Ayodhya Revisited
Page 90
Since the original Janma-sthāna had a mosque at the site, this Janma-sthāna temple, too, started some attraction gradually. But it was a substitute site. If this could have been the original Janmasthāna, the Hindus would have not persisted in claiming the mosque site as the birthplace of Rāma.
2.23 Hindus’ emphasis on the inner courtyard
In para 2.23 Aligarh Historians have attacked Justice Agarwal’s observation that “the Hindus did not desist from entering the inner courtyard [when?] and continued not only to enter therein but to worship the place as well as the images on the black Kasauti pillars.”
Justice Agarwal’s observation is based on sound historical facts. Aligarh Historians have asked as to when the Hindus did not desist from entering the inner courtyard. The answer is that it was on almost all known occasions. Tieffenthaler’s writing is the first reference to the Baburi mosque and it clearly says that the Hindus have been worshipping the Bedi, prostrating at the site and circumambulating the area. He further says that they have not forgotten the site and there is a big fair on the Rāmanavamī day. If they don’t believe Tieffenthaler’s testimony they should rely on Syyed Muhammad’s petition and Sheetal Dube’s enquiry report which officially substantiated the complaint that a Nihang along with 25 other Sikhs had captured the inner circle of the mosque and written ‘Rāma Rāma’ on all walls. Here Aligarh Historians’ arguments lack credence as they are against historical facts.
2.24 Nihang Sikh’s capture of and worship in the mosque
In para 2.24 these historians have written that ‘no text or claim prior to 1949 is produced to the effect that the spot where Lord Rāma was born was situated right under the central dome of the Mosque.’
Probably, they are in the habit of overlooking inconvenient facts. Long back in 1902 A.D. the British Government installed several pillars marking various sites of the Ayodhyā parikrama and the first pillar was on the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. In 1885 the District Judge of Faizabad Col. F.E.A. Chamier made the comment that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and it was a gross injustice to the Hindus to build a mosque at the sacrosanct site but it could not be undone so belatedly. When Nihang Sikh from Punjab captured the mosque in 1855 and performed havan in a Bedī near the pulpit of the mosque and wrote jke jke in every part of the mosque, it was this tradition that Lord Rāma was born at the place where the central dome of the mosque existed. When Hafizullah, the Court Superintendent reported in 1828 that the mosque was built on the birthplace of Rāma, it was the same tradition.
When Muhammad Asghar and others made complaints, they wrote that it was a masjid at janamsthāna and all Muslim writers after 1855 started calling it a birthplace of Lord Rāma. When William Finch visited Ayodhyā in 1610 A.D., he wrote that Rāma took the human form to see the ‘tamāsā’ of the world. It was reiterated by De Leat. When Tieffenthaler visited the site in 1770 A.D., he found that Vishnu had taken incarnation there but it had been converted into a mosque. Nevertheless, the Hindus did not forget the site and were doing worship around the ‘Bedi’ and making pradakshinā. A thousand years ago, some recensions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya and the Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das in the 17th century A.D. had given exact measurements of the birthplace of Rāma from various locations. Even then, these historians have been decreeing for two decades that there was no such tradition before 1949. It is not too late for them to accept the historical evidence and make recantation frankly.
2.25 Justice Agarwal’s reasoned conclusions
In para 2.25 Aligarh Historians are quite sarcastic about Justice Agarwal. They have stated therein:
“It is unfortunate that from the above unsupported statements of one party in the suit, it should be decided that a bare reading of them ‘makes it clear and categorical (!) that the belief of Hindus by tradition was that the birthplace of Lord Rama lies within the premises in dispute and was confined to the area under the central dome of the three domed structure’ of the Babri Masjid.”
Here also Justice Agarwal was justified in passing the quoted judgment because it was based not on the statement of one party alone but on historical facts as well.
When a Sikh Nihang along with 25 Sikhs came from distant Punjab and took possession of the mosque 152 years before the historic judgment and made a Vedī and performed pujā-havan beneath the central dome of the mosque and wrote “Rāma”, “Rāma” in every part of the mosque, it was a proclamation that here was the birthplace of Lord Rāma in the middle of the three-domed structure of the mosque. It was not the declaration of Bairāgī Sādhus of Ayodhyā but of a Nihang Sikh from distant Punjab. Thus, December 1949 was not the first occasion that an attempt was made to retrieve the birthplace.
On 28th November 1858 Sheetal Dubey of Ayodhyā P.S. lodged a report that a Nihang Sikh Faqir from Punjab installed Niśāna Śrī Bhagavāna with 25 Sikhs who helped him to protect and install the Niśāna, and Havana-Pūjā was performed in the name of Guru Govind Singh inside Masjid Janma-sthāna.
On 30.11.1858 Syed Mohammad Khatib and Muazzin of the mosque filed an application stating that the Nihang Sikh of Punjab along with 25 Sikhs and Bairagis of Janma-sthāna were bent upon committing rampage. In the middle of Baburi Masjid near arch (mehrab) and pulpit, they made a mud chabūtarā 4 an¢gula high, dug a pit, lighted fire and performed Pūjā and Havana. Moreover, they installed an idol. In addition, the word ‘Rāma’ ‘Rāma’ was written with coal in all parts of the masjid. All these were parts of the complaint of Muazzin Syyd Mohammad Khatib. It is a testimony to the fact the Hindus of all sects were making attempts to retrieve the birthplace which was located in the middle of the mosque near pulpit.
On 5.11.1860 Mir Rajjab Ali filed a complaint before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner that the Nihang Sikh, who had been ousted from the inner middle portion of the mosque, had made a chabutara outside the mosque about a month ago. Besides, the Nihang Sikh had pitched a flag which was uprooted by the Commissioner. Another complaint in the application was that “when the Muazzin recites Azan, the Hindus begin to blow conch.”
All these historical events are mentioned in the proceedings of the case and there is no reason for these historians’ outburst against one of the distinguished and scholarly Judges of the country. Impartiality has been the hallmark of this celebrated Judge.
2.26 Acts of 1949 and 1992 were reprehensible
In para 2.26 what the Aligarh Historians have written is true to the extent that the acts of 1949 and 1992 were atrocious. But in the High Court order they did not receive legitimacy on the basis of faith, frenzied propaganda and post-facto innovations. The protagonists of the mosque lost their case because it was based on forged inscriptions, fabricated stories and doctored history. By a deep research their lies have been nailed and it has been proved with certainty that Babur had no role to play in demolition of the temple or construction of the mosque. Mir Baqi is a fictitious name, different from Baqi Tashkindi (or Shaghawal) and like Babur, he had no occasion to visit Ayodhyā. The inscriptions inside the mosque were fake and were placed 285 years after its supposed construction and even thereafter they were replaced repeatedly and their contents were arbitrarily altered. Even then the established historians are not accepting historical facts and writing fanciful articles devoid of any truth.
Note 2.1 The content in Note 2.1 is full of mendacity
The mendacious propaganda about the ‘Story of an Illegal Plant’ has been exposed and the correct meaning of the Vishnu-hari Inscription has been explained in chapter ten of this volume. The Tretā Kā Thākur inscription of 1184 A.D., which was found by Fuhrer in 1889 A.D., is very much available in Lucknow Museum and the Vishnu-hari inscription highlights the existence of the birthplace of Rāma and the construction of a grand temple thereon. It has been discussed in detail in chapter ten.
Thus, a discerning Judge, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, appreciated the research and based his judgment on sound historical facts. It is an irony of history that Justice Agarwal, who had been perceived as
an anti-temple, anti-Hindu Judge until this judgment was pronounced, has been made a target of pungent, unwarranted and undignified criticism, although he has judiciously decided a number of issues in favour of the Central Sunni Waqf Board also in his judgment. Justice S.U. Khan, the Presiding Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has complimented him in these words in the concluding paragraph of his judgment:
“We are also thankful to Hon’ble the Chief Justice H.L. Gokhale (now an Hon’ble Judge of Supreme Court) for inducting Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. in this Bench who is extremely laborious, very upright and considerably balanced.”
Justice Agarwal’s judgment is based on sound reasoning and incontrovertible facts, and will withstand any legal or historical scrutiny at any forum; whereas Aligarh Historians’ indictment of the verdict is devoid of merit and deserves outright rejection.
Here ends the present chapter.
ENVOI
This word Envoi has been taken from Will Durant’s book ‘The Pleasures of Philosophy’. The great philosopher has named the last Part (Nine) of his book ENVOI. At the end of this book, I would like to submit that this comprehensive book on Ayodhyã has been written with all sincerity and objectivity, and I have tried my best to base the conclusions as accurate and authentic as they could be in the light of the latest availability of documentary evidences. However, where no definite decision was possible, we were bound, faute de mieux, to follow the most probable course of historical events. While reviewing the book historians should remember Francis Bacon’s advice, i.e. “Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider”.
In this book I have tried to tread the path shown by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to historians:
“As has been well said, an historian ought to be exact, sincere, and impartial; free from passion, unbiased by interest, fear, resentment or affection; and faithful to the truth, which is the mother of history, the preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion, the witness of the past, the director of the future. In short he must have an open mind, though it may not be an empty mind, and readiness to examine all evidence even though it be spurious.”
(Preface to “Who were the Shudras?”)
If historians of all hues stop the supercilious tendency of writing with pre-conceived ideas, history will look like a mirror of past events.
It is the humble submission of this author that Rāma, who is an ocean of love and piety for all and enjoys universal goodwill, should not be restricted to narrow confines of a sectarian following and at the same time it should be understood that no amount of canard and contrived history will dilute the status of Rāma as Maryādā-purushottama in this country.
In the beginning of the Rāmāyana Vālmīki made this prophetic claim:
यावत् स्थास्यन्ति गिरयः सरितश्च महीतले।
तावद् रामायणकथा लोकेषु प्रचरिष्यति।। (I.2.36)
As long as in this firm-set land
The streams shall flow, the mountains stand,
So long throughout the world, be sure,
The great Ramayan shall endure. (Griffith’s translation)
And so long as the saga of Rāma remains popular in the country, Ayodhyã, the birthplace of Rāma, cannot be forgotten.
Before I conclude I would like to state that Rāma has occupied a reverential position in the heart of every Indian for centuries. Rāma is the most popular name and has been adopted by saints of all sects of the country whether they belong to the saguna or nirguna sect of bhakti. It is lucidly reflected by the great poet Allama Iqbal in an Urdu poem captioned ‘Raam’ which is compiled in his book ‘Bang-e-Dara’. It is quoted below with transliteration in Devanāgarī and Roman scripts and translation in English language:
लबरेज़ है शराबे-हक़ीक़त से जामे-हिन्द।
सब फ़ल्सफ़ी हैं खि़त्ता-ए-मग़रिब के रामे हिन्द।।
Labrez hai sharab-e-haqeeqat se jaam-e-Hind,
Sab falsafi hain khitta-e-maghrib ke Raam-e-Hind.
The cup of India is brimful of the wine of truth. All philosophers of the western world (have acknowleged) Rāma of India.
ये हिन्दियों के फि़क्रे-फ़लक रस का है असर,
रिफ़अत में आस्माँ से भी ऊँचा है बामे-हिन्द।
Yeh Hindion ke fikr-e-falak ras ka hai asar,
Rif’at mein aasmaan se bhi ooncha hai baam-e-Hind.
It is the result of elegant thoughts of Indians that the loftiness of India is higher than the sky.
इस देश में हुए हैं हज़ारों मलक सरश्त,
मशहूर जिन के दम से है दुनिया में नामे-हिन्द।
Is des mein hue hain hazaron malak sarasht,
Mashhoor jin ke dam se hai duniya mein naam-e-Hind.
In this country thousands of persons with angelic worth were born and on account of them the name of India is so famous.
है राम के वजूद पे हिन्दोस्ताँ को नाज़,
अहले-नज़र समझते हैं उसको इमामे-हिन्द।
Hai Raam ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz,
Ahl-e-nazar samajhte hain usko Imam-e-Hind.
India is proud of the existence of Rāma. Discerning minds regard him as the Imam of India.
एजाज़ इस चिराग़े-हिदायत का है यही
रौशन तर अज़ सहर है ज़माने में शामे-हिन्द।
Aijaz is chiragh-e-hidait ka hai yehi,
Roshan tar az sahar hai zamaane mein sham-e-Hind.
It is the miracle of this light of righteousness that India’s evening is brighter than world’s morning.
तलवार का धनी था, शुजाअत में फ़र्द था,
पाकीज़गी में, जोशे-मुहब्बत में फ़र्द था।
Talwaar ka dhani tha, shujaat mein fard tha,
Pakeezgi mein, josh-e-mohabbat mein fard tha.
He was unparalleled in swordsmanship and exceptionally valiant. He was matchless in righteousness and had unbounded intensity of love for all.
Here Allama Iqbal expresses the popular sentiment that India takes pride in the existence of Rāma and with profound reverence he calls Rāma ‘Imam-i-Hind’ which means ‘spiritual leader of India’. Ādi-kavi Vālmīki equates him with Dharma by pronouncing रामो विग्रहवान् धर्म, i.e. Rāma is the embodiment of Dharma. The Bhāgavata highlights the significance of Rāma’s suffering during his exile in the Dandaka forest in the following verse:
स्मरतां हृदि विन्यस्य विद्धं दण्डककण्टकै।
स्वपादपल्लवं राम आत्मज्योतिरगात् ततः।। (IX.11.19)
Rāma returned to his eternal abode of divine light after setting his feet lacerated with thorns of the Dandaka forest in the heart of his devotees to contemplate upon.
I have been an ardent admirer of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the British statesman and distinguished orator, who brilliantly led the debate on ‘Indictment of Warren Hastings’ in the House of Lords in 1788 and spoke eloquently on the ‘Conciliation with America’ in 1775 A.D. Here I cannot help but quote the following words from his speech on the latter subject:
“In full confidence of this unalterable truth, I now quod felix faustumque sit lay the first stone of the temple of peace.”
I, too, have placed few stones in the temple of peace by presenting incontrovertible evidences before the nation, so that the long standing dispute is put to quietus and people are apprised of the correct history of Ayodhyã which has been a sacred city for millions of devotees for thousands of years. The Latin phrase quod felix faustumque sit means “May things turn out well.” Burke borrowed it from Marcus Tullius Cicero’s speech in Roman Senate (63 B.C.) which had one more Latin word ‘bonum’ and the whole expression ‘Quod bonum, felix faustunque sit!’ means ‘May it be good, fortunate and prosperous’.
Appendix II
Texts used in this book
English books
Abul-Fazl Allami, The A-in-i-Akbari, Translated by H. Blochmann, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2011.
Aligarh Historians, Historians and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the Ramjanma-bhūmi-Babri Masjid Case, Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT).