 years, following the defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan at the second battle of Terrain in 1192 A.D. and for an emperor who fought an almost incessant war against Maharana Pratap, the idol and icon of Hindu nationalism and for a stout Muslim devout who made annual pilgrimage to the shrine of Muinuddin Chisti at Ajmer on foot for long 18 years from 1662; it was a miracle to achieve the confidence of the Hindus who remained in the forefront and fought for the extension and consolidation of the Mughal empire during his reign.

  Every student of history knows that Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax in 1563 at an annual loss of rupees one crore and abolished the hated jaziya in 1564 which had made the Hindus an inferior and humiliated lot. Earlier in 1562 he had abolished the practice of forcibly converting prisoners of war to Islam. He married many Hindu princesses and allowed them to continue their old faith and made elaborate arrangements for the performance of their rituals in the royal harem. He stopped cow slaughter at least in the state of Punjab. He banned the killing of animals on certain days and fishing was prohibited for some time in 1592 A.D. According to Badauni Akbar avoided garlic and onion. He used to drink only Ganga water and attend Hindu festivals like Rakhi, Dipawali and Sivarātri with enthusiasm.

  Akbar had given complete freedom to the Hindus to perform all customs except Sati. When Jahangir had questioned his father giving complete liberty to the Hindus for indulging in idolatry Akbar, the Great, had given a reply which was befitting an unusual emperor of an unparalleled vision. In his Memoirs Jahangir writes:

  “On this subject I must however acknowledge, that having on one occasion asked my father the reason why he had forbidden anyone to prevent or interfere with the building of these haunts of idolatry, his reply was in the following terms: “My dear child, said he, ‘I find myself a puissant monarch, the shadow of God upon earth. I have seen that he bestows the blessings of his gracious providence upon all his creatures without distinction. Ill should discharge the duties of my exalted station, were I to withhold my compassion and indulgence from any of those entrusted to my charge. With all of the human race, with all of God’s creatures, I am at peace; why then should I permit myself, under any consideration, to be the cause of molestation or aggression to anyone? Besides, are not five parts in six of mankind either Hindus or aliens to the faith; and were I to be governed by motives of the kind suggested in your inquiry, what alternative can I have but to put them all to death! I have thought it there are my wisest plan to let these men alone. Neither is it to be forgotten, that the class of whom we are speaking, in common with the other inhabitants of Agrah, are usefully engaged, either in the pursuits of science or the arts, or of improvements for the benefit of mankind, and have in numerous instances arrived at the highest distinctions in the state, there being, indeed, to be found in this city men of every description, and of every religion on the face of the earth.”

  (translated by Major David Price, 1829, London p. 15)

  Akbar had assured that with the exception of the prohibition of forcible sati, the Hindus may follow their prescribed custom, and none should be allowed to exercise force or oppression over another. In this regard, Akbar’s policy of Sulh-i- kul (absolute peace with all) and promulgation of Din-i-Ilahi in 1581 was a great relief for his subjects which were at loggerheads at times.

  (3) Akbar in the liberal mould of Faizi and Abul Fazl

  Shaikh Mubarak and his two sons, Faizi and Abul Fazl had the highest influence on Akbar in formulating his religious views and policies. Faizi joined Akbar’s services in 1567 and Abul Fazl in 1574. These two Sufi brothers were great scholars and champions of liberal religious policies. They established a big library and motivated Akbar, who did not get formal education in traditional manner but was not illiterate, as many have been wrongly believing. After reading the relevant books and their proper appreciation through Faizi’s explanation Akbar came to realize that there was some good element in every religion. In 1575 an Ibadat-Khana or the House of Worship was established at Fatehpur Sikri for discussion on religious matters. Initially, only Muslim theologians were invited with the sole purpose which Akbar explained in these words:

  “My sole object, Oh wise Mullahs! is to ascertain truth, to find out and disclose the principles of genuine religion, and to trace it to the divine origin. Take care, therefore, that through the influence of your human passions you are not induced to conceal the truth : and say nothing contrary to the Almighty decrees. If you do, you are responsible before God for the consequences of your impiety.”

  Despite Akbar’s exhortation, the Mullahs quarrelled among themselves so ugly that the orthodox historian Badauni had to write such comment, “The learned men used to draw the sword of the tongue on the battlefield of mutual contradiction and opposition and the antagonism of the sects reached such a pitch that they would call one another fools or heretics. The controversies used to pass beyond the differences of Sunni and Shia, of Hanafi and Shafi, of lawyer and divine, and they would attack the very basis of belief.”

  Disgusted with such ugly deliberations led by Shaikh Makhdum-ul-Mulk and Shaikh Abdun Nabi, Akbar looked beyond and called Hindu Pandits like Purshottama and Devi, Jain Dharmāchāryas like Hīravijaya Sūri, Vijayasen Sūri, Bhānuchandra Upādhyāya and Jinachandra as well the Zoroastrian religious leader Dastur Meherji Rana to participate in religious discourses.

  On Friday, 26th June, 1579 Akbar mounted the pulpit of the mosque at Fatehpur Sikri in the fashion of the Caliphs and his ancestor Timur and recited the following Khutba composed by Faizi in verse:

  “In the name of Him who gave us sovereignty,

  Who gave us a wise heart and a strong arm,

  Who guided us in equity and justice,

  Who put away from our heart aught but equity;

  His praise is beyond the range of our thoughts

  Exalted be His Majesty – Allah-u-Akbar!”

  (4) ‘Infallibility Decree’

  Then on Sept. 2, 1579 came the so-called ‘Infallibility Decree’ which was presented by Shaikh Mubarak and signed by Makhdum-ul-Mulk, Shaikh Abdun Nabi and others. The document is preserved in the text of Badauni and Nizamuddin.

  From the scrutiny of the ‘Infallibility Decree’ it is erroneous to presume that the Decree made Akbar both ‘Pope as well as King’ because it gave Akbar no power until and unless the Ulemas failed to agree and even then he had the power only to interpret the Muslim law and not to make it. However, by this Decree, Akbar was supreme in interpreting Muslim law because he was entitled to choose any of the interpretations which would “benefit to the nation and in the interests of good order.” Hindus and followers of other religions had nothing to do with it. But this Decree displeased Muslim Ulemas and orthodox Muslims.

  (5) Tau
hid-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi

  In early 1582 Akbar promulgated the Din-i-Ilahi or a more appropriate expression Tauhid-i-Ilahi. It literally means ‘Divine Monotheism’ which was an order of the Sufistic type. It had no scriptures, no rituals and practically no religious beliefs. Modern historians have rightly called it an order than a church or religion. Abul Fazl has written a lot on the rituals of Tauhid-i-Ilahi. Prof. Satish Chandra has put it up very succinctly in his book ‘A History of Medieval India’:

  “The Tauhid-i-Ilahi was really an order of the Sufistic type. Those who were willing to join, and whom the emperor approved, were allowed to become members. Sunday was fixed as the day for initiation. The novice placed his head at the feet of the emperor who raised him up, and gave him the formula, called shast in the Sufi terminology, which he was to repeat and concentrate upon. This contained Akbar’s favourite motto ‘Allah-o-Akbar’ or God is great. The initiates were to abstain from meat as far as possible, at least in the month of their birth, give a sumptuous feast and alms on their birthday. There were no sacred books or scriptures, no priestly class, no place of worship or rituals and ceremonies, except the initiation.” (p. 256)

  But Badauni, who was quite orthodox and jealous of Abul Fazl’s close association with the emperor, has made the following unsubstantiated allegation against Akbar:

  “At this time His Majesty promulgated some of his new-fangled decrees. The killing of animals on the first day of the week was strictly prohibited (p. 322) because this day is sacred to the Sun, also during the first eighteen days of the month of Farwardín; the whole of the month of Ábán (the month in which His Majesty was born); and on several other days, to please the Hindús. This order was extended over the whole realm and punishment was inflicted on every one, who acted against the command. Many a family was ruined. During the time of these fasts the Emperor abstained altogether from meat, as a religious penance, gradually extending the several fasts during a year over six months and even more, with a view to eventually discontinuing the use of meat altogether.