Ayodhya Revisited

by Kunal Kishore

  (16) Travel Account of the Begum Nawab of Bhopal

  Ameer Ali’s so-called jihad has been narrated by many authorities at length. Here I am quoting the “true story of his martyrdom” as gathered by the Nawab of Bhopal Shah Jahan Begum who visited his tomb within two decades from his killing and recited the prayers for the dead. She recounts her memories related to the jehad of Ameer Ali:

  “Departing thence Faizabad in Oudh was reached on the 26th of the month. This city is situated on the banks of the river Sarju, now called the Gagra, the water of which is good and full of fish; it is also very deep and wide. The city is of the moderate size, and is held in great reverence by the Hindus. The camp marched hence for Lucknow, and on the way recited the prayers for the dead at Durriabad at the tomb of Syud Amir Ali, martyr, and there learnt the true story of his martyrdom as follows:

  From very ancient times Oudh was the capital of the princes of the line of Sri Ramchandar, the founder of Hinduism. In 913 A.H., Syud Musa Ashkan, under orders from Zahiruddin Babar, emperor, levelled the ruined walls of the Raja’s palace, and the kitchen of his wife Sita, and built a mosque on the site. The words khair baki (an everlasting good work) convey the date of the mosque. There was also in this city a temple of Hanuman, the friend of Ramchandar, which Mohiuddin Aurungzeb Alamgir, Emperor, destroyed, and built a mosque there. These two mosques were in places dilapidated and ruinous owing to their age. Raja Durshan Singh, a powerful landowner in Oudh, walled in the mosque of Babar’s time and named the place Hanuman Garhi, and filled it with Bairagis, who, by degrees, effaced all traces of the mosque and built a temple there. The poor helpless Muhammadans combined together, but the Bairagis secured the friendship of the governor of Faizabad and attacked the Muhammadans and killed them; and the Hindu ringleaders, known as mohunts, obtained the favour of Nawab Ali Naki Khan, Wazir of the King of Lucknow Wajid Ali Shah, and his Dewan Raja Balkrishen, who shut their eyes and screened the Hindus from punishment. Syud Amir Ali was bent on vengeance, and was joined by a large number of Muhammadans. A panic then fell upon the city of Lucknow, and at the suggestion of the Wazir, the influential men of the city induced many to desert from Syud Amir Ali, who departed for Faizabad with 450 followers, and Captain Barlow in the service of the King of Oudh, was sent after him by the Wazir at the head of a large force. On the 26th Safar (Wednesday) 1272 A.H., in the plains of Shujai, where a bloody battle between Salar Masud Ghazi and Hindus had once before taken place, Captain Barlow attacked Syud Amir Ali, who together with his followers was slain. Three months afterwards, on the 26th Jumadi-ul-awal of the same year, the Supreme Government deposed the King of Oudh for his sloth and negligence, annexed his dominions, and assigned him an annual pension.” [The Taj-ul-ikbal Tarikh Bhopal, or, The History of Bhopal by Shah Jahan Begum (Nawab of Bhopal) translated into English by H.C. Barstow, p. 81]

  From this account, it is clear that the Begum of Bhopal did not visit Ayodhyā herself. Her account of the holy city is based on what she learnt at the tomb of Ameer Ali. Here she writes that Sri Rāmachandar was the founder of Hinduism. She further writes that in 913 H., i.e. 1506-07 Musa Ashiqan built a mosque on the site of Rāma’s Palace and Sītā Kī Rasoi by the order of Babur. Here the builder of the mosque is Musa Ashiqan and not Mir Baqi. She refers to an impossible date of 913 A.H. Thus, her accounts are not very trustworthy. But it indicates that she had not financially helped the movement of Ameer Ali, as speculated in certain quarters. Had she really helped him, she would have mentioned it with a sense of pride. This account is written on the narratives of the supporters of Ameer Ali and is from the pen of the Begum of Bhopal who was sympathetic to but not supportive of his jehad.

  (17) Errors in Neville’s Gazetteer

  Parallel to this real episode runs the following incorrect version incorporated by H.R. Neville, I.C.S. in “District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh”: Barabanki, Allahabad, 1905:

  “Shortly before annexation an incident occurred in this district, which may well be recorded as illustrative of the state of anarchy that then prevailed; unless the utter weakness of the Government be borne in mind, such occurrences would appear impossible. A brief reference to the affair is to be found in the article on Rudauli in the old Oudh Gazetteer, but a full account appeared in the “Pioneer” of the 20th of June, 1902 signed Thomas Catania, and entitled “An Episode in Oudh History.” This I was enabled to verify through the kindness of Mr. H.J. Bose, I.C.S., who sent me a second narrative of the affair furnished by Rai Mahadeo Bali of Rampur in pargana Daryabad. It would appear that the event happened in the year 1853. The cause of the occurrence was one of the numerous disputes that have sprung up from time to time between the Hindu priests and Musalmans of Ajodhya with regard to the ground on which formerly stood the Janamasthan temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque. Other mosques had been built there by Aurangzeb and others, and some of them had fallen into decay. The ground, being peculiarly scared to the Hindus, was at once seized by the Bairagies and others, thus affording a fertile source of friction.”

  Thus, Neville wrongly placed this incident in 1853 A.D. on the basis of an article ‘An Episode in Oudh History’ written by Thomas Catanin and published in the ‘Pioneer’ dated 20th June, 1902. Neville writes that he got it verified through H.J. Boas, I.C.S. who furnished him a second narrative of the incident furnished by Rai Mahadeo Bali, Taliqdar of Rampur in Pargana Daryabad in Bara Banki district. Had Neville read the aforequoted correspondences between the Nawab and the British Resident and the following account of Robert Montgomery Martin in his book ‘The Indian Empire’, published in 1860-61 he would not have committed this error:

  “In the meantime, the dis-organisation of Oude was clearly on the increase, and one of its marked features was a rising spirit of Moslem fanaticism. It happened that a Mohammedan fast fell on the same day as a Hindoo feast; and Ameer Ali, a moolvee, or priest, of high repute, took advantage of the circumstance to incite his co-religionists to a fierce onslaught on the Hindoos. Troops were ordered out to quell the disturbances; but Ameer Ali seized and confined two of the officers, assembled 3,000 men, and declared his intention of destroying a certain Hindoo temple, and erecting a mosque in its stead. At length the British subsidiary force was employed by the king against the moolvee. An affray ensued, in which a body of Patans fought with the recklessness of fanaticism, and were cut down, standing shoulder to shoulder round their guns, by a party of Hindoo zemindars and their retainers. In all, 200 Hindoos and 300 Patans perished. This occurred in November, 1855. (vol. 2, p. 77)

  Another error in Neville’s report is that the attempted assault by Shah Ghulam Husayan has been shown on the Janma-sthāna temple, whereas it was on the Hanumangarhi. The enormous error in Neville’s report is proved by the correspondences between the King and the Resident. Thus, the incident occurred in 1855 and Ameer Ali’s jehad was for the capture of Hanumangarhi, although prior to that a sanguinary skirmish had taken place between the Bairagis and Muslim zealots at the gate of Janma-bhūmi mosque which was taken over by the Hindus after the loss of 68 lives of the Muslims and 12 of the Hindus. Thus, a rumour resulted into the rupture of relations between the Hindus and the Muslims, and seeds of communal strife were sown in the fertile land of Ayodhyā almost a hundred years before what happened in December 1949.

  Long long ago, the Roman Philosopher Plautus (254 B.C. 184 B.C.) had rightly observed:

  “I know nothing swifter in life than the voice of rumour.”

  Now time has come when we should not be swayed by rumours but by facts and facts alone, so that our national motto सत्यमेव जयते prevails in the countary and justice is done to Ayodhyā. Ayodhyā demands justice and expeditious justice. One is here reminded of the eloquent speech made by Edmund Burke in the British Parliament in the impeachment against Warren Hastings which is quoted below:

  “There is one thing, and one thing only, which defies all mutation : that which existed before th
e world, and will survive the fabric of the world itself- I mean justice; that justice which, emanating from the Divinity, has a place in the breast of every one of us, given us for our guide with regard to ourselves and with regard to others, and which will stand, after this globe is burned to ashes, our advocate or our accuser, before the great Judge, when He comes to call upon us for the tenor of a well-spent life.”

  

  Chapter Eighteen

  Aligarh Historians’ Contumelious Criticism of the Ayodhyā Verdict is devoid of substance

  [(1) Introduction (1.1) Tieffenthaler, an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard (1.2) Tieffenthaler’s non-mention of inscriptions-a testimony to its non-existence (1.3) Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai’s article not in conformity with Maulvi Shuaib’s report 1906-07 (1.4) Content of the third inscription is really bizarre (1.5) Aligarh historians take shelter in the Gazetteers of Bennet and Neville (1.6) Aligarh Historians compromised with their earlier stand that Ayodhyã dispute was the creation of British officials to divide and rule the country (1.7) There were two inscriptions near the pulpit (1.8) If Sayyid Badrul Hasan was not a fictitious person, Aligarh Historians should have disclosed his identity (1.9) The change of Isafahani to Asaf-i Sani by Husain/Desai turns Baqi into a miracle-performing Prime Minister (1.10) Mir Baqi of inscriptions is different from Baqi of Baburnama (1.11) Babur’s assessment by Justice Agarwal is misrepresented by Aligarh Historians (1.12) Baburi mosque built in Sharqi style by later masons (1.13 to 1.17) Archaeological evidence supports the existence of a building beneath the mosque (1.18) That the inscriptions are fake is not the claim of the ‘Hindu’ parties but is an outcome of the intensive research of the author (Note 1.1) Arguments of Aligarh Historians in Note 1.1 of their booklet are after-thoughts (2.1) Sacrosanct status of Ayodhyã (2.2) References to Rãma in inscriptions (2.3) Inscriptions of Dhanadeva and Belgaum (2.4) The fake Ayodhyâ inscription in the name of Samudragupta (2.5) King Chandradeva’s visit to Ayodhyã (2.6) Tretã Kã Thãkura inscription is in Lucknow Museum (2.7) Vishnu-hari edict of Ayodhyã (2.8) Deva temples in Yuan Chwang’s account (2.9) Alberuni’s Kitab-al-Hind (2.10) There are innumerable references to Ayodhyã as Rãma’s birthplace in Sanskrit texts (2.11) A vibrant Ayodhyã during Tulasi’s time (2.12) Ayodhya’s association with Rãma’s birth since antiquity (2.13) Ain-i-Akbari and Finch’s account pay eloquent tribute to Rãma (2.14) There are many texts which mention the Rãma-janmabhûmi (2.15) Skanda-purãna’s core content was composed a thousand years ago (2.16) Vrindãvana’s antiquity (2.17) Sitãpura’s correct identity (2.18) The Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya has a thousand-year old tradition (2.19) Reliability of Janama-sãkhi traditions (2.20) Muslim writers’ frequent references to Masjid Janmasthãna (2.21) Aligarh Historians’ unsubstantiated observation (2.22) Another Janmasthãna temple built subsequently across the road (2.23) Hindus’ emphasis on the inner courtyard (2.24) Nihang Sikh’s capture of and worship in the mosque (2.25) Justice Agarwal’s reasoned conclusions (2.26) Acts of 1949 and 1992 were reprehensible] (Note 2.1) The content in Note 2.1 is full of mendacity

  ENVOI The book ends with Iqbal’s poem ‘Raam’

  (1) Introduction

  Aligarh Historians Society has recently published a booklet ‘Historians and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the Ramjanma-bhūmi-Babri Masjid Case’. It is published by the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) and the Preface has been written by a great historian Irfan Habib, who is the President of Aligarh Historians Society. The booklet contains four articles running into 80 pages. When the manuscript of the present book ‘Ayodhyā Revisited’ was to be sent to the press for printing, I learnt of the arrival of the booklet in the academic world. After going through the same, I found that the booklet is bristling with factual errors and flawed arguments. Therefore, I thought it proper to make some comments on certain misleading presentations in the booklet.

  To begin with, the Preface is taken. Prof. Habib writes:

  “The three judges, Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and H.P. Sharma (sic!) gave separate judgments.The first two judges did not agree on the historical issues involved, but concurred over the operational part, which meant allotting two-thirds of the land in well-defined portions to the VHP-sponsored body and the Nirmohi Akhara, and the residual one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board. Justice Sharma delivered the minority judgment, holding that the Muslims needed to be excluded altogether from the disputed land.”

  “The operational part of the majority judgment derived not from Justice S.U. Khan’s, but from Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s reading of the historical background.”

  I would first like to humbly point out the correct name of the third Judge which is Justice D.V. (Dharam Veer) Sharma and not H.P. Sharma, as mentioned by him.

  Apart from the error in the name of the Judge, the observation of Prof. Habib that the first two judges did not agree on the historical issue involved is contrary to the concise judgment of Justice S.U. Khan. In a very balanced and mature judgment on the question “When the structure in the disputed premises was constructed and by whom and what was its nature” Justice Khan wrote thus:

  “However, the authenticity of these three inscriptions/ copies is highly doubtful. Moreover A.S.I. Epigraphia Indica of 1964 and 1965 being post litem motam cannot be given much weight vide State of Bihar Vs. R.K. Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 & Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. D. Prasad, AIR 1956 SC 305. The manner in which Epigraphia Indica 1964 and 1965 and the book claim to have obtained the copies of the originals is such that not much reliance can be placed thereupon.

  There is also vast variation in different inscriptions/copies. It is alleged that the inscriptions were in Persian verses denoting the date of construction (in Persian language every alphabet is allotted a number and addition of the numbers of alphabets of all the words denotes the year). The names of some persons are also selected in such manner that adding the numbers of the alphabets of their names, their year of birth is ascertained. (Such names are called historical names). Relevant words in the Persian on one of the copies of the inscription are stated to denote 935 Hijari corresponding to 15.09.1528 to 05.09.1929 A.D. However, as the inscriptions given in the above book and the reports have not been proved to be true copies of originals and they cannot be termed as authentic, hence on the basis of these inscriptions alone it cannot be held that either the building was constructed by or under orders of Babur or it was constructed in 1528. In this regard detailed reasons have been given by my learned brother S. Agarwal, J. with which I fully agree.” (pp. 204-206) (emphasis added)

  Therefore, Prof. Habib may appreciate that the judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal on the unreliability of inscriptions has got the stamp of approval by Justice S.U. Khan and it is the majority judgment of Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan. Inscriptions inside the mosque are the main evidence in support of the thesis that the disputed shrine was built by Babur. Therefore, the erroneous observation in the Preface needs a new look.

  Now the following para-wise comments on the first article titled ‘The Babri Masjid: Its Inscriptions and Date of Construction’ are made.

  1.1 Tieffenthaler, an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard

  Para 1.1 mainly relates to the testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler. Aligarh Historians have made the following observation on the judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal:

  “Furthermore, Tieffenthaler, a little known traveller, but called by the learned judge “an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard” (Para 1591), did not refer to any inscriptions on the mosque; and this means, in the eyes of Justice Agarwal, that these inscriptions were not then in existence, this being the reason, in his opinion, that Tieffenthaler could not decide between the two traditions as to whether Babur or Aurangzeb had built the mosque (Paras 1591 and 4388). This means, according to the judge, that the so-called inscriptions were put up only after Tieffenthaler’s visit, though before Francis Buchanan’s visit of Ayodhya in 1810-11, since he obtained the copy of an “inscription on its wa
lls” that declared it to have been built by Babur. Thus, in Justice Agarwal’s view, all the inscriptions so far presented to the public are later forgeries, made between, say, 1760 and 1810”

  It is reiterated that every word of Justice Agarwal about Joseph Tieffenthaler is accurate. Aligarh Historians call Tieffenthaler “a little known traveller”. It is wrong to state that he is a little known traveller. A number of articles and many books have been published on him. Here a reference is made to an article ‘Joseph Tieffenthaler and his Geography of Hindustan’ written by S.N. Sen and published in ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society’ (Vol. IV, 1962 Nos. 3 & 4). Sen estimates Tieffenthaler’s achievements in these words:

  “Tieffenthaler, in his encyclopaedic efforts to give as full a description of India as possible, touched practically on all possible subjects such as chronology, religion, history, manners and customs, revenues, natural history, natural products and mineral resources, art, architecture, monuments, buildings, town planning, etc., and gave for provinces, sometimes even for districts and cantons, long and interesting lists of their past rulers.” (p. 84)

  This Austrian Father, full of stamina, perseverance and proficiency in many subjects, reveals his style of study and writing in the following words:

  “Nevertheless this very vast country offers yet an abundance of materials to write. It is precisely what I have been busy in assembling in this volume – such things as I have observed with my own eyes during a span of thirty years, things I have read in Persian books treating of the geography and the history of India and what I have learned in the course of conversation with persons informed in these matters. In Europe, one greedily awaits the precious merchandise from India; in sending this treatise I flatter myself to believe that it will be received with the same eagerness by the curious who will appreciate my work.”