Ayodhya Revisited
Page 67
At the end, Badauni concludes that ‘from this time onwards the fortunes of Shaikh Abdu-n-Nabi began to decline. The quintessence of the whole episode is that even in an offence like blasphemy the Islamic jurisprudence did not invariably prescribe death penalty and even an orthodox Badauni could cite an Arabic maxim “Verily legal punishments and inflictions are set aside by doubts,” i.e. where doubt arises, the accused should be exonerated.
There are certain references which are cited in support of the contention that Akbar had taken certain anti-Islamic measures like closing down mosques and prohibiting namaz in congregation. In this connection a Farman of Prince Salim ‘issued’ during his rebellion in 1601 A.D. to local officers is cited from ‘Tazkiratu’l Muluk’ written by Rafiuddin Ibrahim Shirazi. Here the so-called Farman of Prince Salim is quoted first:
“At the instigation of some mischievous persons, my father has abolished the arrangements for the maintenance of khatíb, mu’ azzín and imam in the mosques and has prohibited the performance of namaz in congregation. He has converted many of the mosques into store-houses and stables. It was improper on his part to have acted in this manner. They [recipients of the ‘farman’] should resume the paying of stipends for the maintenance of the mosques, the khatíb, the mu’ azzin and imam and should induce people to offer prayers. Anyone showing slackness in this respect would be duly punished.” (pp. 93-94 Akbar ed. By Irfan Habib)
Prof. Iqtidar Alam has suggested in an article ‘Akbar’s Personality Traits and World Outlook – A Critical Reappraisal’ published in ‘Akbar and His India’ edited by Prof. Irfan Habib that this Farman leaves doubt that towards the turn of the century there was a general impression that in some of mosques namaz in congregation was prohibited by Akbar’s authority. But there is no authenticity attached to the so-called Farman of Prince Salim. It is not mentioned even in any version of Jahanger’s frank memoirs nor is it referred to in any contemporary history. Shirazi, who died in 1626 A.D., wrote this book in Bijapur, which was an enemy country, and therefore Shirazi was justified in scandalizing the emperor Akbar who stood for equal treatment to all religions. Therefore Shirazi’s reference to the non-existent Farman of Prince Salim does not carry any credential.
(8) Masiri-i-Rahimi of Abdul Baqi Nahavandi
Another fanciful story collected in Abdul Baqi Nahavandi’s Masiri-i-Rahimi, which was compiled in 1614 A.D., is that Akbar had directed Prince Danyal, who was appointed to the new province of Deccan and Khandesh in 1601, “to destroy the Jama Masjid at Asirgarh and raise (in its place) a temple on the pattern of Hindus and (other) infidels of Hindustan.” It is total ‘bakwas’ because Akbar himself was present along with Abul Fazl on 6th January, 1601 when the garrison of Asirgarh surrendered. Akbar was, no doubt, accused of bribing officers of Bahadur Shah and even of treachery by Jesuit Fathers. It was said that the ‘gates were opened by golden keys’, or, in other words, Akbar succeeded in getting gates opened by bribing Khandesh officers heavy amounts.” But no one accused him of sending direction to his son Daniel to destroy the Jama Masjid at Asirgarh and construct a temple on the site. Had Akbar any such plan, he could have done it at the time of the capitulation of the fort of Asirgarh. The year 1601 was very turbulent for Akbar. His friend and philosopher Abul Fazl was killed by Bir Singh Dev Bundela and Salim himself had revolted against emperor Akbar. So, where was the occasion for Akbar to write such a silly letter to Danyal who is stated to be ‘wise enough’ not to enforce that order by ignoring it and whiling away time’, so that the demolition of a mosque and building of a temple in its place during the time of Akbar was avoided, Prince Danyal, who married the daughter of Adil Shah of Bijapur, ‘drank himself to death’ in April 1604 at Burhanpur and thus pre-deceased his father Akbar. Had any such direction been issued by Akbar to Prince Danyal to demolish Jama Masjid, the famous historian Ferishta, who wrote his famous book not far from Asirgarh and not at a distant period (he wrote his famous book between 1606 and 1611 A.D.), would have certainly mentioned this totally anti-Islamic order. But even then some historians tend to accept it as reliable history because they are not at peace with Akbar’s policy of universal tolerance. They must find some fault in his personality. However, the following assessment of Akbar by a Pakistani historian Ahmad Bashir, a former Professor and Head of the Department of History, University of Sindh, Karachi, in his book ‘Akbar the Great Mughal: his New Policy and his New Religion’, first published in Pakistan in 1967 and first Indian edition in 2009 by Aakar Books, Delhi, is very accurate:
“All that for which Akbar stands in history – toleration of all religions, equal citizenship for all subjects, recognition of merit, eligibility of one and all for every post, even the highest, in the state service and appreciation of everything appreciable, Muslim or Hindu – was not due to any deviation from Islam on his part. It was the work of a keen-sighted statesman.” (p. 48)
(9) Rāma-Siya coins of Akbar
Bedsides, Akbar had such high regards for Rāma and Sītā that he issued Rāma-Sīya coins in the 50th year of his reign. The silver coin was struck in the month of Amardad, the fifth month of the 50th year. Two of these coins are of gold and one is made of silver. Gold coins are half mohars and the silver coin is half rupee. One gold coin is kept in the British Museum at London and another is in Cabinet de France at Paris. The silver coin is in Bharat Kala Bhavan at Varanasi. These two gold coins depict Rāma and Sītā on the obverse. Ram is wearing a crown on his head and boots in his feet. He is holding a bow in his left hand and an arrow in his right hand. Sītā is shown to his right. She appears to be following him. The gold coin kept in Cabinet de France bears an additional label, slightly above the figures in Devanāgarī script ‘रामसीय’ (Rāmasīya).
Akbar’s Rama-Siya coin.
The obverse of the silver coin shows Rāma and Sītā walking barefoot. Rāma is holding a bow here also but the arrow is missing. Sītā is shown holding a bunch of flowers in each of her hands. The silver coin seems to depict Rāma and Sītā immediately after their marriage in Mithilā; whereas the gold coins appear to depict their departure for the forest to fulfill his promise.
(10) Akbar in Sanskrit and Hindi poems
Many Sanskrit and Hindi poets have composed poems in praise of Akbar. Some of them are quoted below:
The following śloka written by an unknown poet in praise of Akbar is found in the Subhāshita-ratna-bhāndāgāra.
वीर त्वं कार्मुकञ्चेदकबर कलयस्युग्रटङकारघोषं
दूरे सद्यः कलङका इव धरणिभृतो यान्ति कङकालशेषाः।
शङकापन्नश्च किं कारणमिति मनसा भान्ति पङकायितेन
त्यक्त्वाहङकारमङकाद्विसृजति गृहिणीं किं च लङकाधिनाथः।।
Valiant Akbar! When your bow is strung, then your enemy king situated at a distance like a dark blot immediately turns into a skelton. Even Rāvana, the King of Lan¢kā immediately apprehends an impending calamity and gets entangled in the mud of delusion and forgoes his ego. He drops his wife from his lap (out of fear). What to say of others?
In an inscription of Tejahpāla published in Epigraphia Indica, vol. 2, pp. 50-59, a reference has been made to the Emperor Akbar in the following verse wherein abolition of certain taxes by Akbar has been appreciated with a sense of gratitude.
यदुपदेशवशेन मुं दधन्निखिलमण्डलवासिजने निजे।
मृतधनं च करं च सुजीजियाभिधमकब्बरभूपतिरत्यजत्।।
King Akbar abolished the system of the government takeover of assets after the death under the law of escheat and jaziya levied on subjects living in his kingdom after being pleased with whose (Tejahp�
�la’s) advice.
Śankara Miśra wrote twelve verses in praise of Babur in his book Rasārnava which is mentioned in the Chapter III. Again Śankara from Mithila, the son of M.M. Sudhākara and the grandson of Śuchikara, wrote a treatise on Dharmaśāstra namely Smrtisudhākara in 1581. In the preliminary verses of this book he has praised Akbar in 10 verses. Again at the end of the book he mentions proudly that his book has been completed in the reign of Akbar. (अकबरसुरत्राणराज्ये निबन्धः) A verse in Akbar’s eulogy is quoted here:
रञ्जयति क्षितिमण्डलमकबरनृपतौ पतौ क्षितीज्यानाम्।
धर्म प्रादुरभूदयमतिचिरनष्टोऽतिकष्टेन ।।10।।
Akbar, after having become the King of kings and written his achievements with flying colours paints rescued the Dharma which was destroyed for long.
Hindi (Dingal) poet Prithvī Rāja called Akbar an ocean of chivalry which could not be fathomed
अकबर समद अथाह, सूरापण भरियो सजल।
Poet Holāroy wrote that there was no king like Akbar in the nine khandas, seven dvīpas (islands) and even across the seven oceans:
नवो खण्ड सात दीप सातहु समुद पार
ह्वै है न जलालदीन शाह अकबर ते।।
Akbar’s ideals are lucidly reflected in the following inscription written by Abul Fazl for a temple in Kashmir:
“O GOD in every temple I see people that see 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.”
(An inscription by Abul Fazl for a temple in Kashmir)
(11) Ayodhyā Sanad
From a Hanumangarhi Sanad renewed in 1724 A.D. it is known that Akbar had granted 6 bighas of land in 1600 A.D., following the Rāmanavamī day, for the construction of Hanuman Tila. This is the first official record which connects Akbar with his munificence at Ayodhyā. He was so large-hearted that on a day succeeding the birth anniversary of Lord Rāma he granted 6 bighas of land to a sadhu for the construction of the Hanumangarhi. Now the question arises as to who was the sadhu who was awarded this land grant by Akbar in 1600 A.D. Ayodhyā was the centre of Rāmānandī sādhus since the days of Rāmānanda because he is supposed to have visited Ayodhyā and stayed there for some time. From the Ain-i-Akbari names of many learned men of the time are known. Out of them Ram Tirth, Nar Singh, Ram Bhadra and Ram Kishn appear to be the sadhus of the Rāmānandī sect. The first two are kept in the first category which was meant for the Sadhus who perceived the “mysteries of the external and the internal, and in their understanding and the breadth of their views, fully comprehend both realms of thought, and acknowledge to have received their spiritual power from the throne of his Majesty.” The third name Ram Bhadra is kept in the second, the sadhus of which category were said to have paid “less attention to the external world; but in the light of their hearts they acquire vast knowledge.” And the fourth Ram Kishn was in the third category. It may well be presumed that the land was bestowed upon the sadhu of the first category only. Thus, Ram Tirth and Nar Singh appear probable recipients. Nothing is known about Ram Tirth. However, one Nar Sim¢ha is supposed to be the guru of Tulasi Das who started composing the Rāmacharitamānasa at Ayodhyā in 1574 A.D. It is incomprehensible why Tulasi Das is not mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari when so many Hindu Saints/poets of lesser importance are mentioned therein. The only answer could be that the first part of the Ain was prepared before Tulasi became popular in the Hindi heartland. When Tulasi composed the Rāmāyana in the Awadhi dialect, he himself was an elderly person and his guru Nar Sim¢ha might have been very old, if he remained alive until then. In 1600 the chance of his existence appears very bleak because Tulasi writes that in his childhood when his Guru gave him sermons on the Rāmakathā, it was beyond his comprehension:
मैं पुनि निज गुर सन सुनी कथा सो सूकरखेत।
समुझी नहिं तसि बालपन तब अति रहेउँ अचेत।।
श्रोता बकता ग्याननिधि कथा राम कै गूढ।
किमि समुझौं मैं जीव जड़ कलिमल ग्रसित बिमूढ़।।
तदपि कही गुर बारहि बारा। समुझि परी कछु मति अनुसारा।
(Mānasa: Bālakānda: 30)
Therefore, it appears that Ram Tirth might have been the scholarly sādhu at Ayodhyā upon whom 6 bighas of land was conferred for the construction of the Hanuman Tila.
Akbar was so liberal that had the Rāmajanma-bhūmi temple been converted into a mosque during Babur’s reign, he would probably have thought to return it to the Hindus. But the temple was converted into a mosque 54 years after his death.
(12) William Finch’s visit to Akbar’s tomb
When William Finch visited Akbar’s magnificent tomb at Sikandra in 1610, he had a glance of Akbar’s greatness, as both Hindus and Muslims worshipped his tomb, holding him for a great saint. Finch writes reverentially,
“Here, within a faire round coffin of gold, lieth the body of this monarch, who sometimes thought the world too little for him. This tombe is much worshipped both by the Moores and Gentiles, holding him for a great saint.”
(13) Jahangir’s generosity
The full name of Jahangir was Nuruddin Jahangir. He himself has explained in his Memoirs (Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri) why he selected this name:
“It struck me that the work of sovereigns is world-seizing (Jahangiri), I should style myself Jahangir, and since my accession took place at the rising of the (holy) presence of the great Luminary (the Sun) and the illumination of the world (by its rays), I took the title Nuruddin; and since I had also heard in the days of my Princehood from the Indian sages that after ending of the reign of Jalaluddin Akbar Padshah, a person named Nuruddin would become the manager of the affairs of the Empire, this too was in my mind. So I took the style and title of Jahangir.”
This explanation of his name clearly shows his liberal views and respect for indigenous sages. The reverence to the Sun and Indian sages in the explanations of his name is a testimony to his eclectic approach, although his accession to the throne was heralded as a new dawn by the orthodox theologian Nimatullah (1613) in the following words:
“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 of thirty years had become the homes of beasts and birds, and from which no calls for prayer were heard by any one, (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.” (Tarikh-I Khan jahani, II, p. 608)
Yet his Memoirs don’t indicate any deviation from his father’s policy of Sulh-i Kul, i.e. absolute peace with all. In his 10th commandment (edict) he proclaimed:
“Like my esteemed father I ordered that every year beginning with 18 Rabi I, which is my birthday, for
a period of days equal to the years of my life, no animals should be slaughtered; and a prohibition of animal slaughter was likewise made for two days in every week: Thursday, the day of my accession and Sunday which is the day of my father’s birth, and he greatly esteemed this day for the further reason that it is dedicated to the holy presence of the Great Luminary (the Sun) and is the first day of the Creation and so auspicious; and of the days that he had prohibited animal slaughter this was one.” (‘Mughal India’, Athar Ali, pp. 185)
He was so insistent on the strict promulgation of the prohibition of animal slaughter that in 1612 A.D. when Id-uz-Zuha (Bakrid) fell on a Thursday, he did not permit the animal slaughter on that day and it could take place only on the next day. Foreign travellers like Pelsaert, too, have confirmed that it was strictly implemented in many parts of Gujarat, although it caused inconvenience to some sections of the society. How he followed his father’s policy of Sulh-i-kul is best reflected in the following extract from his Memoirs: