Ayodhya Revisited
Page 88
2.4 The fake Ayodhyā inscription in the name of Samudragupta
In the para 2.4 Aligarh Historians have claimed
“A copper plate containing a grant made by Samudragupta, the famous Gupta Emperor, and dated to Year 5 of the Gupta era (=AD 328-29) was issued from the great camp of victory, containing ships [boats?] elephants and horses, situated at Ayodhya. It gives no title to Ayodhya, by which to suggest any sanctity attaching to it on any deity’s account, let alone on Lord Rama’s.”
Aligarh Historians may be aware of the fact that the inscription, which they are referring to, dates back to the year 9 and not 5 of the Gupta era. The inscription dated year 5 is Nalanda Copper Plate inscription and it does not carry any reference to Ayodhyā. The inscription dated year 9 is Gaya Copper Plate Inscription and it includes the expression ‘Ayodhyā’. But it is well known that both these inscriptions are spurious. Secondly, Aligarh Historians have written
“… and dated to year 5 of the Gupta era (= A.D. 328-29)”
Thus, they suppose that the Gupta era started in the year 32324. A.D. It is not correct. The Gupta era started in the year 31920 A.D. during the reign of Chandragupta I and not that of Samudragupta. If its origin is traced to Samudragupta’s reign, the date will be still different. Even if it is supposed that it was a genuine inscription, how could it have mentioned Rāma’s name? Samudragupta made a grant of village ‘Revatik’ to a scholarly Brahman of Bhārdvāja gotra of Gaya district (Vishaya) from Ayodhyā which was a victory camp full of ships, elephants and horses. महा-नौ-हस्त्यश्व-जयस्कन्धावारादयोद्ध्यावासकात्.In the inscription there are some adjectives of Samudragutpa but they do not tally with their nominatives. In addition, there are many other glaring grammatical mistakes. Therefore, such inscription cannot be genuine. Rāma’s reference cannot be found in such a cryptic land grant edict in any way.
Since similar expressions are found in the Madhuban and Bām¡skheda inscriptions of Harshavardhana and the Deva-Barnark inscription of Jīvita-gupta II of the 8th century and Didhwa-Dubauli edict of King Mahendrapāla (761-62 A.D.), it is rightly considered that this spurious inscription belonged to the 8th century.
However, in Eran inscription of Samudragupta there is a mention of Rāma in the following way:
7 +++++++++ सुवर्णदाने
8 ++रिता नृपतयः पृथुराघवाद्याः।
Since the two letters of the 8th line are missing in the beginning, many words have been suggested to fill the gap. But our suggestion is that it should be (संधा)रिता नृपतयः पृथुराघवाद्याः।meaning that “he followed the ideas of kings like Prithu and Rāghava.”
Similary, Karmadandā inscription of Prithvīshena, a minister of Kumāragupta, is at the bottom of a Śiva-lin¢ga. The inscription, cited in Aligarh Historians’ booklet, starts with an obeisance to Lord Śiva – नमो महादेवाय and is dated 117th year of the Gupta era, i.e. 436 A.D. The relevant portion in the 10th and 11th lines reads as under:
— स्वामिमहादेव-पादमूले आयोध्यकनानागोत्रचरणतपः स्वाध्याय-मत्र-सूक्त- भाष्य-प्रवचन-पारग-भारडि़द समद-देवद्रोण्या++
“At the feet of Svāmī-Mahādeva scholars of various gotras, charanas, who were experts in penance, study of the Vedas, hymns, Sūkta—commentaries, sermons from Ayodhyā.”
The important point is that the 12th line, which could have further thrown light on Ayodhyā, is completely missing. Therefore, this inscription is incomplete. Besides, it is not relevant to throw light on the worship of Rāma because those scholars were recruited from Ayodhyā to conduct rituals for the worship of Mahadeva at Karmanda and not at Ayodhyā. Moreover, from the list of subjects enumerated in the inscription it appears that svādhyāya, mantra and sūkta relate to the study of the Vedas and the bhāshya may relate to the grammar as well as the Rāmāyana, Mahābhārata and the Purānas.
Moreover, any expectation from a Śaiva official Prithvīsena, son of Sikharasena, who established a Śiva-liñga, to write the saga of Rāma is too much, particularly when we find the brief content of few lines only in the inscription. Similarly, Damodarpur Copper Plate Inscription of the Gupta year 224 (543) of Vishnugupta (though his name is not clear) is a land grant for the worship of Lord Śiva in distant Bengal and a mere mention of Ayodhyā in a brief inscription will not narrate the Rāmāyana. However, Aligarh Historians do not seem to be aware that the great Gupta emperor Samudragupta compared himself with Rāma and Skandagupta made a temple of Rāma, i.e. Śārn¢gī at Bhitari in Ghazipur district of eastern Uttar Pradesh.
Ayodhyā has been continuously regarded a sacred city in every age and the arguments of these historians are against historical facts and based on double standard. They should re-consider what they have written in para 1.2 and they will realize their double speak.
2.5 King Chandradeva’s visit to Ayodhyā
Para 2.5 What they have written in para 2.5 is ridiculous. Here is a Gahadavāla King Chandradeva, ruler of Kannauj, who goes to Ayodhyā on the day of a solar eclipse in 1093 A.D. and after bathing in Sarayū, worships various gods and makes offerings to his departed ancestors and even then, these historians claim that Ayodhyā was not a sacred place! Scholars know well that Vishnu, Hari, Vāsudeva, Rāma all are synonyms.
2.6 Tretā Kā Thākura inscription is in Lucknow Museum
Para 2.6 The mendacity with their claim in para 2.6 is that the inscription dated 1184 A.D. of the period of Jayachandra recovered from the debris of the Tretā Kā Thākura temple is not missing but is still very much available in Lucknow Museum. It was verified by the present writer and its existence stands confirmed. These historians got an opportunity to further misrepresent the fact on the basis of a superficially written article by Jahnawi Shekhar Roy and declared that it was stolen from Lucknow Museum by the Kar Sewaks and planted in the debris of Baburi mosque on 6th December, 1992. It has been discussed in detail in the 10th chapter. Hari-vishnu inscription recovered on 6th December, 1992 is undoubtedly a different edict from the one found in the debris of Treta Ka Thakur.
2.7 Vishnu-hari edict of Ayodhyā
In reply to their argument in para 2.7 it is stated that the following line of the Vishnu-hari edict has direct ‘reference to the sanctity enjoyed by Ayodhyā as the birthplace of Lord Rāma.’
वंश्यन्तदेव कुलमाकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढमप्रतिमविक्रमजन्मभूमिः।
It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxiety (over Bhārgava’s war) and is the birthplace of the man with unmatched valour.
Besides, one should not forget that in the distant Vietnam (old Champā) in the seventh century there was a temple of Vālmīki wherein Rāma was remembered as an incarnation of Vishnu and in the sanad of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah Ayodhyā has been mentioned as the birthplace of Rāma (Maulud Rāma).
2.8 Deva temples in Yuan Chwang’s account
In para 2.8 they have unnecessarily brought Yuan Chwang in their defence. The great Chinese pilgrim came to India as a Buddhist pilgrim and wrote “Buddhist Records of the Western World.” Even then, he has mentioned that there were 10 Deva temples at Ayodhyā. In the century following the end of the hegemony of Parama-bhāgavata Gupta kings it is natural to presume that most of the Deva temples, if not all, were dedicated to Lord Rāma. The established historians had earlier stated that as per tradition King Vikramāditya had built 360 temples at Ayodhyā.
2.9 Alberuni’s Kitab-al-Hind
In para 2.9 these Aligarh Historians have themselves written that in Alberuni’s Kitab-al-Hind ‘there is mention of the recommended size of his idol (1, p.117)’ and �
�his being an Incarnation of Vishnu (I, p. 397)’. When Alberuni confirms that Rāma was being worshipped in the idol form and was an Incarnation of Vishnu “for the purpose of spreading fortitude, to conquer the bad, and to preserve the three worlds by force and the prevalence of virtuous action”, then an inadvertent omission of Aodhyā’s connection with Rāma from an author, who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni in his various acts of aggression in India, will not dilute the religious significance of Ayodhyā and its connection with Rāma.
2.10 There are innumerable references to Ayodhyā as Rāma’s birthplace in Sanskrit texts
In para 2.10 Aligarh Historians have written that 'no Sanskrit text composed before the 16th century A.D. was cited before the Allahabad High court, which in any passage lauded Ayodhyā explicitly as the birthplace (janmbhumi etc.) of Lord Rāma not even Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana or attributed its sanctity as a pilgrimage centre to this cause’. In the second chapter of this book at least four texts viz. the Rudra-yāmala, Skandapurāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa have been quoted in the context of the Janma-sthāna of Lord Rāma. Except Avadha-vilāsa all other texts are much prior to the sixteenth century. All Sanskrit texts on Rāma’s story invariably accept Ayodhyā as the birthplace of Rāma. If someone wants evidence, he is advised to read the15th and 18th cantos of the Bālakānda of the Vālmīki Ramayana, before making such comment. It is preposterous to presume that Vālmīki Rāmāyana does not laud Ayodhyā explicitly as the birthplace (Janma-bhūmi) of Rāma. It incorporates the exact word जन्मभूमि which is quoted above in para 2.1. If the V.H.P. Advocate did not know, Vālmīki is not to blame for that lapse. In addition, the Persian sanad quoted above clearly shows that Ayodhyā was accepted as the birthplace of Rāma even by the Muslims.
2.11 A vibrant Ayodhyā during Tulasi’s time
In para 2.11 the argument of Aligarh Historians is relevant to some extent. Had Baburi mosque been built in 1528 A.D. at the site of Rāma’s birthplace after demolishing a Hindu temple, it should have been mentioned, at least indirectly by Gosvāmī Tulasi Das who started composing Rāmacharitamānasa in 1631 Vikrama, i.e. 1574 A.D., i.e. 46 years after the supposed demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque. But our research based on irrefutable historical facts shows that the temple existed at the site in 1574 A.D. when Tulasi Das composed his Rāmacharitamānasa. If it was so, how could the great poet mention the demolition of Rāma temple? The very fact that he has depicted a flourishing Ayodhyā in his epic shows that no demolition of any temple or construction of the mosque at the site had taken place by then. Similarly, Maheśa Thakkura wrote Sarva-deśa-vrittānta-san¢graha wherein he has narrated almost all important events of Babur’s life in India after going through important documents and interacting with elderly persons who had lived during Babur’s reign. He has spoken well of the founder of the Mughal dynasty. Had Babur built any mosque in the Ram Kot area of Ayodhyā, Maheśa Thakkura would not have showered praises on him.
It looks like a joke when someone writes that ‘in the literature of Tulasi Das there is no reference to Ayodhyā being Rāma’s birthplace.’ In its very beginning, i.e. Man¢galācharana of the Bālakānda, Tulasi Das has written:
बंदउँ अवधपुरी अति पावनि। सरजू सरि कलि कलुष नसावनि।
प्रनवउँ पुर नर नारि बहोरी। ममता जिन्ह पर प्रभुहि न थोरी।।
सिय निंदक अघ ओघ नसाए। लोक बिसोक बनाइ बसाए।
बंदहु कौसल्या दिसि प्राची। कीरति जासु सकल जग माची।।
प्रगटेहु जहँ रघुपति ससि चारू। विस्व सुखद खल कमल तुसारू।।
(After Dohā 15)
I honour Ayodhyā, all holy within;
And the fair Sarju River, destroyer of sin.
All honour again to that town’s sons and daughters,
Whom Lord Rāma loved with love deep as deep waters.
For their sake he Sita’s defamer forgave,
That a realm free from, sorrow they always might have.
I honour Kausalya, like eastern sky bright,
Whose fair fame has spread, to the world giving light.
From whence Rāma fair as the moon has arisen,
By whom the world’s blest, evil’s blooms are all frozen.
(translated into verses by Rev. A.G. Father Atkins)
नौमी दिन भौमवार मधुमासा। अवधपुरी यह चरित प्रकासा।।
जेहि दिन राम जनम श्रुति गावहिं। तीरथ सकल तहाँ चलि आबहिं।।
असुर नाग खग नर मुनि देवा। आइ करहि रघुनायक सेवा।।
जनम महोत्सव रचहि सुजाना। करहिं राम कल कीरति गाना।।
(After Dohā 33)
On Tuesday, the ninth day of Chaitra, month pleasing,
In th’ city of Avadh my story releasing.
'Tis the birthday of Rāma, as scriptures declare,
And the day when the pilgrims are gathering there.
All demons, birds, serpents, men, saints and gods too
There are meeting to bring to their lord homage true;
On this festival day of the lord Rama’s birth
They all sing with acclaim his high praises and worth.
(translated into verses by Rev. A.G. Father Atkins)
In the Bālakānda of the Rāmacharita-mānasa alone there are many such references which have been quoted in the 11th chapter and discussed at length. Besides, the following doha of his another book Dohāvalī indicates the vibrant situation at Ayodhyā:-
अनुदिन अवध बधावने नित नव मंगल मोद।
मुदित मातु पितु लोग लखि रघुबर बाल बिनोद।।118।
Thus, the great historians are bested in their best-postulated piece of argument.
2.12 Ayodhyā’s association with Rāma’s birth since antiquity
In para 2.12 Aligarh Historians have referred to the following paragraph of D.C. Sircar, one of India’s eminent historians and epigraphists, which is in his monograph “Problems of the Rāmāyana” (pp. 28-30):
“Rama begins to be mentioned among the heroes whom rulers aspire to emulate from the second century A.D.”
Then they argue that the real issue is not the antiquity of the Rāma story, but the time when Ayodhyā attained a particular reputation as the birthplace, not simply the capital city, of Lord Rāma.
These historians may realise that since Vālmīki’s time to Abul Fazl’s composition of Ain-i-Akbari and William Finch’s visit to the site in 1610 A.D., there was a unanimous tradition (except Daśaratha Jātaka) that Ayodhyā was perceived as the birthplace of Lord Rāma and this has been graciously accepted by the Advocates of the Central Sunni Waqf Board before the Hon’ble High Court.
The Aligarh Historians have, however, raised another question as to when the claim was made on any particular spot within Ayodhyā as the site of Lord Rāma’s birth. The categorical answer is that it started around one thousand years ago. The inscription of Vishnu-hari temple (around 1130 A.D.) certainly proclaims that it was the birthplace of the person with unlimited prowess and in conflict with the Bhargavas. Rāma was undoubtedly such personality and the inscription was discovered at the birthplace itself. Secondly, the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna and the Ayodhyā-māhatmya, preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford give a definite location of the birthsite of Lord Rāma. It has been shown in chapter II that Ayodhyā-māhātmya was c
omposed around 1000 A.D.
2.13 Ain-i-Akbari and Finch’s account pay eloquent tribute to Rāma
In para 2.13 Aligarh Historians have quoted Ain-i-Akbari and William Finch’s accounts. But the irony is that these two evidences go totally against them. Abul Fazl has paid highest respect to Rāma and written that “it was the residence of Ramchandra who in the Treta age combined in his own person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly office” Rāma had not migrated from any other territory, so Ayodhyā was both his residence and birthplace. Abul Fazl’s expression ‘Rāma’s residence’, i.e. रामालय, like देवालय, may mean Rāma’s temple.
If there was ever any doubt, Finch made it clear that here, i.e. in the Ram Kot area, where lay the ruins of the castle and houses of Rāmachandra, he took flesh upon him, i.e. he was born ‘to see the tamasha of the world’. The expression of Finch is very clear that Rāma was born in the Ram Kot area where existed the ruins of Rāma’s castle and no mosque. Had there been any mosque in the vicinity, Finch would not have missed that. The established historians should play their cards wisely, lest they should turn against them.