Ayodhya Revisited
Page 86
It is interesting to read the following argument advanced in criticism of Justice Agarwal’s judgment:
“Justice Agarwal should have asked himself whether there has been any long ancient or old inscription written in unfamiliar characters (like Asoka’s edicts or Samudragupta’s Allahabad inscription), the words or clauses of which have not been differently read by epigraphists during the last 150 years. Should they then be regarded as forgeries, though on essential points they agree, as is the case with the Babri Masjid inscriptions?” Why should, then, Justice Agarwal tax Ashraf Husain and Desai for not giving the genuine text of the pulpit inscription(s), when their reading is manifestly the most accurate and complete of all? Justice Agarwal’s accusations against Dr. Ziauddin Desai, the Chief Epigraphist, ASI, of changing the meaning of its text (Para 1654) is entirely uncalled for.”
Here again Aligarh Historians’ comments are unjustified. There is a lot of difference between fake inscriptions of the mosque and Asokan Edicts/Samudra Gupta’s Allahabad pillar inscription. Whereas the mosque’s fake inscriptions were fixed 280 years after the claimed construction of the mosque and they were replaced with different contents and shapes, Asokan edicts and Samudragupta’s Allahabad pillar inscription have existed right from their inception. They have not been inscribed centuries after the death of these two great emperors. Moreover, they were not subjected to frequent appearances and non-appearances or change of places of their fixation. However, when the two Gupta inscriptions of Gayā and Nālandā were found spurious, they were accepted as such by scholars.
Baburi Masjid inscriptions don’t agree on essential points. One inscription read by Fuhrer had the date 930 H, i.e. 1523 A.D. when Babur had not even conquered India. This blunder was not on the part of Fuhrer but forgers who had no correct idea about Babur’s conquest of Hindustan. Similarly, another inscription read by Fuhrer mentioned the name of Mir Khan but in translation it was changed by Husain/Desai arbitrarily to Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). Therefore, Justice Agarwal’s anguish is justified.
Husain/Desai have relied upon a forged inscription fixed above the main entrance. An established historian Sushil Srivastava writes about the lack of authenticity of these inscriptions in his book ‘The Disputed Mosque’ in the following words:
“The style of calligraphy in the inscriptions of the Babri Masjid also raises serious doubts about whether Babur constructed the mosque. The style in the inscription on the outside, just above the entrance of the mosque, is thick set. This does not conform to the style of calligraphy prevalent in the sixteenth century but is more representative of the nineteenth-century style of calligraphy. The inscription in the inside of the mosque, just above the pulpit, though finer and sharper, is close-set. This style of calligraphy is again representative of the nineteenth century. There is a strong possibility that the stone inscriptions were put up at a later stage to strengthen the claim that Babur had actually constructed the mosque.” (P. 89)
The unreliability of the inscriptions has been accepted by Justice S.U. Khan also, albeit on a different ground.
Now a fundamental question is asked to the established historians and other scholars, who believe that the inscriptions were genuine, as to where the one or two inscriptions shown to Buchanan disappeared. Subsequent inscriptions seen by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Desai did not have resemblance with Buchanan’s edicts in either shape, size, location or content. Now, readers may decide as to how reliable inscriptions could be, when they differed substantially with each other.
The tragedy is that the fabricated text in segment 1 shown in Chapter V, became the model of writing the history of Babur and it was repeated mutatis mutandis by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Husain/Desai. The history of the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā related to Babur was thus based on a fictitious inscription.
At the end of Note 1.1 they have claimed to prove the following four points:
(i) “There were only two Persian inscriptions in the Mosque, one on the pulpit, the other on the outside.”
However, it has been conclusively proved above in Para 1.7 that there were three inscriptions, two near the pulpit and the third on the outside.
Their second conclusion is:
(ii) “As recorded by the Oudh Gazetteer, 1877-78, both of these contained the date 935 (AH = 1528 AD).”
It is true that in the Oudh Gazetteer, 1877-78 the date indicated is 935 A.H. But it may have been based on Buchanan's Survey Report of 1813-14 A.D. which contained the forged inscription which indicated the date 935 A.H.
The third conclusion arrived at by them is as follows:
(iii) “Fuhrer’s copyist misread the texts of both the inscriptions in 1889, being obviously unfamiliar with its stylized nastaliq writing ... Fuhrer’s reading ‘Mir Khan’ is an obvious error for ‘Mir Baqi’ in the pulpit inscription. He also misread the verse in the other inscription, which actually gave the date 935, not 930, the one read by Fuhrer”.
Here the problem with the Aligarh Historians is that they have tried to impose the content of one inscription on another, and in that connection they have shown their pedantry of Persian language. But they did not explain in this way until inscriptions were proved factitious. Below are given the two transcripts, in the Deva Nāgari script, of two inscriptions; one read by Fuhrer and another by Ashraf/Desai:
(A) (Fuhrer's inscription)
‘‘१. बमंशाये बाबर खदयू जहां
बशाने कि बा काख़ गरदूँ् इनां
२. बिना कर्दा-ए-ख़ान-ए-पायेदार
अमीरे सआदत निशां मीर खां
३. बमानद हमेशा चुनां बानियश
चुनां शहरियारे ज्+ामीनो ज्+ामां’’
(B) (Inscription seen by Ashraf/Desai)
‘‘१. बफरमूद-ए-शाह बाबर कि अदलश,
बिनाइह्यस्त बा-काख़ गरदूँ मुलाक़ी।
२. बिना कर्दह इऔ महबते कुदसियां रा
अमीरे सआदत निशां मीर बाक़ी
३. बुवद खैरे बाक़ी व साले बिनाइश,
अयां शुद चूं गुफतम बुवद ख़ैर बाक़ी’’
(These transliterations by Justice S.U. Khan are included in the Allahabad High Court Judgment)
Readers may see the sea of difference between the two inscriptions and therefore it is not a case of mixing letters by the copyist of Fuhrer, nor is it a case of placing ‘Khan’ after ‘Mir’ to rhyme with ‘inān’, as argued by Aligarh Historians. Copyists are seldom poets! Thus, the name in Fuhrer’s inscription was Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi.
Similarly, the copyist did not deliberately drop ‘पंज’ to date the event in 930 A.H. in the second inscription because a copyist can misread any text but cannot drop any word, as copyists are trained persons. Besides, he had no axe to grind by changing a date from 935 to 930 A.H. Therefore, the date in the inscription seen by Fuhrer was correctly written 930 A.H.
Their fourth conclusion is quoted below:
“Fuhrer’s conclusion that ‘Babar’s mosque’ was constructed in 930 (AD 1523) by one Mir Khan is absurd, since Babur was not in possession of this area in 1523 (he won the Battle of Panipat only in 1526). Since the name ‘Mir Khan’ is the product of a copyist’s misreading, it is needless to say that no person bearing this name is mentioned among Babur’s nobles in any historical source.”
Fuhrer’s conclusion that Babur’s mosque was constructed in 930 (AD 1523) by one Mir Khan is not absurd, the absurdity rather lies in the writing of the forgers of the inscriptions, who were ignorant of the dates of these historical events of the early sixteenth century. Aligarh Historians’ claim that th
e name ‘Mir Khan’ is the product of copyist’s misreading and therefore incorrect, as this name is found nowhere in Babur's Memoirs or any historical document. This arguement is irrelevant and unfounded because the name ‘Mir Baqi’, like ‘Mir Khan’, is not found in Baburnama or any book of contemporary history. Thus, we have successfully shown as to how Fuhrer’s texts and translations of the inscriptions of the disputed shrine in his The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, Calcutta, 1889 is correct and the arguments of Aligarh Historians are afterthoughts and do not hold ground at all.
Note 1.2 In chapter VI of this book it has been conclusively proved that Baqi of the inscriptions is different from Baqi of “Babur-nama” and that is the befitting reply to the points raised in Note 1.2. However, it is added here that the title of this note is misleading. It reads, “Two References to Mir Baqi, Builder of Babri Masjid, in Babur’s Memoirs.” By reading it, an impression is gathered that in Babur’s Memoirs Mir Baqi is mentioned, at two places, as the Builder of Baburi Masjid. It is not so at all. Two Turkish lines from Eiji Mane’s edition of Baburnama, Kyoto, 1995, pp. 605-06 and two lines from Abdur Rahim Khankhana’s Persian Version, British Museum MS Or. 3714 have been quoted by Aligarh Historians with English translation of A.S. Beveridge and W.M. Thackston. The sum and substance of these quotations is that on 13th June (1529) Baqi Shaghawal came along with the Awadh army to pay homage (to Babur) and on 20th June (1529) Baqi, along with the Awadh army, got a dismissal order.
Here two words are important and they have been misinterpreted by Aligarh Historians. They have equated ‘Awad’ with Ayodhyā. In the ‘Note’ at the end, they have written, “Oude or Oudh represented the name ‘Awadh’, which in popular and Indo-Persian use, was a variant of Ayodhyā. “Compare Tulsidas’s ‘Awadhpuri’ for Ayodhyā”. Frankly speaking, Awadh may denote either Province or City, although it is mostly used in the sense of Province. It has been shown above in this book at many places. However, when Awadhpuri is used, it has to be meant Ayodhyā because ‘puri’, i.e. city is specified. Therefore, Awadhpuri, meaning Ayodhyā, does not help them.
Here ‘Awad charīkī’, both in the Turkish and Persian languages, simply means the army of Awadh Province which was at Baqi’s command in the expedition against Bāyazid and Biban. Baqi Tashkindi came to pay homage to Babur for the last time before his dismissal and Baqi Shaghawal, along with the Awadh army, was given an order to depart. The word in both the Turkish and Persian languages is ‘rukhsat’. Now, the question arises as to why Baqi had to face such situation.
Beveridge has translated it as ‘leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aūd (Ajodhya)’, although in the Index she writes : “leave given him for home 685”. Erskine’s translation of this passage is based not on the Persian version of Abdur Rahim Khankhana but Metcalfe’s MS, because the Persian version with him closed on the account of May 31, 1529. He translates it as ‘I gave Baki Sheghawal and his party leave to go home.’ Thackston’s translation of the same passage is: “Baqi Shigavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”
Thus, ‘rukhsat’ is taken as either dismissal or leave (for going home). The fact of the matter is that Baqi was never heard of again and it could have happened only in case of his departure from Babur’s service. It appears that Baqi’s services were dispensed with on account of his defeat at Lucknow by Bāyzid on 28th May, 1529.
Note 1.3. Points raised on the “Design and Building Techniques of Babri Masjid” in Note 1.3 have been discussed at length in the second volume of this book. However, certain aspects have been highlighted briefly in Chapter IX in this volume also. There it has been shown how the disputed shrine resembles many mosques of Aurangzeb’s time. Here I would like to place a sketch of a typical mosque which has been prepared by Dr. Ziyaud-din A. Desai in his book ‘Mosques of India’ published by Publications Devision, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
A model mosque all over the world.
From this sketch, which shows essential parts of a typical congregational mosque the world over, it is evident that a minar is an essential part of a mosque throughout the world. The disputed mosque had no minar, nor a haud (tank) which is also an essential part of a mosque. Even then could the disputed mosque at Ayodhyā be called a complete mosque? Dr. Z. Desai, who wrote a lot on the forged inscriptions of this disputed mosque, did not make any comment on this aspect at all in his article.
However, in the following lines he gave the correct meaning of the Arabic word Masjid and offered a lucid explanation as to why a sanctuary, i.e. a holy building is not necessary for offering namaz:
“The Arabic term Masjid literally means ‘a place where one prostrates oneself’ (before God), or, in other words, completely surrenders to God. This would mean that, strictly speaking, a sanctuary was not considered a fundamental necessity, since all places are equal for God and complete resignation and humility unto Him could be shown anywhere.”
It was a good coincidence that the Hindus were prostrating before Lord Rāma in the inner portion of the Masjid which literally means ‘a place where one prostrates oneself’. The Hindus consider Rāma as perfect God.
2.1 Sacrosanct status of Ayodhyā
Aligarh Historians in Paper II “The Judgment and the Lore of Ramjanmabhumi” have raised doubts in para 2.1 about the antiquity of the sacrosanct status of Ayodhyā and its importance as a pilgrim place on account of its association with Rāma’s birth or his worship. Everyone was elated to learn that all the parties involved in the suit had agreed to the fact that Ayodhyā was the birthplace of Rāma. It has been considered a place of great antiquity since the days of Vālmīki. But here also this position is not acceptable to Aligarh Historians and they have indicted Justice Sudhir Agarwal for decreeing that the worship of Lord Rāma has been conducted there from ‘time immemorial’ (para 4070). They deride the decision in the following words:
“2.1. While there was no disagreement among the parties involved in the suit that the belief in Ayodhya being the birthplace of Lord Rama is currently widely held (Para 4316), this is far from saying that this belief goes in time to remote antiquity or that Ayodhya has always been a great pilgrim-centre on account of its association with Lord Rama’s birthplace or that the worship of Lord Rama has been conducted there (or at any site therein) from “time immemorial”, as decreed by Justice S. Agarwal (Para 4070)
It is ridiculous to suggest that Ayodhyā’s association with Rāma’s birth is not of remote antiquity. It is clearly written in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana that Vishnu, before taking incarnation, decided his जन्मभूमि, i.e. birth-site. Vālmīki writes:
एवं दत्त्वा वरं देवो देवानां विष्णुरात्मवान्।
मानुष्ये चिन्तयामास जन्मभूमिमथात्मनः।।
(Bal. 15.30)
Vishnu, God of gods, after having granted boon, thought of his janmabhūmi i.e. birthplace, when he would take human form.
In the same 15th canto gods request Vishnu to take birth, in the interest of the people, in the house of Daśaratha, the King of Ayodhyā:
त्वां नियोक्ष्यामहे विष्णो लोकानां हितकाम्यया।
राज्ञो दशरथस्य त्वमयोध्यापतेर्विभो।। (Bal. 15.19)
It is well known that Kausalyā gave birth to Rāma who has been called Jagannātha:
प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथं सर्वलोकनमस्कृतम्।
कौसल्याजनयद् रामं दिव्यलक्षणसंयुतम्।।
(Bāl. 18.10)
Kausalyā gave birth to a son who was जगन्नाथ, i.e. the Lord of the whole world. He was a सर्वलोकनमस्कृत, i.e. a person adored by all the people. He was दिव्यलक्ष�
�संयुत, i.e. invested with divine symptoms.
It was not birth of an ordinary man. Ayodhyā was blessed with the arrival of the Lord of the whole world, even then Aligarh Historians say that Ayodhyā was never sacrosanct because of the birth of Rāma.
In the 18th canto immediately after the birth of Rāma and his three brothers, Ayodhyā is mentioned again in the following verse:
उत्सवश्च महानासीदयोध्यायां जनाकुलः।
रथ्याश्च जनसम्बाधा नटनर्तकसंकुला।। (Bal. 18.18)
At Ayodhyā there was a great festivity marked with a great rush of men, and streets got crowded with actors and dancers.
Ayodhyā has been a sacred pilgrim place, primarily on account of its association with Rāma’s birth. It is manifested in the huge assembly of pilgrims on the Rāmanavamī festival seen by Tieffenthaler and other travellers.
Though the following famous verse is not from the prevalent version of the Vālmīki-Rāmāyana, yet it is oft quoted as Rāma’s opinion in many important texts such as Hanuman-nātaka of Dāmodara Miśra:
अपि स्वर्णमयी लङका न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते।
जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी।।
Although Lan¢kā is made of gold, it does not attract me. Mother and Janma-bhūmi are superior to even the heaven.
Adhyātma Rāmāyana, the most influential Rāmāyana after Vālmīki’s, confirms Rāma’s birth at Ayodhyā:
अयोध्यानगरे जन्म रघुंशेऽतिनिर्मले।