Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  A second order was given that the sun should be worshipped four times a day, in the morning and evening, and at noon and midnight. His Majesty had also one thousand and one Sanscrit names for the sun collected, and read them daily, devoutly turning towards the sun; he then used to get hold of both ears, and turning himself quickly round about, used to strike the lower ends of his ears with his fists. He also adopted several other practices connected with sun-worship. He used to wear the Hindú mark on his forehead, and ordered the band to play at midnight and at break of day. Mosques and prayer-rooms were changed into store-rooms and into Hindú guard-rooms. For the word jamá’at, His Majesty used jimá’.and for hayya ‘ala, he said yalalá talalá. The cemetery within the walls was allowed to run waste.” ( The Muntakhabu-’rùkh, vol. II, p. 321)

  But Badauni’s allegations are incorrect because Akbar claimed that he was not only a good Muslim but a champion of Islam also in his letter to the Sheriffs of Mecca, ‘written not long before 1582’ and in his two correspondences sent to Abdullah Khan, the ruler of Bukhara. Akbar died a Muslim, as testified to by his son Jahangir and Sir Thomas Roe. According to S.R. Sharma the Din-i-Ilahi was “the crowning expression of the emperor’s national idealism” and it was “nothing more than a tentative expression in the process of fundamental synthesis; it was never forced upon anyone.”

  The greatness of Akbar is further reflected in its implementation for which no force was used or no favour was ever offered. Only 18 hardcore disciples and a few thousand followers were members of this Order amongst the population of many millions. No Hindu noble except Raja Birbal ever joined this Order. After his death his son Jahangir continued the ritual for some time but it died a natural death because it lacked missionary zeal.

  Mughal Emperor Akbar holds a religious assembly in the

  Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) in Fatehpur Sikri

  (a miniature painting by Nar Singh, ca. 1605)

  Akbar was a great reformer also. He introduced a number of social reforms in the sixteenth century. He stopped the ‘sati’ system which is forcible burning of a widow at her husband’s pyre. It was made clear by the royal order that unless the widow voluntarily and persistently showed her desire, out of self-volition, to follow her dead husband on pyre, she could not be allowed to commit the ‘Sati’. Similarly, widows of tender age, who had no occasion to cohabit with their husbands were not allowed to commit the Sati. He legalised widow remarriage. He was against polygamy unless the first wife was barren. The age of marriage was raised to sixteen for boys and fourteen for girls. In addition, certain restrictions were placed on the sale of wine and gambling. Akbar always sermonized that no worship of God is superior to looking after the weak. Thus, even though he was an unbridled monarch, Akbar had every concern for weak and poor people of his empire.

  Since Akbar was a great reformer and he made many innovations in religious and social policy of the Government, he had to bear the brunt of the attack of the disgusted elements. Historian Havell has made an appropriate assessment of Akbar in these words:

  “Akbar has shared the fate of all great reformers in having his personal character unjustly assailed, his motives impugned, and his actions distorted, upon evidence which hardly bears judicial examination.”

  Though the Din-i-Ilahi died a natural death, yet the policy of Sulh-i-kul (Absolute peace with all) which was the edifice of this Order remained a source of inspiration for many Mughal scions. Prince Khusro and Dara Shikoh were the best representatives of this order; although unfortunately they could not become emperors of India. But the spirit did not die and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi became the greatest votary of this policy of absolute peace with all religions.

  Abul Fazl, in the Ain-i-Akbari, has attested to the fact that Akbar was practising “external as well as internal spiritual austerities in the worship (of god) which render silent the slanders (spread) by the ritualists of this age.” By external austerities Abul Fazl means offering namaz which Akbar continued till his end. It is confirmed by none else than his son Jahangir who had raised rebellion against his father. In his Memoirs he confirms that his father was a pious Musalman who used to offer Namaz till his death.

  Akbar’s religious approach is best reflected in the following paragraph of Abul Fazl on a temple in Kashmir:

  “O God, in every temple I see people that seek Thee, and in every language I hear spoken, people praise Thee!

  Polytheism and Islam feel after Thee,

  Each religion says, ‘Thou art one, without equal.’

  If it be a mosque, people murmur the holy prayer, and if it be a Christian Church, people ring the bell from love to Thee.

  Sometimes I frequent the Christian cloister, and sometimes the mosque,

  But it is Thou whom I search from temple to temple.

  Thy elect have no dealings with either heresy or orthodoxy; for neither of them stands behind the screen of Thy truth.

  Heresy to the heretic, and religion to the orthodox,

  But the dust of the rose petal belongs to the heart of the perfume-seller.

  This temple was erected for the purpose of binding together the hearts of the Unitarians in Hindustan, and especially those of His worshippers that live in the province of Kashmir,

  By order of the Lord of the throne and the crown, the lamp of creation, Shah Akbar,

  In whom the seven minerals find uniformity, in whom the four elements attain perfect mixture.

  He who from insincere motives destroys this temple, should first destroy his own place of worship; for if we follow the dictates of the heart, we must bear up with all men, but if we look to the external, we find everything proper to be destroyed.

  O God, Thou art just and judgest an action by the motive;

  Thou knowest whether a motive is sublime, and tellest the king what motives a king should have.”

  Even an orthodox theologian Abdul Haq admitted this fact that despite all his ‘innovations’, Akbar remained a Muslim king.

  (6) Bhānuchandra-gani Charita of Jain ascetic Siddhi Chandra Upādhyāya

  Siddhi Chandra, a Jain ascetic and contemporary of Akbar, had frequent interaction with Akbar on religious matters. He was a pupil of Hīravijaya Sūri and wrote Bhānuchandra-charita on his elderly ascetic Bhānuchandra Upādhyāya. In this biography he has compared Akbar to the son of Kauśalyā (i.e. Rāma) and written about the emperor:

  “There is not a single art, not a single branch of knowledge, not a single act of boldness and strength which was not attempted by young Akbar.” He has further stated, “Thieves and robbers were conspicuous by their absence in his empire. His glory was as white as the moon because he had defeated all his enemies. His religious fervour never made him intolerant as is shown by his degree of regard for all six systems of philosophy. He took interest in all the arts and all branches of learning.”

  In the same book he has cited many Farmans of Mughal emperors (Akbar and Jehangir). Here some Farmans of Akbar are quoted and they confirm the benevolent and liberal policies of Akbar:

  A Farman of the Emperor Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar is very important to prove his eclectic approach. It was issued on the 6th of Azar in the Ilahi year 35, i.e. 28th of Muharram Hijri year 999 (1591 A.D.). In this Farman certain directions were issued to Mubariz-ud-din Azam Khan. One such direction related to Hīravijaya Sūri Sevda whose genuineness of the yoga practices and search for God was appreciated. One of the directions reads as follows:

  “… it is ordered that no inhabitant of that city should interfere with them, nor should lodge in their temples and upašrayas (resting places) nor insult them. Besides, if any (of their temples or upasrays) has fallen down or become dilapidated, and if anyone among those respecting and liking him or desirous of giving in charity, desired to repair it or rebuild it, there should not be any restraint by any having superfluous knowledge or fanaticism.”

  The following features from the Farman emerge:

  (i) No one should inter
fere with their worship; meaning thereby that they had complete freedom of worship.

  (ii) No one should stay in their temples and resting places without their consent. It was one of the clauses of the Jizya that Muslims could stay in Hindus’ temples and dharmashalas as a matter of right. Though Akbar had abolished Jizya, the tradition continued; this direction therefore, was issued.

  (iii) No one should insult them.

  Their right to live with utmost self-respect was recognised and protected.

  (iv) If any temple or dharmashala had fallen down or dilapidated, they had every right to renovate it or rebuild it.

  This is the most important direction which granted the right to renovate or rebuild the temples and resting places. But even this liberal direction does not indicate that the restoration of temples from mosques was allowed. Therefore, the fancy of some historians that the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā was first demolished and a mosque was consructed thereat by Babur and it was restored to a temple during the reign of Akbar and thereafter demolished by Aurangzeb’s order is not correct.

  Akbar was so great in treating all his citizens equal that he directed Mubarizuddin Azam Khan that “Haji Habibullah, who knows little of our quest for truth and realization of God, has harmed this community, hence our pure mind manages the world, has been afflicted with pain, so you should remain so watchful over riasat that no one can persecute anyone.”

  This policy that no one could persecute anyone was the basic belief of Badshah Akbar which is confirmed in another line of this firman that “the strong may not be able to persecute the weak and every man may be pleased and happy.”

  Another firman of emperor Akbar, with the Nishan of Prince Salim was issued on the 1st of Shaharyar Ilahi year 46, i.e. the 25th of Safar Hijri year 1010 (August 14, 1601 A.D.). It was a direction to his officers in Gujarat and Saurāshtra prohibiting the slaughter of animals during the prescribed six months in the year and asking them to show respect to Vijayasena Sūri, and other Jains. But the most important part of this Farman is:

  “… it was ordered that no one should put up in their temples or upasrayas (resting places) nor insult them, and if these (religious edifices) become too old and in consequence any of their followers, admirers or those doing charity repaired or rebuilt them, no one with superficial knowledge or fanaticism should prevent them (from doing so).”

  This Farman is a confirmation of the earlier Farman quoted above. It further states that “strict warning be given that the same be executed in the best manner and none should pass any order contrary to the same. (Everybody) should consider it as his duty and should not excuse it and should not act against it.”

  One salient feature of these two Farmans is that those opposing the right of renovations and rebuilding the religious edifices have been called men of superficial knowledge and those opposing the yogic powers of these Jain Dharmāchāryas have been termed as persons having ‘the belief due to foolishness and stupidity.’

  Another Farman issued by emperor Akbar in 1604 A.D. states that:

  “… it is our eternal desire that all men and animals get happiness, whereby all people living peacefully and free from anxiety continue to devote themselves to the contemplation of God.”

  Here the Emperor talks about the welfare of everyone, irrespective of caste or creed.

  While extending prohibition of animal-slaughter further during the days from Āshādha Śukla ninth to Pūrnamāsī each year, it states that “no man should harass any being’ and ‘when god has created for a human being things of various kinds, he should not make his stomach the grave of animals.”

  It shows Akbar’s concern for men and animals.

  Akbar’s reverence to the Sun is recorded in the Ain-i-Akbari. Akbar said that the exalted Sun is of great benefit for rules and so they direct words of praise to it. On Akbar’s practice of Sun-worship Badauni states:

  “Everyday he used to put on clothes of that particular colour which accords with that of the regent-planet of the day. He began also, at midnight and at early dawn, to mutter the spells, which the Hindus taught him, for the purpose of subduing the sun to his wishes. He prohibited the slaughter of cows, and the eating of their flesh, because the Hindus devoutly worship them, and esteem their dung as pure.” (The History of India, Elliot & Dowson, vol. V, p. 530)

  All these eclectic approaches infuriated religious bigots. Badauni’s condemnation of Akbar’s religions policy is well-known. He wrote with exaggeration that mosques and prayer-rooms were changed into store-rooms or given to Hindu chowkidars. But this is not true because many magnificent mosques in the country were built during Akbar’s reign. The Rajmahal mosque, now in Jarkhand State, was built in 1592 A.D. by Raja Man Singh to please the emperor. The fact that Akbar remained a devoted Muslim till his death is attested to by his son Jahangir in his Memoirs. However, it did not deter many detractors to accuse him of blasphemy. When Azi Koka, a noble of Akbar, reached Mecca, he wrote a letter in 1594 A.D. and accused Akbar of claiming to be a prophet and abolishing the faith of Muhammad. Similarly, Nimatullah wrote in Tarikh-i- Khan Jahani, in the year 1613 during the reign of Jahangir.

  “The Prophet’s Law (Shari’at-i Nabawi) which had withered like a red flower by the winter wind, obtained renewal at the accession of the king of Islam and mosques, hospices and madrasas which for thirty years had become the homes of beasts and birds, and from which no calls for prayer were heard by anyone, (became) clean and cleansed, and the Prophetic call to prayer reached the sky; moreover all directions and prohibitions and the Rules of Islam as current among the people are enforced.” (II; p. 666)

  (7) Akbar’s patronage of the Hindus

  For the first time in the Muslim rule of India a large number of Hindu nobles were appointed at higher posts. Todar Mal was the Finance Minister and he worked as Prime Minister for some time. Bhagwān Das, Mān Singh, Todar Mal and Rai Singh were appointed Governors of various Provinces. Out of 137 Mansabdars 14 were Hindus. They were appointed in large number in army and revenue department. Out of 12 Provincial Diwans or Financial Ministers 8 were Hindus. Earlier, Muslim Qazis used to decide Hindu cases also. Akbar appointed Hindu judges to decide Hindu cases. It was a big relief to the Hindus, as it ended the discrimination amongst subjects. Birbal was his bosom friend. Akbar stopped the practice of converting prisoners of war to Islam. Akbar’s Hindu wives used to sway certain decisions of the Empire. In a case of an execution of a Brāhmana the influence of Akbar’s Hindu wives and the functioning of Islamic jurisprudence came to the force. The case relates to a wealthy Brahmin of Mathurā, who had taken the materials which the Qazi of the town had collected for the construction of a masjid. The Brahman built a temple with those materials. When the Qazi attempted to prevent the Brahmin, the latter ‘opened his foul mouth to curse the Prophet and had shown his contempt for Muslims in various other ways’. When the Brahmin was summoned by the Qazi, he disobeyed the order. Then the King sent Birbal and Abul Fazl to bring him. Though Badauni does not name the Brahmin, yet it appears that he must have been a very influential person for whose summoning Akbar had to send Birbal and Abul Fazl. Then the Brahmin came and even a liberal person like Abul Fazl, after contacting people, reported to the Emperor that his blasphemy was proved and for blasphemy death was the only punishment. But Badauni adds:

  “Some of the Ulama were of opinion that he should suffer death, while others were in favour of his being publicly humiliated and fined. The Ulama were thus divided into two parties and the question was agrued at length. How much the Shaikh sought the Emperor’s permission to execute the Brahmin, notwithstanding his importunity, no explicit sanction was given, and the Emperor said in private, “Punishments for offence against the holy law are in the hands of you, the Ulama; what do you require of me?” The Brahmin remained for some time in custody on the charge, and the ladies of the Imperial harem busied themselves in interceding for his release, but the Emperor’s regard for the Shaikh stood in the way. At last, whe
n the Shaikh’s importunity exceeded all bounds, the Emperor said, “Our answer is that which we have already given you. You know of it.” No sooner had the Shaikh now reached his lodging than he issued order for the execution of the Brahmin.” (Episodes in the life of Akbar, p. 65-66)

  After the execution of the Brahmin the ladies in harem prompted Akbar who called a meeting of the muftis (jurists) to find out the accuracy of the Shaikh’s decision.

  Badauni writes thus:

  “When this matter was reported to the Emperor he was greatly agitated. The ladies of his harem complained inside and the Hindu courtiers outside by saying “You have pampered these mullas till their insolence has reached such a pitch that they pay no heed to your wishes, and, merely to display their own power and authority, put men to death without your orders.” They plied His Majesty with such arguments to such an extent that he could endure it no longer, and the heaven of designs which had long been working in his mind at length fermented and overflowed.”

  In that meeting Badauni, too, was present. He gives a graphic detail of the meeting:

  “The witnesses who have been produced prove that he has committed an offence against the person under cover of the law.” Another said, “The strange thing is that Shaikh ‘Abdu-’n-Nabi should claim to be a descendant of the greatest of the Imams (may God have mercy upon him!) according to whose school of theology the cursing of the prophet by unbelievers who have submitted to the rule of Islam gives no ground for any breach of agreement by Muslims, and in no way absolves Muslims from their obligation to safeguard infidel subjects. This question has been discursively treated in theological works, and it is hard to understand how the Shaikh can have so opposed himself to the principles of his ancestor.” All at once the Emperor’s glance fell on the author of these historical selections, standing afar off, and, turning to me he summoned me to him, saying, “Come forward.” I advanced, and he put to me a question, saying, “Have you heard that, supposing there are ninety-nine traditions awarding the punishment of death for a certain offence, and one tradition in accordance with which the accused person may be set at liberty, mufti-s should give the preference to that one tradition?” I said, “Yes, it is just as your Majesty has said; but this question turns on the maxim “Verily legal punishments and inflictions are set aside by doubts”; and I translated the maxim into Persian. The Emperor said, with evident sorrow, “Perhaps Shaikh ‘Abdu-’n-Nabi was not aware of this ruling, that he put the unfortunate Brahman to death. Yet how could it be so?” I replied, “The Shaikh is, beyond all doubt, a learned man, but he must have had some wise purpose in view, in knowingly giving an order contrary to this tradition.” The Emperor said, “What purpose can he have had in view?” I said, “The closing of sedition and the uprooting of the germs of insolence from the minds of the common people.” (Muntakhabu-’t-tawarikh, pp. 66-67 ibid)