Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  Nihaluddin states that the Nazimuddin Ali Khan is waiting for orders and without them he is powerless.

  The Hindoos first began to interfere and became powerful when the district of Sultanpur fell into the hands of Raja Dunchan Singh Mukhdar and then their encrouchments commenced and have progressed.”

  From the inspection of parcha no. 5, it is clear that the Muslims had claimed that the Hanumangarhi temple was built on the site of a mosque and during the reign of the first Nawab of Awadh Burhan-ul-Mulk Sa’adat Khan there was a quarrel on the issue. But it is falsified by the two land-grants which are in the possession of Mahant Gyan Das of Hanumangarhi, Ayodhyā. One sanad is the renewal of the land grant given by Akbar in 1600 for the construction of the Hanuman Tila. The renewal was ordered by Muhammad Shah and the date is 8th July, 1723 which falls under the rule of Sa’adat Khan. The second land grant was made by the same Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah on 24th December, 1722 for the construction of residential houses of Bairagi Sadhus at Hanuman Tila and they were expected to pray for the glory, grandeur and good fortune of the Emperor. Both sanads were issued to the Bairagi Sadhus during the tenure of Sa’adat Khan. From these land-grants it is clear that there was no quarrel during his time; rather he reversed the fanatical policy of Aurangzeb within 15 years of the latter’s demise. The second complaint of the Muslims was that the two leaves of the Koran had been trampled and torn. The third grievance was in relation to the Janma-sthana mosque and not to the Hanuman-garhi because of the following factors:

  (i) It relates to an existing mosque and since there was no mosque near Hanumangarhi the complaint related not to Hanumangarhi but to the Janma-sthana mosque.

  (ii) The fact that the fence, which was erected to separate the Masjid from the Hindus’ place of worship during Wajid Ali Shah’s reign, was torn by the Hindus indicates that it was the Janma-sthana mosque because there was no need to separate Hindus’ place of worship from any mosque near Hanumangarhi; as no such mosque existed near Hanumangarhi.

  (iii) It is further confirmed by the reference to the burial of dead Mohammedans near the door of the mosque because such burial took place in the vicinity of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi mosque.

  Another grievance of the Muslims was that “great many Muslim families have left Ayodhyā and returned to Faizabad.” Then the next complaint is loaded with a historical fact of far-reaching consequences:

  “The Byragees will not allow any Mohammedans to approach the masjid.”

  It is echoed in the Thornton’s Gazetteer of 1854. Here the reference is to the Janma-sthāna mosque and not to the Hanumangarhi.

  It thus clearly shows that at least during this period the Muslims were not allowed by the Bairagi Sadhus to approach the Baburi mosque and the Muslims were not in its possession.

  (11) Parcha No. 6

  Parcha from the Resident to the King of Oude dated August 14th, 1855.

  After compliments

  The Resident in complying with His Majesty’s wishes begs to return the five documents which have been received from the King relating to the disturbances at Fyzabad and takes this opportunity to warn His Majesty that it is evident that the representations contained in these documents are partial and therefore the Resident sincerely trusts that His Majesty will not allow his mind to be biased by their contents. In the first place, His Majesty must have been aware from the copy of the official letter which was received from Captain Orr and yesterday transmitted to the King that no possible opportunities could have been afforded to Moulvee Nihaluddin to ascertain personally whether any masjid exists in Hanooman Ghuree. Moreover Capt. Orr on behalf of the commission empowered by His Majesty to decide on that very point, declares for reasons stated that the commission do not deem it prudent to investigate that matter for the present.

  The Resident regrets to learn for the first time that the King has thought fit to depute other persons independent of the committee to interfere in the matter because there can be little doubt that such interference may render abortive all the endeavours of the committee to avert further ourtrage.

  His Majesty must be well aware that it is very easy for interested parties to obtain seals and signatures to any representations they may choose to make in the heat of religious excitement and doubtless the opposite party would easily obtain similar testimony in support of their assertions. Under these circumstances the Resident is of opinion that no weight ought to be attached to such documents until the formal and open investigation of the committee may satisfy His Majesty of the real state of affairs.

  The enclosed representations are obviously untrue in one particular inasmuch as they attribute the whole of the blame to the Hindoos whereas it is notorious & …..(?) officially reported by Captain Orr that they were ready to the last moment to obey His Majesty and to submit their grievances to the King’s decision even when notorious they obtained from all violence and from the commission of any excesses and enormities. His Majesty cannot fail to be convinced of the truth of this when His Majesty perused the bond signed by the leaders of the Byragees in which they profess their readiness to submit to terms and which reached the King yesterday. It is well known that the Mohomedans would not listen to reason and that they began the conflict.

  The Resident therefore sincerely trusts that the reports which have been submitted to His Majesty relating to the alleged atrocities of the Byragees such as trampling of the Koran and sacrifices on the shrine (in the masjid) may prove equally unfounded and baseless.

  Copy of the Bond alluded to above signed by the priest of the Byragees in the 26th zeekandah 10th August 1855.

  By Mahant - Bilram Das

  By Mahant - Kishun Das

  By Mahant - Tulsee Das

  By Mahant - Dhaneeram

  Whereas Gholam Husain and others have laid a claim to a masjid in Hanuman Gurhee and have caused a collision with us on that account and whereas Jafir Alee and Karim Khan and others of Ayodhya have become aggrieved and angry with us, as they joined with Gholam Husain. Therefore having in view our former friendship and acquaintance we declare we have no enmity towards them, and agreeing to Asgare Alee Khan, Rajah Man Singh and Captain Orr as our arbitrators we solemnly swear by Mahaveer and hereby write that we will not on any account create any disturbance or ……(?) on condition that no one molests us or abuses us. All the Byragees who are of our tribe will not do anything contrary to what we have written and as formerly we treated Jafir Alee and the others so we will now be friendly with them. If we act contrary to what we have written we confess that we are deserving of whatever punishment may decide.

  Nevertheless the Muslim side remained adamant.

  Now the correspondences between the King and the Resident are concluded with the following excerpt from a letter written by the King’s Chief Minister written to the British Resident:

  “What matters if a dozen of their shrines were destroyed and their pollutions adorned with mosques? But the destruction of a mosque was an offence of the deepest hue; from all times it had been punished by mutilation, nay by death (N.A.I. Foreign Department Political, 28 December, 1855 No. 450).”

  This mindset of one-sided punishment must be wiped out. Whosoever commits offence, he, irrespective of creed, should be brought to book and exemplary punishment should be inflicted.

  (12) Officiating Resident’s report on the escape of Shah Ghulam Hoosain

  After the clash Officiating Resident wrote to the King

  “Sir,

  It is with regret that I have now the honour to inform you that sanguinary engagement took place yesterday 20th instant at Ajoodhea: Awadh between Shah Gholam Hoosain and his followers and the Hindoo Byragees of Hanuman Ghuree situated in Oude the latter assisted by thousand of the district people.

  The Shah himself with a few followers escaped abandoning in the height of the conflict his people who had taken a last stand in a masjid and in its vicinity and who were destroyed in a fearful manner.

  From the Off. Resident at
Lucknow”

  It was cowardice on the part of Ghulam Hussain to run away from the sanguinary clash leaving his followers in the height of the conflict.

  (13) Officiating Resident J. Outram’s report

  No. 360 no 2779

  From

  Major General J. Outram

  Ofl. Resident of Lucknow

  ……………..

  To,

  G.B…..

  Secy. to the Government of India,

  Foreign Department

  District Lucknow 8 September, 1855

  Sir,

  My last report on the subject of the late disturbances near Fyzabad, dated 21st ultimo accompanying paper that the dispute was finally settled on the strength of Capton Alexander Orr’s communication then forwarded, and trusting as I did to the Durbar maintaining the precautions it had adopted to prevent the recurrence of hindrance.

  2nd. I regard now to have to state that tranquility has again been jeopardised and the excitement of the Mohomedans renewed owing to the laxity this Government in permitting the fantaic Maulvee Ameer Alee who was denounced by me to the King in a letter date 8th August last (Enclosure no. A to my report dated 21st ultimo) as having then raised the standard of the prophet and collected followers in the neighbourhood with the intention of resuming activities of Fyzabad again to leave this city at the head of a body of armed followers, on the 2nd instant avowedly with the same object.

  3rd. It will be observed in my letter the King has referred to I urged the arrest of this Moulvee and his reach to the capital. His Majesty replied on the 11th ultimo (vide no. A enclosure to report of 21st Augsut) that he did not deem such a course prudent as it would inevitably lead to bloodshed and collision with the King’s troops presuming how little the troops were to be depended on, I felt the cogency of His Majesty’s objection, and on the 10th (vide A) answered that inasmuch His Majesty had not deemed it expedient to cause the arrest of the Moulvees at Amethee, and as His Majesty expects that such a course should inevitably lead to bloodshed and to a collision with his troops, the Resident will leave that matter entirely to the King’s discretion as His Majesty is responsible for the peace of the Country +++ but that under any circumstances the Resident feels bound to advise His Majesty on no account whatever to permit the Moulvee and their armed followers to proceed from Amethee to Fyzabad.

  4th. The Moulvee was then brought back to Lucknow and I was given to understand that effectual measures had been taken to prevent his causing disturbance in future, by according ample security & eastern (?) guards had been placed at the various places leading out of the city, to prevent armed men departing until the dispute should be fully arranged.

  5th. It now appears that the Moulvee on hearing that the committee of investigation had not reported in concurrence with the views of his party, again left the city, two days ago at the head of 200 armed followers (as stated in the official news report of that day) for the purpose of rescuing disturbance, and met with no hindrance in so doing, and his intention must have been well known for it is mentioned in the news report of the 28th inst that he had obtained permission to return to his home, yet no steps were taken to prevent his departure and the circumstance was not made known to me by the minister until two days afterwards, nor was the previous reported intention to leave the city communicated by the news writer, this entered in his report seven days before, which for reasons best known to himself he (the news writer) abstained from submitting until after the man was gone.

  6th. On the evening of the 4th instant the Minister came to inform me of the Maulvees proceeding and if the measures he had taken to intercept him on the road to Fyzabad and forcibly to arrest him should he disobey the order to return. Next morning I went to the King (vide enclosure no. 1) expressing my hope that his endeavours to that end might be attended with success; reminding him of the very grave responsibility which would be announced by His Majesty, should the peace of his dominion again be disturbed by the individual, who had been allowed return to the Capital and reside there with impunity after his former attempt of a similar nature, and that, in failure of the endeavour to arrest the advance of the Moulvee’s hostile hands the committee deputed by him to settle the dispute having induced the inhabitants of Awadh to return to that town on the faith of their “pran” (pledge) that it was the duty of His Majesty, if he could not protect them from molestation at the hands of his subjects now proceeding from his capital with the avowed purpose of removing hostilities, to give them timely notice of his inability to maintain the pledge of protection given by His Majesty’s representatives in order that they might take measures to defend themselves, or depart from the scene of …

  No. 2 The King replied next day (enclosure no. 2) correctly stating the circumstances under which Ameer Ali had been permitted to return to Lucknow where His Majesty states security had been executed from him that he would not in future cause any disturbance. But nothing is said as to how the Maulvee had broken his security and been permitted to depart. The King also denies to bring to my recollection that our last interview he had observed in reply to my presentation for the formation of a committee to carry on investigation, that no good would come of it, because until some of them learned men in whom people might have confidence should be appointed for that purpose nothing useful would result. Captain Haque unites with me in being positively certain that His Majesty made no presentation to substitute the learned men for the committee purposed. It was explained to him.”

  (14) Encounter with Maulavi Ameer Ali

  Maulavi Ameer Ali marched with his militia men towards Ayodhyā on 7th Nov. 1855 and became easy cannon-fodders. He along with his three to four hundred followers were annihilated in the failed jehad. Thus ended the conflict for a non-existing cause. But it sowed such strong seeds of strife which are still being nourished by certain sections of society. However, it can be said with certainty that the Britishers were quite unfair to King Wajid Ali Shah, who firmly dealt the defiant march of Ameer Ali. Nevertheless, in the name of the deteriorating law and order situation, for which they were equally responsible in the wake of the Treaty of 1819, the King Wajid Ali Shah was deposed and Awadh was annexed on the recommendation of the Resident Major General Outram. It was a very sad day in the Indian history because Wajid Ali Shah was a great symbol of the ‘Gan¢gā-Jamunī tehzib’ of Awadh which has been the foundation of India’s composite culture.

  (15) An interesting report of the ‘Friend of India’ of 1855.

  “Allen’s Indian Mail, and Register of Intelligence for British and Foreign India, China and all Parts of the East” published a very interesting report of the “Friend of India” dated 15th November, 1855. Allen’s Indian Mail was published in the same year from London in Vol. XIII (January-December, 1855) by WMH Allen and Co. This report relates to the sanctity of Ayodhyā and endeavour of the Durbar of Wajid Ali Shah to defuse the tense situation on the eve of Ameer Ali’s march. It reads as follows:

  “The story which we published last week was wanting in one particular. We offered no explanation of the special sanctity attached to Awadh and the temple of its monkey-god. It is the Holy of Holies to Hindoos, holier even than Benares, Gya, or Hurdwar. It is connected with the earliest legends of Hindooism. It is the ancient Ajodhya, the place whence Rama started when banished by his father, and where he afterwards reigned with a glory which is to Hindoos what the fame of Solomon is to a Hebrew. From that day its shrines have been the Loretto of the Hindoo world, and are as well worn with the kisses and genuflections of devotees as the marble of St. Peter’s foot in the Vatican. For centuries, under every change of masters, Mongol or Pathan, under the dynasties of Ghuznee or Lodi, Gor or Toghluk, Awadh flourished, and Hunooman Ghuree remained secure in the adoration of millions. Abul Fazul, who wrote in 1582, mentions Awadh as the plane of highest sanctity in India; and such in the estimation of all the Hindoos of the north it has remained.

  The durbar, we understand, has at length attempted to concil
iate both the creeds. It has succeeded in inflaming their animosity; it has endeavoured to bribe the priests; it entreated the head Bramhun to surrender two or three yards of ground, on which a miniature mosque might be erected, as a peace-offering to the faithful. A high title, dresses of honour, and Rs. 60,000 in money were offered as the price of compliance. The priests replied with quiet scorn, that they regretted their inability to consent to the demand. Wealth was valueless to men sworn to poverty; and as for the ground, it was not theirs to give. The shrines belonged to Hindooism, to all Hindoos. They were simply the hereditary priests of the temple, and at the utmost could convey but a life-interest in the soil. They added, that if the king himself ordered the seizure of the shrine, they should abandon it, and retire beyond the Gogra. The menace concealed in this submissive phrase is well understood by the durbar. It means, like the “depart in peace” of an inquisitor, that the culprit is handed over to the civil power. The matter would be left by the Hindoo priests to the Hindoo rajahs, who, when reasoning with Mahomedans, argue with the sword. The durbar, foiled in its last expedient, is idly awaiting the march of Ameen Alee, the fanatic Moulavie of Aimethee.” —Friend of India.