2.14 There are many texts which mention the Rāma-janmabhūmi
In para 2.14 Aligarh Historians have written that ‘Skanda Purāna is the first Sanskrit text, which mentions the existence within Ayodhya, among thirty-and-odd sacred spots, of one spot that it calls Rāma-janma’. It is true that the specific spot of the Rāma-janmabhūmi has been mentioned in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna. But there are many texts such as Rudra-yāmala, Skanda Purāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa which mention the Rāma-janmabhūmi. Rudra-yāmala might have been composed earlier than the Skanda Purāna. The topic has been discussed at length in the second chapter of this volume.
2.15 Skanda-purāna’s core content was composed a thousand years ago
In para 2.15 these historians have tried to establish that the Skanda Purāna is a late composition and it carries many interpolations. At the end they have decreed that the Skanda Purāna, as a unified text, cannot be older than the seventeenth century with later additions being possible. Earlier, we have convincingly shown that Skanda Purāna is 1500 years old and when Alberuni wrote ‘Kitab-ul-Hind’ in c. 1030 A.D. it had already got the dimension of a Mahā-purāna. Therefore most of its interpolations had been inserted by that time and the Ayodhyā Māhātmya must have been a part of the Skanda Purāna by 1000 A.D.
Aligarh Historians have further written that the Skanda-purāna is a work with many versions. It is not denied. But how its core content was incorporated by 1000 A.D. has been shown in the second chapter of this volume. What Dr. T.P. Verma deposed before the court may have been his impression. But after reading this book, he, too, will hopefully change his views.
2.16 Vrindāvana’s antiquity
In para 2.16 Aligarh Historians have tried to prove that since the Skanda-purāna mentions Vrindāvana as one of “the famous sacred spots of Vraja” and since Chaitanya declared a spot near Mathurā to be the earthly Vrindāvana in 1515 A.D., the present text of the Skanda-purāna is much later than 1515, “for it took time for Chaita-nya’s claimed discovery to be widely accepted.” Such presumptions are based on the selective misreadings of certain texts.
This argument is ridiculous and shows complete ignorance of Indian scriptures. The Bhāgavata-purāna was composed long before Chaitanya’s birth. In the 10th skandha (book) of the Bhāgavata it is clearly mentioned in the 11th chapter that when no one was feeling safe and secure at Gokul because of so many assaults on them, particularly young boys, the residents held a meeting to come out of this crisis. One villager Upananda suggested that all should migrate to Vrindāvana, which is a good forest for residence, cows and cattle and it is full of green grasses, creepers, plants, trees and sacred hills:
वनं वृन्दावनं नाम पशव्यं नवकाननम्।
गोपगोपीगवां सेव्यं पुण्याद्रितृणवीरुधम्।।28।।
Thereafter, all of them left for Vrindāvana by bullock-carts and settled there.
There are many verses which are clear indications that Vrindā-vana was a terrestrial and not a celestial land. Here two ślokas are quoted:
वृन्दावनं संप्रविश्य सर्वकालसुखावहम्।
तत्र चक्रुर्व्रजावासं शकटैरर्धचद्रवत्।।३५।।
Reaching Vrindāvana, a place accessible and pleasant in all seasons, they settled for the cow-compound, placing their carts in half a circle in the shape of the half moon.
वृन्दावनं गोवर्धनं यमुनापुलिनानि च।
वीक्ष्यासीदुत्तमा प्रीतीराममाधवयोर्नृप।।३६।।
O ruler of man, when Balarāma and Mādhava saw Vrindāvana with the Govardhana hill and the banks of the Yamunā, they were enraptured with profound pleasure.
Here one more text is added to contradict the fallacious proposition of Aligarh Historians. Śrīdharadāsa edited the Sadukti-karnāmritam, a compendium of Sanskrit verses in 1205-06 A.D. (1127 Saka). The date is mentioned in its colophon. In this text, there is a verse which mentions the earthly Vrindāvana replete with serpents, monkeys, crocodiles, tigers, etc. It was composed by poet Umāpati-dhara and is quoted below:
व्यालाः सन्ति तमालवल्लिषु वृं वृन्दावनं वानरै-
रुन्नक्रं यमुनाम्बु घोरवदनव्याघा गिरे सन्धयः।
इत्थं गोपकुमारकेषु वदतः कृष्णस्य तृष्णोत्तर-
स्मेराभीरवधूनिषेधिनयनस्याकुञ्चनं पातु वः।।
Let you be protected by a flicker of the eyes of Krishna which prevents cowherd-brides, full of curiosity and surprise, from falling in fear after hearing the cowherd-lads’ statement that ‘ferocious elephants or serpents are in the thickets of Tamāla trees’, ‘monkeys have encircled Vrindāvana’, ‘the water of the Yamunā is infested with crocodiles and tigers with ferocious faces are in hilly terrain’.
Thus, there existed an earthly Vrindāvana even before 1205 A.D., and therefore the division of the celestial and earthly Vrindāvana is totally imaginary.
2.17 Sītāpura’s correct identity
Again Aligarh Historians are either themselves confused or misleading readers by writing:
“Another proof of the lateness of the text is shown by the reference in the Skanda-Purãna to Sitapur. The Skand-Purãna (VII. i. 35. 24-26, III. ii. 39, 25, 35, 37, 293) says that Sitapur was founded by Lord Rama and named after Sita. It speaks of 55 villages near Sitapur held under grants by Brahmans, and some of them named by it have indeed identified with those in the town’s vicinity (Avasthi, Studies in Skand-Purãna, Part 1, page 1-8) but the name Sitapur is a popular alteration of the original name Chitapur, under which it appears in the Ain-i-Akbari, the great Mughal gazetteer compiled in 1595. (See for Chitapur/Sitapur: Irfan Habib, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Delhi, 1982, Text, p. 28, col. c).”
The Sitapur mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari has the spellings Chhatyapur and Chhitapur. Even if it is accepted that they are not different from Sitapur; this Sitapur is included in the Sarkar of Khairabad, which is located in Uttar Pradesh.
In ‘An Atlas of the Mughal Empire’ by Prof. Irfan Habib Chitapur (Sitapur), is mentioned in Index, Sheet 8A, Uttar Pradesh, Political under Suba Awadh in the following words:
(3) Khairabad (27+, 80+), Chitapur (27+, 80+) is the spelling used in both lists of the Ain, as also in Add. 6586, f.95a; when the mod. spelling Sitapur gained currency is uncertain.”
Both the Mughal Sitapur and the present Sitapur are in U.P., whereas the Sitapur mentioned in Skand-Purāna and referred to by these historians is in Gujarat. Here the story relates to the Jain King Kumārapāla of Gujarat, who had confiscated 55 villages of the Brāhmanas and Sitapur was one among them. Even at present, this Sitapur is known by this name in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat. Some adjoining villages mentioned in the Skanda-Purāna still exist by the same name in Gujarat. These villages adjoining Sitapur are mentioned below:
Magodi- Gandhinagar district in Gujarat
Sheratha -do- -do-
Vanoda Anand -do-
Halola Panchmahal -do-
That this Sitapur is located in Gujarat is further corroborated by the fact that Dvārakā-māhātmya is highlighted in the same context. Thus, it is clear that Chhitapur/Chhatyapur/Sitapur mentioned in the Skanda-Purāna is that of Gujarat and not of Uttar Pradesh, as suggested by Aligarh Historians.
For the kind knowledge of Aligarh Historians it is submitted that there was a Chitanagar named after Sītā, the consort of Rāma near Indore. It had a magnificent temple which has been lucidly described by travelle
r Jean de Thevanot who visited India during 1666-67 A.D. in the following words:
“That Pagod is called Chitanagar: It is an Oblong square Temple, forty five Paces in length, twenty eight in breadth, and three Fathom high Chitanagar. It is built of a Stone of the same kind as the Theban. It hath a Basis five Foot high all round, charged with Bends and Wreaths, and adorned with Roses and Notchings, as finely cut, as if they had been done in Europe. It hath a lovely frontispiece, with its Architrave, Cornish and Fronton; and is Beautified with Pillars, and lovely Arches, with the Figures of Beasts in relief, and some with Figures of Men. Then we viewed the inside, The contrivance of that Temple is like that of Elora, it hath a Body, a Quire, and a Chappel at the end. I could perceive nothing in the Body and Quire, but the four Walls; though the Lustre of the Stones they are built of, renders the prospect very agreeable: The Floor is of the fame Stone, and in the middle of it there is a great Rose well cut. This place like the other.
Pagods, receives light only by the door: On each side of the Wall of the Quire, there is square hole a foot large, which slopes like a Port-hole for A Place for a Piece of Od’nance, and in the middle of the thickness of it, a long Iron skrew, as big as ones Leg, which enters Perpendicularly into the Wall like a Bar, and I was informed, that these Irons served to fasten Ropes to, for supporting of those who performed voluntary Abstinence for seven days or longer. In the middle of the Chappel at the end, there is an Altar of the same Stone as the Walls are of; it is cut into several Stories, and Adorned all over with Indenting. Roses, and other Embellishments of Architecture, and on each side below, there are three Elephants Heads. There hath been a Pedestal prepared of the fame Stone the Altar is of, to set the Idol of the Pagod upon; but seeing the building was not finished, the Idol hath not been set up….
The Temple and Palace-are called Chitanagar, that is to say, the Lady Chita, because the pagod is Dedicated to Chita the wife of Rama: I learnt that both had been begun by a Rich upon the Road Rajpoute, who dying, left the Temple arid House imperfect. After all, I observed, as well in the Ancient, as Modern Buildings of the Indies, that Architectors make the Basis, Body, and Capital of their Pillars, of one single piece.” (Part III, P. 79)
That Rāma had obtained complete divinity is confirmed by the following description of Thevenot in the above-mentioned book:
“After all, the vulgar Opinion of the Gentiles, touching the God Ram, is that he was produced, and came out of the Light, in the same manner as the Fringe of a Belt comes out of that Belt, and if they Assign him a Father their God whom they call Dester, and a Mother named Caoucell; that is only for form sake, seeing he was not born: And in that consideration, the Indians render him divine Honours in their Pagods, and else where , And when they salute their Friends, they repeat his Name, saying, Ram, Ram. Their Adoration consists in joining their hands, as if they Prayed, letting them fall very low, and then lifting them up again gently to their mouth, and last of all, in raising them over their head. They call Chita the Wife of Ram; and seeing they know what respect Christians bear to the Holy Virgin , they have the boldness to compare that Wife to her, and if they meet with her Image, they take it to be the representation of Chita.” (Part III, p. 65)
For the historians of limited study one more text is cited to prove that the Skanda-purāna was written earlier than 1515 A.D. Binābāi wrote ‘Dvārakā-pattalam’ which was published in 1941 A.D. in the third volume of ‘The Contribution of Women to Sanskrit Literature’ by Jatindra Vimal Chaudhari in Calcutta. The editor, Chaudhari, had found the manuscript dated 1518 A.D. for this publication. In this book Binābāi, who was the daughter of Māndalika and wife of King Hari Singh of Chauhan clan at Patalipur in Kathiawad area, has quoted many verses from the Dvārakā-māhātmya of the Skanda-purāna. Binābāi is said to have lived in the 15th century. Thus, the Skanda-purāna existed even in the 15th century as per this text. Incidentally, even in Dvārakā-māhātmya of the Skanda-purāna there are many verses highlighting the merits of Ayodhyā. Many of them have been quoted in the second chapter of this volume.
2.18 The Ayodhyā-māhātmya has a thousand-year old tradition
In response to their criticism in para 2.18 it is submitted that Aligarh Historians should realize that the Ayodhyā-māhātmya first originated in the Rudra-yāmala which was composed long before 11th century. The Rudra-yāmala is mentioned in a Brahma-yāmala manuscript which is dated 1052 and has been referred to by D.C. Sircar in his book ‘The Śākta Pīthas’ (p. 17). When Lal Das composed the Avadha Vilāsa in 1672 A.D. he, too, mentioned the tradition of the Rudrayāmala in connection with the Rāmajanma-bhūmi. Thus, there is no doubt that the tradition of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya existed in this country even a thousand years ago. If the Vishva Hindu Parishad historians did not bring out these facts, it was a failure on their part. An intensive research with perseverance has now succeeded in discovering them. Will the established historians dismiss them because they were not published earlier?
2.19 Reliability of Janamasākhī traditions
In para 2.19 these Aligarh Historians have taken exception to Justice Agarwal’s reliance on the Sikh evidences of the Janamasākhī traditions. In this connection it may be submitted that the Janamasākhī tradition may not be conclusive proof but the fact remains that it has been a very popular tradition for long and unless it is controverted by some other important texts, it is a vital piece of evidence. Be it known that there is a 'Janam Sakhi' in Punjabi, a prose hagiography of Guru Nanak compiled and copied by Daya Ram Abhrol in 1733 with 57 miniature paintings by Alam Chand Raj. The work consists of a series of 58 ’sakhis' - ethical and moral anecdotes - written in the Gurmukhi script. It is available in the British Library.
Moreover, there is a Sikh Gurudwara at Ayodhyā next to the Brahmakunda in the memory of the arrival of Guru Nanak who visited Ayodhyā and gave sermon. There is a long Sikh tradition to this effect. Hans Bakker mentions this tradition in his book Ayodhyā (p. 138). In view of these facts Justice Agarwal was justified in relying on the Sikh tradition and the texts.
2.20 Muslim writers’ frequent references to Masjid Janmasthāna
In para 2.20 the Aligarh Historians have asserted that the name Masjid Janma-sthāna is reported from documents of the mid-nineteenth century onwards only, when the Janma-sthāna lore had been established. But the expression Masjid Janma-sthāna is found in Muslim authors’ texts and they were not lured by the lore of Rāma-janmabhūmi. Besides, there is a Mughal sanad of 1723 A.D. wherein Ayodhyā has been called ‘maulud’ of Rāma. ‘Maulud’ in Persion means जन्मभूमि, i.e. birthplace. Moreover, though Tieffenthaler called it a Mohammaden temple, the fact of the matter is that since the disputed shrine had a peaceful, amicable coexistence of both pūjā and namaz in its inner portion until 1858 A.D. when the Britishers arbitrarily deprived the Hindus of pūjā inside it to pre-empt any communal clash, there was no need of calling it as a mosque till then. But when it was referred to as Masjid, it was invariably referred to as Masjid Janmasthāna. It was not because of any ‘lore’, but on account of the prevalent reality. Therefore, Aligarh Historians’ arguments are misplaced.
2.21 Aligarh Historians’ unsubstantiated observation
In para 2.21 these Aligarh Historians have passed an arbitrary judgment which reads as follows:
“The discussion of the extensive evidence we have examined above should leave us in no doubt that there exists no proof that any sanctity attached to Ayodhya or any place within it on account of its containing the birth-site of Lord Rama before seventeenth, or probably the eighteenth century; and even with regard to Ayodhya being the place over which Lord Rama had ruled, it is only in the late sixteenth century that Ayodhya as a place is first assigned an exceptionally high, sacred status on this account.”
This observation is contrary to historical facts. As repeatedly shown earlier, Ayodhyā has been a sacred city right from the time Vālmīki composed the Rāmāyana. The tradition of the exact site of Lord Ram’s bi
rth has been in vogue since the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala, and the Skanda-Purāna was written a thousand years ago. In view of these historical facts, faith and tradition Justice Agarwal was justified in upholding it to be the birthplace of Lord Rāma. Justice Agarwal was not alone; rather all the three Honb’le Judges including Justice S.U. Khan were unanimous in declaring that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma.
2.22 Another Janmasthāna temple built subsequently across the road
In Para 2.22 there is a reference to another Janma-sthāna temple. It is to the north of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi and across the road. It was established by a sadhu named Rāmadāsa, who has been called a pupil of Devamurārī of Prayāga. Carnegy informs us in Appendix A of his “Historical Sketch of Fyzabad District” that a plot measuring one acre and one R. was given to Rāmadāsa of Gudar sect by Mir Masum-ali for the worship of Rāmachandra. Mir Masum-ali’s identity has not been established so far. Carnegy further informs that seven generations have passed since its establishment. At the rate of 20 years for a generation gap it comes to 140 years before Carnegy wrote it in 1870 A.D. Thus, this hermitage was established in 1730 A.D. when there was a Nawab at Ayodhyā. Awadh Nawabs were very liberal to sadhus, and Mir Masum-ali might have been an affluent landlord and good Samaritan to help Sādhu Rāmadāsa in establishing a Janma-sthāna temple in the vicinity of the actual Janma-bhūmi which had a mosque thereon. It might have been done to diffuse the simmering tension over the issue of construction of a mosque on the Janma-bhūmi site by Aurangzeb. This is the time when Sadhu Abhayarāma and others established Nirvānī and other Akhādās at Ayodhyā, and built many temples in the holy city. Probably, on the basis of statements of some sadhus Carnegy has given an exact date of 166 years between the establishment of the hermitage and his writing. It comes to 1704 A.D. which does not seem to be correct because during the reign of Aurangzeb no officer or noble could have taken initiative or dared to grant land to Rāmadāsa. Carnegy’s dates of certain events in the same Appendix A are prima facie incorrect, e.g. he writes that 250 years have elapsed since the restoration of the Treta Ka Thakur temple by Raja of Kalu. Carnegy was writing in 1870 A.D. and 250 years before this date was 1620 A.D. when the temple had not even been converted into mosque. Where was then the question of its restoration? The temple was converted into mosque during the reign of Aurangzeb (16581707 A.D.) and Ahilyabai ruled from 11 December 1767 to 13 August 1795 A.D. Established historians have been claiming that this is the original Janma-sthāna temple and the mosque was built at a virgin land. Had it been the original Janma-sthāna temple, it would have been mentioned in the litigation of Raghubar Das and various complaints of the Muslim religious leaders. But there is total non-indication about it. Rather, the District Judge Chamier laments that “it is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy that grievance.”
Ayodhya Revisited Page 89