Author: KUNAL KISHORE
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00
Description: This work of monumental research is atreatise on Ayodhyã with utmostauthenticity and absolute accuracy. Basedon original sources and scientificinvestigation it propounds a new thesis,which demolishes many popularperceptions. It exonerates the intrepidwarrior Babur from the charge ofdemolishing a temple on the birth-site ofRãma and constructing the mosque whichhas been a source of contention anddissension for long. It further shows howinscriptions in the mosque were factitiousand Mir Baqi of inscriptions is a fictitiousperson different from Baqi Tashkindi/Shegawal of the Baburnama.The book prod
Publisher: Prabhat Prakashan

Ayodhya Revisited

Kishore Kunal

This book is dedicated
to

Austrian Jesuit Priest

Father Joseph Tieffenthaler
who was the first person
to mention and write comprehensively
on the disputed shrine of Ayodhya
in his magnum opus ‘Descriptio Indiae’

written in Latin in c. 1770 A.D.

and

English merchant William Finch (1610 A.D.)

Dutch geographer Joannes De Laet (1631 A.D.)

British traveller Thomas Herbert (1634 A.D.)

French scholar C. Mentelle (1801 A.D.)

whose compact writings are
eloquent testimony to
many momentous events
of the holy city.

JUSTICE G.B. PATNAIK

Former Chief Justice of India

Foreword

Shri Kishore Kunal, a former IPS Officer and Vice Chancellor of a Sanskrit University, gave me a manuscript of Ayodhya Revisited consisting of around 600 pages with a request to write Foreword. Even though I am not a historian, yet the subject is so very interesting and the approach of the writer is so very innovative that I have taken considerable time in going through the manuscript.

Ayodhya has been a centre of controversy for a considerable period and the controversy aggravated after the demolition of Babri Mosque. Ayodhya is known not only as a place of pilgrimage, but also as a seat of India’s culture. Historians, intellectuals and travellers have visited this place and given scholarly accounts of contemporary history, but Kunal has approached the subject from a different perspective. He has tried to draw his conclusion on objective and independent interpretation of materials and documents. He has tried to throw light on many aspects essentially on the basis of Sanskrit text.
In the very preface of the manuscript he has indicated the method of interpretation he has followed. The method adopted by him for Sanskrit sources prescribes replacing of words appearing in the text in their natural sequence to drive the correct meaning. The method is called ‘anvaya’ method. Kunal has obtained materials and evidences from reputed sources like National Archives and University Libraries and thus there cannot be any doubt about the authenticity of those materials. Kunal was a student of History and also a student of Sanskrit and this has helped him in giving a vivid account of Ayodhya different from what historians have described.
While in service Mr. Kunal as Officer on Special Duty ‘Ayodhya’ to the then Minister of Home Affairs had played a leading role and attempted to have a consensus between the leaders of two communities, but ultimately failed. But being Officer on Special Duty (Ayodhya) he got the opportunity of going through various materials and after in-depth analysis of those materials has ventured to produce his interesting book on the subject, which would be a great asset to the nation at large, which may be helpful in defusing the tension between the two communities. His experience as O.S.D. and playing a vital role to resolve the dispute has come handy in translating several documents and manuscripts and in giving a picture different from what had been given by general historians. His conclusion on several pieces of evidences on the subject and his object in preparation of several materials and documents deserve to be complimented and in my opinion such conclusions throw light on many aspects of Ayodhya, which are different from what we knew in regard to Ayodhya earlier.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Kunal has held the inscriptions on the disputed structure to be fake and has ably proved how the conclusions drawn by historians are wrong. He has brought so many literary works to light such as Sarvadesha-Vrittanta-Sangraha, a text in Sanskrit, composed by Mahesh Thakur, the founder of the erstwhile Khandavala Dynasty of Mithila, on the basis of which he has come to a conclusion about Babar and early years of Akbar’s regime. Similarly the Ayodhya-Mahatmya of the Rudra-yamala preserved in Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune and Satyopakhyanam are two Sanskrit texts which throw ample light on the importance of Ayodhya. Accounts of Thomas Herbert, Joannes De Laet and C. Mentelle have been produced for the first time, while writing history on Ayodhya.

Mr. Kunal has successfully proved that the common belief that the temple at Ram Janambhoomi was demolished by Babur is erroneous. He has established that the mosque, Babari Masjid, was never built by Babar. According to the writer all this happened during the reign of Aurangzeb some time in 1660 and Babar had no role to play. This book establishes the fact that Babar practised religious tolerance and he was not a fanatic.

In chapter 11 while dealing with the question of existence of temple at the birth place of Rama the author has relied upon the literary sources of foreign travel accounts, the detailed inscription and archaeological excavation report and then has come to the conclusion that there existed a temple at the place in question whereas many historians have indicated that there never existed any temple. The scientific basis and the authentic sources of information on the basis of which the conclusion has been arrived at establishes how the historians were erroneous and it is not merely a belief of Hindus; rather clinching materials establish the fact that there existed a temple.
In its chapter dealing with Inferno of Fanaticism during the reign of Aurangzeb the author has relied upon articles published as early as in 1750’s and given a vivid account as to how Aurangzeb tried to demolish several Hindu temples all over the country which is in accord with the opinion expressed by many historians. In chapter 14 he has dealt with the magnanimity of Mughal Rulers and proved the existence of amity between Hindus and Muslims. The author has ultimately come to the conclusion that the Mughal rulers right from Babar to Shahjahan were quite liberal and bestowed patronage to Sanskrit scholars, and India witnessed one of the finest phases of history in prosperity and liberalism which made indelible imprint on the contemporary history.

Kunal’s nomenclature of the book is quite apt, since it establishes several facts which are contrary to the common beliefs and also the opinions of several historians.

All said and done, the author has given a new dimension to the history of Ayodhya and his valuable contribution to the subject will be of a great assistance to research scholars as well as the people of India who can have a meaningful debate at a burning subject. I have no doubt that this book will be of great assistance to the research scholars in history, and common man desirous of knowing about Ayodhya and existence of temple there which is believed to be the birth place of Lord Rama. The writer deserves commendation for his in-depth study and scientific analysis on which he has based his conclusions.

—Justice G.B. Patnaik

Former Chief Justice of India

Eleven Documents of Vital Importance
on the Ayodhya Dispute

(1)
Ayodhyā-māhātmya of Rudra-yāmala

(Rudra-yāmala is mentioned in a manuscript
of the Brahma-yāmala dated 1052 A.D.)

सरयूतीरपूतानां जन्मभूम्याः विलोकिनाम्।

दर्शनात् पातकं तेषां कल्पकोटिशतायुतान्।।३५।।

All sins of those persons, who after being purified on the Sarayū’s bank visit the Janma-bhūmi, are effaced, by its mere glimpse, for hundreds, thousands and crores of kalpas.

राममन्दिरमासाद्य दर्शनं क्रियते नरै।

मनसापि स्मृं येन मुच्यते चरणत्रयात्।।३६।।

Having reached the temple of Rāma men, who have his darśana (glimpse) or even his remembrance, are liberated from the charana-trayam i.e. birth, life and death.

दर्शनं जन्मभूमेश्च स्मरणं रामनामतः।

मज्जनं सरयूतीरे कृं वै पापनाशनम्।।३७।।

By a darśana of the Janma-bhūmi or remembrance of the Rāma-nāma or bathing in the Sarayū river all sins are destroyed.

अयोध्यानगरं पुण्यं स्मृं वै पापनाशनम्।

धान्यं यशस्यमायुष्यं पुण्यं पापहरं फलम्।।३८।।

He, who remembers the sacred city of Ayodhyā, is blessed with wealth, reputation, long life, virtues
and destruction of sins.

(Quoted from the twelfth chapter of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya manuscript of the Rudra-yāmala, dated 1801 A.D. and preserved in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune)

(2)
Satyopākhyānam

(Published by Venkateswar Press in 1882. Its one manuscript dated 1865 A.D. is available in the Pennsylvania University Library, which dates its composition to the 13th century A.D.)

नवमी चैत्रमासस्य शुक्ला चाद्य प्रवर्तते।

तस्या व्रतप्रभावेन शरयूस्नानतः पुनः।।३५.६।।

दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्य जन्मभूमेर्विलोकनात्।

नाम्ना सान्तानको लोको विमानैस्तत्र ते गताः।।३५.७।।

Today is the ninth day of the bright fortnight of the Chaitra month, i.e. Rāmanavami. By the impact of the festival of the Rāmanavami, bathing in the Sarayu river, having a darśan of the idol of Lord Rāma and beholding the Janmabhūmi, all they went to the Sāntānaka Loka by planes.

जन्मभूमेस्तु माहात्म्यं वक्तुं शक्तो न पद्मजः।

पापकोटिसमायुक्तं चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ।।३५.१५।।

पापकोटिं नरस्त्यक्त्वा जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

प्राप्नोति परमं लोकं यत्र गत्वा न शोचति।।३५.१६।।

Even Brahmā is not competent to describe the importance of the Janmabhūmi. On the ninth day of the Chaitra month if a man, bristling with millions of sins, visits the Janmabhūmi, he is liberated from all vices and goes to the Supreme World where there is no worry.

(3)
Vishnu-hari inscription

(Discovered from the debris of the disputed shrine on the day of its demolition)

Verse 5.

वंश्यन्तदेव कुलमाकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढमप्रतिम[विक्रम]जन्मभूमिः।

यत्रातिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा मा नो जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री ।।

It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxieties (over Bhargava’s war) and is the birthplace of a man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Herein resides the person who is illuminated with the power of thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for most exciting wealth hankered after by the world.

Verse 21.

टंकोत्खातविशालशैलशिखरश्रेणीशिलासंहति-

व्यूहैर्विष्णुहरेर्हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दरं मन्दिरम्।

पूर्व्वैरप्यकृं नृपतिभिर्येनेदमित्यद्भुं

संसारार्णवशीघंघनलघूपायान्धिया ध्यायता।।

He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple adorned with a gold Kalas+a, on a scale never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with the blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks.

Verse 24.

उद्दामसौधविबुधालयनीमयोध्यामध्यास्य तेन नयनिन्हुत वैशसेन।

साकेतमण्डलमखण्डमकारि कूपवापीप्रतिश्रय तडागसहस्रमिश्रम्।।

By residing at Ayodhyā which was full of towering abodes and temples he, who was the embodiment of righteous conduct, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, resthouses and ponds throughout the Sāketa-mandala.

(4)
Joannes De Laet’s book (1631 A.D.)

Joannes De Laet was one of the Directors of the Dutch East India Company. His book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’ was published in 1631 in Latin. The following excerpt is from the English translation of this book by John S. Hoyland which was published from Patiala in 1927:

“..thence (from Lucknow) to Oudee (an ancient city, once the seat of Pathan Kings, but now almost deserted), 50 cos. Not far from this city may be seen the ruins of the fort and palace of Ramchand, whom the Indians regard as God Most High: they say that he took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world. Amongst these ruins live certain Bramenes who carefully note down the name of all such pilgrims as duly perform their ceremonial ablutions in the neighboring river. They say that this custom has been kept up for many centuries. About two miles from these rivers (sic.) is a cave with a narrow mouth but so spacious within and with so many ramifications that it is difficult to find one’s way out again. They believe that the ashes of the god are hidden here. Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshipping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit. This rice they believe to have been kept here for many centuries.” (pp. 64-65) (emphasis added)

(5)
Thomas Herbert’s book (1634 A.D.)

Thomas Herbert was a traveller of much celebrity. His book “Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique” was first published in 1634 and then a revised edition in 1638. The following image is from the book printed in 1638 A.D.:

Now presented in modern Roman script:

“At this Oudee or Oujea (a citty in Bengala & felicitated by Ganges) are many Antick Monuments, especially memorable is the pretty old castle Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name about 994500 yeares ago after their accompt, from which to this the Bannyans have repayred to offer here and to wash away their sinnes in Ganges, each of which is recorded by name by the laborious Bramyns who acquaintes this Pagod with their good progressions and charitable offerings.” (p. 92) (emphasis added)

Another image from the book:

Now presented in modern Roman script:

“Ducerat, who begat Ram, a King so famous for piety and high attempts, that to this day his name is exceedingly honoured, so that when they say Ram Rame, 'tis as if they should say, all good betide you”. (p. 47)

(6)
Joseph Tieffenthaler’s Account (c.1670 A.D.)

He was an Austrian Jesuit Priest who landed in India in 1742A.D. and visited Awadh from 1766 to1772. His comprehensive book on Indian Geography is "Description. Historique Et Geographique De L’ Inde” which was originaly written in Latin. Its French version was published in 1786. For the first time since the Ayodhya debate its English translation published in "The Modern Travellers" in 1828 from London is pruduced below:-

Emperor Aurengzeb got the fortress called Ramot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that is was constructed by ‘Babor’. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these 12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It is narrated that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or Selendip (called Ceylan by the Europeans) by Hanuman, King of Monkeys.
On the left is seen a square box, raised five inches from the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4. The Hindus call it Bedi, i.e. ‘the cradle’. The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his three brothers too were born here. Aurengzeb or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny them the noble people, opportunity of practising their superstitions. However, there still exists some superstitious cult in some place or other. For example, in the place where native house of Rama existed, they go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor. The two spots are surrounded by a low wall constructed with battlements. One enters the front hall through a low semi-circular door.

(7)
French scholar C. Mentelle’s book (1801 A.D.)

French scholar C. Mentelle’s book “Courses of Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History’” was published in 1801 A.D. in the French language. Volume III contains Geography and History of Asia, Africa and America. C. Mentelle was a Member of the National Institute, and delivered 125 lessons at the Central School of Four-Nations. Its English version of the relevant portion is produced below:

“Avad, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indians name it Adjudea, is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the banks of the river Ghaghra and we consider that the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramji, whose father was the King of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage.

In those days at Ayodhya there was an edifice called the Celestial Temple, from where it is said that Ram or Ramji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of the city. This temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Aurang-zeb as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).”

(8)
A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical, Vol. 2.

This Universal Gazetteer was written by J.R. M’Culloch, ESQ, and published from London in 1842.

“Oude, a town of Hindostan, in the above prov. and kingdom of which it was the former cap; on the Gogra across which an iron bridge, the materials having been brought from England is said to have been recently thrown 74 mile E. Lucknow; Lat. 26º48’ N. Long. 82º4’ E. It extends a considerable distance along the banks of the river, stretching as far as Fyzabad. It is said by Hamilton to be tolerably populous; but except along the river’s brink, it consists wholly of ruins and jungle, among which are the remains of various celebrated Hindoo temples. Hindoo pilgrims still visit Oude; and did so in great numbers, until Aurangzebe demolished most of their places of resort. A mosque erected by that monarch, and 2 tombs, greatly venerated by mohammedans are now the principal and almost sole remaining public edifices. (Mod.Trav. ix, 312-315)” (emphasis added)

(9)
Complaint of Syyed Muhammad Khatib
dated 30th November, 1858 A.D.
[Exhibit 20 (Suit-1)]
Gharib Parwar Aadil-e-Zaman Salamat!

Sir! Of late, one Nihang Sikh, who is a resident of Punjab, a Government employee and a Bairagi, is on rampage at the Janmasthan. In the middle of Baburi mosque near the mehrab and mimber he has constructed a chabutara made of clay which measures about four fingers in height by filling it with lime-stones. Following his faith he has unnecessarily made illumination and after having raised the platform in the mosque to the height of one and a quarter yards he has placed a flag, picture and idol there. After digging a pit equal to that measurement he has constructed a concrete parapet. Thereafter, he has made aatish and illumination. He is fully occupied with worship and homa. He has written ‘Rama’, ‘Rama’ with coal everywhere in the mosque. Now it is time for justice, as the Hindus are committing acts of high-handedness and tyranny on the Muslims. You are the master of both the parties, and if any person constructs forcibly, he would be punished by your honour. Kindly consider the fact that a mosque is a place of worship for the Muslims only and not for the Hindus. Earlier the flag (nishan) of Janmasthana was lying there for hundreds of years and Hindus used to do puja. ... It is requested that Murtaza Khan of Kotwal City be ordered that he himself should visit the spot, inspect the new construction, get it demolished and oust the Hindus from there. He should get the flag and the idol removed and the writing on the walls washed. Orders may be issued for the future (paper torn). Having deemed it necessary, it has been urged so.

Syyed Mohammad Khatib

Moazzin Masjid Babri at Oudh

30 November 1858 A.D.

(10)
P. Carnegy’s Writing (1870 A.D.)

P. Carnegy, who was the officiating Commissioner of Faizabad and the Settlement Officer there for many years, wrote a book ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’’ which was published in 1870 A.D. On page 21 of the book he writes:

“Hindu and Musalman differences – The Janmasthan is within a few hundred paces of the Hanuman Garhi. In 1855 when a great rupture took place between the Hindus and Mahomedans the former occupied the Hanuman Garhi in force, while the Musalmans took possession of the Janmasthana. The Mahomedans on that occasion actually charged up the steps of the Hanuman Garhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus then followed up this success, and at the third attempt, took the Janmasthan, at the gate of which 75 Mahomedans are buried in the “Martyrs’ grave” (Ganj-Shahid). Several of the King’s Regiments were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahemodans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahemodans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (emphasis added).

It was a great injustice to the Hindus by the Britishers because they deprived the Hindus of the worship in the mosque-temple structure.

(11)
Ayodhya sanad (8th July, 1723 A.D.)

Be it known that in the exalted reign on the 5th day of the Shawwal (month) of 1135 A.H., i.e. on 8th July, 1723 this sanad was issued by Naqbatuddin Muaaid Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khankhana Bahadur Jung Turkhan who is a man of high pomp and grandeur, of high aim, who is spoken very high of and who is revered like a Hazrat in each country.

This insignificant writer, who is native of the holy place, which is the maulud (जन्मभूमि) of Rāma, is reducing it in writing with pen. By order it is certified that six bighas of land in the province of Oudh which was grānted for the construction of Hanuman Tila, is given to Abhayarama after comparing it with the deed issued on the 13th Ramjan of 1008 A.H. i.e. 28th March, 1600.

It is signed by Malik Adam Jafar Sarai who comes from a noble family, is a pious leader, who stays in high palaces and is of high rank and post, whose flag is high and who is relied upon by people. He makes endeavour for the Sultanate, bows his head before it and is dedicated. His intention is solid and he respects all. He is the master of the north direction.

It was copied from the deed in the possession of Nizamul Bahadur Fateh Jung who is living a luxurious life, whose meetings are attended by good persons, whose Vazirs are scholars and good counsellors, who is amongst a select few, whose upbringing is good, whose assistance is vital, whose orders are solid and far from filth. People’s expectation is from him. Mir Jumla Muazzam Khankhana Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan got it copied.

Jamatul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jung Sipah Salar and Sharfuddaulah Iradatmand Khan Sadik Bahadur Tahavvur Jung signed it after consulting each other on 17th Zilhijjah of the exalted reign. Besides, it carries the signature of Umdatul mulk Madarul maham Nizamul mulk Baharud Fatah Jang Sipah Salar from whose Sanad it was copied.

Diacritical Marks used in this book

(Only on Sanskrit Words)

अ a

आ ā

इ i

ई ī

उ u

ऊ ū

ऋ ri

ए e

ऐ ai

ओ o

औ au

अं m

आँ ām

अः h

क ka

ख kha

ग ga

घ gha

ङ na

च cha

छ chha

ज ja

झ jha

ञ ña

ट ta

ठ tha

ड da

ढ dha

ण na

त ta

थ tha

द da

ध dha

न na

प pa

फ pha

ब ba

भ bha

म ma

य ya

र ra

ल la

व va,wa

श śa

ष sha

स sa

ह ha

क्ष ksha

त्र tra

ज्ञ jña

Important historical events of Ayodhyā with
religious connotations in the last 1000 years

1. In circa 1030 A.D. the famous historian Alberuni, who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazani in various military expeditions against India, wrote the well-known book “Kitab-ul Hind” wherein he refers to Ayodhyā and mentions the main story of the Rāmāyana with details on the Rāmasetu. He depicts many activities of Rāma and quotes the Vishnu-purāna, with reverence to Rāma, in the following words:

“…in Tretayuga, in the shape of Rama alone, for the purpose of spreading fortitude, to conquer the bad, and to preserve the three worlds by force and the prevalence of virtuous action”

Besides, he was aware of the fact that Rāma was an incarnation of Vishnu and idols were prescribed for his worship.

2. On 23rd October, 1093 the Gahadavāla King Chandradeva visited Ayodhyā on the occasion of a solar eclipse and after having taken bath in the Sarayū performed certain rituals.

3. In c. 1130 A.D. Anayachandra, the Governor of Gahadavāla King Govindachandra at Ayodhyā, built the Visnu-hari temple on the Rāma-janma-bhūmi site.

4. In c. 1150 A.D. Ayushchandra, another Governor of King Govindachandra at Ayodhyā, which had many towering temples and abodes, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, rest houses in the Sāketa Mandala.

5. In 1192-93 A.D. Makadum Shah Juran Ghori, the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori, invaded Ayodhyā with a huge army. Bartuh, probably the Governor of Ayodhyā, faced him valiantly and in the battle, more than one hundred and twenty thousand Musalmans were killed. Makdum Shah’s army could demolish only Jain Ãdinātha Mandir. It appears that he was killed there because there is a grave of Makdum Shah Juran Ghori at Ayodhyā.

6. In 1226 A.D. Mallik Nasiruddin Muhammad, the elder son of Sultan Samsuddin (Iltutmish), succeeded in defeating and killing the ‘accursed Bartuh’.

7. In 1337 A.D. Ain-ul-mulk, Governor at Ayodhyā, supplied enormous quantity of provisions and money for relief to the famine-stricken people in the Doab area and in circa 1340 Muhammad bin Tughalaq appointed a Hindu, Kishan, the Governor of Ayodhyā.

8. In 1589 A.D. Muhammad Farmuli alias Kala Pahar was appointed the Governor of Oudh by Bahlol Lodi after the latter shifted the capital of Oudh from Jaunpur to Ayodhyā. Muhammad Farmuli was succeeded by his son-in-law Mustafa Farmuli.

9. After Mustafa’s death his younger brother Bāyazīd was appointed the Governor of Ayodhyā by Ibrahim Lodi. Bāyazīd fought in support of Ibrahim Lodi in the battle of Panipat but after Ibrahim’s defeat, he called on Babur to show his solidarity with him in July, 1526 and the Mughal Emperor gave him 1 Krur, 48 Laks and 50,000 Tankas from Aud.

10. In August, 1527 Babur had sneaking suspicion about the activities of Bāyazīd and by January 1528 Bāyazīd along with Malik Biban and Maruf Farmuli rebelled against Babur. After successful Chanderi expedition, Babur went for hot pursuit of Bāyazīd and reached Lucknow in 21st March, 1528.

11. On 28th March, 1528 Bāyazīd, the Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā, was near the junction of Ghaghra and Sirda at a distance of 115 Km. from Ayodhyā.

12. On 2nd April, 1528 when Babur left for hunting, he was at a distance of 140 Km. from Ayodhyā in the thick forest and not in the vicinity of Ayodhyā.

13. Pages of Babur’s diary are missing from 3rd April, 1528 to 17th September, 1528. The so-called Baburi mosque is supposed to have been built in 935 A.H. which started on 15th September, 1528. Thus, only three days' writings are missing from his diary of 935 A.H. and during these three days the mosque could not have been constructed. Moreover, on the opening day of the year 935 A.H., i.e. 15th September, 1528 Babur was at Agra in his imperial court.

14. Neither Babur nor Baqi Taskindi/Shaghawal had any occasion or reason to visit Ayodhyā. There was no Hindu Governor at Ayodhyā for long. The Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā was Bāyazīd and not Mir Baqi. Bāyazīd was on the run and Baqi was a petty army commander of 1000 soldiers engaged in the expedition to kill or catch hold of Bayzid, Biban and other rebels.

15. On 13th June 1529 Baqi Tashkindi called on Babur and on 20th June 1529 he was dismissed from service or sent on long leave and he was never heard of again.

16. In 1574 A.D. when Tulasi Das started composing the Rāmacharitamānasa at Ayodhyā on the Rāma-navamī day, Ayodhyā was the picture of vibrancy. Rāma shows his जन्मभूमि मम पुरी सुहावनि (Here’s my birthplace. This city is delightful.) to his monkey friends.

17. In c. 1590 A.D.Abul Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari wrote about the antiquity of Ayodhyā and incarnation of Rāma. He further added that there was a combination of temporal and spiritual authority in Rāma.

18. On 28th March, 1600 the Mughal Emperor Akbar gave six bighas of land for the construction of the Hanuman Tila.

19. In 1610 A.D. William Finch in his travel accounts of Ayodhyā wrote about the ruins of the great God Rāmachandra’s castle and houses, and recorded Indians’ statement that he was born in human form to see the tamasha of the world. He did not see any mosque in the area; rather he saw Brahmins there.

20. In 1631 A.D. Jonnes De Laet’s book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’ was published and in its account on Ayodhyā he not only repeated the content of William Finch but also added that pilgrims came to this place from all parts of India and after worshipping the idol took away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit.

21. In 1634 A.D. the travel accounts of Ayodhyā written by Thomas Herbert were published in the book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique.’ Herbert mentions the existence of many antique monuments at Ayodhyā and states that the most memorable amongst them was the pretty old castle which Rāmachandra built 9,94,500 years ago.

22. In 1660 A.D. Fedai Khan, the foster brother of Aurangzeb and the Governor at Ayodhyā, demolished many temples of the holy city which included the Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple at Ayodhyā.

23. In 1672 A.D. Lal Das composed Avadha-vilāsa at Ayodhyā. He gave exact location of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi, but does not mention any temple.

24. In 1714 A.D. a Hindu, Chhabile Ram by name, was appointed Governor of Ayodhyā by the Mughal emperor Farrukh-Siyar and remained there until October 1715.

25. In May, 1720 Girdhar Bahadur, the nephew of Chabile Ram, was appointed the Governor at Ayodhyā with subedari, faujdari and diwani power.

26. In October, 1722 Girdhar Bahadur was transferred to Malwa as Governor. Thereafter came Sa’adat Khan and the era of Awadh Nawabs started.

27. On 8th July, 1723 Bairāgi Sādhu Abhayarāma Das got the renewal of six bighas of land granted by Akbar on 28th March, 1600 for the construction of Hanuman Tila.

28. On 23rd February, 1759 the Peshwa Balaji Bajirao asked Dattaji Sindhia to talk to Awadh Nawab Shuja-ud-daulah and take over Ayodhyā, Kās´ī and Mathurā.

29. In 1767 A.D. when the Jesuit Austrian Father Joseph Tiffenthaler visited Ayodhyā, he wrote minute details of the disputed structure and its vicinity. His Latin book “Descriptio Indiae” is the first text which mentions the mosque. It clearly states that the mosque was built after demolishing the Ram Kot and the Bedi inside it is situated on the birthplace of Rāma around which people circumbulate. He does not mention any inscription in the mosque.

30. In 1775 A.D. Suja-ud-daulah shifted the capital from Ayodhyā to Faizabad. It made the exodus of bureaucrats and elite Muslim classes from Ayodhyā. It further facilitated Bairagi Sadhus to retrieve the alienated temples and construct new ones.

31. In 1801 A.D. the French Scholar C. Mentelle wrote that the Svargadvāra and other temples at Ayodhyā were demolished by Aurangzeb, although some attributed it to Babur.

32. In 1813-14 A.D. when Francis Buchanan went to Ayodhyā for the survey, he found that the general perception of people was that Aurangzeb had destroyed the temples at Mathurā, Kaśī and Ayodhyā. Nevertheless, he was beguiled by a spurious inscription which indicated that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur. However, the two inscriptions seen by him did never look exactly the same in subsequent incarnations.

33. In 1822 A.D. Superintendent of Faizabad Law Court Hafizullah submitted a document which stated that the mosque founded by Emperor Babur was situated at the birthsite of Rāma. Evidently, the newly floated inscription had swayed his report.

34. In July, 1855 Shah Gulam Husain along with a group of 400600 persons, armed with weapons, stormed the Hanuman Gadhi after spreading the rumour that there was a mosque built by Aurangzeb at the site. They were repulsed and chased by Bairagi Sadhus up to the Baburi mosque where a sanguinary battle took place and 75 Muslims and 11 Hindus were killed.

35. On 7 November, 1855 Ameer Ali led a group of jehadis to demolish the Hanuman Garhi. They started from Amethi but before they could reach Ayodhyā most of them were killed in a direct fight with the royal troops led by Captain Barlow.

36. On 4 February 1856 the Kingdom of Oudh was arbitrarily annexed by the East India Company and on 2 August 1858 the British Government directly took over the administration of India except that of the Princely States.

37. In November, 1858 one Nihang Sikh from Punjab along with 25 fellow Sikhs captured the mosque and placed an idol in its central part near the pulpit and established a nishan (flag) outside the mosque. He performed puja and homa inside the shrine and wrote ‘Rāma Rāma’ with coal in all parts of the mosque.

38. In December, 1858 on a complaint to the S.H.O. the Nihang Sikh was ousted from the mosque and thereafter the British Government did great injustice to the Hindus by banning their puja and rituals in the disputed shrine. They were provided a platform outside the mosque to perform puja.

39. On 10 April 1859 Vishnubhatta Godse Versaikar, the author of Majha Pravas (My Travels) i.e. “1858 The Real Story of the Great Uprising”, reached Ayodhyā and was present in the Rāma-janma-bhūmi premises on the Rāma-navami day. He saw around 8 lakh devotees present in Ayodhyā on that day. After staying for 22 days he left Ayodhyā. He has given a graphic picture of Rāma-janma-bhūmi and Ayodhyā in his Memoirs.

40. In 1870 A.D. P. Carnegy published the book ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’’ wherein he stated that the Hindus and Muslims were performing puja and namaz in the disputed shrine before its takeover by the British Government.

41. On 24th December, 1885 Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub Judge, Faizabad made a spot enquiry of the disputed mosque in the presence of both the Hindus and the Muslims, and found nothing except ‘Allah’ superscribed on its wall. He dismissed the petition of Raghubar Das, lest riot should take place.

42. On 17th March, 1886 the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier inspected the disputed mosque in the presence of all parties and found nothing except ‘Allah’ written there. He lamented the demolition of the premier Hindu temple but dismissed the petition of Raghubar Das to build a temple.

43. In 1889 A.D. Fuhrer found three inscriptions on the mosque. In one inscription the date was 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. instead of 935 A.H., i.e. 1528 A.D. and in another the name of the builder was Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi.

44. In 1902 A.D. the District Administration placed markers for all important places of Ayodhyā. The first stone marker was fixed in front of the eastern entrance of the disputed mosque as “No. 1, Rāma-janma-bhūmi”.

45. In 1906-07 A.D. Maulvi Shuaib submitted his Annual Survey Report wherein he mentioned three inscriptions in the disputed shrine. One inscription was dated 930 A.H. i.e. 1523 A.D.

46. In 1934 A.D. there was a serious communal riot at Ayodhyā. The disputed mosque was damaged extensively. Thereafter Muslims went to the disputed shrine only once in a week to perform Jumma Namaz.

47. On 26th March, 1946 the Civil Judge of Faizabad S.A. Ahsan inspected the mosque in Faizabad Regular Suit No. 29/1946 and got the inscriptions read out. One inscription referred to the date 923 A.H. i.e. 1516-17 as the year of the construction of the mosque.

48. On the night of 22nd-23rd December, 1949 Rāmalalla was placed in the central hall of the disputed shrine by the Sadhus of Ayodhyā.

49. On 1st April, 1986 the lock on the main door of the disputed shrine was opened by the order of the District Judge Faizabad, Shri K.M. Pande.

50. On 6th December, 1992 the disputed shrine was razed to the ground by the unruly Kār-sevaks.

51. On 30th September, 2010 the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the detailed Judgment.



Preface

Mallinātha, the celebrated Sanskrit commentator, in his famous commentary on the Raghu-vamśa of Kālidāsa, lamened that the literature of Kālidāsa lay in a swoon under toxic misinterpretations, and asserted that he would resuscitate it with his Sañjīvanī tīkā:

भारती कालिदासस्य दुर्व्याख्याविषमूर्च्छिता।

एषा सञ्जीवनी टीका तामद्योज्जीवयिष्यति।।

Mallinātha further declared that he would explain all by the method of ‘anvaya-mukha’, i.e. the natural order of words construing grammatical relation which does not give liberty to make an arbitrary interpretation. He exuberantly boasted that he did not write anything which was without basis and did not utter a single word which was unwarranted:

इहान्वय-मुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते मया।

नामूं लिख्यते किञ्चिन्नापेक्षितमुच्यते।।

Similarly, for the last two decades I have been mutely witnessing the excruciating death of the real history of Ayodhyā on account of false and misleading interpretation of historical facts. Earlier I kept silent primarily because in the early nineties I was officially associated with the negotiations on Ayodhyā between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Since I did my duty diligently and punctiliously in the official capacity I remained aloof from the historical debate. But in the last leg of the legal proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, I thought that as our national motto is सत्यमेव जयते, truth alone triumphs, I must intervene in the Ayodhyā dispute and thus prepared this thesis assiduously, a part of which was brilliantly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court by Advocate P.N. Mishra, one of the outstanding civil lawyers in the country.

While critically appreciating the historical facts I have always been guided by the famous saying of Kalhana, the renowned author of the Rājataranginī:

श्लाघ्यः स एव गुणवान् रागद्वेष-बहिष्कृता।

भूतार्थकथने यस्य स्थेयस्येव सरस्वती।। (I.7)

That man of merit alone deserves acclaim whose writing, like that of a judge, discards bias and prejudice in recounting the events of the past.

Besides, one is reminded of Abu Raihan Alberuni, who said in the Preface to his famous book ‘Kitabul-Hind’ - “That man only is praise-worthy who shrinks from a lie and always adheres to the truth, enjoying credit even among liars, not to mention others.”

My association with Ayodhyā dispute started officially in 1990 when I was made Officer on Special Duty (Ayodhyā) to the then Minister of State for Home Affairs Shri Subodh Kant Sahay who had been appointed by the then Prime Minister, Vishwanath Pratap Singh and retained on the same post by his successor Shri Chandra Shekhar. During the tenure of these two Prime Ministers several rounds of negotiations were held between the representative organizations of the two communities in the presence of Shri Sahay and three Chief Ministers Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav of U.P., Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of Rajasthan and Shri Sharad Pawar of Maharashtra. After initial rounds of negotiations both sides were requested to present their respective evidence in writing, so that they could be exchanged for better appreciation of each other’s viewpoints. Accordingly, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Babri Masjid Action Committee submitted written evidence and documents in support of their case and all they were exchanged between the two parties promptly by the Government. I was custodian of these documents and was largely instrumental in the exercise. As an O.S.D. on Ayodhyā, I classified the evidences and documents in three categories and after discussing the matter with the Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India and Director General of Archives, Government of India, I sent the relevant documents to them for extensive scrutiny and appropriate appraisal.

The Director General of Archives performed his duty professionally and after verifying the documents received by him, a verification report was sent to me vide their office letter no. F. 8-1/91-R-II dated 16 May, 1991. The letter reads as follows:

“To

Shri Kishore Kunal

Officer on Special Duty

Minister of State Home

North Block

New Delhi.

Subject: Verification of documents (Xeroxed copies) submitted by V.H.P. and All India Baburi Masjid Action Committee – reg.

Sir,

Please refer your letter Dy. No. 5800 MOS (S)/91 dated May 10, 1991 which was received in the department on 15th May 1991 on the subject referred above.

It may be stated in this connection that the three lists of documents comprising of 850 pages of xerox copies have been examined by the Department as per three lists of Documents placed below along with the documents. However it may be mentioned in this connection that we could only verify and attest those documents whose originals are available with us in our Record holdings and the library. As directed by you we are handing over these documents (850 Xeroxed sheets) to Shri Bhola Nath (D/U) Identity Card No. D No 036 along with their three lists on duplicate of documents. Kindly acknowledge receipt of these papers at the earliest.

Yours faithfully

For Director General of Archives

Government of India”

Similarly, the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India promptly replied to all my letters and queries. Mr. M.C. Joshi sent his reply vide his D.O. letter No. 20/37/90-EE(Part) dated 2nd May, 1991 in response to my D.O. letter Dy. No. 5602/MOS/91 dated 16th April, 1991, which is produced hereinunder:

“Dear Shri Kunal,

Kindly refer to your D.O. letter Dy. No. 5602/MOS/91 dated 16th April, 1991 regarding the views of Archaeological Survey of India on annexure 28 related to Ramjanambhoomi Babri Masjid dispute.

In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).

The authenticated preliminary report of Prof. Lal, which has already been sent to you vide D.O. letter of even number dated 11 04 91, explains the purpose of taking up the project called Archaeology of Rãmãyana Sites by him under which he excavated besides Ayodhya three or four other related sites. As the Babri Masjid is not a centrally protected monument, Archaeological Survey of India has not so far made any detailed study of the monument.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

M.C. Joshi)”

From Shri Joshi’s replies the following facts emerge:

(i) There should be no doubt on the authenticity of the reports of Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal.

(ii) The structure of Babri Masjid “shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century A.D.”

(iii) Babri Masjid was not a centrally protected monument, and A.S.I. had not made any detailed study of the monument.

(iv) Shri Joshi had sent an authenticated preliminary report of Prof. Lal to me vide D.O. letter of even number dated 11.4.91.

The background of my meeting with Prof. B.B. Lal is very interesting. Long back when I was Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in 1983-84, I had an occasion to travel along with Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh, an I.A.S. officer who edited the monumental work ‘People of India’ published by ‘Anthropological Survey of India’. In the course of talk he told me that Prof. B.B. Lal had once told him that in the course of excavation at Ayodhyā he (Prof. Lal) had found the remains of a temple beneath the Baburi Mosque. When he informed the authorities concerned including Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, it was decided after due deliberation that the excavation should be abandoned, lest it should create a serious contentious issue. Thereafter the excavation was stopped. Our talk ended there.

In 1990 when I was appointed Officer on Special Duty on Ayodhyā during the premiership of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, I called on Prof. Lal and asked him about the excavation and its abandonment in consequence of finding a temple’s remains. He confirmed it and showed me many slides to prove how the remains of a temple were found at the site. He told me that since the 14 Kasauti pillars existed in situ, they were parts of a temple which existed earlier at the site. After some time the Government of Shri V.P. Singh was voted out in the Parliament and Shri Chandra Shekhar became the Prime Minister. In the first meeting on Ayodhyā I informed him about my discussion with Prof. Lal and requested him to ask Prof. Lal to send a written report on the Ayodhyā excavation. On Chandra Shekharji’s request Prof. Lal sent a report promptly on 3rd December, 1990 which is as follows:

“A note on the brick-bases of pillars found in the excavations in the Janma-Bhumi area at Ayodhya.

Under a project called ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’ excavations were carried out between 1975 and 1986 at five sites, viz. Ayodhya, Sringaverapura, Bharadvaja Asrama, Chitrakuta and Nandigrama, all associated with that epic.

At Ayodhya, as many as fourteen trenches were laid out at different spots, one of which was the area known as the Janmabhumi. Over here is a trench hardly three metres to the south of the compound wall of the structure known as Babri Masjid, a series of square brick-bases, running in parallel east-west and north-south rows, were discovered within about 25-30 cm. below the surface. Since one row of these pillar-bases lay under the edge of the trench towards the compound wall of the mosque, it is likely that there may exist many more such pillar-bases in the unexcavated area in that direction. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that these pillar-bases are ascribable to a period around A.D. 1100. From the level associated with the destruction of these pillar-bases has been found glazed pottery ascribable to fourteenth-fifteenth century A.D.

In the mosque there are fourteen stone pillars some of which appear to be in position and oriented east-west and north-south. On the basis of the decorative motifs, sculptures, etc. these pillars are also ascribed to the eleventh century A.D. In all probability, there the brick-bases found in the excavations and the stone pillars standing in the mosque belong to one and the same structural complex which stood at the site immediately before the Babri Masjid.

3 December 1990 B.B. Lal”

Now, I would like to make certain clarifications on the following observation made in “Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation”:

“The Government of India, under circumstances that are well known, began negotiations with the VHP and the Baburi Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), with a view to examining the historical and legal merits of the case of both parties. Thus, the dispute over the facts of History was now to be decided by the litigants, with the Government of India as an umpire, and not by any independent forum of historians. This seemed to us, as professional historians, a very unhappy procedure. We therefore, approached the Government of India to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts and to let us have access to such evidence, archaeological and textual, as has been presented to it or is in possession of government organisations, such as the Archaeological Survey of India. We regret to say that the Government of India’s response to this was largely one of silence.”

The Government of India was not acting in the capacity of an umpire. Since the evidences and related documents broadly fell in three categories, they were sent to the three national institutions of great repute. I myself had called on the then Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Prof. Irfan Habib and after obtaining his consent I had sent all the historical evidences of both sides for scrutiny and appraisal. I met the then Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, Shri M.C. Joshi and submitted all the archaeological evidences and reports to him. Thereafter I sent all relevant records to the Director General of Archives, Government of India for verification and submitting reports.

The charge of four historians in their ‘Report to the Nation’ that “the dispute over the facts of history was now to be decided by the litigants, with the Government of India as an umpire,” is not correct because we had invited both sides to include reputed historians in their respective panel for having meaningful debates and discussion so as to reach some objective decisions. Each of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and All India Babri Masjid Action Committee suggested the names of ten persons each as their experts. Accordingly, they were invited to participate in the negotiations. One such letter dated January 23, 1991 to Shri Surya Krishna and Shri Javed Habib is quoted below:

विशेष कार्याधिकारी

गृह राज्यमंत्री, भारत

Kishore Kunal

Officer on Special Duty

Minister of State Home, India

January 23, 1991.

To

Shri Surya Krishna

Vishwa Hindu Parishad,

Shri Javed Habib

All India Babri Masjid Action Committee

As per the resolution dated 10.1.1991, the experts’ meeting will begin from 24.1.1991. The Meeting will be held in Gujarat Bhawan from 11.00 A.M. onwards.

The names of experts suggested by both groups are as follows:

A. The names suggested by V.H.P.

1. Prof. B.R. Grover

2. Dr. S.P. Gupta

3. Prof. Devendra Swaroop

4. Justice Guman Mal Lodha, MP

5. Justice Deoki Nandan Aggarwal

6. Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary

7. Justice D.S. Sehgal

8. Dr. B.P. Sinha

9. Prof. Harsh Narain

10. Prof. K.S. Lal

B. The names suggested by A.I.B.M.A.C.

1. Prof. R.S. Sharma

2. Prof. Athar Ali

3. Prof. D.N. Jha

4. Prof. Suraj Bhan

5. Shri Abdul Mannan

6. Shri Zafarayab Jilani

7. Shri M.A. Siddiqui

8. Shri Zafar Ali Siddiqui

9. Shri Javed Habib

10. A.A. Siddiqui

It is requested that the afore-mentioned experts may kindly be intimated to attend the meeting on time. Both Parties are requested to bring their original documents in the meeting.

With thanks,

Yours faithfully,

(Kishore Kunal)”

This letter of mine was produced before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by Zafarayab Jilani, Advocate and Counsel for Defendant No. 4 i.e. Central Sunni Waqf Board in O. O. S. No. 5 of 1989, Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and others Vs. Shri Rajendra Singh and others during the cross examination of OPW–3 Dr. S.P. Gupta. It was marked Ex. 005–5–D 20 in the court proceeding with the following remark- “Genuineness admitted’. It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the ‘report to the nation’ were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their ‘report to the nation’ they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice.

So far their access to the archaeological and textual evidence is concerned, they had been given all textual evidence. So far the archaeological evidence is concerned, it is true that Prof. D.N. Jha had written to the M.H.A. to have access to the details of archaeological excavations made in connection with Ayodhyā. After I received the letter of Prof. Jha I wrote to the Director General of A.S.I., Shri M.C. Joshi to make all relevant materials available to them in this connection, because he and Prof. R.S. Sharma had been my teachers in Patna University. The following is the reply of Shri Joshi sent to me in this regard vide his D.O. letter no.- 20/37/90-EE dated 3rd May, 1991 in response to my D.O. letter no. 504/MOS (S)/91 dated 5th February, 1991:

“Dear Shri Kunal,

Kindly refer to your D.O. letter No. 504/MOS(S)/91 dated 5th February, 1991 forwarding a copy of letter addressed to Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Minister of State for Home Affairs by Prof. D.N. Jha requesting to supply relevant documents mentioned in the letter.

2. The matter has been examined at the highest level and it has been decided that the experts may be shown photographs (enclosed) of the controversial trench AVID-4 pertaining to the Ayodhya excavations to clarify the locus of the excavator’s findings. Any scholar on the basis of photographs can assess nature of the exposed structure and understand himself the relation between the structures and stratigraphy.

3. If necessary, thereafter a meeting would be arranged between Prof. B.B. Lal and other scholars holding diverse views on the subject and he would be requested to show the relevant documents in his possession.

4. If this agreed upon, a meeting would be arranged between the excavator and scholars on a mutually agreed date.

5. Incidentally I may mention for your information that Prof. B.B. Lal is in USA at present.

With regards,

Encl: Two photographs Yours sincerely,

(M.C. Joshi)”

The content was communicated but they were not satisfied with photographs only because some of them had a condescending attitude. They wanted to examine all documents related to the excavation. However, it so happened that after sometime Chandrashekharji resigned on a trivial issue of espionage and there was a brake on the whole exercise .

The tragedy with the I.C.H.R. was that it was hijacked by four historians who claimed themselves to be ‘an independent forum of historians’ and took upon themselves the task of passing judgment on all the three branches of the evidence. It would have been better if they had assisted the I.C.H.R. in scrutinising the evidence of both sides and submitted their ‘expert’ opinion through this reputed institution.

Instead, they subsequently released their ‘Rāma-janma-bhūmi-Babri Masjid : A Historians’ Report to the Nation’ directly on 13th May, 1991 and not through the I.C.H.R. which had been assigned this job. They did not include Prof. Irfan Habib in the preparation of their report. Prof. Habib’s inclusion could have given legitimacy to the report in the official circle because all the documents had been sent to him in the capacity of Chairman of the I.C.H.R. In preparing their report, it appears that they did not check many facts before submitting it to the nation, e.g. in the penultimate paragraph of their report they have written:

“Being such a monument, the Babri Masjid became a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1904 (re-legislated, 1958).”

But it is not a correct presentation. Baburi Masjid was never declared a protected monument under The Ancient Monuments Act, 1904 by the A.S.I. When I learnt that it was not a protected monument, I wrote to the D.G. A.S.I. and he gave me the reply which has already been quoted. Shri Madhav Godbole, a former I.A.S. officer, who was the Union Home Secretary at the time of the demolition of the disputed shrine, has written thus in his book ‘Unfinished Innings’:

“The possibility of declaring the RJB-BM structure a protected monument was considered but had to be given up as the Department of Culture and the Director General of Archaeology advised that the monument did not satisfy the criteria for declaring it as such.” (The Ayodhya Debacle, p. 375)

Similarly, since they did not see the Skanda-Purāna properly, they mistook the legendary Vidyāpati, the Prime Minister of the legendary king Indradyumana depicted in the Purāna in connection with the Purushottama Māhātmya for the great Maithili poet Vidyāpati and arbitrarily fixed the date of ‘Ayodhyā-māhātmya’ of the ‘Skanda-Purāna’.

This book is the fruition of deep research on Ayodhyā for more than two decades. It is a departure from the usually trodden path of the history of Ayodhyā. In the beginning I have written that I am trying to resuscitate the real history of Ayodhyā which is almost dead due to the poisonous misrepresentation of facts. In this connection three glaring instances of gross violation of propriety in writing correct history are cited. The first is the claim on a fictitious book ‘Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi’ said to have been written by the unnamed daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir. The book is cited by the V.H.P. as a strong positive evidence in favour of the demolition of the Janma-sthāna temple and construction of a mosque thereon. But it is totally negated by certain historical facts. Bahadur Shah, the son and successor of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, had never assumed the title Alamgir. Moreover, he had only one daughter Dahr Afroz Banu Begum who had predeceased Aurangzeb on 25th January, 1703 at the age of 40. It was claimed by Mirza Jan that he had copied verbatim a passage of 12 lines in original from the twenty-fifth sermon of the book found in the library of Hydar Shukoh, son of Sulayman Shukoh. The present writer is the first person to point out that Sulayman Shukoh had no son. Therefore, Hydar Shukoh could not be his son. However, Sulayman Shukoh had two daughters, the elder one Salima Banu was married to Prince Muhammad Akbar in June 1662 and the other daughter was married to Khwajah Bahauddin in 1668 A.D. Thus, Hydar Shukoh is a fictitious person and hence there could be no library established by him or in his name. Moreover, in this book, 12 lines of which were reportedly reproduced verbatim by Mirza Jan, it is simply written that the temple at Ayodhyā was demolished. The demolition of the temple at Ayodhyā has not been attributed to Babur. It is Mirza Jan’s own addition that Babur’s name was associated with the demolition of the Ayodhyā temple. Thus, the reliance of V.H.P. historians on this text is totally misplaced.

It is an irony that, an ex-bureaucrat Mr. B.N. Pande became a renowned ‘historian’ overnight by writing an unsubstantiated piece of article in defence of Aurangzeb’s demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha’s temple. He undeservedly got many coveted awards and also became Governor of Odisha. He gives the following account of the demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple, ironically, in an article “Distortion of Medieval Indian History”:

“The story regarding demolition of Vishwanath temple is that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made a journey on the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering Puja all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat. The Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. As the crime was heinous, the Rajas demanded exemplary action. Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his book, “Feathers and the Stones: My Study Window” has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. Dr. P. L. Gupta, former Curator of Patna Museum, has also corroborated this incident.” (pp. 44-45)

Wherefrom Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya got this enlightenment is written in his aforesaid book ‘The Feathers and the Stones: My Study Window’ in the following words:

“This story of the Benares Masjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists.”

Apropos these two stories the following comments need to be made:

(i) There is no published book or unpublished manuscript anywhere in the world which directly or indirectly corroborates these baseless stories.

(ii) No named person in the world has ever claimed to seen such ‘a rare’ manuscript.

(iii) What Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya had stated in his book was that an ‘unnamed’ Mulla had read such a story in a ‘rare manuscript’ and narrated it to his friend whom he (Mulla) had promised to give the manuscript but actually never gave and died.

(iv) It is not at all clear as to the so called friend who was not see the manuscript himself, narrated the story and how did it without seeing the manuscript, passed on the information to Dr. Sitaramayya after so many years and passage of such long time.

This evidence cannot be kept even in the category of hearsay evidence. It is just a concoction, a trash. But the article is published in the booklet ‘Islam & Indian Culture’ by one of the most prestigeous institutions of the country, ‘Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library’, Patna. It brought many national and international laurels to Mr. Pande. But the irony is that not a single ‘established’ historian, who claims to be the champion of correct history, ever raised any doubt on this trash which is contrary to historical facts. It has been further discussed in the Chapter XV of this book.

The third topic is the distortion of the Daśaratha Jātaka and insinuation against Rāma and Sītā by established historians. The historical fact is that Rāma is remembered with reverence in Buddhist texts since early days after the inception of Buddhism. How Lord Buddha as a ‘Rāma-pandita’ in a past life consoled a grieving person is described in the Daśaratha Jātaka. The capital of Daśaratha is shifted from Ayodhyā to Vārānasī in this Jātaka, as it is the centre of most of the Jatakas. In the name of the story of Daśaratha-Jātaka, the Rāma-katha has been maliciously maligned by established historians to hurt the sentiments of a vast section of the society through provocative writings and exhibitions.

However, on a close scrutiny it is found that there is nothing objectionable in the ‘Gāthā’ portion of the Daśaratha Jātaka. Now it has been proved that the ‘Gāthā’ portion of the Jātaka is the earliest one and it is narrated by Bhagavān Buddha himself. The rest was added by Ceylonese writers and translated into Pāli by the erudite scholar and versatile author Buddhaghosha in the form of the ‘Jātaka-atthakathā’.

The original Jātaka-atthakathā in Pāli was published by Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda (Bihar). In the ‘Prastāvanā’ (introduction) the editor, Dr. Mahavir Sharma, has written that Jātaka is one of 15 texts in the Khuddaka-nikāya which itself is an integral part of the Tipitaka.

Now the question arises whether Jātaka stories are so old that they form part of the Tipitaka, the apex text of Buddhism. Dr. Sharma has explained - तिपिटक साहित्य में ‘जिस जातक ग्रन्थ’ का समावेश है, वह केवल गाथा मात्र है। i.e., the Jātaka text which is included in the Tipitaka literature is only the ‘gāthā’ portion. What is the ‘gāthā’ ? Every Jātaka is divided into five portions:

(१) पञ्चुप्पन्नवत्थु (२) अतीतवत्थु (३) गाथा (४) वेयाकरण या अत्थवण्णना and (५) समाधान.

Bharat Singh Upadhyay in ‘पालि साहित्य का इतिहास’ has written:

घगाथाएँ जातक के प्राचीनतम अंश हैं। वास्तव में गाथाएँ ही जातक हैं।च

Gāthās are the oldest portion of the Jātaka. In fact, only gāthās are the Jātaka.

D.C. Sircar, too, has supported this view in his book ‘Problems of Rāmāyana’ published by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (1979) in the following words:

“It is admitted by the most eminent authorities of History of Pãli literature in general and the Jatakas in particular that the verses (Gathas) in the Jatakas, which only are found in the Khuddak-nikaya of the Sutta-nipata, have to be assigned to an early date (say, the second or third century B.C.) while the stories in prose are mostly as late as the fifth or sixth century A.D. (p.22)

Winternitz explains the Das´aratha Jātaka in following words:

“Only the Gathas of the Jataka belong to the Tipitaka. The prose narrative is the fabrication of the compilers of the commentary (about the fifth century A.D.)”

H. Luders pointed out how the late author of the prose part of the Daśaratha Jātaka even failed to understand the meaning of the Gathas composed by earlier authors. They are referred to in the Sircar’s same book on page 23.

But gathas are narrated succinctly and hence it is difficult to understand their meaning. The Jātakattha-kathās (Jātaka-arthakathās) were written in distant Ceylon to explain the gathas by Ceylonese Bhikshus originally in the Si‚hali language and subsequently translated in Pāli by Buddhaghosha in the fifth century A.D.. Some scholars suggest that they were originally written in Pāli by Buddhaghosha, a native of Magadh settled in Ceylon. Whatever may be the sequence, the fact is that they were written in distant Ceylon.

After a minute scrutiny of the Daśaratha Jātaka one comes to the conclusion that in the Gāthā portion Gautama Buddha has shown respect to Rāma. It is in the Attha-Kathā that the story is twisted in the form of the change of capital from Ayodhyā to Banaras and Sītā is portrayed as the daughter of Daśaratha. If someone reads the Daśaratha Jātaka with this clarification in mind, he will easily understand how much reverence Rāma received from Buddha.

This story relates to an inconsolable son after his father’s death. Buddha went to his house and narrated the story of Rāma-pandita in the form of ‘gãthã’ एथ लक्खण सीता च. to console that house-holder. The first verse of the Gāthā is:

एथ लक्खण सीता च उभो ओतरथोदकं।

एवायं भरतो आह राजा दसरथो मतो।।

Rāma Pandita first asked Lakkhana and Sītā to stand in water and then he informed them that ‘Bharat has reported the death of King Daśaratha’.

Here one must remember that after hearing the death of his father from Bharata, Rāma has given a very consoling sermon to Bharata in the 105th canto of the Ayodhyā-kānda of the Vālmīki-Rāmāyana. Some verses in both texts carry similar meaning and a few verses of the Daśaratha Jātaka are almost replicative translation from the Sanskrit. One such verse is quoted below.

In the Rāmāyana, Rāma laments on hearing the news of his father’s demise:

यथा फलानां पक्वानां नान्यत्र पतनाद् भयम्।

एवं नरस्य जातस्य नान्यत्र मरणाद् भयम्।।

Ayodhyā, 105, 18)

The similarity is marked in the following verse of Daśaratha Jātaka:

फलानं इव पक्कानं निच्चं पपतना भयं।

एवं जातानं मच्चानं निच्चं मरणतो भयं।।

(Daśaratha Jātaka, Gāthā 5)

As ripe fruits are bound to fall, those who are born have compulsive fear to die.

From this ‘gāthā’ it is clear that Lord Buddha was well-acquainted with the sermons of Rāma to Bharata in the Ayodhyā-kānda of the Rāmāyana and therefore they are as old as, at least, Buddha’s time.

The last ‘Gāthā’ in the Daśaratha Jātaka is 13th and it appears to be an almost replicative translation of a verse of the Vālmīki-Rāmāyana. It reads as follows:

दस वस्स सहस्सानि सठ्ठि वस्स सतानि च।

कम्बुगीबो महाबाहु रामो रज्जं अकारथि।।13।।

(Daśaratha Jātaka, Gāthā 13)

The golden-greyed and long-armed Rāma ruled the kingdom for ten thousand and sixty hundred i.e. sixteen thousand years.

In the first canto of the Bālakanda it is written about the reign of Rāma:

दश वर्षसहस्राणि दशवर्षशतानि च।

रामो राज्यमुपासित्वा ब्रह्मलोकं प्रयास्यति।। (1.79)

Rāma will rule for ten thousand and ten hundred, i.e. eleven thousand years and thereafter he will go to Brahmaloka.

Again in the 128th canto of the Yuddhakānda it is repeated:

दशवर्षसहस्राणि दशवर्षशतानि च।

भातृभिः सहितः श्रीमान् रामो राज्यमकारयत्।। (128.106)

Rāma with his brothers ruled along for eleven thousand years.

Buddha appears to be aware of the Rāmāyana story of Vālmīki and since he had regards for him, he not only narrated the sermon of Rāma but also declared that he himself was Rāma-pandit in that life. Thus, the ‘Gāthā’ portion of the Daśaratha Jātaka, too, is highly reverential to Rāma. In addition, it conclusively clears the following doubt raised by Romila Thapar in the article “In Defence of the Variant” published in her book “Cultural Pasts.”

“The Das´aratha Jãtaka has been widely commented upon during the last hundred years in the extensive discussion on whether it preceded the Vãlmìki Rãmãyana or was subsequent to it or whether it drew from the same sources as Vãlmìki.”

It was the Gāthā portion of the Daśaratha Jātaka which had borrowed from the Vālmiki Rāmāyana. Now there should be no doubt about it.

It is only ‘atthakathā’ portion which has the variation in the Rāmāyana story. Since marriage beween brothers and sisters was not despised and unknown amongst the Śākya clan of the Ikshvāku dynasty because of certain racial and geographical factors, Rāma and Sītā were portrayed as brother and sister.

This denigrated portion of the Rāmāyana in the Daśaratha Jātaka has been highlighted by established historians but even enthusiastic historians have failed to search the soul of this ‘Gāthā’ of Daśaratha Jātaka. No one has attributed the reason for denigration of the Rāmāyana story by the Ceylonese writers which they did as a revenge to the portrayal of residents of Lankā (Ceylon) as Rākshasas in the Rāmāyana.

Rāma has always been reverentially remembered by Indians in all ages. This is the reason that when the Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution were preparing the Indian Constitution, they placed the following illustration of Rāma on the top of the third chapter, i.e. Fundamental Rights of the Constitution. The illustration shows the return journey of Rāma from Lan•kā to Ayodhyā after killing Rāvan.a and his accomplices.

Fig. Preface 1: Illustration of Rāma in the Indian Constitution.

This book has got the rare distinction that before its publication its major thesis that Babur had nothing to do with the construction of the so-called Baburi mosque at Ayodhyā was accepted in toto by Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court through the marvellous presentation of Advocate P.N. Mishra. Another conclusion that the inscriptions inside the mosque were fake and hence unreliable in nature were accepted not only by Justice Agarwal but largely by the outstanding Judge Justice S.U. Khan also. Some parts of their judgments and quoted in Chapter XII of this book.

I would like to remind readers that India has imbibed the best tradition of tolerance, which can be hardly surpassed in any other part of the world. It is best illustrated in the history of Somanātha. Inhabitants of Prabhāsa, where Somanātha temple is situated, were so generous that in the 13th century even when the Muslim rule had not been established in Saurashtra, a Śaiva Pāśupatāchārya not only granted land for the construction of a mosque but also built shops and houses for the maintenance of the mosque. From an inscription of Junagadh-Uparkot dated 1288 A.D. it is known that Prabhāsa-Pāttana, where Somanātha temple is situated, was a great port where Muslims from various parts of India used to assemble for embarking onward pilgrimage (Haj) to Mecca and come for trade from Iran and Arab countries. They used to stay there for several days but had no mosque for offering Namaz. Therefore, their leader Nuruddin Firoz after having obtained permission from the Amir of his native place Hormaz Ruqannuddin applied to the Pāśupatāchārya, i.e. the pontiff of the Pāśupata Śaiva cult, for granting a piece of land for constructing a mosque. When the Pāśupatāchārya received the request of the Muslims, he immediately granted land and handed it over to the Muslim leader in the presence of the leading Mahajanas, such as Thakker Sri Rāmadeva Valujideva, Rana Sri Somesvaradeva, Thakor Bhīmasimha and Prince of Chhada who all were made witnesses to this land-grant. In addition, the Pāśupata pontiff donated him shops and buildings, so that from their income, the Muslims could build the mosque and maintain it without any financial strain.

The significance of this generous land grant can be appreciated better in the historic background of the great havoc caused by Mahmud of Ghazni in the January of 1026 A.D. In defence of the Somanātha temple, 50,000 devotees had laid down their lives and Mahmud had broken the famous Jyotirlinga of Lord Somanātha. The iconoclastic act of Mahmud has been accurately described by the great writer Alberuni who had accompanied him in his Indian campaigns in the following words:

“The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may god be merciful to him! In A.H. 416 he ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into hippodrome of the town, together with the Chakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somanatha lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet.”

In this horrendous background it was remarkable that a religious leader, Pāśupatāchārya, granted land for construction of a mosque and gifted shops for its maintenance. Salute to such an embodiment of supreme tolerance!

Similarly, it was Mulla Abdul Hakim who had represented to the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan that the mosque built by Aurangzeb when he was the Governor of Gujarat after desecrating and partly demolishing the Chintamani temple could not be considered a mosque in accordance with the Islamic law because the property belonged to Shanti (Sati) Das Jauhuri. Accordingly, a firman was issued by Shah Jahan and it was ordered that the temple be handed over to Shanti Das who should be in the possession of it as before; and he may worship there according to his creed. The firman is dated July 3, 1648 and quoted in the fourteenth chapter of this book. This firman confirms that many clergymen up to the reign of Shah Jahan were liberal in interpreting the Islamic law.

It will be difficult for many readers to accept the fact that Baba Abhiramadasji who was instrumental in placing the idols of Ram Lallā and other deities in an almost abandoned mosque in December, 1949 was gifted a chunk of 50 acres land by a munificent Muslim Qeyum Kidwai in 1955 at village Kandhipur in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh. There Baba Abhiramadas built a magnificent Hanuman temple which is now managed by his disciple Dharmadas. It shows that the conversion of the mosque into a practicing temple had not alienated a majority of the Muslim population.

Protagonists of Ayodhyā dispute must appreciate and reciprocate this mutual understanding and sentiments, and learn from such examples of Pāśupatāchārya, Mulla Abdul Hakim and Qeyum Kidwai.

I have been an avid reader from childhood and I have keen interest in History and Sanskrit. In fact, it was my love for history and Sanskrit which impelled me to decline admission in an engineering college and opt for these subjects instead of the science stream. It was again this avocation which was a catalystic factor in my taking voluntary retirement from the coveted Indian Police Service almost a decade before my due date of superannuation. However, even in the hectic days of police service I continued my interest in these two subjects – History, particularly Indian History and Sanskrit. Therefore, it was extremely appalling to read biased and distorted articles and books on Ayodhyā which have produced controversial contents quite contrary to historical facts.

Historians of all hues have been harping upon the theme that Ayodhyā was an abandoned city for long, whereas the historical fact remains that Ayodhyā has always been an eternal and blissful city which can rightly boast of its prosperous continuity since the reign of the Ikshvākus. Similarly, it may be amazing for many to learn that the temples at Ayodhyā remained intact, by and large during the entire Sultanate period. It may sound ironical when they go through this book and learn that it was the introduction of the Sunni Hanafi law in India which lessened the legal and practical severity on the Hindus in this country.

In this book it has been established for the first time that there existed a temple at the disputed site. It is confirmed by the following ślokas of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala:

सरयूतीरपूतानां जन्मभूम्याः विलोकिनाम्।

दर्शनात् पातकं तेषां कल्पकोटिशतायुतान्।।35।।

राममन्दिरमासाद्य दर्शनं क्रियते नरै।

मनसापि स्मृं येन मुच्यते चरणत्रयात्।।36।। (XIIth canto)

Again, this book has the credit to present the accounts of Thomas Herbert and Joannes De Leat on Ayodhyā for the first time. Herbert’s accounts were written in 1632 A.D. and published in 1634 and again in 1636 A.D. According to him there were many ancient monuments at Ayodhyā and the most important of them was the temple of Rāmachandra built in the Tretā Age. De Laet’s accounts published in 1631 A.D. confirm that Rāma was considered the supreme god who was born at Ayodhyā to see the tamasha of the world and devotees from all parts of the country used to visit the site and after worshipping the idol used to take away charred rice as proof of their visit.

Janma-Bhūmi-māhātmya from only one source, i.e. the Skandapurāna had been produced before the court, whereas the Janma-sthána-māhātmya has been produced in this book from at least four sources – the Skanda-Purāna, the Rudra-yāmala, Satyopākhyāna and the Avadhavilāsa of Lal Das.

Then the tale of two inscriptions is very interesting. One Vishnu-hari inscription confirms the existence of a temple at Ayodhyā on the eve of the Muslim conquest and the debate on another indicates how far our established historians can distort facts while making arguments.

Many will be amused to learn that the so-called Baburi mosque does not figure in any text for more than 240 years and the inscriptions inside the mosque, often quoted in books on Ayodhyā or Babur, were fake in nature. They were fixed in the mosque 280 years after its supposed construction in 1528 A.D. These inscriptions were fixed or shown to have been fixed in the mosque on various dates and repeatedly replaced. Contents and placements of these inscriptions differed from time to time. Contrary to the common belief, Babur never visited Ayodhyā and, in fact, he had no occasion to visit it. Similarly, Mir Baqi of the inscriptions is different from Baqi of Babur-nama and he was never the Governor of Ayodhyā. In fact, Baqi Tashkindi was a petty commander (Beg) of a small troop of Babur and in constant chase against the rebel governor of Awadh Bāyazīd and his companion Biban. Babur was so angry with Baqi because of the latter’s failure against Bāyazīd at Lucknow that on 20th June, 1529 he dismissed him from service along with the Awadh troop which was at his command to annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban. Thereafter, Baqi Shagawal/Tashkindi was never heard of. No person by the name of Mir Baqi was a historical figure. Similarly, Musa Ashiqan, who is credited to have blessed Babur to be the emperor of Hindustan and is said to have later directed him to demolish the Râma-Janma-bhūmi temple, is a fictitious person.

Babur was not a religious fanatic and his visit to the Gwalior temples is a testimony to his liberal outlook. Babur had no role either in the demolition of any temple at Ayodhyā or in the construction of a mosque at the site. This may sound very startling but I am constrained to conclude so on the basis of incontrovertible historical facts. The question then arises as to who demolished the temple, if any, and built the mosque. All the three major Hindu shrines at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvāra, Tretā Kā Thākura and Janma-sthána temples were intact during the entire Sultanate period and the major part of the Mughal rule. But they could not survive after the accession of Aurangzeb to the Delhi throne in 1658 A.D.There are many evidences to prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb when Fedai Khan was Governor there. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh twice; first in 1658-1662 A.D. and thereafter in 1669-1670 A.D. It has been discussed in detail in chapter VIII as to how the temples at Ayodhyā were razed to ground during the first stint of Fedai Khan. The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque on the Janma-sthána site during the reign of Aurangzeb was known to the general public till 1813-14 A.D. when Buchanan made the survey and was misled by a claimed inscription which was not properly examined by him.

After his report on Ayodhyā was published in Martin’s book ‘History, Topography, Antiquities & c. of Eastern India’ in 1838 A.D. scholars started attributing the construction of the mosque to Babur. The gossip had already started around 1770 A.D. when Joseph Tieffenthaler wrote that though the temple was demolished by Aurangzeb, yet some people ascribed it to Babur. Since Tieffenthaler himself was a scholar of Persian and there was no inscription by then in the mosque, he could not write emphatically as to who the real builder was. But by 1813 A.D. the Shia clergy had faked an inscription and predated the construction of the mosque to the distant period of Babur and made Mir Baqi as the real builder. They subsequently claimed Mir Baqi to be a Shia and took the control of this mosque.

All Mughal Emperors except Aurangzeb were liberal and during the period of Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan there was a considerable prosperity amongst nobility and the Hindus enjoyed reasonable religious freedom. However, soon after Aurangzeb’s accession to the throne in 1658-59 A.D. the process of the reversal of the religious policy of tolerance commenced. The iconoclastic zeal of Aurangzeb resulted in the demolition and forcible conversion of almost all important temples of North India into mosques. There is a very disturbing trend that our established historians have been defending the iconoclastic activities of Aurangzeb and Mahmud of Ghazni by misleading interpretation and, at times, by concoction of stories which are portrayed as facts. It has been amply demonstrated at appropriate places in this book.

It is a historical fact that during the liberal rule of the first four Awadh Nawabs, viz. Sa’adat Khan, Safdar Jung, Shuja-ud-daulah and Asaf-ud-daulah, the Rāmānandī Bairāgī sādhūs succeeded in retrieving most of the lost sites associated with the life of Rāma and constructing new grand temples. However, it is equally true that the Shia clergy got ascendancy during the reign of subsequent Nawabs to such an extent that despite the liberal policy of Wajid Ali Shah the two communities came to clash in 1855 A.D. on the imaginary claim over Hanuman-garhi by the Muslims. How a rumour could create a permanent rupture in the relations between two communities is best illustrated by this unwarranted confrontation. The British Government’s arbitrary decision to stop the Hindu practice of performing rituals in the disputed shrine created discontent amongst the Hindus who felt alienated and attempted repeatedly to take possession of the disputed shrine and the site. It was reflected in the forcible possession of the shrine in 1858 A.D. by Nihang Singh along with 25 Sikhs who fixed a ‘Niśāna’ there and after performing rituals wrote ‘Rāma’, ‘Rāma’ on the walls of the disputed shrine.

The first volume of the book had ended there. But on the eve of its publication I learnt that a booklet titled “History and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid Case” prepared by Aligarh Historians Society was in circulation. In this booklet Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment on historical matters has been subjected to such an unsubstantiated and misleading criticism that I had to write a new chapter “Aligarh Historians’ Contumelious Criticism of the Ayodhyâ Verdict is devoid of substance.” It is agonizing to see that the established historians have stooped very low in unjustifiably attacking the verdict of a well-read and reputed Judge. Therefore, these historians’ indictment required a rebuttal based on incontrovertible evidence which finds place in the last chapter of this book.

Since historians of both the shades have done injustice to the writing of history on Ayodhyā dispute I had to expose them at appropriate places. In this book I have coined two words ‘established’ and ‘enthusiastic’. By ‘established’ historians I mean self-proclaimed secular, progressive or left historians who have established an academic empire and try to stifle any voice of dissent or truth. At times, they obfuscate matters. Similarly, I have called the historians of the opposite group as ‘enthusiastic historians’ in place of nationalist or conservative historians. In this camp the standard of historians’ writing history except that of a few of them is far from satisfactory because they lack the skill of sifting the grain from husk. This is the reason that they, too, have failed to do justice to the history of Ayodhyā, and hence the difference on Ayodhyā between the two groups of historians is very thin. The first group asserts that the victorious Babur built the mosque on a barren plot, whereas the other group claims that Babur erected the mosque after demolishing a temple. Thus, both groups claim that it was a creation of Babur or his Governor Mir Baqi! An innocent Babur has suffered the ignominy, hatred and pernicious perdition for decades for a crime which he never committed. In this book the liberal and carefree warrior stands exonerated from such an insinuation.

This work is an extensive research of more than two decades. I am satisfied that I have been able to present a large number of new evidences which have not been utilized so far. I have churned the ocean of all the literature on Ayodhyā and succeeded in taking out the nectar to revive the dead history of Ayodhyā. Here I am reminded of one verse of the last chapter ‘An Account of the Author’ in the Ain i-Akbari:

A wondrous work herein behold

That wisdom’s treasures all enfold;

So fair upon its page they show

That he who reads shall wiser grow. (p. 523)

The book has appropriately been named ‘Ayodhyā Revisited’ and is in two volumes. In the first volume I have concentrated on historical evidence only, lest the new thesis should be besmirched in the midst of unnecessary controversies. Archaeological evidence, which should have been incorporated in the first volume, has been omitted here to limit its size. Out of more than a thousand pages in the first volume I had to edit and edit many times to contain it within 700 pages. While doing so, I am afraid that at places the sequence might have been disturbed, though utmost care has been taken to prevent it. Like the first volume, the second, too, contains many interesting topics of deep research which will really lead readers to conclude that it is a rediscovery of the history of Ayodhyā. In addition, it contains many undisclosed developments of Ayodhyā negotiations and the Government’s attempts to solve the contentious issue.

It is an irony that although I had been cited a Government witness before the Liberhan Ayodhyā Commission of Enquiry and I wrote several times to the Commission for calling me for deposition, I was never called in its long span of 16 years. Here a letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ayodhyā Division) U.O. No. 6095/JS(AY)/93 dt. 30-12-93 is partly quoted in this regard:

“It has been decided with the approval of the Home Minister that Shri Kishore Kunal, DIG, Central Industrial Security Force, Patna would be cited as witness on behalf of the Central Government before the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry. The Area to be covered in his evidence is indicated below:

He was O.S.D. to the then minister of the State for Home Affairs and was actively involved in the negotiations held during 1990 and Dec 90-Feb 91. In case these issues arise before the Commission, his deposition will be taken in this regard.”

Besides, I had been asked by the Home Ministry vide an order in a note-sheet dated 6th January, 1994 to scrutinize all documents and prepare an index for the Commission. A few lines from the note-sheet are quoted below:

“Shri Kishore Kunal, DIG, CISF is fairly knowledgeable in respect of the Ayodhya issue and he has already been requested to lend his assistance in this matter. DO (Ay-I) may work under the guidance of Shri Kunal. He and Shri Kunal may complete this exercise and put up the same preferably by Saturday, 8 January.

2. In addition to the above, every file relating to the above documents should also be identified and kept apart so that it is readily available for use in connection with the Commission’s proceedings. An index of all these files should be prepared, indicating very briefly but clearly the contents of each file and how it is related to the White Paper. This exercise may also be carried out by DO (Ay-I) under the general guidance of Shri Kunal and put up preferably by Saturday, 8 January, 1994. Shri Kunal may devise a suitable proforma for this purpose.”

It was issued by Shri Vinod Dhall, the then Joint Secretary, Ayodhyā in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it was I who had scrutinized all papers on Ayodhyā and made its index. It was a tragedy that I was not called by the Liberhan Commission, otherwise I could have thrown ample light on Ayodhyā before the Commission.

For long I was contemplating a proper cover design. A number of suggestions came from my friends and my young son Saayan Kunal but ultimately an impressive image from the book of Tieffenthaler prevailed because it is an authentic illustration of a little cluster of Hindu mutts in the 18th century.

Fig. Preface 2: A cluster of monasteries at Avadh
sketched by Tieffenthaler in 1767 A.D.

Tieffenthaler has captioned it in Latin as ‘Aedes cujusdam or Monachis Ethnicis qui Avadi degunt’ below the illustration. The Google translation is as follows:

“Certain heathen temples or monks who live their Avadi”

Prof. Kapil Muni Tiwary, a renowned, retired English Professor of Patna University, has translated it as:

“Some monasteries at Avadh where heathen monks live”

In Tieffenthaler’s account of Ayodhyā the word ‘heathen’ has been used for the Hindus.

The illustration on the cover page is marked XIII 1 in the Tieffenthaler’s book. Just below it, Tieffenthaler places the following illustration which is marked XIII 2:

Fig. Preface 3: Lavatorium named Mancancound at Ayodhyā.

Johann Bernoulli suggests that this lavatorium belongs to the same building which has been marked XIII.1 by Tieffenthaler. Tieffenthaler gives following captions at the bottom of this lavatorium:

(a) Lavatorium, quod Máncáncound appellant, id est fontem inaurium

(b) Meatus subterraneus, per quem aqua, Lavatorium subit.

(c) Aqua ductus, per quem aqua in Gamgam exonerator.

Prof. Tiwary’s translation into the English language is as follows:

(a) Washing-room which is called Manchancund (मचनकुण्ड), a gilded fountain.

(b) Underground ducts through which water enters the washing-room.

(c) Aquaduct through which water is discharged into the Ganges (river).

It appears that this beautiful water reservoir is a part of multi storeyed palace for Sadhus’ accommodation; whereas the first illustration XIII.1 appears to be a Hindu Mutt. This water reservoir reminds one of the Great Bath at Mohenjodaro. Even the present day Ayodhyā does not have any such technically sound water collection and discharge system.

After Tieffenthaler’s following account of Ayodhyā:

“On the South bank (of Deva) are found various buildings constructed by the nobles in memory of Ram, extending from East to West (a)” (p.252)

Johann Bernoulli, the editor and translator of Tieffenthaler’s original Latin work in the French and German, adds the following information in the footnote:

“(a) It is most likely that those shown in the illustration XIII nos. 1 and 2 belong to these buildings.”

The observation that Ayodhyā was in ruins and heap of dilapidated buildings is not correct because Ayodhyā in the 18th century was having many magnificent buildings like Svargadvārī mosque painted so beautifully by Hodges in 1783 and the above monastery with excellent water supply and discharge system.

Before I close it, I would like to throw some light on spellings of certain names and quoted paragraphs. I have preferred the spelling ‘Babur’ as it exists in many standard books including the translated version of Babur-nama by Beveridge, Annette Susannah. Readers will be surprised to see certain strange spellings in some quotations. These spellings belong to an era prior to 1800-1810. In fact, from 1810 A.D., the new spellings are in vogue. Therefore, if some strange spellings are seen in some quotations, it should be understood that they are taken in the original form, as they existed before 1810 A.D. The diacritical marks have been applied to Sanskrit words and by and large, they have been omitted in Persian and well-known words. At many of the places years have been indicated in the era which they represent. But where there is no such indication, they are to be understood as the years of the Christian era.

While preparing this brilliant book, I have received help from many corners. First, I would like to thank Pt. Bhavanath Jha, who is in-charge of the publication branch of our prestigious Mahavir Mandir, Patna. He has promptly discovered all the references to Ayodhyā sought by me from websites. Besides, he is one person I have consulted on the meaning of certain words of Vishnu-hari inscription and some other texts. It is my pleasant duty to record thanks to him.

Advocate P.N. Mishra is another stalwart who has been invariably informed about every new discovery on Ayodhyā. He was the most prominent counsel in the galaxy of legal luminaries before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. In fact, it was his brilliant skill of advocacy which turned the tide against the opposite side. I avail myself of this opportunity to record here my deep obligation to Mishra. Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmed, the Director of Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna and a good friend of mine, promptly provided me all the required books available in his library. I owe a lot to Dr. Ahmad and Abu Muzaffar Alam, the Assistant Librarian of the prestigious library, who deciphered a number of Persian texts. I also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation extended by the librarians of Indian Council of Historical Research, Delhi and National Archives of India for providing photocopies of the relevent portions of the book and documents requisitioned by me.

It was Dr. Trinath Mishra, IPS (Rtd.) who was kind enough to go through the entire manuscript once. Similarly, Justice S.N. Jha (Rtd.) took interest in the book and went through many chapters. Prof. Brahmachari Surendra Kumar, a former Vice-chancellor of the K.S.D. Sanskrit University, Darbhanga where I served subsequently in the same capacity, also devoted sometime in proofreading. I am extremely thankful to them.

I can’t express my immense sense of gratitude in words to Justice G.B. Patnaik, a former Chief Justice of India, who has been very kind to write a ‘Foreword’ to this work. When I called on him and handed over the manuscript of this book at Bhubaneswar, he assured me that he would go through it, and if it was found authentic and interesting, he would write the Foreword. Although he took his own time in going through the entire manuscript before writing the Foreword, I am elated to get such an appreciative assessment of the book from such a great legal luminary of the country. He has not only appreciated the work but also endorsed all the major conclusions of the book. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to him.

I myself have a vast library of books on Indian History and Sanskrit and it facilitated the writing of this book because confirmation of any reference from original sources was handy. Nine chapters of this book, germane to the Ayodhyā case, had been kept on the website www. mahavirmandirpatna.org for several months before the pronouncement of Ayodhyā Judgment and more than fifteen hundred persons had read its contents.

Since I am also the main proofreader of this book, I am afraid, it may contain composing mistakes because it has been typed by a Sanskrit scholar and Hindi typist. Besides, one is not good proof-reader of one’s own writing and the author has got no team of academicians who can correct the manuscript. I crave indulgence of readers for any error which still remains clung to the content or the print, despite meticulous correction made umpteen times. The Index has been prepared by Pt. Bhavanath Jha who once again deserves sincere thanks for the same. Readers may find some quotations and arguments repeated in some chapters. It has been done primarily to facilitate them to get relevant evidence in the same chapter. The publication of the book has been slightly delayed because of recurrent errors on the part of the British Library in sending correct images of certain documents requisitioned by me. For the error, Andrew Gough of the British Library was nice enough to tender apology to the present author through the following e-mail dated Feb. 24, 2015:

“Dear Kishore

Please accept our apologies for the error, I have sent the email with attachments onto the Managers of the service and asked them to investigate as a matter of urgency and then to confirm when the correct images are sent to you.

we apologise again.

Kind Regards

Andrew Gough”

Before I conclude this Preface, I would like to emphasise that the nation must heed to the concluding advice of the utmost sanity in the epilogue of Justice S.U. Khan’s verdict on the Ayodhyā dispute:

“...I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomized the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice). When prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.

However, the Quran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed. Under the sub-heading of demolition I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.

I quote two verses of Iqbal which were also quoted by Justice R.S. Dhawan in A.C. Datt vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1990 Allahabad 38:

वतन की फिक्र कर नादां मुसीबत आने वाली है।

तेरी बरबादियों के मश्वरे हैं आसमानों में।।

न समझोगे तो मिट जाओगे ऐ हिन्दोस्तां वालों।

तुम्हारी दास्तां तक भी न होगी दास्तानों में।।

An observation of Darwin is also worth quoting at this juncture (what an authority to quote in a religious matter/ dispute!):

“Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised.”

Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility – peace – friendship – tolerance - opportunity to impress others with the Message - opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible – or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not negligible minority (Maximum number of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either the Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict
at hand.”

(Ayodhyā Judgment, Justice S.U. Khan, pp. 277-80)

I hope that this book will transform the thinking of people on the Ayodhyā issue and will remove the toxin of communal canard in the country and there would lie the success of the author, who concludes with the following words of a ninteenth century Sufi saint Deen Darvish:

हिन्दू कहे सों हम बड़े मुसलमान कहे हम

एक मूँग के दो फाँड़ हैं कुन ज्यादा कुन कम।

कुन जियादा कुन कम करना नहीं कजिया

एक राम का भगत है दुजे रहमान से रजिया

कहे ‘दीन दरविश’ दोय सरितन मिल एक सिन्धु

साहिब सब दा एक है एक मुसलमान हिन्दु।।

The Hindu says, “I am superior”;
the Musalman says ‘I’.

Two halves of a grain of ‘mung’ they are;
which, then, is greater than the other?

Don’t quarrel over who is superior;
and who is not;

The one is the devotee of Ram,
the other of Rahman.

Deen Darvish says,

“the two unite in one ocean;

There is only one Lord of all.

The Hindu and the Musalman are one.”

Similar sentiment has been expressed by the revolutionary Bangla poet Kazi Nazrul Islam in the following verse:

एक ही वृन्ते दू टी कुसुम, हिन्दू मुसलमान।

हिन्दू तार नयन-मनि, मुस्लिम तार प्राण।।

Every writer has a lurking apprehension that unless his thesis is accepted by scholars, it is of little use, even though it has been prepared with all diligence and dedication. This sentiment is lucidly illustrated in the following verse of Kālidāsa in the beginning of his famous drama Abhijñāna-śākuntalam:

आ परितोषाद् विदुषां न साधु मन्ये प्रयोगविज्ञानम्।

बलवदपि शिक्षितानामात्मन्यप्रत्ययं चेतः।। (I.2)

I cannot feel satisfied with my performance until the wise are gratified. Even the best trained persons tend to lose confidence without their approval.

—Kishore Kunal

Ayodhyā

Janaki Navami, 2072

27 April 2015

Chapter One
Ayodhyā was never an abandoned city

[(1) Etymology (2) Location (3) Description of Ayodhyã(4) Mention in the Mahãbhãrata (5) Geneology of Ikshvãku rulers (6) Canonical literature (7) Allusion to Ayodhyã during the period of the Nandas and the Mauryas (8) Patañjali’s Mahãbhãshya (9) Yuga-purãna of Gãrgì Samhitã (10) Post-Sunga period(11) Suriratna, a Princess of Ayodhyã, became the Queen of the first Korean King (12) As´vaghosha, a native of Ayodhyã (13) Belgaun Memorial pillar inscription of 105 A.D. (14) Greek Geographer Ptolemy’s Account (15) Ayodhyã during the Gupta period (16) Vasubandhu and Ayodhyã (17) Fahien’s account (18) Jãnakì-haranam of Kumãradãsa of S´rìlankã (19) Yuan-Chwang’s account on Ayodhyã (20) Ayodhyã during the post-Harshavardhana period (21) Reverberations in the South (22) References from Kashmir (23) Ayodhyã in Agastya-samhitã (24) Vikramãnkadeva-charitam of Bilhana (25) Dhanapãl’s ‘Tilaka-mañjarì’ (26) Ayodhyã in Alberuni’s “Kitab-ul-Hind” (27) Epigraphic connection of Chalukyan Kings with Ayodhyã (28) Gahadavala dynasty (29) Kritya-Kalpataru of Lakshmìdhara (30) Lal Darwaza Masjid inscription of Jaunpur (31) Vividha-tìrtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha Sùri (32) Rasika-rañjana of Kavi Rãmachandra (33) Yãtrã-prabandha of Samarapungava Dìkshita (34) An external evidence about Ramkot (35) Ayodhyã in Thailand]

Ayodhyā is an eternal city of the utmost antiquity and supreme sanctity. For the Hindus, it is one of the holiest tīrthas with most hallowed traditions in the country. The following śloka of Brahmānda Purāna finds mention in many Purānas with slight variations:

अयोध्या मथुरा माया काशी काञ्ची ह्यवन्तिका।

एताः पुण्यतमाः प्रोक्ताः पुरीणामुत्तमोत्तमाः।।

(4/40/91)

Ayodhyā, Mathurā, Haridvāra, Kāśi, Kānchī and Ujjain have been called the most sacred and foremost cities.

In the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudrayāmala, it is called the head of Lord Vishnu in the following śloka:

विष्णो पादमवन्तिका गुणवती मध्ये च काञ्चीपुरी

नाभौ द्वारवतीं पठन्ति हृदये मायापुरीं योगिनः।।

ग्रीवामूलमुदाहरन्ति मथुरां नासाग्रवाराणसी-

मेतद् ब्रह्मपदं वदन्ति मुनयोऽयोध्यापुरीं मस्तकम्।।

Virtuous Avantikā, i.e. Ujjaina is the foot of Vishnu and Kāñchīpurī is His waist. Yogis consider Dvarakā His navel and Haridvāra His heart. Mathurā is considered His neck and Varanasī the tip of His nose. Ayodhyā is the head of Vish+nu. Sages call all these the limbs of Vishnu.

According to the Skanda Purāna Ayodhyā is splendid embodiment of Brahmā, Vishnu and Rudra:

अकारो ब्रह्म च प्रोक्तं यकारो विष्णुरुच्यते।

धकारो रुद्ररूपश्च अयोध्या नाम राजते।।

Ayodhyā brilliantly shines with its three letters — ‘a’ denoting Brahmā, ‘ya’ Vishnu and ‘dh’ Rudra.

The earliest reference to Ayodhyā is found in the following famous hymn of the Atharva-veda:

अष्टाचक्रा नवद्वारा देवानां पूरयोध्या।

तस्यां हिरण्मयः कोशः स्वर्गो ज्योतिषावृतः।।31।।

तस्मिन् हिरण्यये कोशे त्र्यरे त्रिप्रतिष्ठिते।

तस्मिन् यद् यक्षमात्मन्वत् तद् वै ब्रह्मविदो विदु।।32।।

प्रभाजमानां हरिणीं यशसा संपरीवृताम्।

पुं हिरण्मयीं ब्रह्मा विवेशापराजिताम्।।33।।

It may be translated thus:

Ayodhyā is the city of gods with eight circles and nine portals. It contains a golden chest which is celestial and with light, and which has got three spokes encircled and three supports. Persons, well versed with the Brahmā, know fully well that Yaksha dwells in that golden chest. That city which is bright with excessive brilliance, attractive, studded with glory all around and never subdued, has the abode of Brahmā.

It is well known that in the Kenopanishat, Brahmā appears before gods in the form of a Yaksha and the position of the latter is far above Vayu, Agni and Indra. Thus, Yaksha denotes Brahmā (ब्रह्म) here.

This Atharva hymn occurs in the Taittirīya Āranyaka too. (1.27.2 3)

P. Carnegy has written that Ayodhyā is to the Hindus what Mecca is to the Mahomedon and Jerusalem to the Jews. R.T. Griffith, the celebrated translator of Vālmīki Rāmayana, was of the opinion that ‘Ajudhyā is the Jerusalem or Mecca of the Hindus’. (Bālakānda, canto 5. footnote 4)

Similar sentiments have been expressed by many gazetteer writers on Ayodhyā and modern authors of the eternal saga of Rāma’s march to the path of righteousness.

Robert P. Goldman has reverentially written in his work ‘Ramayan of Vālmīki’:

“Few works of literature produced in any place at any time have been as popular, influential, imitated and successful as the great and ancient Sanskrit epic poem, the Valmîki Ramayana. A.A. Macdonell’s sweeping comment is hardly an overstatement of the case: “Probably no work of world literature, secular in origin, has ever produced so profound an influence on the life and thought of a people as the Ramayana.” For at least the last two and a half millennia, the tragic tale of Rama and Sîta, the oldest and most influential surviving version of which is Valmîki’s poem, has entertained, moved, enchanted, and uplifted untold millions of people in India and much of Southeast Asia for countless generations. The poem in all its versions and representations in the literary, plastic, and performing arts has constituted traditional India’s most pervasive and enduring instrument of acculturation.” (Vol. I, p. 3)

Francis Buchanan wrote in his hastily prepared report of the survey of the Gorakhpur Division conducted during 1813 14 A.D.:

“The people of Ayodhya imagine, that after the death of Vrihadbala, their city was deserted, and continued so until the time of Vikrama of Ujjain, who came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called Ramgar, cut down the forests by which the ruins were covered, and erected 360 temples on the places sanctified by the extraordinary actions of Rama, of his wife Sita, of his brother Lakshmana, and of his general Mahavira.”(Buchanan’s Manuscript: Ms. EUR, D 91: Gorakhpur 1: Book 2: p.165)

The erroneous impression that Ayodhya was a deserted city has been repeatedly reflected in many subsequent reports, gazetteers and several articles of eminent historians. But the fact of the matter is that Ayodhyā was never an abandoned city and it is shown in this chapter.

(1) Etymology

Ayodhyā is etymologically derived from the root युध् सम्प्रहारे which is used in the sense of attack, strike. Its derivation is युध् + यत् + टाप् योध् + य + आ = योध्या. अ is prefixed in the नञ÷ compound and it becomes अयोध्या. It ultimately means योद्धुं न शक्या no attack on it can be possible and therefore it has been interpreted as a place which is unconquerable, impregnable, invincible by enemies.

A Jain text ‘Ādi-purāna’ by Āchārya Jinasena of Digambara sect defines it:

अयोध्या न परं नाम्ना गुणेनाप्यरिभिः सुराः। (Ādi-Purãna 12.76)

O gods! Ayodhyā does not exist by name alone but by the merit also, hence it cannot be conquered by enemies.

Similarly, Buddhaghosha, while commenting on the Phenapindūpama Sutta, derives Ayodhyā in the following words:

केनिच कारणेन युज्झित्वा गहेतुं न सक्काति अयुज्झा नाम।

That which cannot be taken over by any means is known as Ayodhyā. This Phenapindūpama Sutta is a part of the Khandhsamyutta of Samyutta Nikāya. Ayodhyā was known by this name when Tripitaka was composed.

Another text Satyopākhyāna has given a new interpretation to the word Ayodhyā in the following style:

पापैर्न योध्यते यस्याः तेनायोध्येति कथ्यते। (I. 34.7)

That which cannot be conquered by sins is Ayodhyā.

However, P. Carnegy has erroneously derived it in his book “ A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh and Pachhimrath with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad” in the following words:

“Derivation—The name Ajudhia is explained by well known local Pandits to be derived from the Sanskrit words, Ajud, unvanquished, also Aj, a name of Barmha, the unconquerable city of the Creator. But Ajudhia is also called Oudh, which in Sanskrit means a promise, an allusion, it is said, to the promise made by Rama Chandra when he went in exile, to return at the end of 14 years. These are the local derivations; I am not prepared to say to what extent they may be accepted as correct. Doctor Wilson of Bombay thinks the word is taken from yudh to fight, the city of the fighting Chhatris.”

This derivation is not correct because Ayodhyā cannot be derived from the root Ajud or Aja. There is no such etymological derivation which has connection with Brahmā. Similarly, Oudh or Avadha in Sanskrit does not mean a promise as suggested by Carnegy on the basis of the explanation made by so-called Panditas. Avadha is an antonym of vadha and it simply means non-killing. Avadha is used in the Rigveda (I.185.3) and Sāyanāchārya has interpreted it as अवधम् अहिंसित् i.e. which cannot be injured, killed or destroyed.

Sāketa has been defined in V.S. Apte’s Sanskrit-Hindi Dictionary as सह आकेतेन i.e. with houses, buildings. Sāketa, too, has been lucidly defined in the Jain text Ādi-purāna composed by Āchārya Jinasena in the 8th century V.S. in Sanskrit:

साकेतरूढिरप्यस्याः श्लाघ्यैव स्वैर्निकेतनै।

स्वनिकेतमिवाह्वातुं साकूतै केतुबाहुभिः।। (12. 77)

Ayodhyā is known as Sāketa because of its magnificent buildings which had significant banners as their arms.

Here buildings have been personified.

In the Dhanadeva’s inscription also केतनं कारितम÷ is mentioned i.e. a house was built.

However, Hans Bakker has made a very inapprotriate, tedious derivation-

“The name Sãketa on the other hand is more difficult to account for. It may derive from the Sanskrit Sa + ketu ‘with banner’ – Saketava  Saketu  Sãketa.”

Kosala and Vinītā, too, have been derived in Ādi-Purāna in the following words:

सुकोशलेति च ख्यातिं सा देशाभिख्यां गता।

विनीतजनताकीर्णा विनीतेति च सा मता।। (12.78)

Ayodhyā is famous as सुकोशल because of its prosperity and good skill. It is known as विनीता because it is inhabitated by humble people.

(2) Location

Ayodhyā is an ancient town situated on the bank of the Sarayū river and having Lat. 26º45’. N. Long. 82º.10.E.

A confusing situation has been created by many modern historians who are not well versed in the Sanskrit language or who have a pre-determined agenda to follow. They have written long articles that the Ayodhyā mentioned in some Buddhist texts was situated on the bank of Gangā and not Sarayū and therefore different from the present-day Ayodhyā. Prof. K.N. Panikkar writes in an article titled ‘A Historical Overview’ in the anthology “Anatomy of Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India” edited by Sarvepalli Gopal:

“Buddhist texts also refer to Ayodhya as another town located on the river Ganga, and not, as is the site of the present-day Ayodhya, on the river ‘Sarayù’.”

Thus, they claim to have discovered many Ayodhyās. But this has happened either due to the lack of the knowledge of the Sanskrit/Pāli language or on account of a deliberate attempt to confound the issue.

In Sanskrit, Gangā means a specific river and also denotes any river. In Śabda-kalpa-druma Ganga’s another meaning is नदी सामान्येऽपि- स्प्तागङगम्. There is a Pānini-sūtra नदीभिश्च (2.1.20) and Siddhānta-kaumudī of Bhattoji Dikshita gives an instance स्प्तागङगम् (674) which means the confluence of seven rivers. Here Gangā is used in the sense of any river. Similar instances are given for Yamunā and Kāverī. In some dictionaries like V.S. Apte’s (Sanskrit-Hindi) and Śabda-kalapa-druma it is clarified that Gangā denotes any holy river नदी सामान्येऽपि. Thus, here Gangā is a substitute for Sarayū and Ayodhyā is perceived to be situated on the bank of Sarayū and not Gangā.

This is how Ayodhyā on the bank of the Sarayū and Kausāmbī on the Yamunā bank are shown to be situated on the bank of Gangā in the following references:

एकं समयं भगवा अयोज्झायं विहरति गंगाय नदिया तीरे।।

(Samyutta Nikāya, vol. III, 95, (3))

Once Lord Buddha was walking in Ayodhyā on the bank of the Gangā river.

Here the Gangā denotes the Sarayū.

Similarly, Kauśāmbī, which is on the bank of Yamunā, is shown to be on the bank of Gangā in the following sutta (Sūtra) of the ‘Samyutta-nikāya’.

एक समयं भगवा कोसम्बिय विहरति गंगाय नदिया तीरे।।

(Vol. 4.35.241. 205)

Once Lord Buddha was walking in Kauśāmbī on the bank of the Gangā river.

Here the Gangā denotes the Yamunā.

This connotation continues even in 18th century as Brooke’s General Gazetteer (Abridged, London, 1796 A.D.) shows Fyzabad Ayodhyā) on the bank of the river Gangā in the following description:

“OUDE, an ancient city of Hindoostan Proper, in the province of Oude, the remains of which are seated on the Ganges, nearly adjoining Fyzabad.”

It clears the confusion completely.

Hans Bakker is mainly responsible for creating another confusion by propounding the theory that Ayodhyā and Sāketa were two names of the city in two different periods. In his book ‘Ayodhyā’ he has written:

“The only question that remains to be solved is whether the Sãketa of both heterodox canons is identical with the Ayodhya of Epic Sanskrit literature. If one takes both names as toponyms of the site AY, as is mostly done, an explanation should be given as to why the Epic sources make absolutely no mention of the name Sãketa, while vice-versa the canonical literature never refers to site AY as Ayodhya.”

He has produced some charts to buttress the theory. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to say that Ayodhyā has not been mentioned in the Buddhist or Jain literature. ‘Ayojjhā’ has been mentioned in Samyutta-Nikāya and Ghata-Jātaka where it was the seat of King Kālasena. (IV. 82). In the Sārtha-ppakāsinī (II. 320) Buddhaghosha while commenting on Samyutta-Nikāya (III. 140) has written that the citizens of Ayujjhāpura built a Vihāra for Lord Buddha. Moreover, Kosala is another name for Ayodhyā and it has been freely used for Ayodhyā and Sāketa both in the traditional and canonical literature. In Jain literature Ayodhyā and Ikshvāku-bhūmi have been profusely used by the writers. Therefore, there should not be any doubt about the identity of both the names.

The pamphlet of 25 historians further added that the Ayodhyā of Vālmīki Rāmāyana was imposed on the city of Sāketa during the Gupta period. They wrote thus:

“The town of Saketa was renamed Ayodhya by a Gupta king Skanda Gupta, in the late fifth century A.D., moved his residence to Saketa and called it Ayodhya. He assumed the title Vikramãditya, which he used on his gold coins. Thus, what may have been the fictional Ayodhya of the epic poem was identified with Saketa quite late. This does not necessarily suggest that the Gupta king was a bhakt of Rama. In bestowing the name of Ayodhya on Saketa he was trying to gain prestige for himself by drawing on the tradition of the Suryavamshi kings, a line to which Rama is said to have belonged.”

The explanation is really infested with the दुर्व्याख्याविषमूर्च्छिता (poison by misinterpretation). Long before Skandagupta, Sāketa was called Ayodhyā by Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.

Bhāsa was a poet of pre-Gupta period to whom Kālidāsa made obeisance in Mālavikāgnimitram in the following words:

वर्तमानकवे कालिदासस्य क्रियायां कथं बहुमानः प्रथितयशसां भाससौमिल्लककविपुत्रदीनां प्रबन्धानतिक्रम्य...

Having ignored the works of highly reputed Bhāsa, Saummillaka, Kaviputra and others how is the composition of the present-day poet Kālidāsa getting preference?

Bhāsa, the great Sanskrit dramatist has mentioned Ayodhyā in his dramas ‘Pratimā’ and ‘Abhisheka’. In Pratimā Nātaka Bharata proclaims:

तत्र यास्यामि यत्रासौ वर्तते लक्ष्मणप्रियः।

नायोध्यां तं विनायोध्या सायोध्या यत्र राघवः।। (III. 24)

Now I go there where stays Rāma, the darling of Lakshmana. Without Rāma, this is not Ayodhyā. Ayodhyā is there where Rāghava resides.

Ayodhyā is beautifully portrayed in another Act of the same drama:

राम :- अद्यैव यास्यामि पुरीमयोध्यां सम्बन्धिमित्रैरनुगम्यमानः।।

लक्ष्मण :- अद्यैव पश्यन्तु च नागरास्त्वां चद्रं सनक्षत्रमिवोदयस्थम्।।

(Pratima. VII. 14)

Rāma – Today I, accompanied by relatives and friends, will go to Ayodhyā.

Lakshmana – Today citizens may see you appearing like a rising moon encircled by stars.

On linguistic and historical grounds V.R.R. Dikshitar held Bhāsa to be a predecessor of Kautilya; whereas A.D. Pusalker suggested that he was a senior contemporary of Kautilya.

The greatest poet of classical Sanskrit Kālidāsa and celebrated poet Kshemendra have referred to Ayodhyā and Sāketa without any reservation. In Raghuvamśa Kālidāsa has freely referred to Ayodhyā and Sāketa as the same city which has been the birthplace of Lord Rāma. In the 15th canto of Raghuvamśa Kālidāsa compares Ayodhyā during the performance of Yajña by Rāma to Brahmā in the following śloka:

उपशल्यनिविष्टैस्तैश्चतुर्द्वारमुखी बभौ।

अयोध्या सृष्टलोकेव सद्यः पैतामही तनु।। (15/60)

Ayodhyā, which was having guests and four gates in all the four directions, was shining like the body of four-faced Brahmā, expert in instant creation.

The confusion created by Hans Bakker and other historians that Sāketa and Ayodhyā were different cities at different times is best answered in the following lines of Raghuvamśa where Kālidāsa freely uses both names for the same city-

घसाकेतनार्योञ्जलिभिः प्रणेमु।च (14/13)

घसाकेतोपवनमुदारमध्युवास।च (13/79)

घपुरमविशदयोध्यां मैथिलीदर्शिनीनाम्।।च (11/93)

Women of Sāketa saluted him with folded hands.

He stayed in the sprawling garden of Sāketa.

He entered into Ayodhyā full of women who had come to see Sītā.

Thus, Ayodhyā was described in Sanskrit literature long before the Gupta period. The claim that Sāketa was renamed Ayodhyā by Skandagupta after he moved his residence to the holy city is totally baseless. There is not a single historical evidence to support this hypothesis.

The identity of Ayodhyā with Sāketa has been discussed by Alexendar Cunningham also in his book ‘The Ancient Geography of India’ in the following words:

“The identity of Sake ta and Ayodhya has, I believe, always been admitted; but I am not aware that any proof has yet been offered to establish the fact, Csoma de Koros, in speaking of the place, merely says “Saketana or Ayodhya”, and H.H. Wilson, in his Sanskrit Dictionary calls Saketa “the city Ayodhya” But the question would appear to be set at rest by several passages of ‘Ramayan’ and ‘Raghuvansa’ in which Saketnagara is generally called the capital of Raja Das´aratha and his sons. But the following verse of the Ramayana which was pointed out to me by a Brahman of Lucknow, will be sufficient to establish the identity. Aswajita, Father of Kaikeyi, offers to give his daughter to Das´aratha, Raja of Saketanagara:

Sãketam nagaram rãjã namnã das’aratho balì.

Tasmai deyã mayã kanyã Kaikeyì nãmato janãh (p. 341)

Since, I believe in maintaining impartiality and objectivity in writing history I have no hesitation in declaring that this verse is not found anywhere in the prevalent Vālmīki Rāmāyana. Here Cunningham was apparently beguiled by a Brahmin of Lucknow as Buchanan had been misled by his Maulavi friend in the context of the alleged presence of inscriptions inside the disputed structure.

(3) Description of Ayodhyā

Vālmīki Rāmāyana is the first ‘laukika’ text which gives a detailed description of Ayodhyā. It also indicates the location of the Janma-bhūmi at Ayodhyā. Lord Vishnu, who is called the Supreme God, contempalated his own Janma-bhūmi, i.e. the birthplace while agreeing to take incarnation as a human being. It is mentioned in the following śloka of the Bālakānda.

एवं दत्वा वरं देवो देवानां विष्णुरात्मवान्।

मानुष्ये चिन्तयामास जन्मभूमिमथात्मनः।। (15.30)

Thus, having granted boon to gods Vishnu contemplated about his place of birth in the human form.

In the fifth canto of the Bālakānda Ayodhyā has been lucidly described from the 4th to 22nd śloka. Here the following few ślokas are quoted.

कोसलो नाम मुदितः स्फीतो जनपदो महान्।

निविष्टः सरयूतीरे प्रभूतधनधान्यवान्।।4।।

अयोध्या नाम नगरी तत्रासील्लोकविश्रुता।

मनुना मानवेद्रेण या पुरी निर्मिता स्वयम्।।5।।

आयता दश च द्वे च योजनानि महापुरी।

श्रीमती त्रीणि विस्तीर्णा सुविभक्तमहापथा।।6।।

It has been lucidly translated by R.T. Griffith in English verses with rhyms. The translation is produced below:

On Sarjú’s bank, of ample size,

The happy realm of Ko¶al lies,

With fertile length of fair champaign

And flocks and herds and wealth of grain.

There, famous in her old renown,

Ayodhyā stands, the royal town,

In bygone ages built and planned

By sainted Manu’s princely hand.

Imperial seat! her walls extend

Twelve measured leagues from end to end,

And three in width from side to side,

With square and palace beautified.

Her gates at even distance stand;

Her ample roads are wisely planned. (canto 5)

The description of Ayodhyā in this canto impressed Samuel Clegg (1781-1861) so much that he concluded one of his lectures on architecture by citing this description from the Rāmāyana. Samuel was a British civil engineer who became a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1829 and took a prominent part in the discussions at its meetings. His lecture II was published in 1850 in London in “Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazetter”. Vol. 13 and carries the following eulogy on the city of Ayodhyā:

“I shall conclude this lecture with the description of an ancient Indian city, as given in the ‘Ramayana’: – “On the banks of the Sarayù is a vast, fertile, and delightful country, called Cosala, abounding in corn and wealth. In that country is a city, called Ayodhya, greatly famed in this world, and built by Manu himself, the ‘lord of men’. This great and prosperous city was twelve yojanas (nine miles) in length, and three yojanas in breadth, and stored with all conveniences. The streets and lanes were admirably disposed, and the high roads were well sprinkled with water. It was adorned with arched gateways, and beautiful ranges of shops; it was fortified with numerous defences and warlike machines, and inhabited by all sorts of skilful artists. It was beautiful with gardens and groves of mango trees, and enclosed with high walls. It was surrounded by impassable ditches, and secured by fortifications difficult of assault by foreign kings. It was ornamented with palaces of exquisite workmanship, lofty as mountains, and enriched with jewels; abounding with beautiful houses consisting of several stories; and it shone like Indra’s Heaven. Its aspect had an enchanting effect; and the whole city was diversified with various colours, and decorated with regular avenues of sweet-scented trees. It was filled with buildings erected close to one another, and without intermediate voids; and situated on a smooth, leveled ground. This city truly surpassed any that was ever beheld on earth.”

(4) Mention in the Mahābhārata

In the Mahābhārata, Ayodhyā is mentioned as the capital of the Ikshvāku kings at many places. However, in the list of places of pilgrimage the description of the Gopratāra Ghat, which was a part of Ayodhyā, is found in the following ślokas –

गोप्रतारं ततो गच्छेत् सरय्वास्तीर्थमुत्तमम्।

यत्र रामो गतः स्वर्गं सभृत्यबलवाहनः।।

सा् च वीरो महाराज तस्य तीर्थस्य तेजसा।

रामस्य च प्रसादेन व्यवसायाच्च भारत।।

तस्स्तींर्थे नरः स्नात्वा गोप्रतारे नराधिप।

सर्वपापविशुद्धात्मा स्वर्गलोके महीयते।।

(Vanaparva, 84/70-72)These ślokas find place in the critical edition of the Mahā-bhārata also. The meaning is as follows:

Thereafter one should go to Gopratāra which is the best pilgrim place (tīrtha) on the Sarayū river where Rāma went to heaven with all his followers along with the splendour of that tirth. By the grace and efforts of Rāma, a man attains heaven by taking bath in Gopratāra and becomes pure from all sins.

Thus, Ayodhyā was a pilgrim centre during the days of the composition of the Mahābhārata also. It is a different matter that during that period Gopratāra was the most important pilgrim centre at Ayodhyā. The importance of pilgrim centres changes from time to time, e.g. the Sankata-mochana Mandir at Vārānasī is not mentioned in any important text until a century ago, but today it is the most popular temple after Viśvanātha temple at Vārānasī.

The Gopratāra is now called Guptar Ghat which is at Faizabad near Cantonment area. The photograph of the Rāma temple at Gopratāra Ghat taken sometime during the last quarter of the 19th century and published in the book ‘Padri Elliot of Faizabad: A Memorial’ in 1906.

Fig. 1.1: Photograph of Gopratāra Ghat temple.

Here it will not be out of place to mention that even Śringaverapura of Rāma’s friend Nishāda Guha’s capital is mentioned as a tirtha. It says that here Rāma, the son of Daśaratha, had crossed Gangā and one is purified from all sins by taking a dip in the Gangā here:

ततो गच्छेत राजेद्र शृङगवेरपुं महत्।

यत्र तीर्णो महाराज रामो दाशरथिः पुरा।।65।।

तस्स्तींर्थे महाबाहो स्नात्वा पापै प्रमुच्यते।

गङगायां तु नरः स्नात्वा ब्रह्मचारी समाहितः।।66।।

विधूतपाप्मा भवति वाजपेयं च विन्दति।

(Mahãbhãrata; Vana Parvan: 85)

O king! Then one should go to Śringaverapura where Rāma, the son of Daśaratha had crossed the river Gangā long back. By taking bath in this tirtha one gets liberated from all sins. If a man, by maintaining celibacy, takes bath in the Ganga, he becomes free from all sins and gets benefit of the Vājapeya sacrifice.

Being a student of history I knew the fact for long that during the excavation of the Rāmāyana sites Sringaverapura emerged as the most ancient site. Therefore, I went to visit this sacred place and found the following information furnshed by the Archaeological Survey of India at the site:

Ancient Site Sringaverapura

“The ancient site near village Singraur has been identified with ancient ‘Sringaverapura’ which finds its mention in Ramayana. Sringaverapura is situated 35 kms upstream from Allahabad, on the banks of the river Ganga.The ashram of Sringi Rishi is also believed to have existed here. It gained significance, as it was here that the local chieftain Nishad Raja helped Rama to cross river Ganga during his exile. The site was excavated on a large scale between 1977 and 1985 under the project “Archaeology of Ramayana sites’ by ASI. The excavation has revealed the remains of a large rectangular brick tank which is a unique example of Indian Hydraulic Engineering 2000 years ago. The engineers harnessed the water of the Ganga bringing into the tank through a feeding channel specially dug for the purpose. Thereafter, the water passed through a silting chamber and a preliminary tank which was made for silt to be settled down. This purified water overflowed and entered into the main tank where it was retained.

There is a circular tank also on the other end of the complex, which was perhaps used for ritualistic purpose. Finally, the excess water was drained through spill-channel back to river Ganga towards east.

The excavation in the habitational area at this site has given the evidence of occurrence of Ochre Colored Ware in the easternmost part of the country. The cultural sequence is also continued since the earliest habitation in the 11th century BC to the recent time. In the 2nd century BC-1st century AD, the site reached its zenith as indicated by the extensive remains of that period and a long hydraulic brick tank.”

Fig. 1.2: The ancient site of Sringaverapura.

When Śringaverapura, where Rāma crossed the Gangā, was considered as a tīrtha, the suggetion that Ayodhyā, where he was born was not a tīrtha, is difficult to digest.

In 1989 a team of 25 historians led by Sarvepalli Gopal published a “The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid Ramajanmabhumi Dispute. An analysis by twenty -five historians” wherein they stated:

“(vi) In a way, the local tradition of Ayodhya recognizes the ambiguous history of its origin. The story is that Ayodhya was lost after the Treta Yuga and was rediscovered by Vikramaditya. While searching for the lost Ayodhya, Vikramaditya met Prayaga, the king of tirthas, who knew about Ayodhya and showed him where it was. Vikramaditya marked the place but could not find it later. Then he met a yogi who told him that he should let a cow and a calf roam. When the calf came across the janmabhùmi, milk would flow from its udder. The king followed the yogi’s advice. When at a certain point the calf’s udders began to flow, the king decided that this was the site of the ancient Ayodhya.”
There is not a single inscription or literary source which confirms that any of the Vikramādityas ever made any search and discovered Ayodhyā which had been abandoned for long and covered with forests. There is no mention in any text or inscription that any Vikramāditya after search succeeded in establishing the marks of the old site and constructed 360 temples at Ayodhyā. In fact, Ayodhyā was quite a flourishing town continuously for five-six centuries before Vikramāditya and therefore any such tradition first heard by foreign writers and later reiterated by Indian historians has no foundation at all. However, the most surprising and shocking part is that modern historians of all shades have quoted and confirmed this without any scrutiny. Thus, History has been overtaken by myths and fiction.

For readers’ information it is stated that there are a large number of references to Ayodhyā as the capital city of Ikshvāku dynasty in the Purānas and literary works. But they are ignored here, lest the book should be bulky.

(5) Geneology of Ikshvâku rulers

Despite these modern statements the fact of the matter is that Ayodhyā has never been an abandoned city. Ayodhyā was established by Manu, the progenitor of mankind. Ikshvāku was his eldest son and the Ikshvāku dynasty ruled from Ayodhyā for long. According to Pargiter’s calculation Rāma was 63rd king in the line of Ikshvāku. In the same dynasty Lord Buddha, too, was born. Guru Gobind Singh also claimed in his biography ‘Bachitra Nātaka’ that he, born in the Sodhi clan, was the descendant of Lava and Guru Nanak Deva, born in the Bedi clan, was the descendant of Kuśa. In the Jain tradition, too, Ayodhyā has been the birthplace of five Tīrthankaras. Thus, Ayodhyā is an eternal, sacrosanct centre for all the sects which emanated in India.
The general misconception that after the departure of Lord Rāma to the Vaikuntha and establishment of the capitals of at Kuśāvatī (near the Vindhya mountain) by Kuśa and at Śaravatī Śrāvastī) by Lava Ayodhyā became desolate and it remained so until its discovery by Vikramāditya is far from truth. The fact is that when Kuśa was ruling from newly established capital Kusāvatī; the Nagaradevī of Ayodhyā one night went to see Kuśa and narrated her woes and requested him to restore the capital at Ayodhyā. Next morning, Kuśa left for Ayodhyā (अयोध्याभिमुखः प्रतस्थे) and rebuilt Ayodhyā with his guild of artists in such a way that it looked as grand as it was in Rama’s time. Kālidāsa has described it eloquently in Raghuvamśa in the 16th canto in these words:

तां शिल्पिसंघाः प्रभुणा नियुक्तास्तथागतां संभृतसाधनत्वात्।

पुं नवीचक्रुरपां विसर्गान्मेघा निदाघग्लपितामिवोर्वीम्।।38।।

By the order of the king Kuśa guilds of artisans, with their advanced instruments, renovated Ayodhyā, as if clouds, by the order of Indra, made the hot earth green by rain-fall.

वसन्स तस्यां वसतौ रघूणां पुराणशोभामधिरोपितायाम्।

न मैथिलेयः स्पृहयांबभूव भर्त्रे दिवो नाप्यलकेश्वराय।।42।Ð

Ayodhyā looked as beautiful as it was earlier. There the son of Maithilī, i.e. Kuśa attained such happiness that he had no desire left for becoming the master of the paradise and the Alakapuri.

Descendants of Kuśa ruled from Ayodhyā; whereas those of Lava from Śrāvastī. King Brihadbala, who was killed by Abhimanyu in the Mahābhārata war, was in the line of Lava. Here the genealogy of Ikshvāku clan from the line of Kuśa as given by Kālidāsa in Raghuvamśa is produced:

कुश > अतिथि > निषध > नल > नभ > पुण्डरीक > क्षेमधन्वा > देवानीक > अहीनगु > पारियात्र > शिल > उन्नाभ > वज्रनाभ > शंखण > व्युषिताश्व > विश्वसह > हिरण्यनाभ > कौसल्य > ब्रह्मिष्ठ > पुत्र > पुष्य > ध्रुवसन्धि > सुदर्शन > अग्निवर्ण

The following is the line of descendents of both Kuśa and Lava from Purānas and other sources:

Rāma

This geneology is based on the Purānas. The names of the descendants of Brihadbala from Brihatkshaya to Rāhula are given in the following geneology based on several texts which have been scrutinised by many authors of Indian history:

बृहद्बल Brihadbala > बृहक्षय Brihatkshaya > उरुक्षय Urukshaya > वत्सव्यूह Vatsavyūha > प्रतिव्योम Prativyoma > दिवाकर Divākara > सहदेव Sahadeva > बृहदश्व Brihadasva > भानुरथ Bhānuratha > प्रतीताश्व Pratitashva > सुप्रतीक Supratīka > मरुदेव Marudeva > सुनक्षत्र Sunakshatra > किन्नराश्व Kinnarāśva > अन्तरिक्ष Antariksha > सुषेण Sushena > अमित्रजित् Amitrajit > बृहद्राज Brihadrāja > धर्मी Dharmī > कृतञ्जय Kritañjaya > रणञ्जय Ranañjaya > सञ्जय Sañjaya > शाक्य Śākya > शुद्धोदन Śuddhodana > सिद्धार्थ Siddhārtha > राहुल Rāhula

It is accepted that there may be variations in the names of kings in the geneology and it is also accepted that one cannot be sure that all these kings might have really ruled in the sequence. But the geneology is indicative of the fact that Ayodhyā was never supposed to be a desolate city because it always had kings and thus had the status of a capital city.

It will be interesting to learn that in an inscription dated 1676 A.D. the geneology of Lord Rāma is given from Brahmā onwards. It is inscribed on Raja-sāgara lake in Kankroli village near Rajanagar in Rajasthan.

(6) Canonical literature

The history of India before the 6th century B.C. is shrouded in darkness. Therefore no major events are known. However, some recorded developments at Ayodhyā from the time of the Buddha are presented below:

Ayodhyā is said to have been hallowed by the dust of the holy feet of Lord Buddha. Kālaka, a Śreshthin of Sāketa, gifted a garden to Buddha when he converted to Buddhism on the arrival of the Master of the Law. While staying on the bank of the Sarayū river, he is said to have given the sermon on the transitoriness of the human body to the bhikkhus. His sermon is preserved in Samyutta-nikāya.

On the eve of the Mahāparinirvāna of Lord Buddha, Ānanda requested him in these words:

“Let it not be, Lord, that the Blessed One should pass away in this mean place, this uncivilized township in the midst of the jungle, a mere outpost of the province. There are great cities, Lord, such as Campa, Rajagaha, Savatthi, Saketa, Kosambi, and Benares. Let the Blessed One have his final passing away in one of those. For in those cities dwell many wealthy nobles and brahmans and householders who are devotees of the Tathagata, and they will render due honor to the remains of the Tathagata.” (Dìgha Nikaya. 16, Maha-parinibbana Sutta, translated from the Pãli by Sister Vajira & Francis Story, passage 41)

Thus, from this conversation, it is evident that Sāketa was an important, flourishing town during the days of Buddha.

There is a Sāketa Jātaka (No. 68) which mentions the arrival of Buddha at Añjana-vana adjacent to Sāketa where an old Brahman from Sāketa met him. He asked Buddha whether sons should serve their parents in their old age. Buddha gave him a sermon on this question. From this conversation it is indicated that he had disciples among nobles and Brahmins living at Sāketa.

K.N. Panikkar refers to the attack of Andhavenu-puttas on Ayodhyā from the Ghata Jātaka and admits that Ayodhyā was not altogether insignificant. However, he suggests that since the attackers went to Dvārakā from Ayodhyā, “Ayodhyā might have been located further west from the present location.” But it is just deflecting the factual position. The following is the background of the reference to Ayodhyā in the Ghata Jātaka tradition:

In the Ghata Jātaka there is a mention of Ayodhyā. The ten brothers decided to take over the kingdom of the whole Jambūdvīpa. With this determination they reached Ayodhyā, where the palace of King Kālasena was situated. They encircled the town, damaged the forests and demolished the fort. Thereafter they arrested the king. After capturing the kingdom of Ayodhyā they reached Dvārāvatī i.e. Dvārakā. It is quoted from the 4th volume of the Jātaka translated by the erudite Buddhist scholar Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan. The serial number of this Ghata Jātaka is 454 and the page is 284. The book is published by Hindi Sahitya Sammelana, Prayag. Its Pālī version is produced below from the book ‘The Jātaka Together with its Commentary’ edited by V. Fausboll, London, 1887 (Vol. 4, P. 82)

ते द्वे मातुले मारेत्वा असितरंजन नगरे रज्जं गहेत्वा माता पित्रो तत्थ कत्वा दस पि जना घसकल जम्बूदीपे रज्जं गण्हिस्सामाचति निक्खमित्वा अनुपुब्बेन कालसेन रञ्ञो निवासं अयोज्झानगरं गन्त्वा नगरं परिक्खिपिता ठितरुक्खगहनं विद्धंसेत्वा पाकारं भिन्दित्वा राजानं गहेत्वा तं रज्जं अत्तनो हत्थगतं कत्वा द्वारवतीं संपापुणिंसु।

Since the story starts from Mathurā and goes to Ayodhyā and Dvārakā, there should be no surprise in seeing this sequence. It rather confirms that the story of Rāma and Krishna was known during this ancient period.

According to Aśvaghosha, Śākyas were descendants of Ikshvākus. Some Ikshvāku Princes had gone to jungle for staying there and since they stayed beneath ‘śāka’ trees they were called Śākyas:

अथ तेजस्विसदनं तपःक्षेत्रं तमाश्रमम्।

केचिदिक्ष्वाकवो जग्मू राजपुत्रा विवत्सवः।।18।।

शाकवृक्षप्रतिच्छन्नं वासं यस्मात् स चक्रिरे।

तस्मादिक्ष्वाकुंश्यास्ते भुवि शाक्या इति स्मृता।।24।।

(Saundara-nanda: Canto 1)

Then some descendants of the Ikshvāku dynasty, intent on stay, went to the hermitage which was the abode and place of penance of the illustrious sages.

According to the Jain canon Ayodhyā was sanctified by the visit of two Tīrthankaras-Pārśvanātha and Mahāvīra. Several citizens of Sāketa were converted to Jainism by Mahāvīra and amongst them was Rāmaputra. A number of merchants, noblemen and householders embraced Mahāvīra’s preachings in the 6th century B.C. In the Vividha-tīrtha-kalpa of Āchārya Jinaprabha Sūri Ayodhyā is called synomymous with Sāketa, Kosala, Vinītā, Ikshvāku-bhūmi, Rāmapurī, etc.

In Jain tradition, Ayodhyā has been associated with the first Tīrthankara Rishabhadeva. In fact, Ayodhyā has been the birthplace of five Tīrthankaras, viz. Ādinātha (Rishabhadeva), Ajitanātha Abhinandanātha, Sumatinātha and Anantanātha. Ayodhyā, Sāketa and Kosala have been defined lucidly in the Jain Ādi Purāna.

(7) Allusion to Ayodhyā during the period of the Nandas and the Mauryas

According to Somadeva’s ‘Kathā-sarit-sāgara’, which is based on the Paiśāchī (Prākrita) work of Gunādhya of early Sātavāhana dynasty, Ayodhyā was the army camp (Kataka) of the Nanda kings:

इति निश्चित्य नन्दस्य भूपते कटकं वयम्।

अयोध्यास्थमगच्छामत्रयः सब्रह्मचारिणः।।

(Kathā-sarit-sāgara 1.4.96)

Having decided so, we all three Brahmachārīs went to the army-camp of king Nanda situated at Ayodhyā.

Samprati, the grandson of Aśoka, was a Jain and, in Jainism, he occupies similar status as his grandfather does in Buddhism for the propagation of religion. According to the ‘Brihat-kalpa-bhāshya’ Samprati sent several Sadhus to Sāket and other places for the propagation of Jainism. Although in Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra there is no mention of Ayodhyā or Sāketa, yet the author is well-acquainted with Ramāyana story and advises kings not to kidnap others’ wives, lest they should be doomed like Rāvana. (घमानाद् रावणः परदारानप्रयच्छन्च विनयाधिकारिक, प्रथमाधिकरण)

Bhāsa is a great dramatist who floruished during the Mauryan period. He has written two dramas ‘Pratimā’ and ‘Abhisheka’ in which he has profusely used the word Ayodhyā.

(8) Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya

The great grammarian Patañjali mentions Sāketa in his Mahābhāshya at many places. While explaining Panini’s sūtra अनद्यतने लङ्।। ।। 3 Ð 2 ।।।। (Anadyatane Lan), he points out that Lan is the past tense in which an incident takes place in the past during his life time but not seen by him and not on the day of narration. He cites examples:

अरुणद् यवनः साकेतम÷ i.e. Yavanas besieged Sāketa.

अरुणद् यवनो माध्यमिकाम् i.e. Yavanas besieged Mādhyamika country.

The very fact that Sāketa had been besieged by the Yavanas indicates that it was a fortified city. According to Kaśikā commentary on Panini’s Ashtādhyāyī the ‘parikhā’ of Ayodhyā was like that of Pātaliputra. Many historians have opined that fortifications undoubtedly gave the city a metropolitan status. Thus, Ayodhyā had already become a fortified city during the early days of Patañjali.

At Ayodhyā Pushyamitra Sunga, who called himself just a senānī (soldier) throughout his life, even after becoming king, performed two horse sacrifices (Asvamedha Yajña) in the tradition of the great Ikshvāku kings. Patañjali himself was the priest. It is mentioned in the Mahābhāshya, while explaining the sutra वर्तमाने लट् (Vartmāne Lat 3.2.123). Patañjali writes: घइह पुष्यमित्रं याजयाम इति,च i.e. here I perform sacrifice for Pushyamitra.

Again while explaining Pānini’s Sūtra हेतुमति च (3.I.26) he writes –

‘पुष्यमित्रो यजते, याजका याजन्तीति’ तत्र भवितव्यम्।

‘पुष्यमित्रे याजते, याजका याजयन्तीति’ यज्यादिषु चाविर्पयासो वक्तव्यः।

Pushyamitra sacrifices, … Pushyamitra gets sacrifice performed.

Pushyamitra’s reign was from 187 to 151 B.C. and during this period Ayodhyā was the cultural capital of Magadh, i.e. North India, although Pātaliputra continued to be the political capital of Magadh empire.

Patañjali’s following comments on Pānini’s sutras III. 3. 136 indicate a frequented trade route between Sāketa and Pātaliputra:

इह मा भूत् योऽयमध्वा गत आ पाटलिपुत्रात्तस्य यदवरं साकेतादिति।।

इह मा भूत् योऽयमध्वापरिमाणो गन्तव्यस्तस्य यदवरं साकेतादिति।।

इह मा भूत् योऽयमध्वाऽऽपाटलिपुत्राद् गन्तव्यस्तस्य यत् परं साकेतादिति।।

(III. 3. 136)

From Mālavikāgnimitram drama of Kālidāsa it appears that the horse let loose in the Pushyamitra’s Rājasūya-yajña under the leadership of his grandson Vasumitra was captured by Yavanas and thereafter ensued a fierce battle between the army of Vasumitra and the Yavanas in which Vasumitra was victorious. Then one Aśvamedha Yajña was performed in the fashion of the yajña performed by King Sagara after his horse was released by Anśumān.

(9) Yuga-purāna of Gārgī Samahitā

The Yuga-purāna is a part of Gārgī Samhitā or Gārgīya Jyotisha composed around 25 B.C. From the following śloka of the Yuga-purāna it appears that Śāliśuka had an elder pious brother by name Vijaya who was installed at Sāketa. Here the reading ‘साधुं साकेते’ has been preferred to other readings because it carries some definite meaning and it has been endorsed by Hans Bakker.

सा् ज्येष्ठं भातरं साधुं साकेते प्रथितं गुणै।

स्थापयिष्यति मोहात्मा विजयं नाम धार्मिकम्।।46।।

Then that beguiling man will place his elder brother Vijaya, reputed for his virtues and gentleness on the throne of Sāketa.

Thereafter there is a reference to a Greek invasion:

ततः साकेतमाक्रम्य पाञ्चालान् माथुरांस्तथा।

यवना युद्धविक्रान्ताः प्राप्स्यन्ति कुसुमध्वजम्।।47।।

ततः पुष्पपुरे प्राप्ते कर्दमे प्रथिते हि ते।

आकुला विषयाः सर्वे भविष्यन्ति न संशयः।।48।।

(YugaPurāna, 47-48)

Then the valiant Yavanas, after having attacked Sāketa, Pāñchāla and Mathurā will reach Kusumadhvaja Pātaliputra).

After Pātaliputra having been taken over, all provinces will undoubtedly be in disorder.

But this Greek victory was transitory because they had to beat a hasty retreat following an internecine war.

Yuga-purāna then gives futher information in the following verses:

ततो युद्धवशात् तेषां यवनानां परिक्षये।

स्केते सप्त राजानो भविष्यन्ति महाबलाः।।58।।

लोहिताद्रैस्तथा योधैर्योधा युद्धपरीक्षिताः।

करिष्यन्ति पृथिवीं शून्यां रक्तघोरां सुदारुणाम्।।59।।

ततस्ते मागधाः कृत्स्ना गंगासीना सुदारुणाः।

रक्तपातं तथा युं भविष्यति तु पश्चिमम्।।60।।

Then after the decimation at the decay of those Yavanas in battles there will be seven mighty kings at Sāketa. (58) Their soldiers, in like manner, wounded in battle by blood soaked warriors, will make the earth desolate, hideous with blood, and violent. (59) Then all those Magadh-people dwelling by the Ganga (will become) violent: and so there will finally be bloodshed and war. (60)

The war like activities of these seven kings of Ayodhyā are confirmed by the Vāyu Purana and Brahmānda purāna- घकोसलाया तु राजानो भविष्यन्ति महाबलाःच

This invasion took place either during the reign of Sunga, as this śloka comes after the description of him or during the days of Brihadratha who was ultimately overthrown by Pushyamitra Sunga following his igonminious defeat and complete surrender of Pātaliputra to the Greeks whom the first Maurya Emperor Chandragupta had so easily vanquished 230 years ago and Aśoka the great had so assiduously kept at bay.

(10) Post-Sunga Period

That Pushyamitra Sunga performed two Aśvamedha Yajñas at Ayodhyā is testified to by the following stone inscription of Dhanadeva.

1 कोसलाधिपेन द्विरश्वमेधयाजिनः सेनापते पुष्यमित्रस्य षष्ठेन कौशिकीपुत्रेण धन (देवेन)

2 धर्मराज्ञा पितु फल्गुदेवस्य केतनं कारितं।

This house was established for his father Phalgudeva by Dharma-rāja (the monarch of religion) Dhana (deva), the son of Kauśikí and the sixth in the descent of Senāpati Pushyamitra, who performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice twice.

This inscription was recovered from Ranopali mutt at Ayodhyā by Jagannath Das Ratnakar who published it in Nāgarī Prachārinī Patrikā. At present it is fixed at the foot of the entrance of the Samādhi of Baba Sangat Baksha.

Fig. 1.3: Dhanadeva’s Ayodhyā inscription.

Though the content of the inscription is not a grammatically correct sentence, yet it conveys the meaning that in the 6th lineage of Senāpati Pushyamitra, who performed two horse-sacrifices, this Ketan (building) was built by Dhanadeva, who was the son of Kauśikī and Phalgudeva, and the King of Kosala.

This dynasty of Phalgudeva comprises the following six kings in the chronological order:

Pushyamitra

1. Mūladeva (vassal of Pushyamitra at Sāketa)

2. Mitradeva (contemporary of Vasumitra Sunga)

3. Vāyu-deva

4Phalgudeva

5. Dhanadeva (c.50 B.C.)

6. Viśākhadeva

The Deva dynasty was replaced by the Datta dynasty at the close of 1st century B.C. Not much is known about the Kings of this dynasty except names of some kings known from numismatic evidences. Names of Śivadatta, Naradatta and Jyeshthadatta are known from coins which they cast at Ayodhyā which seems to have had a mint right from the days of the Sungas and Guptas upto the reign of Sher Shah and Akbar. During this period Sāketa developed into a military stronghold.

The Mitra dynasty, called ‘rulers of Ayodhyā’, is known only from its coinage and possibly from some seals. These coins have been dated by Allan who places them in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. Mitra rulers were in Mathurā, Ahichchhatra (Pañchāla) and Kauśāmbī. The names found on coins are those of Sanghamitra, Vijayamitra, Satyamitra, Devamitra and Āryamitra, Kumudasena and Ajaya Varman. They might have been vassals of Kushan rulers but the assumption of the royal title Raja by Kumudasena indicates the complete independence of Ayodhyā from the Kushana rule in the middle of the secondary century. The discovery of a large number of coins proves that Ayodhyā was a living and prosperous city. The continuous autonomy of Ayodhyā rulers belonging to the Deva, Datta and Mitra dynasties testifies to the fact that Ayodhyā was never an abandoned city.

Before concluding the events in the post-Sunga period one has to pause to ponder over a reference to a historical fact mentioned in the Harsha-charitam of Bānabhatta where he furnishes the following information:

व्याजजनितकन्दर्पदर्पा च दर्पणेन क्षुरधारापर्यन्तेनायोध्याधिपतिं परन्तपं रत्नवती जारूथ्यम्।
i.e. Ratnavatī, pretending a frenzy of love, slew the mighty Jārūthya of Ayodhyā with a mirror having a razor edge.

No historical king, Jāruthya by name, is known to us, though a king Jārūthya is said to have been killed by Krishna in the Mahābhārata in the Sabhā-parvan.

जारूथ्य आहृतक्रोधः शिशुपालश्च निर्जितः।

वक्रश्च स हतः संख्ये शतधन्वा च क्षत्रियः।।

(Mahābhārata. Sabhā. 61.5)

While citing the killings of kings by playing fraud Skandagupta, the Senāpati of Harsha, informs him that Jārūthya was killed by Ratnavatī with a mirror after betraying him. Who could be this king? After churning the ocean of historical texts it appears that he was probably the son of Jyeshthadatta of the Datta dynasty and his full name was Jārūthyadatta. As Bāna was fond of shortening or omitting names of kings, he wrote just Jārūthya. Bāna wrote the Harshacharitam in the first half of the seventh century and has referred to fraudulent assassination of many kings belonging to the Maurya, Sunga, Kanva and other dynasties. This inference is, therefore, not far from truth.

(11) Suriratna, a Princess of Ayodhyā, became the Queen of the first Korean King

According to a long-standing tradition prevalent in Korea a Princess of Ayodhyā, Suriratna by name, was married to a Korean King Kim Suro, the monarch of Kingdom Gaya (also known as Garak) located in the Korean country. As per the tradition, in July, 48 A.D. the Princess from the ancient sacred city of Ayodhyā embarked on her journey in a boat which anchored at a small harbour on the Korean peninsula. Her royal sojourn was in consequence to her father’s dream that she would get her husband in a small harbour in Korea. Upon her arrival, she was married to King Kim Suro who was the first King of the Korean Kingdom. After marriage, Suriratna’s name was changed to Heo Hwang Ko.

King Suro is a historical figure who played a significant role in Korean history. The oldest reference to the history of King Kim Suro and Sūriratna is the ‘Garakuki’ in ‘Sangungnyusa’ or “The Heritage of the Three Kingdoms.” ‘Gurakuki’ was written in the 13th century by an author during the reign of the Goreo Dynasty (918-1392). This story was summarized subsequently by a monk and rewritten in Sangungnyusa.

Queen Sūriratna (Heo) is said to have given birth to 10 children who became founders of many dynasties. The powerful dynasty of the Gimhae Kim clan was started by her offspring and today six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae, and Lee from Incheon, trace their ancestry to this royal couple.

Fig.: 1.4 Tomb of Suriratna in South Korea

This beautiful pagoda stands in front of Queen Heo’s tomb. It is said to have been built with stones, which were brought from Ayodhyā, at her command. Ayodhyā was visited in February, 2000 by the Mayor of Gimhae City Song Eum Bok along with a delegation and he proposed that a memorial to Princess Suriratna should be erected at Ayodhyā. Accordingly a memorial was established in 2001. A book “Sri Ratna Kim Suro’ (The Legend of Ayodhyā Princess in Korea) written by N. Parthasarathy was published by National Book Trust, New Delhi in 2013.

Thus, a Princess from Ayodhyā established the first dynasty in distant Korea in the first century, and, it was a great achievement for a person from the sacred land of Ayodhyā.

(12) Aśvaghosha, a native of Ayodhyā

During the Kushāna period Ayodhyā’s greatness as a cultural seat can be understood from the fact that the great poet Aśvaghosha was a native of Sāketa. In the colophon of his literary works “Buddhacharitam, Saundaranandam and Sāriputra-prakaranam it is invariably mentioned:

‘‘आर्यसुवर्णाक्षीपुत्रस्य साकेतकस्य भिक्षोराचार्यभदन्ताश्वघोषस्य महाकवेर्महावादिनः कृतिरियम्च

It is the work of Asvaghosha, who is the son of Suvarnākshī a native of Sāketa, Bhikshu, Āchārya, Bhadanta, a great poet and Mahāvādin.

E.H. Johnston, the editor of Aśvaghosha’s Buddhacharitam has pointed out that ‘the lasting impression which the historical associations of Sāketa’ made on him is apparent both in the influence of the Rāmāyana reflected by his works and also in the emphasis which he lays on the very start of both poems on the descent of the Śākyas from the Ikshvāku dynasty. The translation of the first śloka of the Buddhacharitam by Johnston is –

“There was a king of the unconquerable Shakyas, Suddhodana, by name, of the race of Ikshvãku and the peer of Ikshvãku in might. Pure he was in conduct and beloved of his people as the moon in autumn (or Harishchandra, according to another recension)”.

Aśvaghosha had migrated from Sāketa to Pātaliputra as it is evident from the fact that he along with a wooden alms-pot of Buddha and a miracle cock were handed over to Kanishka by the defeated king of Pātaliputra against a ransom of 9 lakh gold coins demanded by the Kushāna King. It is mentioned in the ‘Dharmapitaka Sampradāya Nidāna Sūtra’.

According to some Tibetan texts such as “Annals of the Li Country” Kanik Kanishka) in league with Vijayakīrti, son of Vijay Singh, King of Khotan had invaded India and conquered Soked (Sāketa). Thus, Sāketa was a very important town and mentioned in even Tibetan texts.

On the conquest of Ayodhyā by the Kushāna Kings, Hans Bakker states:

“After the conquest of the capital the Kushanas held sway over Kosala (including the country of Kashi) up to the second half of the 2nd century A.D. At this time Saketa was a prosperous town with high level of cultural life. Commerce flourished as never before, as appears for instance from sherds (i.e. historic or prehistoric fragment of pottery) of Rouletted Ware found at excavation of B.B. Lal. This phenomenon may well be regarded as signifying large-scale trade and commerce at Ayodhya in early centuries of the Christian era. From this period also dates the first archaeological evidence that testifies to the actual name of the town ‘Saketa’; an inscription in Late Kushana characters on the pedestal of a Buddha image found in stupa 9 in Sravasti ‘records its gift by one Simhadeva of Saketa.” (p.25)

It indicates the state of affluence of the inhabitants of SāketaAyodhyā.

Vāsudeva (145-176 A.D.) was the last mighty Kushāna emperor. After his demise the Mitra rulers of Ayodhyā asserted themselves, and established a dynasty which came into conflict with the rising Guptas in the beginning of the 4th Century A.D.

(13) Belgaun Memorial Pillar Inscription of 105 A.D.

This inscription was discovered by R.S. Panchamukhi, the then Director of the Kannada Research Institute, Dharwar in 1941-42 from a place called Vadagaon – Madhvavpur near Belgaun. It was studied at length by S. Sankaranarayan and his article was published in the Epigraphia Indica, XXXIV, pp. 183-188. The object of the epigraph is to commemorate the death of a scholar Somayaśas of Sāketa who had migrated to this place and settled there.

The epigraph begins with an auspicious Svastika followed by the word ‘Sothi’ i.e. Svasti.

The following is the content of the inscription in the contemporary Prākrita with Sanskrit reading.

सोथि। सोमयससखम्भः मोलभन्धुवगेन काठञस सोमयसस कम्भो निथापितो गाढं असितिवाजपेयकाम्यकतुयायिस्य अनेकयञहोमधूमगाहितदिसाभागस अञखवेजस साकेतकस बलपार्यसखस कास्सपसगोत्रस स्वर्गतस दिव 10000 80 2

स्वस्ति। सोमयशसः स्कम्भः [।] मौलबन्धुवर्गेण काठज्ञस्य सोमयशसः स्भों निष्ठापितो गाढं अशीतिवाजपेयकाम्यक्रतुयाजिनः अनेकयज्ञहोमधूमग्राहितदिसाभागस्य अनक्षवेद्यस्य साकेतकस्य बलपार्यसखस्य काश्यपसगोत्रस्य स्वर्गतस्य [।] दिवसे 10000 80 2 [।।],

The pillar of Somayaśas was set up firmly by a group of his relatives who are called maulas, i.e. indigenous inhabitants. Somayaśas was a scholar of the Katha-śākhā (a branch of the Krishna Yajurveda). He had performed 80 Vājapeya and wish-fulfilling sacrifices. The smokes arising from his sacrificial fires (homa-dhūma) enveloped all the directions. He knew things which are beyond visual perceptions. He was a resident of Sāketa. He was a friend of a gentleman named Balapa. He belonged to the Kāśyapa-gotra. He had gone to the heavens i.e. died.

Then the date is indicated as 1000 + 80 + 2 = 10,082th day of an unspecified era which is rightly considered to be the Saka era. It comes to 105 A.D.

From this inscription it is clear that even in the first and second centuries Ayodhyā was a centre of great learning. A scholar from Ayodhyā had conducted the performance of 80 Vedic scarifies and his fame was so wide that he was not only invited to settle down in the distant south of modern Karnataka state but a memorial was also firmly set up there to commerate the death of the great scholar.

(14) Greek Geographer Ptolemy’s Account

The Greek geographer Ptolemy (c. A.D. 90- c. 168 A.D.), who wrote in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., mentions Sāketa (Sagāda) as a metropolitan town. Hans Bakker is of the opinion that Ptolemy’s knowledge of Indian topography was based on Alexander’s campaign, Megasthenes’ account ‘The Indica’ and direct acquaintance of Greek Kings with India.

J.W. Mc Crindle, who was Principal of the Government College, Patna, Fellow of the University of Calcutta and Member of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh, gives the following account of Ayodhyā in his book ‘Ancient India as Described by Ptolemy’ in 1885:

Sagoda: There can be no doubt of the identity of this place with Ayodhya, the capital of Kosala, under the name of Saktëa or Saëgda. Sakyamuni spent the last days of his life in this city, and during his sojourn the ancient name of Ayodhya gave place to that of Sakëta, the only one current, Hindu lexicographers give Sakëta and Kosala (or Kosala) as synonyms of Ayodhya. The place is now called Audh, and is on the right bank of the Sarayû or Ghaghra, near Faizabad, a modern town, built from its ruins. At some distance north from Audh is the site of Srãvastï, one of the most celebrated cities in the annals of Buddhism. For the identity of Sakëta with Ayodhya and also Visakha see Cunningham, Geog. of Anc. Ind., pp. 401 sqq.” (pp. 228-229)

Thus, Ayodhyā was not only a flourishing town but a very important commercial centre and army base too.

(15) Ayodhyā during the Gupta period

The Gupta period is golden age not only in the general history of India but in the regional history of Ayodhyā also. A large number of gold coins discovered from Ayodhyā is a testimony to the golden period of Ayodhyā.

The rise of the Gupta power begins with the territories of Prayāga, Sāketa and Magadha. The following śloka found in many Purānas with some variation is a testimony to the fact:

अनुगङगं प्रयागं च साकेतं मगधांस्तथा।

एतान् जनपदान् सर्वान् भोक्ष्यन्ते गुप्तवंशजाः।।

Vāyu Purāna, Uttarārdha, 37.377)

The descendants of the Gupta will enjoy the territories of Prayāga on the Gangā, Sāketa and Magadha.

From the Gayā inscription of Samudragupta, considered spurious by many, it appears that there was a great ‘Jaya-skandhāvāra’ (i.e. army camp for victory) of the Guptas at Ayodhyā. This inscription belongs to the 8th century and is an intimation of some genuine inscription which shows that there was an army contigent at Ayodhyā during the reign of Samudragupta.

In an article ‘A classified and detailed catalogue of the gold coins of the imperial Gupta dynasty of Northern India’ published in the ‘Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal’ (Vol. 53, year 1884, pp. 153-54) V.A. Smith wrote that ‘A. Grant had discovered a large number of gold coins from Ayodhyā out of which ten gold coins were issued by Samudragupta, four by Chandragupta II, three by Kumāragupta and one by Skandagupta. In addition, a large number of copper coins of the Gupta emperors discovered at Ayodhyā forced Smith and other historians to presume that the Guptas had a mint at Ayodhyā’.

The Karmadandā inscription of Prithvīsena, a Minister of Kumāragupta, was discovered at the base of a Śivalinga in this village at a distance of 25 km from Ayodhyā. It is very important because it shows that Ayodhyā was vibrant with Vedic scholars who were taken outside Ayodhyā for various rituals. The reference is as follows:

आयोध्यक-नानागोत्र-चरण-तपःस्वाध्याय-मत्र-सूत्र-भाष्य-प्रवचन-पारग- भारडिदसमद-देवद्रोण्यां

It shows that Ayodhyā had a large number of scholars of different ‘gotra, charana, who were expert in Tapas, Svādhyāya, Mantra, Sūtra, Bhāshya, Pravachana, etc.’ The army of such a large number of scholars in various branches could not be raised in few years; it requires decades to raise such a team of scholars. Therefore, Ayodhyā was a centre of learning for long.

Chandragupta II Vikramāditya’s name is associated with Ayodhyā in local legends. He is said to have rehabilitated Ayodhyā which had become desolate after Rāma’s son Kuśa’s decision to transfer the capital from Ayodhyā to Kuśāvatī and is credited to have established 360 temples in the town which was once the cradle of Rāma and capital of the Kosala kingdom. Although this tradition does not appear to be very sound, Vikramāditya was indeed associated with Ayodhyā, and so was Vasubandhu who lived here and taught one of the sons of Vikramāditya.

(16) Vasubandhu and Ayodhyā

Vasubandhu’s biography had been written by two illustrious authors-Kumārajīva (344-413 A.D.) and Paramārtha (499-569 A.D.). Unfortunately, the biography written by Kumārajīva is not extant. However, the biography written by Paramārtha is available in Chinese. It has been translated into English by Japanese scholar J. Takakusu. Paramārtha was born at Ujjayinī in 499 A.D. He went to China in 546 A.D. and died at Canton in 569 A.D. His biography of Vasubandhu is considered to be a work by some of his disciples based on the narratives made by Paramārtha. According to this biography Asanga, Vasubandhu and Virañchi Vatsa were brothers and born at Purushapura. They were sons of a Brahmin mother Kauśika by name or gotra. Vasubandhu, after getting education in Kashmir, came to Ayodhyā and settled there and lived till his death at the age of 80. He was employed by a king Vikramāditya to teach his son Bālāditya. On that basis Hans Bakker and some historians have equated this Vikramāditya with Skandagupta.

Hans Bakker is fond of pronouncing judgments more on speculations than on historical facts. There is no mention of Skandagupta’s name either in Paramārth’s “Life of Vasubandhu” or Yuan Chwang’s ‘Si-yu-ki’. Neverthless Bakker describes it with an aura of authenticity:

“From Paramartha’s Life of Vasubandhu, and Heuan Tsang’s ‘Si-yu-ki’ we gather the following information about Saketa/Ayodhya in the middle of the 5th century A.D. King Skandagupta was a patron of the learned. Various religious teachers and artists resided at his court in Ayodhya. Of the teachers the most famous was Vasubandhu II, and Kãlidãsa may have been one of the artists as has been argued above.” (p. 31)

His presumption is that Skandagupta after his victory over Hunas had become a devout of Lord Rāma and shifted the capital from Pātaliputra to Ayodhyā for having better watch over the activities of the Hunas. It is just a speculation and there is not an iota of historical evidence to substantiate this. Hans Bakker’s following comments in his book Ayodhyā are also without any historical evidence:

“The vanquisher of the Hûnas, Skandagupta, liked to compare himself with Rama ([maha] balavikra[me]na r[ama] [tu]lyo), and the choice of Saketa/Ayodhya as new capital may have offered good opportunities to invigorate the ideology of his power. The restoration of the capital of yore, the renaissance of the glory of the Iksvakus, was a theme that was prominent in circles attached to the Gupta court of this time. Kãlidãsa, who lived in the middle of the 5th century A.D., may have projected the actual events in the realm of saga by relating (for the first time) in the Raghuvamśa, the story of Rãma’s son Kuśa returning to the capital of his forbears in order to restore her ancient magnificence. By the explicit identification of Ayodhyã with Sãketa the poet may have endeavoured to endorse the aspirations of his patron, the Gupta emperor. The latter probably procured the adherence of the Brahmanical fold by reinforcing the traditional lore. There is a persistent local tradition in Ayodhyã that ascribes the rediscovery of the town to a king Vikramãditya. Although not found in Sanskrit literature, it appears in almost all (modern) Hindí works dealing with Ayodhyã. This oral tradition was reported by Martin in 1838, and after him again by Cunningham and Carnegy.” (p. 30)

Had Bakker’s work been a fiction, I would have admired his power of fictional imagery. But he is writing a ‘well-researched’ book on history and therefore he should be exposed as to how he has misled readers. Paramārtha’s biography of Vasubandhu merely says that a king Vikramāditya had employed Vasubandhu to teach his son Bālāditya at Ayodhyā. The identification of Vikramāditya with Skandagupta is of least probability because there is no mention of Skandagupta’s any son in any literary or epigraphic source. There is a detailed desecription of Skandagupta’s various activities in Junagarh and Bhitari inscriptions and there is not a slight hint that he ever shifted his capital or court to Ayodhyā. Bringing Kālidāsa to Skandagupta’s court is ridiculous because shifting him from the court of Vikramāditya of Ujjain in 57 B.C. to the court of Chandragupta II Vikramāditya (375-415 A.D.) is all right but how could he live up to the court of Skandagupta is beyond comprehension.

The identification of the Vikramāditya with Skandagupta is not correct for the following factors:

Vasubandhu’s elder brother Asanga’s Bodhi-sattva-bhūmi was translated into the Chinese in the years 414-421 A.D.

Vasubandhu’s treatise on Āryadeva’s Śataśāstra was translated by Kumārajīva (344-413 A.D.) in 404 A.D. and in his another work Bodhi-chittotpādana he has claimed that he had received Vasubandhus’ Saddharma-pundarīkopades’a from Suryasoma. In addition, Bodhisuchi, while translating Vasubandhu’s Vajra-chhedikā Prajñā-pāramitā-śāstra in 535 A.D., wrote that Vasubandhu had lived 200 years ago. All these evidences prove that Vasubandhu belonged to the fourth century.

Kumārajīva is known to have written a biography of Vasubandhu in the year 409 but it is unfortunately lost. Hui-yuan (344-416) quotes a verse of Vasubandhu’s Vimśatikā.

However, some scholars have tried to explain it by speculating the existence of two Vasubandhus, one in the 4th century and another in the 5th century A.D. Although Yuan Chwang, I-tsing and Tārānātha and even Paramārtha were not aware of the existence of two Vasubandhus, yet some scholars on the basis of speculation claim that there were two Vasubandhus. They mention one Vasubandhu who had the prefix Vriddhāchārya Sthavira, The books written by Vasubandhu and translated into Chinese around 400 A.D. are attributed to the elder Vasubandhu. But what about Asanga’s books which were translated into Chinese language around 400 A.D.? Had there been two Vasubandhus, Paramārtha would have certainly clarified it. He has made it clear that Asanga was born of Brāhmana mother Kausika with a Kshatriya father and Vasubandhu was born of the same mother with a Brāhmana father. Paramārtha, who gave this minute, unwarranted detail, would have certainly mentioned the existence of a prior Vasubandhu whose so many books were translated into Chinese language.

Now the question arises as to who was the Vikramāditya who employed Vasubandhu to teach his son? It is learnt from the biography of Vasubandhu that this king Vikramāditya had spent huge money on welfare of his subjects and construction of temples. From Vasubandhu’s biography it is learnt that at Ayodhyā a philosophical debate (śāstrārtha) had taken place between Vindhyavāsin, the Sāmkhya teacher and Buddhamitra, the guru of Vasubandhu. Vindhyavāsin vanquished Buddhamitra and was rewarded three lacs of gold which he distributed amongst people. When Vasubandhu returned home, i.e. Ayodhyā, Vindhyavāsin was no more, so he wrote Paramārtha-saptatīkā for the ascendancy of his philosophy over the Samkhya. King Vikramāditya was so pleased with him that he, too, was awarded three lacs of gold coins. With this reward he established three monasteries at Ayodhyā.

There is another allusion to Vasubandhu in the ‘Kāvyālankāra sūtra-vritti ’of Vāmana. It reads as follows:

सोऽयं सम्प्रति चद्रगुप्ततनयश्चद्रप्रकाशो युवा।

जातो भूपतिराश्रयः कृतधियां दिष्ट्या कृतार्थश्रमः।।

आश्रयः कृतधियामित्यस्य च वसुबन्धुसाचिव्योपक्षेपपरत्वात् साभिप्रायत्वम्।

(3.2.2 : वृत्ति)

At present this very young son of Chandragupta, shining like the moon and destined to succeed in efforts, is the king who is the asylum of scholars.

Here the expression ‘the asylum of scholars’ indicates that Vasubandhu was the tutor of the king.”

Now in view of Vāmana’s verse it is clear that the king who appointed Vasubandhu the tutor of his son was Chandragupta and Paramārtha says that he was Vikramāditya. So the king was undoubtedly Chandragupta Vikramāditya and it matches with the known period of Vasubandhu. Chandragupta II Vikramāditya’s two sons are known. One is Govindagupta and another is Kumāragupta known as Mahendrāditya or Śakrāditya also. But the problem arises because the son named in Paramārtha’s biography is Bālāditya. Stefan Anacker, the author of the book “Seven Works of Vasubandhu” has identified Govindagupta with Bālāditya on the ground that Govindagupta was known, through Vaiśālī (Besarh) clay seals, as a mahārāja:

महाराजाधिराज- श्रीचन्द्रगुप्तपत्नी- महाराजश्री गोविन्दगुप्तमाता महादेवी श्रीध्रुवस्वामिनी श्रीयुवराजभट्टारकपादीय कुमारामात्याधिकरणस्य महाराज- गोविन्दगुप्तयुवराजभट्टारकपादीय बालाधिकरणस्य”, etc.

The great Queen Sri Dhruvasvāminī, wife of Śrī Chandragupta, Emperor, and mother of the great king Govindagupta, (issues this) from the office of the Prince to His Highness, the Young King, The great king Govindagupta (issues this) from the Military Office of his Highness the Young King.

Although a Gupta King Bālāditya, who is identified with Narasimhagupta, the son of Purugupta, is known to history, he cannot be equated with the disciple of Vasubandhu because of many factors including the late date of Bālāditya. According to the inscriptions, official geneology and royal seals it appears that Kumāragupta Mahendrāditya was succeeded by Skandagupta and after his death Purugupta is supposed to have ascended the throne. Thereafter, Budhagupta, Vainyagupta and Bhānugupta are known to have ruled the country before Narasimhagupta ascended the throne around 515 A.D. He is credited to have defeated the Huna King Mihirakula. Bālāditya resolved to kill Mihirakula but the latter was released on the intercession of his mother. Bālāditya’s father was Purugupta and even if it is accepted that Purugupta ascended the throne and adopted the title of Vikramāditya, this Bālāditya cannot be the disciple of Vasubandhu because there where many Kings between these two persons.

Stefan Anacker’s argument is that since the Prince Govinda-gupta carried the title Mahārāja during his father’s time, he was perceived as king by Vāmana and Paramārtha. He has cited many examples to prove that during the life time of a King Princes were bestowed upon titles like Maharāja when they were anointed as Yuvarāja which was done normally at the age of 16. This is a plausible argument. But Anacker’s suggestion that Govindagupta, who was Mahārāja (Governor) at Vaiśālī, was the king of Ayodhyā also is a weak presumption. Had Govindagupta really been the elder brother and successer to Chandragupta II Vikramāditya, he would have ascended the throne after the Emperor’s death. Had Kumaragupta been a younger brother and forcibly captured the imperial throne, in c. 415 A.D. the elder brother Govindgupta would not have survive as Mahāraj, as his name figures in the Mandsor inscription dated 467 A.D. Therefore, it is more probable that Chandragupta II’s elder son Kumāragupta might have been a Yuvarāja at Ayodhyā. Like Govindagupta he, too, might have carried the title Mahārāja and he was the pupil of Vasubandhu at Ayodhyā. It is known that Samudragupta died in c. 375 A.D. and thereafter Chandragupta II might have married Dhruvadevī between 376 and 380 A.D. and Kumāragupta might have been born in c. 382 A.D. These are presumptions based on historical facts and therefore dates are in close proximity to historical events. At the age of 8, boys used to be sent to teachers for academic initiation and at the age of 16 they were usually declared Yuvarāja. Therefore, Chandragupta Vikramāditya might have requested Vasubandhu to initiate his son in c. 390 A.D. and this son Kumāragupta, like Govindagupta, might have been declared Mahārāja in c. 398 A.D. Since Chandragupta was reigning from his capital Patna and at times camping at Ujjain in his expedition against the Śakas, the young Kumāragupta might have been Prince or Mahārāja at Ayodhyā and after becoming Yuvarāja he might have been a patron of learned persons, as Vāmana has informed us in his Kāvyālankāra. Therefore, the Vikramāditya in Paramārtha’s Biography of Vasubandhu is Chandragupta II Vikramāditya and non-else.

Now the question arises as to how Bālāditya is equated with Kumāragupta. In the Chinese translation even personal or geographical names are translated, e.g. the name Pavana Kumāra does not retain its original identity, but it becomes ‘the son of wind’. There is a thin difference between Bāla and Kumāra and Bāla may replace in the name of the Gupta king.

In Sanskrit, Indra is one of the twelve epithets of the Sun. The following śloka of the Sāmba-Purāna confirms it:

इद्रो धाताऽथ पर्जन्यः पूषा त्वष्टाऽर्यमा भगः।

विवस्वान् विष्णुंशुश्च वरुणो मित्र एव च।। (साम्ब-पुराणम्, 4.6)

Śakrāditya of Yuan Chwang is the Mahendrāditya of the Emperor’s coins. Āditya was a part of his name. It appears that when he was a Yuvarāja, he was a Kumāra and was called Kumārāditya or Bālāditya and when he became the king, he was called Kumāragupta or Mahendrāditya or even Śrī Māhendra.

What Vasubandhu, a Buddhist teacher, taught young Kumāra Mahendra, was reflected in his royal career throughout his life. He never shed unnecessary blood for the aggrandisement of his empire. But he succeeded in keeping his empire intact. He was the same Gupta emperor Śakrāditya, who is said to have laid the foundation of the Nalanda University and established one ‘Sanghārāma’ there, by the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing.

It is claimed by many historians on the basis of his ‘Apratigha’ style of coins, in which he appears like a bhikshu, that he had embraced Buddhism towards the end of his life and abdicated the throne in favour of his worthy son Skandagupta who saved this country from the severe onslaught of the Hunas. It is indicated by the following expression on the Junagadh Inscription of Skanda gupta:

पितरि सुरसखित्वं प्राप्तवत्यात्मशक्त्या।

The father got the company of gods by his own power. It was the outcome of the teaching of Vasubandhu which was a source of inspiration even during the last days of his life. Thus, the Gupta Emperor who sent his son to Vasubandhu for getting education was Chandragupta II Vikramāditya and the son’s name was Kumāra gupta.

(17) Fahien’s account

Fahien visited Ayodhyā during the reign of Chandragupta II and observed that Sha-chi (Sāketa) was the great country of the legend of Buddha’s Danta-kāshtha which he narrates in the following words.

“SHA-CHE. LEGEND OF BUDDHA’S DANTA-KASHTHA.

Going on from this to the south-east for three yojanas, they came to the great kingdom of Sha-che. As you go out of the city of Sha-che by the southern gate, on the east of the road (is the place) where Buddha, after he had chewed his willow branch, stuck it in the ground, when it forthwith grew up seven cubits, (at which height it remained) neither increasing nor diminishing. The Brahmans with their contrary doctrines became angry and jealous. Sometimes they cut the tree down, sometimes they plucked it up, and cast it to a distance, but it grew again on the same spot as at first. Here also is the place where the four Buddhas walked and sat, and at which a tope was built that is still existing.” [A record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, translated by James Legge, Chapter- 19].

According to the local legend the present Danta-dhāvana mutt opposite the Digambara Akhara, belonging to the Rāmānuja sect, is the place where Rāma used to wash his teeth. It may have some connection with the account of Fahien.

(18) Jānakī-haranam of Kumāradāsa of Śrīlankā

Kumāradāsa was a great poet of Śrīlankā who composed the epic Jānakī-haranam, i.e. the abduction of. Rājaśekhara has complimented this epic in the following verse:

जानकीहरणं कर्तुं रघुंशे स्थिते सति।

कविः कुमारदासश्च रावणस्य यदि क्षमौ।।

Who can dare to commit ‘Jānkī-haranam’, i.e. to abduct Sītā, while living Raghuvamśa, i.e. Rāma, a scion of Raghu? Another meaning is; Who can dare to compose Jānakī-haranam, while Raghuvamśa epic is in existence? The answer is that Rāvana and Kumāradāsa are competent to do so.

In the concluding verses of the last (20th) chapter of the epic the poet has written about his own early life in four verses. In the 60th verse the poet informs that the name of his father was Mānita, who was a scholar and valiant warrior. He was a soldier in the army of the Ceylonese King Kumāramani. Mānita was killed in a battle while fighting valiantly. In next three verses he informs that his two brave maternal uncles – Megha and Agrabodhi – brought up the poet affectionately from cradle and inspired him to compose this epic. The poet further informs that he was afflicted with some disease since his birth. Though the poet does not inform his handicap, Rājaśekhara in his ‘Kāvya-mīmāmsā’ refers to the legend that he was blind since his birth. This brief autobiography demolishes the general misconception that the poet was a Ceylonese King. He was merely a son of a soldier in the Srilankan army.

There are many legends which associate Kālidāsa with Kumāradāsa and describe them contemporary. According to them Kālidāsa went to Śrīlankā on the invitation of his friend Kumāradāsa who was the King there. Kālidāsa fell into illicit love with some damsel in the land and was killed with a dagger. Kumāradāsa committed suicide on the pyre of Kālidāsa. There is a site of the Samādhi of Kālidāsa in Śrīlankā. Pūjāvalī, a Singhalese text of the 13th century and Perukumba Siritha, another Singhalese text of the 16th century mention this tradition. But it contains many flaws. As per his own testimony Kumāradāsa was not the King of Ceylon but a son of a Ceylonese soldier. In addition, from the references found in his epic, it appears that Jānakī-haranam was composed in the 7th century. Pt. Baladeva Upadhyaya in his book ‘Sanskrit Sāhitya Kā Itihās’ informs that two verses of Jānakī-haranam are quoted in ‘Janāśrayī-Chhandovichiti’, a work of the last quarter of the 6th century. Thus, it may be reasonably presumed that the Jānakī-haranam was composed around 550 A.D.

Kumāradāsa composed the epic in the Ceylonese Island, far away from Ayodhyā. But Ayodhyā was so important in the 6th century that this distant poet starts the epic with a eulogy of Ayodhyā in 11 verses.

Here the first verse is quoted:

आसीदवन्यामतिभोगभाराद्दिवोऽवतीर्णा नगरीव दिव्या।

क्षत्रानलस्थानशमी समृद्ध्या पुरामयोध्येति पुरी परार्ध्या।।1।।

Ayodhyā was like a divine city descended from heaven under the load of abundant pleasure. It was the best amongst all towns because of prosperity and looking like a śamī tree full of royal fire.

Thus, it is clear that Ayodhyā was an epitome of prosperity to a distant Ceylonese soldier’s son in the 6th century and it was not an abandoned city.

(19) Yuan-Chwang’s account on Ayodhyā

After the disintegration of the Gupta empire the Maukharis established their independent authority at Kannauj and after the tragic death of Graha Verma, the husband of Rājyaśrī, the sister of Harshavarddhana, kingdoms of Thaneshwar and Kannauj were combined and Harshvarddhana became the undisputed emperor of the region. During his reign Yuang Chwang visited India and gave a description of Ayodhyā which comprised many Buddhist monasteries and 10 Deva temples. The following is the description of Ayodhyā by Yuan-Chwang:

O-YU-To (Ayodhya): This kingdom is 5000 li in circuit and the capital about 20 li. It abounds in cereals, and produces a large quantity of flowers and fruits. The climate is temperate and agreeable, the manners of the people virtuous and amiable; they love themselves to learning. There are about 100 sangharamas in the country and 3000 priests, who study both the books of the great and little Vehicle There are ten Deva temples; heretics of different schools are found in them, but few in number” (’Si-Yu-Ki Buddhist Records of The Western World’ by Samuel Beal, book V, p. 225)

Even an avowed Buddhist pilgrim admits that there were10 Deva temples at Ayodhyā. But how a positive evidence like this can be negated by an established historian like Mr. Panikkar is best illustrated in this observation:

“Hsuan Tsang also does not mention any place of Rama worship, even though he has recorded the existence of ‘ten Deva temples’ (Vaishnava temples?) in Ayodhya in the seventh century A.D.”

Mr. Panikkar should realize that Huen-Tsang was not writing a history of sects of the Sanātana religion. He was a Buddhist and he considered followers of other faiths as ‘heretics’. The fact that he noticed the existence of ten Deva temples shows that these temples were so prominent that even a pilgrim of another faith could not ignore them. It is an established fact that long before his arrival Rama’s idols were being installed in temples, as it is evident from the testimony of the Brihat-samhitā of Varāhamihira. Thus, there is no reason to presume that Ayodhyā was devoid of any Rāma temple.

Although Yuan Chwang did not categorically mention that there existed a Rāma temple at Ayodhyā, it is a historical fact that the Rāmāyana was spread by six manuscripts carried by Huen-Tsang from India to China. A Tibetan scholar J.W. De Jong in his article “The Story of Rāma in Tibet” published in the Sahitya Akademy’s book “Asian Variations in Ramayan” has written:

“The story of Rama is well known in Tibet and it is told in many texts. The oldest known version is found in six manuscripts from Huen-Tsang. Tun-huang in the north-west of China was occupied by the Tibetans during a period of about sixty years from 787 to 848 A.D. It is probably during the Tibetan occupation that this version of the story of Rama was written in Tun-huang. It is also possible that the manuscripts containing this story could have been written in Central Tibet and brought to Tun-huang during the Tibetan occupation.”

Yuan Chwang has given a very interesting origin to the name of this great country by writing the following details:

“Book II

1. Names of India

“On examination, we find that the names of India (T’ien-chu) are various and perplexing as to their authority. It was anciently called Shin-tu, also Hien-tau; but now, according to the right pronunciation, it is called In-tu. The people of In-tu call their country by different names according to their district. Each country has diverse customs. Aiming at a general name which is the best sounding, we will call the country In-tu. In Chinese this name signifies the Moon. The moon has many names, of which this is one. For as it is said that all living things ceaselessly revolve in the wheel (of transmigration) through the long night of ignorance, without a guiding star, their case is like (the world), the sun gone down; as then the torch affords its connecting light, though there be the shining of the stars, how different from the bright (cool) moon; just so the bright connected light of holy men and sages, guiding the world as the shining of the moon, have made this country eminent, and so it is called In-tu. (Vol. I. 69)

Thus, India was called In-tu in ancient times because In-tu in the Chinese language means moon, like Indu in Sanskrit. In the galaxy of nations shining like star In-tu stood like a moon.

(20) Ayodhyā during the post-Harshavardhana period

Kāśikā-vritti on Pānini 5.1.16 mentions Pātaliputravat Sākete parikhā (पाटलिपुत्रवत् साज़्ते परिखा) (Vol. IV. 101), i.e. the moat around the town was like that of Pātaliputra. Megasthenes has reported that the moat of the capital Pātaliputra was about 185m. wide. Kaśikā was composed in the 7th century by Jayāditya and Vāmana. It is a celebrated gloss (वृत्ति) on the sūtras of Pānini.

There is an inscription of A.D. 533/4 which mentions Ayodhyā. It is Dāmodarapura copper plate. There is a mention of a noble man Amritadeva who is said to have come from Ayodhyā (अयो(ध्य)ज़्ज़्ुलपुत्रज़् अमृतदेवेन) (Ayo(dhya)ka-kulaputraka-Amrita-devena). Damodarpur is now in Bangladesh. The fact that Ayodhyā was mentioned as a reference point shows that it was a well known city even at far-flung places.

It is well known that coins of Īśānavarman (550-76 A.D.), Sarvavarman (A.D. 576-580) and Avantivarman (A.D. 580-600) were found at Bhitaura, a village 14km west of Faizabad and at Ayodhyā itself. (Archaeological Survey of India, Reports vol. IX. p. 27). It proves the continued vibration of Ayodhyā which was not an abandoned city during the reign of the Maukhari kings. R.G. Basak designated them ‘Maukharis of Ayodhyā’ (J.R.A.S. 1889, p. 270).

In the 8th century A.D. another valiant King Yaśovarman ascended the throne of Kannauj and restored the glory of the kingdom. His contemporary court poet Vākpatirāja composed ‘Gauda-vaho’ in Prākrita and detailed the conquests of the King. This ‘digvijayi ’ King visited the city of Harischandra and constructed a temple there. The city of Hariśchandra may be identified as Ayodhyā because the capital of all kings from Ikshvāku to Rāma was Ayodhyā only. It is well known that Hariśchandra belonged to the same dynasty. Here it is germane to mention that one version of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in the Rudra-yāmala contains the story of Hariśchandra most prominently. It connects the famous Svargadvāra of Ayodhyā with the departure of Hariśchandra to heaven along with his subjects.

In the 9th century A.D. Kannauj came under the rule of Pratihāras, and Mihirabhoja (836-885 A.D.) became the most famous king of this dynasty. His son Mahendrapāla I (885-908 A.D.), too, was a powerful king. From the coins discovered from Hatila near Ayodhyā it is clear that these Pratihāra Kings were rulers of Ayodhyā too and Ayodhyā was a flourishing city.

The Gaya copper plate inscription, claimed to be of the ninth year of the Gupta era i.e. 328-9 A.D., is spurious. However, it has been established that it was issued in the 8th century A.D. At the beginning of this edict it is mentioned Ò महा-नौ- हस्त्यश्व- जयस्कन्धावार अयोध्या’, i.e. there was an army camp of the Emperor at Ayodhyā which comprised of elephants, horses and navy. Thus, even in the 8th century A.D. Ayodhyā was perceived to have an army camp.

An inscription [E.I. II (1894) 343-47] of the 8th century recovered from Dūdha-pānī Ghāta near Hazaribagh, now in the Jharkhand state, relates the story of three brothers from Ayodhyā who went to Tāmralipti on business and settled there. The following is the relevent verse from this inscription:

अथ कस्मिश्चि(त्स)मये वणिजो भातरत्रयः।

ताम्रलिप्तिमयोध्यायाः ययु पूर्वं वणिज्यया।।

Subsequently they became local rulers. R.C. Majumdar suggests in “The History and Culture of India” (p. 93) that it refers to Māna rulers of the last quarter of the sixth century A.D. in Orissa. It shows the initiative and enterprise of the natives of Ayodhyā during this period.

In yet another inscription which can be dated around 800 A.D. there is a mention of Bhatta-Vāsudeva Ayodhyeśa. Vāsudeva Bhatta was the ruler of Ayodhyā. Buhler has interpreted that he might have been a ruler of some village named Ayodhyā, but since no other Ayodhyā is known, it should be understood as the main Ayodhyā. Bhatta Vāsudeva was a Sanskrit scholar and the composer of the panegyric (praśasti). Thus, he represents the long-standing tradition of Ayodhyā.

The Rājiva-lochana temple at Rajim near Raipur in the newly created State of Chhattisgarh is one of the oldest surviving Rāma temples in the country. It is situated near the confluence of Pairī and Mahānandī rivers. There is an inscription in the temple dated 3rd January, 1145 (Kalachuri year 896). Jagpāla, a minister of Kalchuri King Prithvīdeva II, had founded this temple for Lord Rāma, the son of Daśaratha. The ‘praśasti’ of the inscription was composed by Jasānanda Thakkura, who hailed from Ayodhyā.(lines 17-19)

१७. इति अयोध्यापुरीयान्वये महामाहेस्व(श्व)रपरमवैष्णव्य महापंडितठक्कुरश्रीजसोधरपुत्रेण द्विजदेवगुरुसुश्रु(श्रू)षाभिरतेन मनीषिणा भक्तिभावानुरन्ज(ञ्ज)केन मह-

१८. त्कविकिंकरेण लक्षणेन विना ठक्कुरश्रीजसानन्देन कृता प्रस(श)स्ति[ ] [।] लिखिता चेयं रूपकारश्रीरत्नपालेन उत्कीर्ण्णापि वा।। कलचुरि संवत्सर(रे) 896 माघे मासि सु(शु)क्ल-

१९. पक्षे रथाष्टम्यां [वु ] [बु] धदिने लिखिता इति।।।।

Śrī Jasānanda Thakkura, son of Jasodhara Thakkura, was a resident of Ayodhyā and supreme devotee of Śiva and Vishnu. He was a great scholar and engrossed in the service of Brāhmanas, gods and preceptor. He was intelligent and awakened the devotional spirit. He was a follower of great poets and devoid of the knowledge of poetics. Such Śrījasānanda composed this eulogy.

Sculptor Ratnapāla wrote and inscribed it. It was written on the Rathāshtamī day of the bright fortnight of the Māgha month of the 896th year of the Kalchuri era.

(21) Reverberations in the South

The glory of Ayodhyā reverberated to the distant south and famous Ālwār Saint Madhurakavi came to Ayodhyā for deep meditation and worship of Lord Rāma. When Madhurakavi was meditating at Ayodhyā one night, he saw an illuminating light from the south and when he followed it, he found that it was indicative of the existence of Nammālavāra on earth. Earlier also the saga of the hero of Ayodhyā, Rāma, had been mentioned in the two epics of the Tamil literature, viz. ‘ Śilappadikāram’ and ‘Mani mekhalai’ authored by Ilango Adigal and Seethalai Saathanar respectively.

In the beginning of the 9th century, when Śankarāchārya composed ‘Saundarya-Laharī he compared certain parts of the Devi’s limbs with various towns of the country in the following śloka:

विशाला कल्याणी स्फुटरुचिरयोध्या कुवलयै

कृपाधाराधारा किमपि मधुरा भोगवतिका।

अवन्ती दृष्टिस्ते बहुनगरविस्तारविजया

ध्रुं तत्तन्नामव्यवहरणयोग्या विजयते।।49।।

In this śloka the following pilgrim places are named by playing the pun- Viśālā, Kalyānī, Ayodhyā, Dhārā, Madhurā, Bhogavatī, and Vijayā. The following commentary written by Lakshmidhara of 14th century A.D. is available:

विशाला विपुला कल्याणी मङगळात्मिका स्फुटरुचिः प्रस्फुटकान्तिः अयोध्या योद्धुमशक्या कुवलयै इन्दीवरै कृपाधाराधारा कृपाधाराणां करुणाप्रवाहाणां आधारभूता।

Here Ayodhyā has been interpreted as a city which cannot be fought or won. It shows that during the time of Ādi Śankara (788820 A.D.) Ayodhyā was considered a prominent sacred place.

(22) References from Kashmir

A very strong evidence of the reverberation of Ayodhyā as a great city comes from Kashmir where Nīla-mata-Purānam was composed in the 7th or 8th century A.D. It describes Ayodhyā as mahapurí; whereas even Vārānasī and Prayāga have been mentioned without any epithet. The Purāna enumerates places visited by Lord Śiva from Vārānasī to Harimākūta in Kashmir. During his holy journey Ayodhyā has been called Mahāpurī in the following words:

स प्रयागमतिक्रम्य तथायोध्यां महापुरीम्।।1237।।

He, having crossed Prayāga and the great city Ayodhyā,

About Vārānasī it says:

एवमुक्तस्तदा देव्या वाराणस्यां नराधिप।।1236।।

It is generally believed that the Nīla-mata Purānam, which belongs to the 7th or 8th century A.D., is practically devoid of interpolations. Thus, the composer of the Purāna was aware of the greatness of Ayodhyā town. In addition, the prevalence of the worship of Lord Rāma and his constant consort Sītā is also known from this Purāna.

चतुर्विंशतिसंख्यायां त्रेतायां रघुनन्दनः।

हरिर्मनुष्यो भविता रामो दशरथात्मजः।।620।।

Hari will be born as Rāma, the son of Daśaratha in the twenty-fourth Tretāyuga.

The Purāna mainly deals with the rituals to be performed on a particular day throughout the year and, in that connection, prescribes the worship of Rāma, Sītā and Lakshmana on certain days.

(23) Ayodhyā in Agastya-samhitā

Agastya-samhitā is an early text which prescribes exhaustive rituals for Rama’s worship. It is extensively used by Hans Bakker in his book ‘Ayodhyā’. He places the Agastya-samhitā in the 12th century, whereas from a literary scrutiny it appears to have been composed in the 9th century A.D. It has many references to Ayodhyā in the following verses, although Bakker erroneously writes that there is no mention of Ayodhyā in this book.

In Agastya-samhitā Agastya advises sage Sutīkshna about the meditation:

अयोध्यानगरे रम्ये रत्नमण्डपमध्यगे।

स्मरेत् कल्पतरोर्मूले रत्नसिंहासनं शुभम्।। (28.24)

One should recollect the auspicious Ratna-simhāsana which is situated in the Ayodhyā city in the middle of the Ratna-mandap and at the root of (i.e. beneath) the Kalpa-tree.

He further refers to Rāma who is in the lap of mother Kausalyā. He has got the lustre of sapphire, tender limbs and large eyes. He is embedded with a colour which look like lightning:

मातुरङकगतं राममिन्द्रनीलसमप्रभम्।

कोमलाङगं विशालाक्षं विद्युद्वर्णसमावृतम्।। 28.27।।

Here it is important to note that while recollecting Ayodhyā for Dhyāna (meditation), one has to first remember Rama in the lap of his mother Kausalyā. Here Rama-lallā is indicated.

There is another verse in Agastya-samhitā (26.14) which narrates the birth of Rāma at Ayodhyā. This verse is found also in Champū Rāmāyana (1.14) written by King Bhoja in the 11th century.

उच्चस्थे ग्रहपञ्चके सुरगुरौ सेन्दौ नवम्यां तिथौ

लग्ने कर्कटके पुनर्वसुयुते मेषं गते पूषणि।

निर्दग्धुं निखिलाः पलाशसमिधो मेध्यादयोध्यारणे-

राविर्भूतमभूतपूर्वविभवं यत्किञ्चिदेकं महः।।4।।

Agastya-samhitā (26.14)

Rāma with unprecedented splendour was born at Ayodhyā like the fire generated by the sacrificial sticks, for consuming the demons (flesh-eaters) as palāśa trigs are burnt in the sacrificial ritual. At the time of his birth five planets were in elevated zodiac, Brihaspati was with moon, the tithi (date) was Navamī, the star (nakshatra) was Punarvasu and the Sun was shining in the Mesha zodiac.

There is also another verse:

अभिषिक्तमयोध्यायां ध्यायेद् राममनन्यधी।

पञ्चायुतमिदं जप्त्वा नष्टराज्यमवाप्नुयात्।।

(31.15)

One gets back the lost kingdom, if one with singular loyality chants the Rāma-mantra fifty thousand times and meditates Rāma, anointed as the King at Ayodhyā.

All these references to Ayodhyā in the Agastya-Samhitā were overlooked by Bakker in his book ‘Ayodhyā’.

(24) Vikramānkadeva-charitam of Bilhana

Bilhana was a great poet of Kashmir who migrated to Kalyan in Maharashtra where Chalukyan King Vikramāditya VI (1076 1127 A.D.) honoured him with the title ‘Vidyāpati’ and employed him as a court poet. Bilhana composed a biographical epic Vikramānkadeva-charitam on the life of King Vikramāditya VI. It is more a literary work than a historical one. But the last (18th) chapter of the epic is an autobiography of the poet. Herein the poet indicates his association with Ayodhyā in the following verse:

तं पौलस्त्यं विदलितवतः सूक्तिनिष्यन्दशीताम्।

सीताभर्तुर्व्यरचयदसौ राजधानीमयोध्याम्।। (18.94)

He (i.e. Bilhana) composed a Kāvya on Ayodhyā which was the capital of the husband of Sītā, i.e. Rāma, the tormentor of Ravana.

This Kāvya contained many streams of good sayings which kept Ayodhyā cool.

Now this Kāvya of Bilhana is not available and thus an important literature on Ayodhyā is lost.

Prabhakara Narayan Kawthekar, the author of the biography ‘Bilhana’ (Makers of Indian Literature Series), published by Sāhitya Academy, has written about Bilhana and his work Rāma-kāvya in the following words:

“Meanwhile, he had a connection with well known ancient city Ayodhya. Bilhana composed some poems in praise of the holy city. Ayodhya was the capital of Lord Rama and Bilhana paid his poetic homage to it. We unfortunately do not find any such verses by the poet. However, it is evident that there were some points he composed in respect of Lord Rama and Ayodhya. It is also quite probable that the work on Lord Rama must have been presented by Bilhana, while he was in Varanasi or Ayodhya, because he himself has said that he composed some good verses praising Lord Rama. A.B. Keith has said that there was a Kavya composed by Bilhana; he must have visited Ayodhya which was the source of his inspiration. However, no such work is available.”

Dr. Buhler, too, supports the view that Bilhana had composed a Kāvya on Rāma but he suggests that it was composed at the royal court and not at Ayodhyā. Mathur Lal Nagar holds the similar view. Krishnamāchāriar, the author of ‘History of Classical Sanskrit Literature’, too, is of the view that Bilhana composed a Kāvya on Rāma. Since he visited most of the pilgrim places, his account on Ayodhyā could have probably been of much relevance. But the tragedy with Ayodhyā is that many important texts on Ayodhyā are lost for ever.

(25) Dhanapāla’s ‘Tilaka-mañjarī’

The description of Ayodhyā in Dhanapāla’s Tilaka-mañjarī has gone largely unnoticed by scholars, although the relevant Sanskrit text has been appended to Lala Sitarama’s book ‘Ayodhyā Kā Itihāsa’. Since there was no Hindi or English translation provided; its relevance could not be comprehended. Dhanapāla was an accomplished writer who composed the fiction Tilaka-mañjarī in the beginning of the 11th century. According to a land grant issued by the king Bhojarāja of Dhārā in favour of the author in the Samvat 1078 i.e. 1022 A.D. he appears to have been a favourite poet of the renowned king. In the beginning of the book Dhanapāla has given a detailed description of Ayodhyā which has been depicted with a number of epithets in the style of Bānabhatta. A short excerpt is quoted here:

‘‘अस्ति रम्यता-निरस्त-सकल-सुरलोका स्वपदापहार-शङिकत- शतक्रतुप्रार्थितेन...शततमक्रतुवांच्छाविच्छेदार्थमिव पार्थिवानामिक्ष्वाकूणामुत्पादिता प्रजापतिना...प्रंशुशिखराग्रज्वलत्कनककलशै सुधापङक-धवल प्राकार वलयितैरमरमन्दिर- मण्डलैर्मण्डित-भोगमध्यप्रवेशितोन्मणिफणासहस्रं शेषाहिमुपहासद्भिरुद्भासित- चत्वरा...उत्तरकौशलेष्वयोध्येति यथार्थाभिधाना नगरी।

Ayodhyā is a wonderful town in the Kosala kingdom and is worthy of its name. It has vanquished the entire heaven by its beauty. Indra, scared of being deprived of his office, prayed to Prajāpati Brahmā, who established this city to do away with the wish of the kings of the Ikshvāku dynasty to perform the hundredth sacrifice (for obtaining the kingdom of heaven).

It contains many clusters of temples which are encircled by glittering gold pots on the front part of the top pinnacles with white boundary walls plastered by lime. There are many platforms which adorn temples of gods with jewels which appear to mock at the Śeshanāga having a thousand jewels.

From this description it is clear that in the beginning of the 11th century many temple complexes flourished at Ayodhyā.

Earlier, Rājashekhara, who wrote Bāla-rāmāyana in the early 10th century, describes Ayodhyā in the following words:

राज्ञां रवे प्रभवतां कुलराजधानीमालोकयामरपुरीप्रतिमामयोध्याम्।

वार्भि शरच्छशिकरद्युतिभिः सरय्वां या पूर्वपार्थिवयशोभिरिवावभाति।।

(X. 96)

Waves of the Sarayū river illuminated the heaven-like Ayodhyā which was the capital of the kings of the solar dynasty with its water looking like the shine of the moon of the autumn season.

(26) Ayodhyā in Alberuni’s ‘Kitab-ul-Hind’

Alberuni knew Ayodhyā, but gave very cryptic description of the town. However, he was aware of the deification of Rāma as he gives the measurement of Rāma’s icon based on Varāhamihira’s Brihat Samhitā. He was aware that Rāma was the incarnation of Vishnu who built a setu across the sea and killed Ravana. He also knew the consecration of the Śivalinga by Rāma at Rameśvaram. While narrating the incarnations of Vishnu he wrote about Rāma:

“...in Treta-yuga in the shape of Rama alone, for the purpose of spreading fortitude, to conquer the bad, and to preserve the three worlds by force and the prevalence of virtuous action.” (Chapter XLVI)

It is strange that in spite of this independent and objective evidence our established historians suggest that Rama’s worship started in the15th century A.D.!

(27) Epigraphic connection of Chālukyan Kings with Ayodhyā

Very few historians have paid attention to the 11th century inscription published in Indian Antiquary, Vol. XIV, pp. 50-55. This grant is dated 944 Śaka i.e. 1022-23 A.D. The donor was Chālukyan king Rāja-Rāja II called Vishnuvarddhana also. It gives the genealogy of the Chālukyan dynasty which had a lunar lineage from Chandra to Udayana. Thereafter, 59 generations ruled at Ayodhyā without any break. In the same dynasty was born Vijayāditya who went from Ayodhyā to the South for ‘digvijaya’ (conquest). He attacked Trilochan Pallava but was killed. Thereafter, the edict informs that at the time of the death of Vijayāditya, his queen was pregnant and she gave birth to a son who was named Vishnuvarddhana. He defeated the Kadambas and the Gangas and became the king from Narmadā to the Rāmasetu. Then the genealogy runs up to Vimalāditya who was married to the sister of the great warrior and emperor Rājendra Chola. According to this inscription 59 generations of Chālukyas/Solankīs ruled at Ayodhyā.

घततः परम् तत् प्रभृतिष्वविच्छिन्न-सतानेष्वयोध्या-सिहासन- मासीनेष्वैकादून-षष्टि-चक्रवर्तिषु तद्वश्यो विजयादित्यो नाम राजा प्रविजिगीषया दक्षिणापथ गत्वा त्रिलोचनपल्लवमधिक्षिप्य दैवदुरीहया लोकान्तरमगमत्।

अपि च,

सूर्यान्वये सुरपतिप्रतिमःप्रभावै श्रीराजराज इति यो जगति व्यराजत्।

नाथः समस्तनरनाथकिरीटकोटिरत्नप्रभापटलपाटलपादपीठः।।च

Thereafter, Vijayāditya, who was a descendant in the dynasty of this King of Ayodhyā, which had an unbroken line of 59 chakravartī kings, went to the south with an intention to vanquish and after defeating the Pallava king, Trilochana departed for the other world. Moreover, in the solar dynasty there was a king, Śrirājarāja by name, who by own prowess became powerful like Indra and whose foot-rest glittered with crores of jewels in the crowns of kings.

Another Prince of Ayodhyā who went to Ceylon and ruled there was Jagatipāla (A.D.1047-51). He killed king Mahalakirti’s son Vikramapāndya who was probably connected with the royal family of Pāndyas of Madurā. This Sūryavamśī Prince of Ayodhyā ruled there for four years from 1047 to 1051 A.D. He was killed by the Cholas and his queen along with his daughter and all valuables was sent to the Chola country.

Chulavamsa informs that Jagatipāla as a Prince came from the town of Ayojjha (Ayodhyā). In Śrīlankā he killed Vikkamapāndu in battle and ruled as a mighty monarch in Rohana for four years. The Cholas slew him in battle and sent the Mahishī with her daughter and all the valuable property to the Chola Kingdom.” (C.V. VV, 13 15)

There is a lot of similarity between the stories of Jagatipāla and Vijayāditya and therefore both may be referring to the same personality. However, this much is certain that a Prince from Ayodhyā did establish his rule in Ceylon in the first half of the 11th century A.D.

There is an interesting śloka in the “Vikramanka-deva-charitam” written by Bilhana. It is a laudatory biography of the Chālukyan king Vikramāditya VI (A.D. 1076-1126)

प्रसाध्य त रावणमध्युवास या मैथिलीशः कुलराजधानीम्।

ते क्षत्रियास्तामवदातकीर्तिं पुरीमयोध्या विदधुर्निवासम्।।

जिगीषवः कोऽपि विजित्य विश्व विलासदीक्षारसिकाः क्रमेण।

चक्रु पद नागरखण्डचुम्बिपूगद्रुमाया दिशि दक्षिणस्याम्।।

Those Kshatriyas made their abode in the same famous traditional capital (Ayodhyā) where Rāma, the husband of Jānakī, after having defeated Ravana, used to reside.

One amongst those kings, intent on victory and elegant in pastime and religious rites after having vanquished all, set his feet in the south which was full of betel nut trees competing with the height of palaces.

Thus, it is evident that the same Ayodhyā which was inhabitated and decorated by Rāma after killing Ravana became the abode of Chālukyan Kshatriyas for generations.

(28) Gahadavāla dynasty

During the Gahadavāla dynasty Ayodhyā became one of the most prominent pilgrim centres in the country. Chandradeva (1072 1096 A.D.) was the first important ruler of this dynasty.

In Basahi (a village two miles to the northeast of the headquarters town of the Bidhuna tahsil in the Etawah district of U.P.) inscription of Madanapāla and Banaras inscription of Govindachandra dated 1163 (V.S.), i.e. 1106 A.D., it is claimed:

याते श्रीभोजभूपे विबुधवरवधूनेत्रसीमातिथित्व

श्रीकर्णे कीर्तिशेषे गतवति च नृपे क्ष्मात्यये जायमाने।

भर्त्तार य धरित्री त्रिदिवविभुनिभ प्रीतियोगादुपेता

त्राता विश्वासपूर्णं समभवदिह स क्ष्मापतिश्चद्रदेवः।।

(Indian Antiquary, vol. XIV, p.103)

When king Bhoj became a guest of the eyes of the celestial damsels,(i.e. when he was dead) and when Karna existed only in renown(i.e. he was no more) and the earth was sorely troubled, then she (earth) chose Chandradeva as husband with love and protector with confidence.

From Chandrāvatī copper plate of Samvat 1150 it appears that Chandradeva had visited Ayodhyā on the occasion of a solar eclipse on Samvat 1150 Āśvina Vadi 15 i.e. 23rd October, 1093. He first took bath on the confluence of Saryū-Ghāghrā at Ayodhyā which was known as Uttara Kosala also. Then he worshipped various deities, performed Agnihotra and made Pinda-dāna to his ancestors.

He first took bath at the confluence of Sarayū Ghaghra at Ayodhyā which was known as Uttara Kosala also. Then he worshipped various deities, performed Agnihotra and made Pinda-dāna to his ancestors:

कृतनिश्चयैरुत्तरकोशलाभिधानायामयोध्याया पञ्चाशदधिकैकादश- शतसवत्सरे आश्विने मासि अमावस्याया रविदिनेऽङेकेऽपि सवत् 1150 आश्विन बदि 15 रवौ सूर्योपरागपर्वणि जनितसरयू-घर्घराघमर्षणे स्वर्गद्वारनाम्नि तीर्थे स्नात्वा विधिवन्मत्रदेवमुनिमनुजभूतपितृगणाँस्तर्पयित्वा तिमिरपटला-पाटनपटुमह(समु)ष्णारोचिषमुपस्थाप्य क्षिति-जल-दहन- पवन-गगन- यजमानतुहिनकिरि (र)णारुणवपुषमोषधीपतिशकलशेखर समभ्यर्च्य भगवतत्रिभुवनत्रातुर्वासुदेवस्य पूजा विधाय प्रचुरपायसेन हविषा हविर्भुज हुत्वा पितृपिण्डयज्ञन्निर्वर्त्य...

(Chandrāvatī copper plate, “Epigraphia Indica” Vol. 14, 1917 18, p. 194)

After making a resolve at Ayodhyā in the Uttara-Kosala country on the Amāvāsyā day of the Āśvina month of the Vikram era 1150, i.e. on 23rd of October 1093 A.D. Chandradeva took bath on the day of the solar eclipse on the confluence of the sin-effacing Sarayū-Ghargharā at the Svarga-dvāra ghāta and made oblations with rituals to gods, sages, human beings, spirits and ancestors.

Then he worshipped the Sun god who dispels darkness and provides unlimited heat, and after paying obeisance to the earth, water, fire, air and sky he performed ritualistic exercise in honour of Lord Śiva who appears like the snow-shine and has the red body and is the master of all medicines (herbs) and wears the crescent on his forehead. Then he worshipped Lord Vāsudeva, the protector of all the three worlds. Thereafter, he made a pinda-offering to his ancestors.

Now a question arises as to why did King Chandradeva, after having come to Ayodhyā and bathed in the Sarayū, worship Vāsudeva, Śiva and Sūrya, and not Rāma? The answer lies in the following four inscriptions wherein King Chandradeva is shown to have worshipped Vāsudeva, Śiva and Sūrya only. The inscriptions are:

(i) Chandrāvatī plate of Chandradeva. V.S. 1150 E.I. Vol. XIV, p. 194.

(ii) Chandrāvatī plate of Chandradeva, V.S. 1156 E.I. Vol. XIV, p. 194.

According to this inscription Chandradeva took bath at Ādi Keśava ghāta at the confluence of Gangā and Varunā in Vārānasī and performed tarpana. Thereafter, he worshipped Sūrya, Mahādeva and Vāsudeva.

(iii) Chandrvātī plate of Chandradeva, V.S. 1148 E.I., Vol. IX, p. 302.

It informs that King Chandradeva, after having taken bath at the confluence of Śaurī and Nārāyana and performed tarpana, worshipped Vāsudeva, S´iva and Sūrya.

(iv) Copper plate grant dated V.S. 1154. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XVIII, p. 11.

This inscription is a copper plate grant issued under the seal of Chandradeva’s son Madanapāla confirming the grant of a village to a Brāhmana by Chandradeva. In this inscription also Chandradeva is shown to have performed rituals in the same manner and worshipped the same gods- Vāsudeva, Śiva and Sūrya. It appears that these gods were his family deities. Even inscriptions of Govindachandra testify to this fact; e.g. घसूर्यभट्टारज़् सपूज्य भगवन्त महेश्वर समभ्यर्च्य विश्वाधार वासुदेव समाराध्यच (E.I., Vol. VIII, p. 153)

Jahnawi Shekhar Roy in an article “The Upper Date of Ayodhyā-mahatmya of Skanda-Purāna” has thus explained it:

“It seems that the worship was part of the daily routine worship of the gods by the king. It is possible that he might have had a portable idol of Vãsudeva or Śãlagrãma Śilã with him. Even without any portable idol a Hindu can, and does, worship Vasudeva or any favourite god of his choice through dhyana, japa, stotra or otherwise.”

I endorse his views and add that this pattern of rituals was the set practice of his priests.

From the visit of King Chandradeva in 1093 A.D. it is evident that Ayodhyā was a great pilgrim centre where he performed the following rituals:

(a) He took bath at the confluence of Sarayū and Ghaghara,

(b) He worshipped Śiva, Sūrya and Vāsudeva,

(c) Then he performed Agnihotra and

(d) offered oblation to his ancestors. Thus, Ayodhyā was a full-fledged pilgrim place in the 11th century, otherwise a King would not have visited Ayodhyā on the day of a solar eclipse and performed such rituals.

In an inscription of King Govindachandra preserved in Allahabad museum Ayodhyā is mentioned as a pilgrim place along with Kāśī and other places. Here it is to be mentioned that in this inscription Ayodhyā has been mentioned as Uttar Kosala and in the inscription of King Chandradeva mentioned above it is clear that the name of Ayodhyā was Uttara Kosala during that period also.

It is an irony that though on the day of a solar eclipse King Chandradeva visits Ayodhyā and after taking bath in the Sarayū offers prayers to the Sun, Śiva and Vāsudeva, yet Ayodhyā is not considered to be a tīrtha by established historians. It is true that the name of Rāma is not specifically mentioned in the list of gods who were offered prayers, but the epithet Vāsudeva, the protector of all the three worlds, is sufficient to indicate that it included both Vishnu and Rāma. If prayers to Rāma were not intended, he would not have visited Ayodhyā on the day of the solar eclipse.

Thereafter, his grandson Govindachandra had special reverence for Ayodhyā and had taken the responsibility of protecting Kāśī, Kosala (Ayodhyā) and other pilgrim places in North India. The following mention in the inscription confirms the religious reverence and armed protection which Ayodhyā and other places received from Govindachandra:

‘‘तीर्थानि काशिकुशिकोत्तरकोशलेद्रस्थानीयकानि परिपालयताभिगम्यच

(Epigraphia Indica, Vol 33, 1959-60 p. 179)

Protector of the pilgrim places located in Kasi, Kushika, Uttar-kosala (Ayodhyā) and Indra-sthān (Indra-prastha).

It was the powerful military strength of the Gahadavāla kings which protected North India from the Turkish intrusion for almost a hundred years.

In the undated Vārānasī inscription of his wife Kumāradevī, Govindachandra has been compared with Vishnu. For the protection of Vārānasī from Turkish invaders Hari had been deputed by Hara and Govindachandra was Hari’s incarnation:-

वाराणसीभुवनरक्षणदक्ष एको दुष्टात्तुरुष्कसुभटादवितु हरेण।

उक्तो हरिः स पुनरत्र बभूव तस्मात् गोविन्दचद्र इति प्रथिताभिधानः।।

During the period of King Govindachandra his Sāmanta Anayachandra built a magnificent temple at Ayodhyā which came to light through an edict recovered from the debris of the dilapidated, disputed structure on 6th Dec. 1992.

टकोत्खातविशालशैलशिखरश्रेणीशिलासहति -

व्यूहैर्विष्णुहरेर्हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दर मन्दिरम्।

पूर्व्वैरप्यकृ नृपतिभिर्येनेदमित्यद्भु

ससारार्णवशीघघनलघूपायान्धिया ध्यायता।। (verse 21)

He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple adorned with a gold Kalaśa,on a scale never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks.

King Jayachandra gave equal attention to and reverence for Ayodhyā. Many land grants of his period mention Ayodhyā in the name of Uttarakosala and they corroborate his utmost concern for Ayodhyā. A copper grant-plate dated 1243 Samvat i.e. 1186 A.D. has been received from the vicinity of Ayodhyā. It highlights the achievements of King Jayachandra.

It is said that he had built a temple Tretā Kā Thākura’ at Ayodhyā. It was demolished by Aurangzeb and a mosque was erected thereon. It has been discussed at length in Chapter X.

(29) Kritya-kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara

The Kritya-kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara is a comprehensive compendium of relevant quotations from earlier Dharmaśāstras. Although Kalpataru is a voluminous book having 18 kāndas, it does not fall into the category of great work in the sense that the author Lakshmīdhara has hardly added anything to the already quoted ślokas from scriptures. P.V. Kane, the great author of “History of Dharmaśāstras”, has assessed the book Kritya-kalpataru in the following words:

“The Kalpataru has size (though it is not as extensive as the Viramitrodaya), has great range, but in quality it is very inferior not only to Mitãkshara but also to some other digests. Lengthy discussions in the Kalpatru are few and far between. It is more in the nature of a collection from all smritis.”

Established historians like Prof. R.S. Sharma and Prof. D.N. Jha have highlighted Kalpataru to show that Ayodhyā was not a pilgrim place until its composition in the 11th century. In the booklet “Communal History and Rama’s Ayodhyā” the author Prof. R.S. Sharma makes the following comments:

“Bhatta Lakshmidhara, the Gahadavala minister, who wrote Tirthavivechanakanda as a part of his book Krityakalpataru in the eleventh century and was evidently well acquainted with eastern Uttar Pradesh, surveys the well known brahmanical tirthas of his time, but significantly enough he neither mentions Ayodhya nor the birthplace of Rama; this absence of reference is particularly noted by Bakker (op.cit., pt. I, p.45). It is therefore clear that Ayodhya has not been a tirtha of a very long standing.”

In the Brahmachārī-kānda of the Kalpataru Lakshmīdhara has introduced himself as Mantrīśvara of King Govindachandra and at other places as a Sandhi-vigrāhika, i.e. Minister for war and peace. Though there is no mention in the Kalpataru that this Govindachandra was the famous King of Gahadavāla dynasty and the name of Lakshmīdhara is not found in any Gahadavāla inscription, yet he is identified with this King Govindachandra who ruled from 1114 to 1154.

Before pronouncing judgment that ‘Ayodhyā has not been a tīrtha of a very long standing Prof. Sharma should have referred to the Chandrawati copper plate which mentions that Govinda-chandra’s grand-father Chandradeva had visited Ayodhyā on Samvat 1150 Āśvina vadi 15, i.e. 23rd October, 1093 on the occasion of a solar eclipse.

Hans Bakker makes a sweeping statement at one place and contradicts himself at another. But by that time he does the damage which he intends. On page 45 of the 1st part of ‘Ayodhyā’ he writes:

“Curiously enough, Lakshmīdhara, who gave a survey of the well known Hindu Tīrthas of the eleventh century, mentions neither Ayodhyā nor the birthplace of Rāma.”

However, in the foot-note at the same page he gives a list of secret names (guhya-nāmāni) and fields (Ks+etrāni gulmāni) of Vishnu from Kalpataru which is a quotation from Narasimha-Purāna (TVK 251-256) where Ayodhyā is mentioned as the residence of Lokanātha.

On page 51 of the same part of the book ‘Ayodhyā’ he again contradicts himself by writing thus-

“Lakshmīdhara, who compiled the enormous Krityakalpataru, was unable to find Smriti texts which extolled the merits of Ayodhyā as a holy place, and so restricted himself to mentioning only Gopratār in a quotation of the Tīrtha-yātrāparvan of the Mahābhārata.” (Ayodhyā Part-I, p. 51)

First, he writes that Ayodhyā is not mentioned in Kalpataru at all and then adds that it is mentioned at the end of the book. Then he doubts its existence on earth. He further writes that Lakshmīdhara restricted himself to mentioning only Gopratāra which is a part of Ayodhyā.

Lakshmīdhara has quoted 4 ślokas in the 23rd chapter of Kritya-kalpa-taru from the Mahābhārata on the Gopratāra tīrtha which are quoted above in sub-head (4). During the Mahābhārata time Gopratāra Ghāt was the most sacred place in Ayodhyā and it was a part of the holy city. Lakshmīdhara has hardly added any comment on his part to the quoted verses. It is, by and large, a compendenium of the verses from the Mahābhārata, Purānas and Smriti texts.

Prof. Sharma’s writing is based on Bakker’s research which is not thorough. In the Vrata-Kānda of the Kritya-kalpataru, tithi-vratas are mentioned. There is a chapter called Rāghava-dvādaśī-vratam. This vrata is taken from the Varāha-Purāna (Chapter 45, verses 1-10).

In this Vratam Rāma is called the supreme god (परम देव) and Madhusūdana Vishnu is said to have been born as Daśaratha’s son in the name of Rāma. (तस्य पुत्रः स्वय जज्ञे रामाख्यो मधुसूदनः) Rituals are there for the worship of important limbs of Rāma. At the end ‘Phalaśruti’ is given. The gist is that those who perform this ritual enjoy the pleasure in the heaven for the a period spreading the reign of 14 Indras and thereafter on return to the earth become emperors. All sins of such persons vanish and all wishes are fulfilled. If he performs it without any desire, he gets the perpetual nirvāna. Thus, the vrata of Rāghava-dvādaśī was very important in ancient times and it was included in the Kritya-kalpataru. But historians have not read it and even then pronounced ‘judgment’.

Rāghava-dvādaśī Vrata is included mutatis mutandis in Hemādri’s work “Chaturvarga-chintāmani”(vol.1)and in Chandeśvara Thākura’s Kritya-ratnākara. Here some verses from Lakshmīdhara’s Krityākalpataru (vol. VI) are quoted:

अर्चयेत् परम देव पुष्पैर्नानाविधै शुभै।

ओ नमो राघवायेति पादौ पूर्वं समर्चयेत्।।

One should worship the supreme God with different types of auspicious flowers. Obeisance to Rāghava whose feet should be worshipped first.

तस्य पुत्रः स्वय जज्ञे रामाख्यो मधुसूदनः।

चतुर्धासावभूद् विष्णु परितोषान् महामुने।

Madhusūdan (Vishnu) himself was born as his (Daśarath’s) son. O sage, Vishnu, having been pleased, became four brothers from his four parts.

At the end, the phalaśruti is narrated and the last verse is as follows:

नश्यन्ति पापानि च तस्य पुसः

कामानवाप्नोति यथेप्सिताँश्च।

निष्काम एतद् व्रतमेव चीर्त्वा

प्राप्नोति निर्वाणपद स्थिर तत्।।

All sins of that person (who performs the Rāghava-dvādaśī) vanish and he obtains all the desired objects. He who performs it without any desire gets the permanent ‘nirvāna-pada’.

Thus, Kritya-kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara is full of references to Ayodhyā and deification of Rāma. But our modern historians don’t read the text and decide on the basis of secondary sources written by other scholars.

(30) Lal Darwaza Masjid inscription of Jaunpur

From the pillar inscription of the Lal Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur, which was engraved in the year 1296 A.D., it is learnt that at Ayodhyā, there lived Sadhe Sādhu in the past. His son was Sādhunidhi, who had a son by the name Padmasādhu, who built a temple of Padmeśvara (Vishnu) at the north side of the entrance to the Viśvesvara Temple at Kāśī. This pillar has been shifted to Jaunpur from Kāśī and the inscription thereon reads as follows:

1. ओ नमो गणपतये।। अयोध्याया

2. पुरा वृत्तः सत्यवाक्सुजनप्रियः[।] स

3. ढेसाधुरितिख्यातः सर्व्वसत्वहितेरतः[।।2।।]

4. तस्य पुत्रे बभूवाथ साधुनिधेति विश्रु-

5. तः[1] तस्यात्मजः शुचिवीरः पद्मसाधुरय

6. भुवि।। [2।।] काश्या विश्वेश्वरद्वारि हिमादिशि-

7. ष (ख)रोपमम्। पद्मेश्वरस्य देवस्य प्रासाद-

8. मकरोत्सुधी।। [3।।] ज्येष्ठे मासि सिते पक्षे

9. द्वादश्याम्बुधवासरे। लिखितेय सदा

10. याति प्रशस्तिः प्लववत्सरे।। [4।।] सवत् 1353 [।।]

Om! Glory be to Ganapati (Ganesa)! In Ayodhyā lived formerly Sadhesādhu, the speaker of truth, the beloved of good men whose delight consisted in the welfare of all beings. His son was the famous Sādhunidhi, whose son, Padmasādhu, of steadfast virtue, built a solid and lofty temple of god Padmeśvara (Vishnu) on the north side of the entrance to the Visveśvara temple at Kāśi, on Wednesday, the twelfth day of the waning moon of the month of Jyeshtha, in the year Plava Samvat 1353, on which day this eulogy was written.

Padma Sādhu had built this temple in 1296 A.D. His grandfather Sadhe Sādhu, who was the native of Ayodhyā, would have lived there in the first half of the 13th century.

(31) Vividha-tīrtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha Sūri

Vividha-tīrtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha Sūri is an important treatise on Jain pilgrimage. It is called Kalpa-pradīpa also. It was first edited by Munishri Jinavijayji and published in 1934 A.D. Recently an erudite scholar of Jain texts Dr. Shriranjan Surideo has translated it into Hindi with perfection. It was composed between 1364 and 1389 V.S. i.e. 1307 and 1332 A.D. In this book there is a chapter called Ayodhyā-nagarī-kalpa. It enumerates all Jain pilgrim places of Ayodhyā and casually mentions Sanātana centres also; e.g. it says: घरहुसुब्भवाण दसरह-राम-भरहाईण च रज्जट्ठाणच i.e. It is the royal place of Daśaratha, Rāma, Bharata, etc. born in Raghu dynasty.” Again it says घभजत्थ य महासईए सीयाए अप्पाण सोहतीए निअसीलबलेण अग्गी जलपूरीकओ। सो अ जलपूरो नयरि बोलिंतो निअमाहप्पेण तीए चेव रक्खिओ।च

Where Mahāsatī Sītā, while testing her purification, turned fire into water-fall by her conduct and when that water-fall started deluging the town, she rescued it by her moral strength.

It shows the utmost regard of the Jain authors for Sītā.

(32) Rasika-rañjana of Kavi Rāmchadra:

In 1524 the poet Rāmachandra, son of Lakshmana-Bhatta, composed Rasika-rañjanam with his own commentary at Ayodhyā. The poet mentions in the colophon:-

शृगारवैराग्यशत सपञ्चविंशत्ययोध्यानगरे व्यधत्त।

अब्दे वियद्वारणबाणचद्रे श्रीरामचद्रोऽनु च तस्य टीकाम्।।

Rāmchadra has composed the poetry of one hundred and twenty five ślokas of romance and renunciation with commentary in Vikrama Samvat 1580 i.e. 1524 A.D. at Ayodhyā.

It is published in the fourth bunch of Kāvyamālā series of Nirnay Sāgar Press, and edited by Pandita Durgā Prasād.

(33) Yātrā-prabandha of Samarapungava Dīkshita

Yātrā-prabandha of South Indian Pandit Samarapungava Dīkshita, who was born in 1574 A.D., is an important treatise on pilgrimage in the Champū style, i.e. the mixture of prose and verses. It includes Ayodhyā as a very important pilgrim centre. After eulogising Sarayū river, it depicts Ayodhyā city in the following verse.

परिसर-सयूप-सकण्ठमलघूत्तरवेदि-तटी

परिसरयूपकण्ठ-परिबद्ध-चषालशता।

प्रदिशति यत्र कौतुकमशीतकराभिजन-

प्रभव-जनाधिनाथ-हयमेध-वितान-मही।।105।।

On the bank of the Sarayū river (at Ayodhyā), the corner of the vast northern altar is situated near the Yūpa (the column for sacrifice) and there are hundreds of ‘chashala, i.e. big umbrellas to provide shade for pilgrims, and the spot of the Asvamedha sacrifice of the kings of the solar race creates impressions of wonder amongst pilgrims.

From this verse it is clear that Ayodhyā was a large pilgrim centre because on its bank hundreds of big umbrellas were fixed (by Tīrtha-purohitas) for providing shade from sun, light and rain.

Again the poet informs:

तत्र स रामभद्र प्रणिपत्य नुतिमित्यतानीत्।।

There he, after having prostrated before (the idol of) Ramachandra, rendered prayers.

Here, there is a clear mention that there was an idol of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā and devotees used to prostrate before it and pray. But in the absence of the exact location, this reference is not conclusive.

(34) An external evidence about Ramkot

“Asiatic researches; or, Transactions of the Society, instituted in Bengal for Inquiring Into the History and Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, and Literature of Asia” vol. XV, Serampore, printed at the Mission Press, 1825.

This is an interesting reference. It relates to the discovery of seven copper inscriptions from Benares under the title ‘Sanscrit Inscriptions’ written by Captain E. Fell, with observations by H.H. Wilson. The article contains the English translation of the inscriptions.

The translator of the inscriptions makes the following observation:

“30. The whole of this verse, as also the whole of the 8th verse are literatim the same as two verses on a plate or brass found at Chitradurg, containing a grant of land by a king (Dewul Roy) of Vidyanagar conferred Anno Domini 1395. Many of the Pandits at Benares have also assured me that the same verses are to be found on an ancient copper plate, being a grant of land by the famous Rama Chandra, King of Ayodhya. The plate was found at Ramkota in the very center of the modern city of Fyzabad, some centuries ago, and by which, as they relate, Mohammedan Emperor restored which his generals had seized.” (p. 458)

The land grant given by Rāma Chandra might have been in existence or not but the tradition that it was found from Ram Kot at Ayodhyā centuries ago is important. Equally important is the fact that it was not disbelieved by an English translator in the beginning of the 19th century. More important is the fact that the Muslim Emperor restored the land which had been seized by his generals on the basis of the copper inscription issued by King Rāma Chandra.

(35) Ayodhyā in Thailand

The impact of Ayodhyā was so wide and varied that in the distant Śyāmadesa (Siam) i.e. modern Thailand a Buddhist king U-Thong (Skt. Uttunga) decided to establish his capital at Nong Sans and name it Ayutthaya or Ayudhya after Ayodhyā in 1350 A.D.

On accession to the throne of Ayutthaya this Buddhist king even changed his name from U-Thong to Ramathibodhi (Skt. Ramatibodhi which means Rāma, the intellectual par excellence.) For 417 years this strong kingdom with Ayutthaya as the capital dominated the South East Asia politically, culturally and religiously. According to Willian Warren, Ayutthaya in the 17th century was the largest and most magnificent city in the region, with a population greater than that of London at that time and had about 400 temples in the capital.

Similarly, Java’s capital at ‘Jogya karta’ for centuries has been named after Ayodhyā. ‘(A)Jogya’ is named after Ajodhya and karta means city. The main river in Java is called Serayu, which is apparently named after the Indian Sarayū on the bank of which Ayodhyā is situated. A cave in its proximity is called Kiskanda of the Rāmāyana. Similarly, a town Situbenda after the Setubandha is located in the extreme east of the principality.

In 1767 A.D. the capital Ayutthaya capitulated before the onslaught of Burma because the King Ektatat (1758-67 A.D.) could not succeed in preventing its capitulation. Thereafter, the capital was shifted to Bangkok in 1782 by King Phra Buddha Yod FA who changed his name to Rāma I. After King Rāma I ascended the Chakri throne, all his successors bore Rāma’s name. Rāma I composed the Thai Rāmāyana, called Ramakien which contains 50, 286 verses. King Rāma II (1809 A.D.) recomposed and reduced it to 14,300 verses. Subsequently, King Rāma IV further reduced it to 1,664 verses only. King Rāma VI rewrote it in dialogue form. Thus, these Rāma Kings made the Rāmāyana and Ayodhyā extensively popular in Thailand, Laos and other S.E. Asian countries. The tradition of retaining the epithet Rāma still continues and the modern King Bhumibol Adulyadej is known as Rāma IX.

But the loss of Ayutthaya as the capital of the Kingdom and its irreparable ruins did always grieve all subsequent Kings. It is best illustrated in a heart-rending poem of Prince Maha Surasinghant, the brother of King Rāma I. The English translation of this poem is produced below:

“The whole city enjoyed happiness throughout all seasons.

Now it weighs heavily on my breast to see Ayutthaya disappear.

Where can I find its equal?

It is as if a crystal has lost its shine,

Each day brings new destruction

How can its glory ever be restored?”

This song of the Prince, full of pathos, fits in the present Ayodhyā situated in India. For every devotee of the original Ayodhyā it is peerless; there is no equal to it. The crystal of the present Ayodhyā has really lost its shine and every right thinking person is worried about the Yaksha-praśna, i.e.a million-dollar question as to how and when its glory will be restored.



Chapter Two

Janmabhūmi-māhātmya in the Skanda Purāna, Rudra-yāmala, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

[(1) Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya of the Skanda Purãna (2) Rãmajanma-sthãna-mãhãtmya in the Rudra-yãmala (3) Satyopãkhyãna (4) Avadha-vilãsa of Lãl Das (5) P. Carnegy’s Ajudhyia-mãhatum (6) Ram Narayan’s translation of Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya (7) Minor Hindi texts]

In the Ramjanmabhumi Babri Masjid : A Historians’ Report to the Nation’ the four historians Prof. R.S. Sharma, Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan have observed:

“People will be surprised to find that the V.H.P. has been unable to cite any ancient Sanskrit text in support of its claim that there has been an ancient Hindu belief in Ram Janma-sthãna at Ayodhya. Surely, if there were such a strong belief there would have been numerous Vaishnavite texts exhorting worshippers to visit the spot. The absence of any such reference makes it very dubious that the belief in Ram Janma-sthãna is of such respectable antiquity as is being made out. It is even doubtful if it is earlier than the late eighteenth century, as we shall see.”

If the V.H.P. failed to produce any document beyond the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna; I am not here to defend the inadequate research on their part. But I can claim with full authenticity and certainty that there are at least four texts of the standing of several centuries which contain the Rāma-janmasthāna māhātmya i.e. the religious merit of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. They are:

(i) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda-Purāna.

(ii) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala

(iii) Satyopākhyāna and

(iv) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

In addition, there are independent Ayodhyā-mahatmyas which contain several interpolations. But one striking feature of all the māhātmyas is that while depicting the merits of the Janma-sthāna, there are no glaring contradictions in their description of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. Even the content on the birthplace of Rāma mentioned in the “Epitome of the Ajudhia mahatama”, an abstract prepared by J. Woodburn, Assistant Settlement Officer from P. Carnegy’s book is not at variance with the published edition of the Skanda Purāna.

(1) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna

Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna is the most important source of the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā. The Skanda Purāna is one of 18 Mahapurānas and is mentioned so even by Alberuni, almost one thousand years ago. In the ‘Kitab-ul Hind’ Abu Raihan Alberuni thus writes:

“The Puranas are of human origin, composed by the so-called Rishis. In the following I have a list of their names, as I have heard them, and committed them to writing from dictation. (Chapter XII of the 1st volume)

Then he gives the names of 18 Puranas from Ādi Purāna to the Bhavishya Purāna. In the middle at serial no.9 he writes “Skanda Purāna, i.e. a son of Mahadeva.”

Then in another paragraph he writes:

“Another somewhat different list of the Puranas has been read to me from the Vishnu-Purãna. I give it here in extension, as in all questions resting on tradition it is the duty of an author to give those traditions as completely as possible.”

Then he narrates the names of 18 Purānas from Brahmā to Brahmānd+a and the Skanda Purāna is seen at the 13th position in the list. Since this list is found in the present Vishnu Purāna which is supposed to have been composed in the Gupta age. It is natural to presume that the Skanda-Purāna existed in the late, if not early, Gupta age.

The Dānasāgara of Vallālasen contains 48 ślokas from the Skanda Purāna. Vallālasena, the father of Lakshmanasena, is a name famous in Bengali legend as the reputed founder of Kulinism, i.e. a system of nobility. Dānasāgara was composed in Śaka 1091, i.e. 1169 A.D. While mentioning the reference-texts studied for the writing his book he describes Skanda Purāna as follows:

प्रचरद्रूपतः स्कन्दपुराणैकांशतोऽधिकम्।

यत्खण्डत्रितयं पौण्ड्ररेवावन्तिकमाश्रवम्।।

(दानसागर, उपक्रमणिका, )

Apart from the prevalent form of the Skanda Purāna, three more chapters of Paund+ra, Revā and Avantikā have been heard (read) by me.

The Skanda-Purāna is quoted in the Mitākshara, a celebrated commentary on the Yājñavalkya-smriti. On the śloka 2/290 of the Yājñavalkya-smriti it refers to the Skanda-Purāna:

स्मर्यते हि स्कन्दपुराणे- ‘पञ्चचूडा नाम काश्चनाप्सरसः तत्सन्ततिर्वेश्याख्या पञ्चमी जातिः’ इति।

It is stated in the Skanda Purāna – “There were certain ‘apsaras’ whose descendants were prostitutes and called the fifth caste.”

Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasad Sastri had found manuscripts of Purānas in Gupta character in Nepal Raj Durbar Library. It included the manuscript of some portions of the Skanda-Purāna. It was examined by Hara Prasad Sastri as well as Professor Cecil Bendall, who was Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge. “Catalogue of Palm Leaf and Selected Paper Mss. Belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal” was published in 1905 from Calcutta. On the palaeographic examination these two great scholars found that the script of this manuscript had the Gupta character and it was copied before 659 A.D. In the Preface Hara Prasad Sastri wrote thus:

“Skandapurana pp. 8 and 141, No. 229, is in Gupta character. Professor and myself carefully examined the palaeography of the MS. at the Durbar Library, and we came to the conclusion that the work must have been copied at least two hundred years before the ‘Paramesvara tantra’ in transitional Gupta character, described by Prof. Bendall in his Cam. Cat. So the MS. must have been copied before 659 A.D. as the Paramesvaratantra was copied in Harsa era 252=859 A.D.” (p. 52)

From the scant portion of the Skanda Purāna available in the Durbar Library, Nepal it is difficult to make any concrete presumption except that the Skanda Purāna existed in the first half of the seventh century A.D. But his assertion that the manuscript of the Skanda Purāna had the Gupta character gets further support from Benjamin Walker who assigns the date of this Purāna in 550 A.D.

Benjamin Walker in “Hindu World – An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism’, first published in 1968 by George Allen & Unwin, London and the first Indian Edition published in 1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. has given some information about the Puranas and dated them also., About Skanda Purāna he writes:

“Purãna (C. A.D. 550), related by Skanda, god of war. The longest of the Puranas is said to consist of over 80,000 stanzas, although it does not exist in composite form, but only fragments. Such, for example, is the Kashi Khanda, describing Benaras and the Saivite temples there, and the Utkala Khanda, giving an account of Orissa.”

Thus, Benjamin Walker considers the Skanda Purāna as one of the earliest Puranas but our established historians arbitrarily take it to late 18th or early 19th century. But it is far from the actual position.

There is Dvārkā-māhātmya in the Prabhāsa Khand+a of the Skand Purāna. It has been quoted in the Dvārakā-pattalam+ which was written by Bīnābaī. She was the daughter of Mānd+alika and wife of King Hari Singh of Chauhān clan at Pātalipur in Kathiawad. She is a historical figure of the fifteenth century. Dvārakā-pattalam was published in 1941 A.D. in the third volume of ‘The Contribution of Women to Sanskrit Literature’ at Kolkata. Its editor was Jatindra Vimal Chaudhari who had the manuscript dated 1518 A.D. for its publication. In this book she has quoted many vases from the Dvārkā-māhātmya of the Prabhasa Khand+a of the Skanda-purana. According to it, Mathurā, Dvārakā and Ayodhyā are the three sacred places in the Kali era which are very dear to Hari and provide Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha:

मथुरा द्वारकायोध्या कलिकाले पुरीत्रयम्।

धर्मार्थकामदं भूप मोक्षदं हरिवल्लभम्।। (२५.२)

O King! Ayodhyā, Mathurā, and Dvārakā are three cities which provide Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksha and are dear to Hari.

द्वारवत्यामयोध्यायां कृष्णं रामं शुभप्रदम्।

मथुरायां हरिं विष्णुं स्मृत्वा मुक्तिमवाप्नुयात्।। (२५.४)

One gets salvation by remembering Kr+ishna at Dvārakā, Rāma at Ayodhyā and Hari at Mathurā.

धन्यानामपि सा पूज्या अयोध्या सर्वकामदा।

या स्वयं रामदेवेन पालिता धर्मबुद्धिना।। (२५.६)

Ayodhyā fulfils all desires and is revered among glorified cities. It is protected by Rāma himself, the embodiment of wisdom.

प्रभासे च कुरुक्षेत्रे यत्फलं वत्सरै शतै।

वसतां निमिषार्द्धह्यन ह्ययोध्यायां च तद् भवेत्।। (२५.९)

Whatever merit one gets by dwelling at Prabhasa and Kurukshetra for hundreds of years is obtained by living at Ayodhyā for half nimish (1/3 second).

अयोध्याधिपतिं रामं मथुरायां तु केशवम्।

द्वारकावासिनं कृष्णं कीर्तनं चापि दुर्लभम्।। (२५.१०)

It is difficult to recite the names of Rāma, the Lord of Ayodhyā, Keśava of Mathurā and Krishna, the resident of Dvārakā.

मथुराकीर्तनेनापि श्रवणाद् द्वारकापुरः।

अयोध्यादर्शनेनापि त्रिशुं च पदं व्रजेत्।। (२५.११)

One gets the most sacred post by reciting the name at Mathurā, hearing the names of Dvārakā and by a glimpse of Ayodhyā.

Such is the tremendous merit of Ayodhyā.

(Skanda Purāna: Prabhāsa Khand+a: Dvārakā-māhātmya Adhyāya25)

Skanda Purāna may contain several interpolations but we have to examine the date and authenticity of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya; particularly the Janma-sthāna-māhātmya.

Skanda Purāna contains the Māhātmya of a number of pilgrim places (sthalas). Earlier the sthala-māhātmyas were denigrated by the established historians. But a number of foreign scholars took the lead in reconstructing religious history of the area. The Dutch Indologist Jan Gonda was pioneer in the field. He wrote the book ‘Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit’ (Wiesbaden, 1977) and suggested that the literature on holy places of special sanctity is in all probability far more extensive than any other single topic of Dharama Sastra (p. 276). He further added:

“This genre of literature is not only very useful for deepening our knowledge of the cultural and religious history of India in general but also most valuable for those who want to reconstruct the development of regional history and local cults or to gain a deeper insight into various religious institutions” (p. 278).

The “Gayā māhātmya” was highlighted by C. Jacques in 1962 and “Kāñchī Māhātmya” by a team of scholars led by R. Dessigne in 1964. The Indradyumana legend was discussed threadbare by R. Geib in 1975, the “Purushottama (Jagannātha-purī) māhātmya” by a team of scholars led by A. Eichmann in 1978, “Chidambaram Māhātmya” by Hermann Kulke in 1970 and “Prayāga Māhātmya” by S.G. Kantawala in 1967 and G. Spera in 1977 A.D. In this tradition another Dutch scholar Hans Bakker made a detailed study of Ayodhyā-māhātmya which was published in 1986 before the eruption of the fierce controversy between the two communities.

A wrong impression has been deliberately created by the established historians that the religious importance of the birthplace of Lord Rāma is of recent origin. In the aforementioned booklet the four historians arbitrarily wrote thus:

“The various versions of the Ayodhya mãhãtmya seem to have been prepared towards the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth; even as late as that the birth place was not considered to be important. It is significant that Janma-sthãna is not mentioned even once in any itinerary of pilgrimage in the mãhãtmya.”

This conclusion is contrary to the historical facts and analytical study of the wide literature on the sacrosanct status of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. The established historians, who have otherwise quoted profusely the content of Hans Bakker’s book ‘Ayodhyā’, have deliberately suppressed the findings of the Dutch scholar who has fixed the date of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in the 13th or 14th century in the following words:

“In view of the above considerations we are inclined to accept the close of the 13th or the 14th century as the most plausible date for the redaction of a type of text and its insertion in the Vaishnavakhand+a (S)”: (pp. 129-30)

In the footnote, Bakker further adds:

“This date seems to corroborate the assumption that the Vaisnavakhand+a of the Skandapurana was the work of one editor who collated his materials in the 14th century. The other (tirtha-) māhātmyas in this Kãnd+a are the Venkatachala mãhãtmya, the Badrikãśrama-mãhãtmya, and the Purus+ottamaks+etra-mãhatmya. The date of the former two mãhãtmyas is unknown, but the Purus+ottama-ks+etra-mãhãtmya was composed about AD 1300 (see COJ 36, 54, 170).”

Though Bakker’s is an extensive research on Ayodhyā-māhātmya, yet some of his conclusions can still be improved; e.g. he has dated the composition of the Purushottama-kshetra-māhātmya around 1300 A.D. but from an analytical study of this māhātmya it is clear that it was composed long before 1042 A.D. because it does not mention the construction of the present magnificent Jagannātha temple built by Chod+aganaga in 1042 A.D.

Let us now see how these four historians have dated the Ayodhyā-māhātmya. They have claimed that they have used the printed version of the Skanda-Purāna and two other versions found in the Vrindāvan Research Institute, Vrindāvan, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. These three texts are utilized in Bakker’s book by the references S, B and OA respectively. How much deep study of the Skanda Purāna has been made by these great historians is best reflected in their following observation:

“The internal contents of the Skanda Purãna, including the mention of Vidyapati, who passed away in the first half of the sixteenth century, show that the core of this Purãna itsef was not compiled earlier than the sixteenth century.”

Readers should know that Vidyāpati described in the Skanda Purāna is not the famous Maithil poet but a legendary figure who has been described as the younger brother of the priest of the legendary king Indradyumana of Ujjain. He was deputed by the king to trace the Nīla Mādhava deity being worshipped by the Śabara tribe of the Utkal country. There is a long story of this legendary Vidyāpati and king Indradyumana of Ujjain in the Skanda Purāna. Had these historians really read the content of the Skanda Purāna they would have come to know that this Vidyāpati was different from the Vidyāpati of Mithilā who was born in c.1350 A.D. This date is decided on the basis of the historical fact that Śivasimaha ascended the throne in 1402 A.D. at the age of 50 and Vidyāpati was elder to him by two years. His one work ‘Likhanāvalī ’, a treatise on drafting official letters is dated L.S. 299 i.e. 1408 A.D. He copied the entire Bhāgavata Purāna in Mithilākshara which was dated by the poet L.S. 309 i.e. 1418 A.D. The following colophon written in the poet’s own handwriting confirms it:

Colophon of the Bhāgavata scribed by Vidyāpati.

The Mithilākshara script is transliterated into the Devanāgarī for the convenience of readers:

लसं ३०९ श्रावण सुदि १५ कुजे रजा वनौली ग्रामे श्रीविद्यापतेर्ल्लिपिरियमिति।।

It is a well known fact that Vidyāpati copied the entire Bhāgavata in Nepal in his old age after the defeat and non-appearance of King Śivasimaha. Therefore Vidyāpati could have never lived in the first half of the 16th century.

The Durgābhakti-taranaginī was written by Vidyāpati on the request of Mahārāja Bhairava Simaha whose definite date 1375 Saka or 1453 A.D. is mentioned in an inscription of the Sun-temple at Kandāhā near Saharsa in Bihar. Thus, the famous Maithila poet might have lived upto c. 1460 A.D. But our great historians keep him alive till the first half of the 16th century A.D.

If these historians did really read the manuscripts of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Vrindavan Research Institute, they could have come across the following four manuscripts kept therein:

(a) Acc. No. 7141 in Devanāgarī script; referred to as Ayodhyā-khand+a; material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- V.S. 1883, Chaitra; place of scribe- Ayodhyā; paper size-32×14 cm.; scribed portion- 27×10.5cm.; total folios-57; complete; fair.

(b) Acc. No. 13289 in Devanāgarī script, material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- not mentioned but seems to be 50 year older than ‘a’, Chaitra; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-29.5×14.2 cm.; scribed portion- 26×12cm.; total folios available 48; incomplete; fair; only two folios f.2v. and f.4v. are illegible.

(c) Acc. No. 2173 in Bengali script material- hand-made paper; date of scribe- not mentioned; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-8×33.3 cm.; scribed portion- 5.5×26cm.; total folios 33; complete; fair; 5 lines per page, 52-55 characters per line.

(d) Acc. No. 14078 in Devanāgarī script material- factory-made paper; date of scribe-VS. 1942; place of scribe- not mentioned; paper size-34.5×16-5 cm.; scribed portion- 28×11cm.; total folios 20; incomplete; damaged; 14 lines per page, 35 characters per line.

Whereas the first two manuscripts are parts of the Skanda Purāna, the last two are parts of the Rudra-yāmala Samahitā according to the colophon of the manuscripts. Had these historians really read these manuscripts, they could have not claimed that the Janma-sthāna māhātmya is mentioned only in the Skanda-Purāna. They could have come to know that it is mentioned in the Rudra-yāmala also.

In addition to the previously mentioned manuscripts related to the Ayodhyā māhātmya in the Vrindavan Research Institute, there is a book-list prepared by great Saint Jīva Gosvāmī who was a nephew of Rupa Gosvāmī and who lived from 1523 to 1608 A.D. He built the famous Radha Damodar temple at Vrindavan and established a library in the temple premises. In his own hand-writing he prepared the list of books available in his library. This book-list is now preserved at Vrindavan Research Institute and its accession no. is 5425. This manuscript is divided into four parts A, B, C, and D. The manuscripts of A category were listed in 1654 V.S. i.e. 1597 A.D. In this catalogue (26 × 12 cms.) of books in the Devanāgārī script is the folio no. 9 which has a list of books in bundle no. 20:

20 कोथरी नानापुराण एकवत्र एव+ i.e. This bundle (कोथरी) no. 20 carries various Purānas inwraped in a single cloth. The 9th book under this title is "अयोध्यामाहात्म्य गौ," i.e. Ayodhyā-māhātmya Gaudiya (Bengali recensions). It proves that in 1597 A.D. or even before that the Ayodhyā-māhātmya was available in the library of Jīva Gosvāmī. Therefore the verdict that Ayodha-māhātmya belongs to the late 18th or early 19th century is totally baseless. In the late 16th century there existed at least one manuscript of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in Jīva Gosvāmī’s library.

Whether this Ayodhyā-māhātmya catalogued by Jīvasvāmī is extant or not cannot be said with certainty. At present there are four manuscripts available in the Vrindavan Research Institute but they are later editions. Mrs. Kamalesh Parikh, the librarian of the Vrindavan Research Institute informed that no manuscript of Ayodhyā-māhātmya was received from the Radha Damodar temple. When the trustee of the temple was contacted, he intimated that the literature in the handwriting of Jīva Gosvāmi is worshipped by the devotees. Therefore, it cannot be examined now by any authority. However, he informed that the Kr+ishna-sandarbha, which is a part of the ShaT-sandarbha, is a published text and has the following references related to the Ayodhyā-māhātmya.

1 . एवमेव श्रीरघुनाथस्याप्ययोध्यायां श्रूयते, यथा स्कान्दायोध्यामाहात्म्ये स्वर्गद्वारमुद्दिश्य-

चतुर्धा च तनुं कृत्वा देवदेवो हरिः स्वयम्।

अत्रैव रमते नित्यं भातृभिः सह राघवः।।

Similarly, Raghunātha’s birthplace is said to be at Ayodhyā, as in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda-Purāna, the following (verse) is in relation to the Svarga-dvàra:

Hari, who is the supreme God, after having taken four forms of human bodies, always plays here as Rāghava with his brothers.

एवं श्रीलक्ष्मणस्याप्यन्तिम-दासानुकरणस्याप्यन्तिम-दासानुकरणलीलायां श्रूयते स्कान्दीयायोध्या-माहात्म्ये

ततः शेषात्मतां यातं लक्ष्मणं सत्यसङगरम्।

उवाच मधुं शक्रः सुराणां तत्र पश्यताम्।।।।

Similarly, the worldly deeds of Lakshmana, who was the most subservient servant (of Rāma) is heard in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda-Purāna.

“Indra spoke sweetly to Lakshmana the valiant in the war of truth and the embodiment of the Śeshanāga.”

The first śloka is found in many recensions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in connection with the description of the Svarga-dvāra temple. The śloka on Lakshmana is found in the first adhyāya of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the printed Skanda-Purāna.

Hans Bakker has introduced the following three versions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya in his book ‘Ayodhyā’:

(i) Printed Skanda Purāna- S

(ii) Ms. at Bodleian Library, Oxford – OA

(iii) Ms. at Vrindavan Research Institute in Bengali Script. - B

The most striking feature of these recensions is that there is no vital variation in the reading of these three recensions so far the Janma-sthāna is concerned. Merits of the darśana of Rāma Janma-sthana are described in similar words.

(i) The following is the description of the Janma-sthāna in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda-Purāna published by M/S Khemraj Shrikrishnadas, prop. Shri Venkateshwar Steam Press, reprinted by Nag Publishers, New Delhi, 1986, Vol. 2, Vaishnava-khanda.

तस्मात् स्थानत ऐशाने रामजन्म प्रवर्तते।

जन्मस्थानमिदं प्रोक्तं मोक्षादिफलसाधनम्।।।।

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठादुत्तरे तथा।

लौमशात् पश्चिमे भागे जन्मस्थानं ततः स्मृतम्।।।।

To the north-east of that spot is the place of the birth of Rāma. This holy spot of the birth is said to be the means of achieving salvation etc. It is said that the place of birth is situated to the east of

Vighneśvara, to the north of VasisTha and to the west of Laumaśa.

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासजयो भवेत्।

विना दानेन तपसा विना तीर्थैर्विना मखै।।।।

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारी हि मानवः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।।।

Only by visiting it a man can get rid of staying (frequently) in a womb (i.e. rebirth). There is no need for making charitable gifts, performing penance or sacrifices or undertaking pilgrimages to holy spots. On the Navamī day the man should observe the holy vow. By the power of the holy bath and charitable gifts, he is liberated from the bondage of births.

कपिलागोसहस्राणि यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

आश्रमे वसतां पुंसां तापसानां च यत् फलम्।

राजसूयसहस्राणि तिवर्षाग्निहोत्रतः।।।।

By visiting the place of birth, one attains that benefit which is obtained by the person who gives thousands of tawny-coloured cows everyday. By seeing the place of birth, one attains the merit of ascetics performing penance in hermitage, of thousands of Rājasūya sacrifices and Agnihotra sacrifices performed every year.

नियमस्थं नरं दृष्ट्वा जन्मस्थाने विशेषतः।

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणाञ्च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।।।।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

(Adhyaya 10, p. 293R.)

By observing sacred rites, particularly at the place of birth, he obtains the merit of the holy men endowed with devotion to their mother and father as well as preceptors.

(ii) A manuscript preserved at Bodleian Library, Oxford, which has been marked as ‘O’ by Hans Bakker, is the largest version and contains 30 chapters. The same text was translated by Ram Narayan into English and published in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1875 A.D. The same text was edited by Pt. Ramnarayanadas and printed at the Lakshminarayan Press, Moradabad in 1898. The relevant text in Sanskrit is produced here.

एवं सम्पूज्य विधिवज्जन्मभूमिं व्रजेन्नरः।

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठाच्चोत्तरे तथा।।।।

लोमशात् पश्चिमाभागे जन्मस्थानं तु तत् स्मृतम्।

After having worshipped formally, one should go to the Janma-bhūmi which is in the east from the Vighneśvara, in the north from VasishTha, in the West from Lomaśa. It is called Janmasthāna.

धनुपञ्चाशतादूर्ध्वं स्थानं वै लोमशस्थलात्।।।।

विघ्नेश्वरात् सहस्राष्टावुन्मत्ताच्च धनुशतम्।

मध्ये तु राजभवनं ब्रह्मणा निर्मितं स्थलम्।।।।

It is at a distance of 500 dhanush from Lomaśa, 1008 dhanush from Vighnesvara and 100 dhanush from Unmatta. At the centre a royal house was built by Brahmā.

जन्मस्थानमिदं प्रोक्तं मोक्षादिफलदायकम्।

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासजयो भवेत्।।।।

It is called Janmasthāna and gives all fruits like liberation, by glancing at which, a man overcomes the stay in the womb, i.e. birth without any donation, penance, pilgrimage and sacrifice.

विना दानेन तपसा विना तीर्थैर्विना मखै।

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारी हि मानवः।।।।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।

He, who fasts on the (Rāma) Navamī, takes bath and makes a donation, is liberated from all perils of birth by having a glance at the Janmasthāna.

कपिलागोसहस्रञ्च यो ददाति दिने दिने।।।।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

जन्मान्तरसहस्रेषु यत् पापं समुपार्जितम्।।।।

तत्सर्वं नाशमायाति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

By glancing at the Janma-bhūmi one gets the fruit of donating a thousand Kapilā (tawny colored) cows. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, all the sins gathered in thousands of births are liquidated.

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणाञ्च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।।।।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

गुरुशुश्रूषारतिमतां तीर्थसेवारतात्मनाम्।।।।

सत्यव्रतपराणाञ्च आश्रमाणाञ्च यत् फलम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, one gets all the merits obtained by devotion to mother, father and elderly people. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, one gets all merits of those who serve teachers, render service in pilgrim places, tread the path of truthfulness and follow their dharma.

आश्रमे वसतां पुंसां तापसानां च यत् फलम्।

राजसूयसहस्राणि प्रतिवर्षाग्निहोत्रतः।।।।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

(Adhyāya, 7)

Those who perform penances in hermitages and perform a thousand Rajasūya sacrifices and Agnihotra, obtain equal merit by glancing at the Janmasthāna.

(iii) Another manuscript preserved at Vrindavana Research Institute in Bengali script which has been marked as ‘B’ by Hans Bakker is quoted here:

जन्मस्थानं ततो गच्छेदृषिदेवैर्नमस्कृतम्।।।।

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठाच्चोत्तरे तथा।

लोमशात् पश्चिमे भागे जन्मस्थानं ततः स्मृतम्।।।।

धनुपञ्चाशतादूर्ध्वं स्थानं वै लोमशस्थलात्।

विघ्नेश्वरात् सहस्राष्टावुन्मत्ताच्च धनुशतम्।।।।

Then he (the pilgrim) should go to the birthplace (of Rāma) which is worshipped by sages and gods. It is situated in the east from Vighneśvara (temple), in the north from VasishTha and in the west from Lomaśa. It is 500 dhanush above Lomaśa site and 1008 dhanush from Vighneśvara and 100 dhanush from Unmatta (Mattagajendra).

मध्ये तु राजभवनं ब्रह्मणा निर्मितं स्थलम्।

जन्मस्थानमिदं प्रोक्तं मोक्षादिफलदायकम्।।।।

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासक्षयो भवेत्।

विना दानेन तपसा विना तीर्थैर्विना मखै।।।।

At the centre is the royal palace built by Brahmā. It is called Janmasthāna and gives salvation, etc. and the mere sight of which releases a man from returning to the mother’s womb without donation, penance, pilgrimage and sacrifice.

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।।।

He, who fasts on the (Rāma) Navamī, takes bath and makes a donation, is liberated from all perils of birth by having a glance at the Janmasthāna.

कपिलागोसहस्रञ्च यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलं समवाप्नेति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

जन्मान्तरसहस्रेषु यत् पापं समुपार्जितम्।

तत्सर्वं नाशमायाति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणाञ्च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नेति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

By glancing at the Janma-bhūmi, one gets the fruit of donating a thousand Kapilā cows. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, all the sins gathered in thousands of births are liquidated. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, one gets all the merits obtained by his devotion to mother, father and elderly people.

गुरुशुश्रूषारतिमतां तीर्थसेवारतात्मनाम्।

सत्यव्रतपराणाञ्च आश्रमाणाञ्च यत् फलम्।।।।

सत्यव्रतपराणाञ्च स्वधर्मपरिपालनम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।।।

By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi, one gets all merits of those who serve their teachers, render service in pilgrim places, tread the path of truthfulness and follow their dharma.

आश्रमे वसतां पुंसां तापसानां च यत् फलम्।

राजसूयसहस्राणि प्रतिवर्षाग्निहोत्रतः।।।।

Those, who perform penances in hermitages, a thousand Rājasūya sacrifices and Agnihotra, obtain equal merit by glancing at the Janmasthāna.

नियमस्थो नरो दृष्ट्वा जन्मस्थानं विशेषतः।

विवर्णवदनो भूत्वा मार्जयेद् भूमिजं रजः।।।।

जन्मस्थानं नरो दृष्ट्वा मुच्यते जन्मसंकटात्।

(Adhyaya 5, folio 13V.-14V.)

If a man specially glances at the Janmasthāna, following traditions and becomes wan and cleans dust, he is liberated from the peril of rebirth after glancing at the birthplace.

(2) Rāma-janmasthāna-māhātmya in the Rudra-yāmala

The following passage from the 16th chapter of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya is preserved in a manuscript written on संवत् 1958 आषाढ सुदि 14 भृगुवासरे i. e. 25th July, Friday,1801 A.D. It is copied from an ancient text. The source manuscript was so dilapidated that the copier had to leave so many words and passages by writing त्रुटि or showing broken lines indicating gaps. It is a very important manuscript and preserved in the prestigious institution Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. Although a microfilm of this manuscript had been obtained by Hans Bakker, he did not properly go through it and he did not utilize it, while presenting texts. About this manuscript Bakker gives the following information which is correct:

Collection of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) in Poona, No 112 of 1891-95. No title page.

Devnagari script 29 folios containing 16 Adhyayas: 11 lines to a page; 50 aksharas per line; (hand-made) paper; black Indian ink; regular and clear handwriting; one scribe.

At the end he adds further information:

“The text is titled Ayodhyamahatmya and is said to belong to the Rudra-yamalasamhita. The MS was completed on Friday the 14th of the bright half of the month of Ashadha in the year VS 1858 (AD 1801). The name of the scribe and the place of copying are not specified. In the bottom right hand corner of f.29r the scribe added //sri. Only a microfilm of the MS. was consulted.”

The last folio of this manuscript is given here:

The last folio of the manuscript of Ayodhyā-māhātmya
of Rudrayāmala dated 1801 A.D. (BORI, Pune)

For the first time in the history of the Ayodhyā controversy the present author is producing a clinching evidence which conclusively proves that there was a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was an idol inside it. Devotees used to visit it for having a glimpse of the idol and for the annihilation of their poverty. It is described in the 12th chapter called दरिद्र-भञ्जनदुर्ल्लभो Adhyaya of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala scripture in the following verses:

दुर्ल्लभो अयोध्यावासो दुर्लभं सरयूजलम्।

दुर्ल्लभा जन्मभूमिश्च दुर्ल्लभं रामदर्शनम्।।।।

मनसापि स्मृता येन अयोध्या नगरी शुभा।

न तेषां पुनरावृत्तिर्यावदाहूतसंप्लवम्।।।।

Rare are the opportunities to reside at Ayodhyā, to bathe in the Sarayū river, to visit the birthplace of Rāma and to have the darśana of Lord Rāma. Even if one remembers the auspicious pilgrim city Ayodhyā, he is bound not to be born till the deluge.

Since in the manuscript of Rudrāyāmala it is written दुर्ल्लभो अयोध्यावासो it is repeated here in place of दुर्ल्लभोऽयोध्यावासो - The former breaks the metre in the verse.

सरयूतीरमाश्रित्य शाकमूलफलैरपि।

तस्मिन् भोजितो विप्रो कोटिर्भवति भोजिता।।।।

He, who dwells on the bank of the Sarayū river and lives on vegetables, roots and fruits and feeds one Vipra, will get the benefit of feeding one crore Vipras.

सरयूतीरपूतानां जन्मभूम्याः विलोकिनाम्।

दर्शनात् पातकं तेषां कल्पकोटिशतायुतान्।।।।

All sins of those persons, who after being purified by bathing on the Sarayū’s bank visit the janma-bhūmi, are effaced, by its mere glimpse, for hundreds, thousands and crores of kalpas.

Here Pānini’s sutra कालाध्वनोरत्यन्तसंयोगे (Ashtādhyāyī- (२.३.५)) is used in कल्पकोटिशतायुतान्. The verb is latent.

राममन्दिरमासाद्य दर्शनं क्रियते नरै।

मनसापि स्मृं येन मुच्यते चरणत्रयात्।।।।

Having reached the temple of Rāma men, who have his darśana (glimpse) or even his rememberance, are liberated from the charana-trayam, i.e. birth, life and death.

दर्शनं जन्मभूमेश्च स्मरणं रामनामतः।

मज्जनं सरयूतीरे कृं वै पापनाशनम्।।।।

By a darśana of the Janma-bhūmi or remembrance of the Rāma-nāma or bathing in the Sarayū river all sins are destroyed.

अयोध्यानगरं पुण्यं स्मृं वै पापनाशनम्।

धान्यं यशस्यमायुष्यं पुण्यं पापहरं फलम्।।।।

He, who remembers the sacred Ayodhyā, is blessed with wealth, reputation, long life, virtues and destruction of sins.

सुखसौभाग्यमारोग्यं अयोध्यासरयूजलम्।

य इदं शृणुयान्नित्यं चरित्रं रामजन्मनः।।।।

दर्शनात् स्मरणाद्वापि सर्वपापै प्रमुच्यते।।।।

The water of the Sarayū river at Ayodhyā provides bliss, good luck and health. He, who listens to the story of the birth of Rāma or has a glimpse (of him or his temple or idol) or remembers him, is liberated from all sins.

इति श्रीअयोध्यामाहात्म्ये दरिद्रभञ्जनमाहात्म्यमहिमावर्णनो नाम द्वादशोऽध्यायः।।

(Here ends the description of the importance of the destruction of the poverty chapter).

(Folio no. 25r.)

The recto of 25th folio of the manuscript of Ayodhyā-māhātmya
of Rudrayāmala dated 1801 A.D. (BORI, Pune)

In addition, the following verses of this manuscript, too, highlight the merit of the visit of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi:

जन्मस्थानं ततो गच्छेदृषिदेवैर्नमस्कृतम्।।।।

यद् दृष्ट्वा मानवो भक्त्या गर्भदुखक्षयो भवेत्।

विना दानेन तपसा विना तीर्थैर्विना मखै।।।।

Then one should go to the Janma-sthana, which is saluted by sages and gods. By seeing which, one is liberated from all miseries and the cycle of birth. Without donation or penance or pilgrimage or sacrifices.

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।।।

If people fast on the Rāmanavamī day, bathe in the Sarayū and make donation, they are liberated from the bound of birth.

कपिलागोसहस्रं च यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मस्थानस्य दर्शनात्।।।।

रत्नकोटिसहस्राणि यो ददाति द्विजातये।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमेश्च दर्शनात्।।।।

By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one gets that much virtue which is accumulated by donating a thousand Kapilā cows everyday. By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one gets that much virtue which is obtained by donating a thousand crore gems to Brāhmanas.

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणां च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमेश्च दर्शनात्।।।।

By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one obtains that much virtue which is gathered by the devotion to mother, father and the Guru.

(Folio 17v. : Adhyaya 7)

Here it is important to mention that this is the briefest description of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. Here merits of the visit of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi are enumerated but no direction or distance is given. In the development of the description of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi, the direction was first added and then the distance. But in this Ayodhyā-māhātmya no distance or direction is given. It indicates that this Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala is the oldest version.

There has been a long tradition that the janma-sthana description in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya has been an integral part of the Rudra-yāmala. Though the first half (पूर्वार्द्धद्) of the Rudra-yāmala is not available at present, to the best of our knowledge and search; the second half (उत्तरार्द्धजामल) is available and it contains only Rāma-yantra. However, Lal Das, the saint who stayed at Ayodhyā and composed Avadha-vilāsa there in the 17th century, has written:

जामल रुद्र कथा इह पाई। लालदास तसि कहि समुझाई।।

जामल रुद्र अनंतहि होई। कल्प कल्प के भेद है सोई।।

Lal Das had not only seen the Rudra-yāmala but had based the Avadha-Vilasa in the Hara-gaurī-samavāda, i.e. a dialogue between Hara, i.e. Śiva and Gaurī i.e. Pārvatī. It is in the style of the Rudra yāmala.

In his famous book ‘The Śākta Pīthas’ the great scholar D.C. Sircar has written that a Tantra work entitled Rudra-yāmala seems to have been composed considerably earlier than 1052 A.D. because the Rudra-yāmala is mentioned in the Brahma-yāmala, a manuscript of which was copied in 1052 A.D. (p.17) He further informs that a passage from this work Rudra-yāmala is quoted in the Kulārnava Tantra.

Thus, Rudra-yāmala is a work which is more than a thousand years old. And in this work not only Ayodhyā-māhātmya is described but there is a specific mention of a temple at the site also. Therefore, the Janma-sthāna has a written tradition for at least one thousand years. In the early tradition, there was a mention of the temple at this site.

From the analytical study it is clear that the Janma-sthāna is situated in the east from Vighneśvara, west from Lomaśa and north from VasishTha. There is no variance in the direction in any of the three recensions. In the Vrindaban recension as well as the Oxford manuscripts the measurements of the distances, too, are given. There is no measurement in the printed Skanda-Purāna edition.

According to both Vrindavana and Oxford recensions the distance between the Janma-sthana and Vighneśvara is 1000 dhanush, the distance between the Janma-sthana and Lomaśa is 500 dhanush and it is 100 dhanush between the Janma-sthāna and the Unmatta. The Unmatta may be identified with the Mattagayendra and the Lomaśa is identified with the Rāma Gulela Mandir in front of which a marker was placed in 1902 A.D. It reads “2 Lomaśa.” This identification has been there for almost 110 years and in the absence of any other identity based on any evidence, it should be accepted ungrudgingly. The identification of Lomaśa with the distant R+inamochana ghāta by the four historians is arbitrary and malafide. It is deliberately done to discredit the correct distance indicated in these three recensions.

They have written that ‘according to verses 21.24, the birthplace is located 500 dhanus (910 metres) westward of Lomaśa and 1008 dhanus (1835 metres) eastward of Vighneśvara. They have further added that “according to local Hindu belief, Lomash or the place of Lomaśa is identical with the present Rina-mochana ghat.” On the basis of this incorrect assertion they have drawn this misleading conclusion:

“On this basis the Ramajanmabhùmi should be located somewhere west, in the vicinity of the Brahmakunda close to the bed of the Sarayù.”

When Hans Bakker enquired during his research, no one told him that Lomaśa was identified with R+inamochana Ghāta. On the contrary he wrote,

“Nowadays a math named Ramgulela is believed to represent Lomasa.”

When I contacted dozens of Ayodhyāvāsīs, everyone told me that it was Ramgulela and a marker is placed there. They advised me to see the marker placed there since 1902 A.D. I saw it and found their assertion correct. It is east of our Amawa Rāma Mandir across the road. Since all the texts mention the similar direction and there is no contradiction in the texts prescribing measurements; they should be accepted as correct propositions because at present some locations are difficult to be traced.

In the Vrindavana and Oxford manuscripts मध्ये तु राजभवनं ब्रह्मणा निर्मितं स्थलम्, i.e. in the middle exists a royal palace built by Brahma. It is not found in the printed version of the Skanda-Purāna. Otherwise, there is no major variation in the description of the Janma-sthana. It shows the continuous tradition of the māhātmya of the
janma sthana.

In addition, a text of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya from the Rudra-yāmala was published from Vārānasī in 1868 A.D. and a copy of it is available in the British Museum Library. In the “Catalogue of Sanskrit and Pāli Books in the British Museum” prepared by Dr. Ernst Haas in 1876 in London, on page 141 it reads:

“TANTRAS. RUDRAYÃMALATANTRÃ. Ayodhya mahatmyam. अथायोध्यामाहात्म्यं प्रारभ्यते [A description of Ayodhya and its sacred localities alleged to be a section of the R] ff. 16, lith. (काशी 1925 (Benares, 1868]”

(3) Satyopākhyāna

It was published by Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai in 1882 A.D. in lithograph by Shri Ganga Vishnu. It is difficult to say whether it is an independent work or a part of some Purāna. However, in two manuscripts preserved in the Sarasvatī Bhandar Library of Kāśī Raj Trust it is shown to be a part of the Brahmand+a Purāna. But it is not found in the present edition of the Brahmand+a-Purāna.

A manuscript of Satyopākhyānam scribed in 1865 A.D. is available in the Pennsylvania University Library which dates the text to the 13th century. For ascertaining the date I wrote to the Curator of Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvania Libraries on 18th February, 2015 and requested him to send the details of the Satyopākhyāna. On the same day a prompt reply came from the Curator David N. McKnight, Director and I was advised to visit the indicated page of the University’s website which reads as follows:

Title: Satyopãkhyãna, 1865.

Physical description: 1 item (117 leaves): paper; 14 × 36 cm.

Summary: Manuscript is a thirteenth-century puranic retelling of the Rãmãyana that focuses especially on the Hindu figures Sìtã and Rãma, their backgrounds (such as place of birth, and assortment of adventures), and their amorous relationship. Presented as a dialogue between the legendary figures Suta (the epic bard) and Saunaka (a mythical sage). Though the manuscript is divided into two parts with separate foliation, the chapters run continuously between both: part one has chapters 1-49, while part two has chapters 50-79. Some folios are missing.

Language(s): In Sanskrit (Devanãgarì)

Notes: Title from colophon (Part 2: f. 41r).

Written in 11-14 lines per leaf.

117 leaves foliated 1-6, 12-26, 28-82 (chapters 1-49); 1-41 (chapters 50-79), upper left and lower right verso.

Colophon: iti Śrì satyopãkhyãne sùtasaunakasamavãde rãmabãlacaritre ekonãsìtitamo’dhyãyah+//Srìsamavat//1922 //(chapter 79, f. 41r)

Dated samvat 1922 (1865) (chapter 79, f. 41r).

Mistakes blacked out; some corrections and additions in margins. Non-Latin script record.

Indexed/Referenced in: Listed in H.I. Poleman, Census of Indic Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1938), Poleman 1492 (UP 347).

Cite as: UPenn Ms. Coll. 390, Item 347.

Subject: Rãma (Hindu deity), Sìtã (Hindu deity), Hindu mythology., Devotional literature, Sanskrit. Erotica - Religious aspects - Hinduism.

Form/Genre: Dialogues. Poems.

Manuscripts, Sanskrit - 19th century.

Manuscripts - India - 19th century.

Contained in: Collection of Indic Manuscripts. Item 347

Manuscript location: Rare Book & Manuscript Library University of Pennsylvania Ms. Coll. 390

Vernacular script: सत्योपाख्यान 1865

This description is available on the website: http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/medren/record.html?q= Satyopakhyana- &id=MEDREN_5804333&. The University of Pennsylvania has got the copyright of this document.

Father Camil Bulcke has profusely used the content of Satyopākhyāna in his book ‘Rāmakathā: Utpatti evam Vikāsa’. He has written thus about Satyopākhyāna:

सत्योपाख्यान (वेंकटश्वर-प्रेस) में वाल्मीकि-मार्कण्डेय-संवाद वर्णित है। इसकी कथावस्तु से पता चलता है कि इसकी रचना अध्यात्म रामायण के बहुत बाद हुई थी, जब रामकथा तथा राम-भक्ति पर कृष्ण-लीला का गहरा प्रभाव पड़ने लगा था।" (para 188)

In the Satyopākhyāna (Venkateshwar Press) Vālmīki-Mārkand+eya dialogue is described. From its plot it transpires that it was composed long after the Adhyatma Rāmāyana, when on the Rāma-katha and Rāma-bhakti Kris+na-Līla started having deep influence”.

But Satyopākhyāna seems to be the first work in the tradition of the Kris+na-Līla and the Bhushund+ī-Rāmāyana is a later inspired epic from this work. Apart from the printed version of the Satyopākhyāna in 1882 A.D. by Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, there are many manuscripts of the Satyopākhyāna in the country. In addition to two manuscripts of the Satyopâkhyāna in the Sarasvati Bhandar Library of the Kāshi Raj Trust, there are many manuscripts of this important book in the catalogue of the Sanskrit-Prakrit books published by Rajasthan Grantha-mala. In addition, there is one manuscript with Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Prayag.

One manuscript of the Satyopākhyāna was seen by Mahamahopadhyaya Hara Prasad Sastri, and Raja Rajendralala Mitra. In “Notices of Sanskrit manuscripts” in serial no. 714 सत्योपाख्यानम् the following details are given:

“Satyopakhayana. The Ms. examined is incomplete and embraces only a portion of the work (chapters 50 to 79), which has the distinctive title of Rama-rahasya Khanda. Apparently, the work is a compilation from one of the Puranas.”

Recently Satyopākhyānam has been published by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Ganganath Jha Parisar, Allahabad. It has been edited by Dr. Shailja Pandeya but she has not discussed the date of its composition; nor its authorship.

The name Satyā means Ayodhyā and even in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana it is indicated in the following verse:

तां सत्यनामां दृढतोरणार्गलां

गृहैर्विचित्रैरुपशोभितां शिवाम्।

पुरीमयोध्यां नृसहस्रंकुलां

शशास वै शक्रसमो महीपतिः।।

(Bālakānd+a, VI. 28)

With gorgeous arches, castle-door-bars and with amazingly built houses, that city is magnificent and auspicious one, and full with thousands of provincial kings too, and king Dasharatha, a coequal of Indra, indeed ruled that city which is true (Satya) to its name.[1.6.28]

Satyopākhyānam also corroborates it by saying:

विष्णोराद्या पुरी सत्या तस्या माहात्म्यमीदृशम्। (34.22)

This Satyā is the primeval city of Vishnu and its merit is described here.

At one place it equates lR;k with Sītā by saying:

सत्या सत्यामयोनिजां सीतामिन्दिरां मेनिरे त्रियः।। (72.16)

In the Satyopākhyāna there is a clear mention of both Rāma-janma-bhūmi as well as the idol also. It is unfortunate that Hans Bakker was unaware of this important text and he has not mentioned this book even once in his research work. However, it is a pioneer work in the sense that it heralded a new trend of Rasika cult in the Rāma bhakti. It starts with a request by Saunakādi sages to Sūta to narrate the Rāmakathā and Sūta narrates the dialogue of Vālmīki and Mārkand+eya told by Vyāsa. In the first half there are 39 chapters and in the next half there are 30 chapters.

In the following ślokas, either the Janma-bhūmi or Janma-sthāna is mentioned:

जन्मस्थानं हि पश्यन्ति स्नात्वा श्रीशरयूजले।

भवद्धिः क्रियतां यात्रा पापनिवृत्तिहेतवे।।.।।

After taking bath in the water of Sarayū they visit Janmasthāna. You, too, should make a pilgrimage for the termination of all sins.

स्नात्वा च शरयूं दिव्यां जन्मस्थानं ततो गताः।

व्रतिनो रामचद्रस्य जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।.।।

जन्मभूमेस्तु माहात्म्यं वक्तुं शक्तो न पद्मजः।

पापकोटिसमायुक्तं चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ।।.।।

पापकोटिं नरस्त्यक्त्वा जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

प्राप्नोति परमं लोकं यत्र गत्वा न शोचति।।.।।

After having taken bath in the Sarayū river and by the darsana of Janmasthāna; devotees of Rāmachandra are liberated from sins. Even Brahmā is not competent to describe the importance of the Janma-bhūmi. On the bright ninth day of the Chaitra month by the darsana of Janma-bhūmi one gets liberated from millions (crores) of sins and goes to the supreme ‘loka’ (world) where he is neverin distress.

In the following two ślokas there is a mention of the birthday Janma-bhūmi and the idol of Lord Rāma:

नवमी चैत्रमासस्य शुक्ला चाद्य प्रवर्तते।

तस्या व्रतप्रभावेन शरयूस्नानतः पुनः।।

दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्य जन्मभूमेर्विलोकनात्।

नाम्ना सान्तानको लोको विमानैस्तत्र ते गताः।।35.6-7।।

By the merit of visit to Janmabhūmi, the darśana of the idol of Lord Rāma, bathing in the Sarayū river and the impact of the festival of the Rāmanavamī (the birthday of Rāma)all went to the Santanaka Loka in a plane.

Similarly in the following verse also the Janma-bhūmi is mentioned:

दर्शनं जन्मभूमेस्तु देवै सार्द्धं कृं मया।।35.22।।

जन्मभूमेरयोध्यायाः नवम्याश्च मुनीश्वर।।35.48।।

I made a visit to the Janma-bhūmi along with gods.

O best of sages! I made a darśana on the Rāmanavamī day.

Thus, the Satyopākhyāna highlights the merits of the visit to Rāma-janma-bhūmi in many verses and in one śloka it particularly mentions the image of Rāma. (दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्यसंवत् ) Thus, this is the clear proof of the existence of a Rāma temple with the deity inside it at the Rāma-janma-bhūmi.

From the perusal of the texts cited above, it is clear that the Janma-bhūmi and Janma-sthāna have been taken to be synonyms and to be the same location. Even then many historians like K.N. Panikkar have been trying to show the difference in location by writing:

“In this context it is necessary to make a distinction between the Janmashtana and Janma-bhumi (location of birth and place of birth).”

It is quoted from his article ‘A Historical Overview’ published in “Anatomy of Confrontation” (p. 37). Now readers may judge how far this observation of the established historian is correct.

(4) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

Lal Das wrote Avadha-vilāsa at Ayodhyā. The celebrated Hindi critic Dr. Nagendra, in his famous book ‘Hindi Sāhitya Kā Itihāsa’, has written that Avadha-vilāsa was composed in 1643 A.D. It is famous epic of this (bhakti) era. It is divided into 18 viśramas and depicts the story of Rāma from his birth to exile from Ayodhyā. Some other literary critics have also corroborated that in the year 1643 A.D. the Avadha-vilāsa was composed. Dr. Vasudev Sharan Agrawal in his introduction to Padmāvata of Jāyasī made the following chart:

Sr. no. Poet Work Year of composition

23. Lal Das Gupta Avadha-Vilasa 1643 A.D.

However, this date is not correct because in Avadha-vilāsa the poet himself has indicated the year of its composition in the following verse:

संवत् सत्रह सय बतिस सुदि बैसाख सुकाल।

लाल अवध मधि रहि रच्यो अवध विलास रसाल।।

In the Samavat 1732, i.e. 1675 A.D. in the bright fortnight of the month Baiśā kha Lal Das composed Avadha-vilāsa by staying in the heart of Ayodhyā.

It is heartening to note that this epic’s manuscript of the samavat 1732 i.e. 1675 A.D. was found at Tikar in Hardoi district of the U.P. and is available in the Chand Das Sahitya Sodha Sansthan, Banda. In verse 37 the poet has remembered poets Jayadeva, Tulasi, Sūra, Keśava, Vidyāpati and others with reverence. All these poets lived before 1675 A.D. Similarly he has paid his obeisance to Rāmānanda, Mādhava, Rāmānuja, Vishnusvāmī and Nimbārka.

About him Hans Bakker gives very meagre information:

“Simha 1957 mentions a certain Lãladãsa, inhabitant of Ayodhya, who belonged to the Rasika school and who wrote the Avadha-vilasa.”

Then he adds the following scant information in the foot-note 1 at page 746:

“MS dating from A.D. 1675. See Simha 1957, 539 (cf. Bulke 1971, 751)”.

Father Camille Bulcke, too, has mentioned the book Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das in the category of Rāma-bhakti literature.

Lal Das was not a native of Ayodhyā. He was a wandering sadhu who remained at Ayodhyā from 1668 to 1675 A.D. to compose his epic Awadha-vilāsa.

The following is the graphic description of the Janma-sthāna in the Avadha-vilāsa. It is written in the Avadhi dialect and in the style of dohās and chaupāis.

अब सुन राम जन्म अस्थाना। जन्म भयो जेहि ठौर ठिकाना।।

जाको दरस करै नर कोई। माता गरभ बास नहिं होई।।

देव सिद्ध रिषि मुनि जन जेते। बंदत हैं ता ठौरहिं तेते।।

विघ्नेश्वर के पूरब ओरा। आठ हजार धनुष वह ठौरा।।

लोमस्थल के पश्चिम देसा। धनुष पचास और कछु ऐसा।।

है उन्मत्त की दक्षिण घाहीं। धनुष एक सय अधिक नाहीं।।

मुनि बशिष्ठ के उत्तरभागा। राम जन्म जहुँ मध्य विभागा।।

नोमी चैत मास उजियारी। व्रत्त करै दरसन नर नारी।।

जो बालक परसै जन्मासन। रोग दोष गृह व्याधि बिनासन।।

जन्म स्थान के उत्तर सुंदर। धनुष बीस पर कैकेई मंदिर।।

भरत जन्म रघुंश उजागर। भक्ति ज्ञान गुण शील के सागर।।

महल सुमित्रा कहौ वषानी। तीस धनुष दक्षिण कौं जानी।।

जहां जनत भई दोइ सुमित्रा। लक्षिमन और शत्रुघन पुत्रा।।

धनुष प्रमान कहत सब कोई। साढ़े तीनि हाथ कर होई।।

दरसन ही ते लाल कहि दूर होत अपराध।

बरनाश्रम षट दरस में सकल शिरोमनि साधु।।376।।

पारवती पूछेउ हुतो कौन जन्म स्थान।

जैसो कछु शंकर कह्यो तैसो लाल वषान।।377।।

Lal Das has confirmed the Rudra-yāmala tradition of Ayodhyā-māhātmya in the following verses:

जामल रुद्र कथा इह पाई। लालदास तसि कहि समुझाई।।

जामल रुद्र अनंतहि होई। कल्प कल्प के भेद है सोई।।

(After Dohā 87)

Lal Das has given hints at the demolition of temples and destruction of Brahmana’s homes, wells, ponds, etc.

बापी कूप तडाग तुरावै। विप्र ग्रेह देवल भहरावै।।

From the perusal of the Avadha-vilāsa it appears that the poet was on pilgrimage for 12 years from one place to another and thereafter stayed for 15 years at Kasi. Then he came to Ayodhyā in 1668 A.D. and stayed for 7 years at Ayodhyā. Since the Avadha-vilāsa was composed in 1675 A.D. and its manuscript of that very year is available; it can be easily inferred that the poet stayed at Ayodhyā from 1668 to 1675 A.D. and when the epic was completed, he immediately left it. How unhappy was the life of Lal Das at Ayodhyā is reflected from his following verses:

सात बरष रह्यो अवधहि माहीं। जानि पाप कियो कछु नाहीं।।

तब मम हृदय भई इह बानी। राम धाम की कथा बषानी।।

मेष राशि भयो शनि दुषदाई। तीरथ शरण रह्यो मैं जाई।।

ग्रह के गुण भयो चित्त विक्षेपा। तातें ग्रंथ यह कीन्ह संक्षेपा।।

जो शनि मोंहि विक्षेप न करतो। तौ कछु बहुत बात मैं धरतो।।

जो न हौं तीरथ सरन रहातो। तौ शनि मोहिं मारि लै जातो।।

जो कोउ तीरथ सरन रहावैं। ताकि बात जमहू न चलावै।।

राम भक्त निर्दोष मन जग सों रहत उदास।

लालदास ता भक्त की तीरथ करत हैं आस।।390।।

तीरथ बारह बरख करि पंद्रह काशी वास।

सात बरख रहि अवध में तब कियो अवध बिलास।।391।।

The upheavals at Ayodhyā have been attributed to the entrance of Saturn in the Mesha, i.e. Arius which was so troublesome for the poet that he could hardly save his life. But he was in the state of perpetual pain during this period. The poet had the grand design of narrating the story of Ayodhyā (राम धाम की कथा) But the surroundings at Ayodhyā forced him to cut the story short and he left Ayodhyā in 1675 A.D. after composing his epic in short.

Thus, there is a long tradition of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya. The birthplace of Rāma with its location is clearly mentioned and it tallies with the present position. The Rāma-navamī Vrata, so vividly described by Christian Father Joseph Tieffenthaler in 1770, is described as a major festival in many scriptures

(5) P. Carnegy’s Ajudhia-mahatum

It is amazing to see that Hans Bakker ignored the ‘Ajudhia Mahatam’ which was the translation of the original text rendered into English by P. Carnegy and available to Bakker in Carnegy’s monumental work ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’ through an abstract prepared by Woodburn who joined as an Assistant Commissioner at Fyzabad in 1863. The said book Carnegy introduces the “Ajudhia Mahatum” in the following words:

“The Ajudhia Mahatum:

No account of Ajudhia would be complete which did not throw some light on the Ramayana and the Ajudhia Mahatum. Of the former of these works, I need not speak, for through the writings of Wheeler, Cust, Monier Williams most readers are familiar therewith. I will therefore confine my remarks to the Ajudhia Mahatum, which is comparatively unknown.

This work was prepared to the glorification of Ajudhia according to some, by Iksvaku of the Solar race, while others with more probability aver that it is a transcript from the Askandh and Padam Purans, and is not the production of any Raja. Be that as it may it is well that the essence of the work should be made available to the public, and in this view Mr. Woodburn, c.s. has been good enough to make a connected abstract for me, from a literal translation which I had made some years ago. This abstract is given as Appendix B.” (p. 9)

Thus, it is clear that Carnegy had a copy of the Skanda-purāna with him and he made a literal translation of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya but since it might have been a lengthy one he asked Woodburn to make an abstract from his translation and this abstract was incorporated in Carnegy’s book as Appendix B. Since Carnegy himself had translated the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, he must have ascertained the authenticity of the abstract before incorporating it in the Appendix of his book. Bakker writes that ‘the abstract is confined to the first half of the OA recensions of the AM (up to AM 55) and adds that it “has been ignored in the present edition.” He has not assigned any reason for ‘ignoring’ it, But it appears that since Carnegy did not publish his own literal translation, Bakker did not rely upon the abstract. But he, too, has found no fault with the abstract except that it is only the first half of the OA recension. Bakker could have benefitted himself by comparing the OA text with this translation.

Thus, Carnegy, a British official, is the first person to translate A.M. from Sanskrit into English before the year 1870 A.D. During the days of Carnegy many persons believed that the A.M. was composed by Ikshvāku, the son of Brahmā and the progenitor of the dynasty which produced Rāma. But he, like many others, believed that it was a transcript from the Skanda/Padma Purāna. Thus, the antiquity or authenticity of the A.M. was not in doubt before 1870 A.D. In the A.M. which was available with Carnegy, there is a mention of not only ‘Janam Bhum’ or ‘Janam Asthan’ but also of the great Ram Kot. In Carnegy’s text it is ‘Mahatum’; whereas in the Appendix the spelling is ‘Mahatam’.

The following four paragraphs have been taken from the text of the Epitome of the ‘Ajudhia Mahatam’ which is printed as Appendix B in Carnegy’s book:

“Epitome of the ‘AJUDHIA MAHATAM” which again is taken from the Purans

The holy city of Ajudhia, of saving virtues and ancient renown, was built they say by Brahma, and given to his eldest son for an earthly dwelling-place. The earth being but transitory, Brahma laid the foundation in his own discus, the Sudarsan Chakra, which still gives its shape to the city. On this was reared a stately capital for the son of God, and it was presented to him complete, fitted, declare the chronicles, with shrines, palaces, roads, markets, gardens, and fruit trees, glittering with jewels, and resounding with melody of birds. Its men and women were holy, as befitted the subjects of a Divine King, and their righteousness was rewarded by incalculable wealth in elephants and oxen, horses and chariots. Its boundaries were fixed by the Sarjui, and the Tons, and from Lachman Kund a jojan to the east and to the west.

In this city was supposed to reside a sanctifying virtue of extraordinary efficacy. When a man merely projected a pilgrimage to it, he purchased the salvation of his ancestors. Every step he took on his way had the efficacy of an aswa-medha jig. To him, who gave a pilgrim the road expenses of the journey, was assigned a passport to heaven with all his sons and grandsons. To him, who provided a weary pilgrim with conveyance, was promised a passage to the divine abodes in the chariots of the Gods. He, who fed a hungry pilgrim, reaped the benefit of many oblations at Gya and ablutions at Prag, and earned for his forefathers an eternity of happiness. He who anointed a pilgrim’s feet with oil, would obtain his desires in both worlds. The mere sight of Ajudhia absolved from all trivial sin. To journey to it measuring the way with the outstretched body was a penance, which atoned for the most heinous crime. The water of the Sarji washed away sin; obeisance to it removed all worldly trouble. He who lived in Ajudhia, redeemed his soul from the pains of transmigration; a residence of a night rehabilitated a man, who had been degraded in his caste. Seven holy places in India made up the body of Vishnu, and the boastful priests aver that Ajudhia was the head.”

These passages have highlighted the religious importance of the sacred city of Ayodhyā. The following paragraphs describe the māhātmya of the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi. Incidently, the story of the thieves has a striking similarity with that narrated in the Satyopākhyānam:

In the heart of the city lies the great Ram Kot, the fort of Rama, with its gates guarded by the immortal monkeys who accompanied him on his return from Ceylon. On its western side is the Janam Bhum or Janam Asthan, the birth place of the hero. To visit this on the Rama-Nomi, that sacred ninth which falls in Chait, delivers the pilgrim from all the pains of the transmigration of souls. The virtue of this act is as if the pilgrim had given 1,000 cows, or performed a thousand times the sacrifices of the Raj Suiji or Agin-hotra, “but the fool, who eats on that day shall go to hell, where all the vicious are thrown into boiling oil.” They say there was once a band of five thieves, who had been banished from their native country for highway robbery, adultery, murder of cows and other heinous crime. These five men spent their days alternately in robbing pilgrims and in riotous living. A party of pilgrims from Delhi passed through the forest in which was the den of these robbers, and the robbers joined them in the guise of travellers from a far country. But as they neared Ajudhia the guardian-angels of the holy city, who are stationed to prevent the entrance of the deliberately wicked, took visible shape and began to beat the robbers with their clubs. A sage who lived near by, Asit Muni, hearing their cries, interfered in their behalf. They were released at his intercession, and in gratitude they obeyed their preserver’s command to complete the pilgrimage to Ajudha, and secure salvation by performing the prescribed ritual. As they entered the city Ajudha appeared as a beautiful goddess, clad in white robes, and attended by her maidens. The men trembled with fear. On a sudden their sins arose before them, shrouded in the blue garbs of mourning, of horrible countenances, red-haired, blear-eyed, mis-shapen, their iron ornaments clanking like chains. Then the goddess beat the sins, and they fled out of the city and took refuge under a pipal tree, and the thieves went on rejoicing and bathed at Swargdwar, and kept the fast of Nomi, and worshipped at the birthplace of Rama, and they were purified from sin, and Yama called Chitra Gupta the recorder, and their sins were blotted out from the Book of the Judge of the dead. Meanwhile the messengers of Yama traversing the earth fell in with the sins of the robbers, standing crying under the pipal tree. On these the messengers took compassion, and prayed of Yama that the sins might be re-united to the robbers. But Yama said that the advantages of bathing at Ajudhia were irrevocable, and retired to meditate on the banks of the Sarji. Ajudhia was pleased with the wisdom of Yama, and the place of his meditation she named Jama Asthal, and appointed a holy day in his honour on the 2nd of Katik, and the sins were destroyed under the pipal tree.

Just beside the birthplace of Rama is the “Kitchen” of Janki-ji. It is in shape like the ordinary Indian “Chilha,” and is supposed to be always filled with food. The sight of it satisfies every want; a daily visit keeps the house supplied with food. The sight of it satisfies every want; a daily visit keeps the house supplied with food. Close to this is the house of Kaikayi, where Bharat-ji was born. On the other side is that of Somitra, where Lachhman and Satrohan were born. South-east of this is the Sita Kup, the waters of which are said to give intelligence to the drinker.”

(6) Ram Narayan’s translation of Ayodhyā-māhātmya

The English translation of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya was published in the “Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,” Vol. XLIV in the year 1875. It was translated by Ram Narayan of Bareli collage and contains 30 cantos. It does not mention the date of the manuscript but merely says that it is not very old because it mentions Muhammadans. But it is not the same version which was edited by Pt. Ram Narayan Das and published in 1898 from Lucknow. However, there is no discrepancy in the description of the Janmasthāna-māhātmya in this version published by Asiatic Society of Bengal.

According to the Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875 the following informations are available:

4. Translation of the “Ayodhya Mahatmya’’ or ‘ Pilgrimage to Ayodhya’ — By Ram Narayan, Bareli College.

(Abstract.)

This is a translation of a Hindi work on the sacred spots with which the site of ancient Ayodhya abounds. The legendary origin is given of the city itself, the river Sarayù (Sarju), the birthplace of Rama, the Maniparbat, Svargadvar, and many others. The narrative is thrown in the form of a dialogue between Mahãdeva and Pãrvatī. The Hindi work appears to be modern; for it contains allusions to Muhammadana.

The translation will appear in No. II of Part I of this year’s Journal. Four photographs forwarded by the author were also exhibited, viz., views of the Mosque which Aurangzib built upon Rama’s birthplace, of the Maniparbat, Svargadvar, and of an old Mosque in Faizabad (pp. 138-39).

It is now learnt that Ram Narayan had a photograph which showed a mosque at Rāma’s birthplace built by Aurangzeb. Thus, the association of Aurangzeb’s name with the construction of the mosque at the site of Rāma-Janma-bhūmi has a long tradition.

Certain excerpts from Ram Narayan’s translation of A.M. are produced below:

From the 7th chapter:

“Afterwards, he should go to Janma-bhùmi [birthplace of Ramachandra]. East of Vighnesvar, or north of the residence of Vasishta or west of that of Lomasa Rishi, is the Janma-sthãna, the giver of salvation, the mere sight of which releases a man from returning to a woman’s womb. The fasting on the day of Rama Navamí, visiting the place with devotion, giving alms and performing pilgrimages and sacrifices, frees a man from the transmigration of his soul. A visit to it yields the reward of giving one thousand cows, obeying father, mother, and the spiritual guide, and performing the Rajasùya, and Agni-hotra [sacrifices] one thousand times.”

From the 8th chapter:

Asitamuni answered, “Those who restrain their passions and do not commit sins, gain the full advantages of the pilgrimage. He who controls the passions and gives alms in proportion to his means, obtains these benefits. He who keeps the Naumi fast, shaves at Svargadvar, bathes there, and visits the birthplace, is released from the sins of killing a cow and a brahman, of cohabiting with the wife of a spiritual guide, and from many others of the same kind, and thus obtains salvation. On that day, men, Kinnaras, Gandharvas, and the gods bathe in the Sarayù and visit the birthplace. You should also do the same; proceed and you will see great wonders.”

From the 9th chapter:

(a) “It was the Navami day, they bathed in the Sarayù, repaired to the Birthplace, kept the fast, and visited the place. Thus they were freed from all sins. At this time, Yama called Chitra-Gupta and said, ‘The thieves have become pure, blot out their sins from thy book and forgive them; their sins have been destroyed by Ayodhya, the first city of Vishnu. Here live those who require salvation. The thieves have become Vaishnavas. Then Chitra Gupta became sorry, and said, “We have suffered much trouble in entering their sins, but it may be, as thou sayest, that we shall no more register the crimes of the wicked; for it is all in vain : the wicked go to Ayodhyã and obtain salvation and the vicious, in the Kali Yuga, become pure on visiting the Birthplace.’ Having said this, they scratched out the sins of the thieves.”

(b) “Yama replied, ‘You are not aware of the advantages of bathing at Svargadvar, keeping fast on the Navami and visiting the Birthplace. I am quite unable to fight with Ayodhya, let us go there.”

(c) “Visvakarma replied, ‘I come from Ayodhya after bathing at Sargadvar and visiting the Birthplace, and have been ordered by Brahmã to repair to Sakait with the gods, and build houses there for the pilgrims of Navami.”

From the 10th chapter:

“Then Mahadeva said to the goddess, “I have told you the advantages of Ayodhya, the Sarayù, the Birthplace, and the day of the Navami. He who hears them, or relates them to others, obtains salvation in the end after having enjoyed all pleasures.”

(7) Minor Hindi texts

In addition, there is another Ayodhyā-māhātmya in Hindi which was composed by a poet named Hajari. It contains 20 chapters in verses. But it is a small work covering only 20 pages. The book was published in July 1901 A.D. by Seth Chhotelal Laxmichand of Bombay and was printed at the Jain Press, Lucknow. This, too, is a dialogue between Hara and Gauri in the style of Rudra-yāmala. Though there is no self-introduction of the poet in the epic and no date is indicated anywhere in the work, yet the work appears to be a small composition of the 18th century, after the new, grand Hanuman-garhi temple was constructed. Its language and style match with that of Avadha-vilāsa. Therefore, it may be a work of the late 18th century. The poet mentions the incarnation of Vishnu at Ayodhyā in the following words:

अवध नाम ताको धरो होय अवधपुर नाम।

तामें मम अवतार हो रामचद्र गुण-ग्राम।।

About Janma-sthana the poet writes:

अथ जन्मस्थान की

जन्मभूमि के दर्शन पावै, वह नर नहिं चौरासी जावै।।

(p. 7, 4th chapter)

Similarly, a small book Avadha-yātrā was written in Hindi by Munsi Rai Gur Sharan Lal Avadhvasi. It was published in 1869 A.D. by Munshi Nawal Kishore Printing Press, Lucknow. It narrates the importance of the Janma-sthāna in the Ram Kot and indicates its exact location.

Thus, there is ample evidence in the Rudrayāmala, Skanda-purāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa to conclude that the birth-site of Rāma has been regarded as a sacred spot for more than a thousand years. After realising the importance of these books and manuscripts one is reminded of the statement of Thoreau in ‘Walden’:

“Books are the treasured wealth of the world and the fit inheritance of generations and nations.”



Chapter Three
Babur was not a religious fanatic

[(1) Testimony of Sankara Misra (2) Testimony of Mahesa Thãkura (3) Testimony of Sãlikanãtha (4) Babur’s visit to Gwalior temples (5) Babur visits Jogis at Gur-khattri (6) Testimony of Bãburnãma (7) Guru Nãnak Dev’s poignant narration (8) Charges against Babur (9) Babur’s literary achievements (10) ‘Mubayyin’, a commentary written by Babur on Islamic fiqh (11) Babur’s Wasiyat-nama (12) Babur’s sermon to Humayun in Sarva-desa-vrittãnta sanagraha (13) Babur’s patronage to Hindu officers (14) Dr. Radhe Shyam’s unsubstansiated account of the demolition of Rãma temple at Ayodhyã (15) Mahesa Thãkura’s homage to Babur on his demise (16) Abul Fazl’s eloquent tribute to Babur (17) Tributes in his epitaph (18) Babur remains immortal in history.]

It is an irony that Babur, who candidly wrote in his Memoirs that ‘in this history I have held firmly to it that the truth should be reached in every matter, and that every act should be recorded precisely as it occurred’, has been facing gross historical injustice for the last two centuries.

Babur was a veteran warrior and liberal emperor who was seldom guided by religious bigotry in his endeavours for assiduously building an empire in India. His early exciting experience in the school of adversity had implanted in him the spirit of adventure and eclecticism. A successful conqueror gifted with indomitable energy and indefatigable industry he laid the splendid foundation of the mighty Mughal Empire in India. He was no ruthless victor exulting in wanton destruction of temples in this country. But for a generation fed upon the hatred for Babur for decades, it may not sound convincing in the beginning. Therefore, I am first quoting three great Sanskrit scholars who have showered panegyrics on Babur.

(1) Testimony of Śanakara Miśra (Jhā)

Śanakara Miśra, the son of illustrious Pand+ita Ayāchī Miśra alias Bhavanātha Miśra, was a great authority on Nyāya and wrote many treatises including one on the difficult work of Śrīharsha’s ‘Khandana–khanda-khādya’. Śanakara Miśra’s father Bhavanātha Miśra was such a great self-respecting person that he never asked for anything from anyone and therefore he was called Ayāchī Miśra. Śankara Miśra wrote “Rasārnava”, an anthology of his own verses, and in the introductory chapter of the book he wrote a subchapter ‘Nripatim prati’, i.e. ‘Towards kings’. In this chapter he eulogized not only his patron king but Babur also. His eulogy for Babur is in as many as 18 ślokas. One such śloka is quoted here:

वास्तोष्पतिर्बाबरकः क्षितीद्रो बलिश्च नूं बलिनत्रयोऽमी।

तथापि दानव्यसनप्रकर्षादाद्यन्तयोर्मध्यम एव जेता।।18।।

The heavenly king Indra, earthly king Babur and the king of the nether world Bali are, no doubt, very mighty, but in the habit of giving donation in abundance, the middle one i.e. Babur excels the first i.e. Indra and the last i.e. Bali.

Some scholars ascribe the authorship of Rasārnava to another Śanakara, who was son of M.M. Śuchikara of the Kujaulī family and who wrote Smriti-sudhākara in 1581 during the reign of Akbar. Since the period of the first Śankara Miśra, son of Ayāchī Miśra, cannot overlap the fifteenth century because of the known dates of his brother’s grandson Bhānudatta, who flourished in the first half of the sixteenth century and his father’s mātāmaha (maternal grandfather) M.M. Vateśvara Upādhyāya, who lived in the first half of the fourteenth century. Therefore, the second Śanakara appears to be the author of Rasārnava and, in all probability, it was he who composed 12 verses in the honour of Babur. In the colophon of the Rasārnava it is stated that it was composed by Śanakara. No surname- Miśra or Jhā- has been added. The second Śanakara appears to be Śanakara Jhā who was the real author of the Rasārnava.

How this Śanakara Jhā of Mithilā came into contact with the Mughal Emperor Babur was probed by me. In the Baburnama I found the name of Tirhut (Mithilā) King Raja Rup-narain. In the Revenue List Babur mentions that the Raja made considerable financial contribution to the imperial coffers (p. 521). It appears that Śanakara Jhā’s father, M.M. Śuchikara might have accompanied Raja Rup-narain to Babur’s camp and received handsome gifts from the Mughal Emperor. Śanakara Jhā might have heard Babur’s munificence from his father’s mouth.

In the eyes of Śankara Jhā of Mithilā, Babur excelled famous Bali and Indra in granting donations. This was the impact of a Turkish emperor Babur with the capital at Agra on a great Pand+ita in distant Mithilā. Thus, Babur was considered a generous donor by the Hindu elite in the contemporary society.

(2) Testimony of Maheśa Thākura

Maheśa Thākur was the founder king of the erstwhile Khand+avalā dynasty of Mithilā estate. Akbar had granted this kingdom to Raghunandana on account of the latter’s profound learning, and Raghunandana placed this kingdom at the feet of his guru Maheśa Thākur who wrote सर्वदेशवृत्तान्त-संग्रहः सर्वदेशवृत्तान्त-संग्रहः'(Sarva-deśa-vr+ittanta sanagraha), a collection of the whole events of the whole country or Akbar-nama in Sanskrit. This book was edited by Dr. Subhadra Jha from a manuscript in British Library, India House and published by Patna University in 1962 A.D. Since only the Sanskrit text was published and there was no English translation, it could not catch the attention of historians.

In this book the author has lavished many encomiums on Babur and some of them are quoted here:

हिजरतिफिरदौसमकानी मुहम्मदबाबुरुपातिशाहः चतुश्चक्रेश्वरः सप्तद्वीपाधिपतिः सकलभुवनपतिः आकाशसमहृदयः क्षमया क्षमया समः सप्तद्वीपरूपमृगयाविहारशीलः समुद्रतुल्यान्तःकरणः कुलरत्नरूपः पातिशाहोपि ऋषिः। महाकार्यकरणानां महोत्साहानां च स्थलमस्य देहः स्थितः। प्रभुतायां सत्यामपि तत्र निःस्पृहः निर्ममो निरहंकारश्च।च (पृ. सं.-54 )

Pātiśaha Muhammad Babur, whose abode was in the paradise, was the master of four Chakras, king of seven islands, and ruler of the entire world. His heart was vast like sky, and his thinking faculty was large like sea. He was like earth in tolerance, expert in hunting the whole earth consisting of seven islands, and a gem of his dynasty. Despite being a King, he was a sage. His body was the abode of great feats and supreme zeal. Despite his prowess, he was without any ambition, attachment and arrogance.

Thus, two towering pandits of Mithilā have showered such shining encomiums on Babur that one has to accept that Babur was a very liberal emperor.

(3) Testimony of Śālikanātha

In addition, Śālikanātha’s following panegyric on Babur quoted in “UdbhaTa-Sāgara”, an anthology of Sanskrit epigrams, compiled by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara and published from Calcutta would be of relevance and interest:

वैकुण्ठाभिप्रणीतः कमलयुतशिराः कुञ्जराकृष्टदृष्टिः

कोदण्डोदारनामाप्यमितपरिजनो विश्वविख्यातकीर्त्ति।

सुन्दर्य्यासक्तचित्तः समरणविजयी कङकणाहारयुक्तो

वीर श्रीबाबराख्य त्वमिव तव रिपुर्हन्त मुक्तादिवर्ण।।

O valiant! you are known as Babur! You are wedded to paradise. Your head is decorated with lotus, your eyes hypnotize even elephants.You are known for your expertise on bows, your retinue knows no limit, you are famous throughout the world, you are indulgent towards damsels, you are victorious of many battles. You wear many jewels. Your foes, alas, appear white-coloured like pearls (out of fear). You are skilled (in battles).

Thus, Babur’s reputation was that of a very liberal ruler amongst Sanskrit scholars.

(4) Babur’s visit to Gwalior temples

That Babur was not a fanatical ruler is testified to by the following observation which he made in the year 935 A.H., the very year when he is alleged to have demolished the Rāma Janma-bhūmi temple at Ayodhyā. He writes in his diary recorded on 27th September, 1528:

“To the west of the tank is a lofty idol temple. Sultan Shemsuddin Altemsh built a grand mosque close upon it. The idol temple is very high; indeed it is the highest building in the fort. From the hill of Dhulpur, the fort of Gualiar and this idol temple are distinctly seen. They say that all the stones were dug out of the great tank.” (Erskine’s translation, p. 384)

Thackston’s translation of Babur’s description of the Hindu temple is equally good:

“To the west of the reservoir is a tall temple, next to which Sultan Iltutmish had a congregational mosque built. The temple is extremely tall – the tallest structure in the fortress – and both the Gwalior fortress and the temple can be plainly seen from the hill in Dholpur. They say that the stones of this temple were cut and transported from the large reservoir.” (pp. 405-06)

Babur’s visit to Gwalior temples became so famous and such a landmark that subsequent artists in Akbar’s atelier made a painting of this historic visit which is kept in the British Museum miniatures. Its no. is Add.16623 Bl.f. 2646/Qr. 3714 BL.f. 478 a. This portrayal of Babur’s visit to Gwalior temples is produced here to convince the readers that there was a Muslim monarch who visited a temple complex not to demolish it but to appreciate it. Then how could he demolish a temple at Ayodhyā and build a masjid at the Janma-sthāna of Lord Ramchandraji?

Babur’s visit to Gwalior temples (Mughal Illustrations
in Baburnama made in 1590-1593 A.D.)

The beautiful temple seen and appreciated by Babur was Teli Temple which was built in the 8th-9th century A.D. It is placed below:

Teli Temple at Gwalior visited
and appreciated by Babur.

When Babur did not demolish this grand temple at Gwalior, which was just beside the mosque built by Iltutmish and which was taller than the mosque, how could he raze the Janma-bhūmi temple at Ayodhyā which was never visited by him? The Janma-sthāna temple is alleged to have been demolished in 935 A.H. which started on September 15, 1528. Babur is writing this diary on 29th September, 1528, i.e. in close proximity to the said period of the demolition of the Ayodhyā temple. An emperor like Babur, who could enjoy a visit to the idol houses of Gwalior, had no reason to demolish the temple at Ayodhyā. Similarly, in March, 1529, Babur was in the vicinity of Benaras for many days. Had he any iconoclastic ideas, he would have demolished temples at Benaras. When he spared them at Benaras there was no reason for him to demolish any temple at Ayodhyā.

Mutilation of the Jain idols in the Urwa valley near Gwalior is cited as an example of his iconoclasm but it had nothing to do with his religious bigotry. The nakedness of idols hurt his sentiment. When he visited the valley on 28th September, 1528, he wrote:

“On these sides people have cut out idol-statues, large and small, one large statute on the south side being perhaps 20 qari (yds) high. These idols are shown quite naked without covering for their privities.”

Babur further writes: “Urwa is not a bad place, it is shut in (Turkish. tûr); the idols are its defect; I, for my part, ordered them destroyed.”

This action of Babur emanated from his disgust at the public display of naked idols and should not be ascribed to his iconoclastic zeal.

(5) Babur visits Jogis at Gur-khattri

While giving the account of his first incursion in India in 1505 A.D. Babur writes about the well known cave of Gur Khattri near Bigram (Peshawar) along with its banyan tree which was then equally famous:

“Tales had been told us about Gur-Khattri; it was said to be a holy place of the Jogis and Hindus who come from long distances to shave their heads and beards there. I rode out at once from Jam to visit Bigram, saw its great tree, and all the country round, but, much as we enquired about Gur-khattri, our guide, one Malik Bu-said Kamari, would say nothing about it. When we were almost back in camp, however, he told Khwaja Muhammad-amin that it was in Bigram and that he had said nothing about it because of its confined cells and narrow passages. The Khwaja, having there and then abused him, repeated to us what he had said, but we could not go back because the road was long and the day far spent.”(p. 230)

It was a holy place for the Hindus, particularly for the jogis. They used to come from faraway places to cut their hair and beards there. At that time Babur could not visit the place but during his second invasion in 1519 A.D. he ensured his visit to the sacred Hindu place and candidly wrote:

“(March 26th) Marching on next day, we reached Bigram and went to see Gur-khattri. This is a smallish abode, after the fashion of a hermitage (sauma’at), rather confined and dark. After entering at the door and going down a few steps, one must lie full length to get beyond. There is no getting in without a lamp. All round near the building there is let lie an enormous quantity of hair of the head and beard which men have shaved off there. There are a great many retreats (hujra) near Gur-khattri like those of a rest-house or college. In the year we came into Kabul (910 AH.) and over-ran Kohat, Bannu and the plain, we made an excursion to Bigram, saw its great tree and were consumed with regret at not seeing Gur-khattri, but it does not seem a place to regret not-seeing.” (p. 394)

If Babur would have been adversely disposed against the Hindus, he would not have been keen to see this holy place. Babur’s gesture should be appreciated more because the jogis were allowing even Muslims as their followers. Ibn Battuta, who travelled in many parts of India during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, writes in his immortal travelogue ‘The Rehla’ about the jogis in the following words:

“These people work wonders. For instance, one of them remains for months without food and drink; many of them dig a pit under the earth which is closed over them leaving therein no opening except one through which the air might enter. There one remains for months and I have heard that some jogis hold out in this manner for a year.

In the city of Mangalore (Manjarur) I saw a Musalman who used to take lessons from the jogis. A small stand had been set up for him on which he held himself for twenty-five days without food and drink. I left him in that state and do not know how long, after my departure, he remained there in that state.

People relate that the jogis prepare pills of which they take one for a specified number of days or months, and that during this period they need neither food nor drink. They give information about hidden things and the sultan honours them and takes them into his company.” (p. 164)

Babur’s description of Gur-khattri is corroborated by Mahmud bin Amir Wali Balkhi who came to India in A.D. 1624-25 from Balkh in Afghanistan during the reign of Jahangir. He visited many places in India which included Peshawar, Lahore, Sirhind, Delhi, Mathura, Allahabad, Benaras, Patna, Raj Mahal, Midenapur, Hyderabad, Mangalore and Cape Comorin. In his book named “Bah-rul Asrār” which has been published by the Institute of Central and West Asian Studies of the University of Karachi Balkhi has described the buildings and Jogi practices at Gor Khatri and his description is not at variance with that of Baburnama. Gur Khattri was an important centre which attracted not only Babur and central Asian traveller Balkhi but Abul Fazl and Akbar also in the 40th regnal year of the Emperor. Abul Fazl describes Akbar’s visit vividly in the following words:

“On the 14th he encamped near Bigram. He spent some time in Gorkhattri, which is a shrine of the Jogis. There is a great cave in this place. Babblers say that no one knows how deep (long ?) it is. In the midst of it is the way to the secret chamber of the saints of old times. On account of the difficulty and darkness of the way, and its tortuousness, one cannot get there. As it was the prayer-spot of the great ones of God he entered it alone by the light of wisdom, and some of his servants, one after the other, also had this blessing. This least of men was one of them. The road was very long. It was necessary to sit down and to lie down and to trust to God. Many brave men had not the courage to do so, and turned back when half-way. After that he rested at the fort of Bigram.”

(Akbarnama III, Chapter 61, Expedition to Kabul)

A copy of the Mughal painting on Babur’s visit to jogis at Gur-khatri (1519) is kept in British Museum Miniatures as filename c13657-17 Source Or. 3714 Vol.3 f.320v. This painting was made by Kesu Khurd. The image has been produced here. It shows the liberal attitude of Babur.

Fig. 3.3: Babur’s visit to Hindu jogis at Gur-khatri (Mughal
Illustrations in Baburnama made in 1590-1593 A.D.).

Beveridge further writes:

“Babur was familiar with the interaction of two creeds, witness his ‘apostates’, mostly Muhammadans following Hindu customs.”

(6) Testimony of Bāburnāma

Babur’s attitude towards the Hindus can be gauged from the following observation of the Emperor in his diary:

“Most of the natives are the Hindus. They call the Pagan inhabitants of Hindustan, Hindus. Most of the Hindus hold the doctrine of transmigration. The officers of revenue, merchants, and work people are all Hindus. In our native countries, the tribes that inhabit the plains and deserts have all names, according to their respective families, but everybody, whether they live in the country or in villages, have names according to their families. Again, every tradesman has received his trade from his forefathers, who for generations have all practiced the same trade (William Erskine’s translation, 1826, p. 332)

It does not show any contempt or prejudice against the Hindus.

The uninterrupted activities of neo-Vaishnavite sect at Mathurā between Agra and Delhi and his cordial relations with local Hindu chiefs is another proof of his liberal views. According to “Vīr Bhānūdaya Kāvyam” he had friendly relation with Raja Bīr Singh Deo, the Baghela King of Arail.

Babur’s mention on 17th January 1528 A.D. that after dismounting near Kachwa he ‘encouraged its people’ has been construed as a protection to those jogies who were having secret learnings and Muslim followings.

Beveridge identifies Kachwa with Kajwarra of Ibn Battuta and writes:

“Ibn Battuta writes of the people of Kajwarra that they were jogies, yellowed by asceticism, wearing their hair long and matted, and having Muhammadan followers who desired to learn their (occult) secrets. If the same interaction existed Babur’s day, the Muhammadan following of the Hindu ascetics may well have been the special circumstance which led him to promise protection to those Hindus, even when he was out for the Holy-war’ against Medni Rai.”

Here it should be remembered that Firoz Shah Tughlaq had inflamed a person to death for making a Muslim his follower and Aurangzeb issued the Firman of 1669 A.D. to demolish all such centres where Muslims came for acquiring knowledge from Hindu scholars. But Babur was liberal not only to tolerate it but even encourage those jogis.

Similarly, Babur’s invitation to Hindu nobles in his royal feasts, too, is a gesture of his liberality. On 18th December, 1528 he held a grand feast and invited a number of envoys which included Hindu envoys. In his diary Babur wrote thus:

“On Saturday the 6th of the month (Rabi II) there was a feast at which were present Qizil-bash (Red-headed), and Auz-beg, and Hindu envoys.” (p. 630)

Thereafter Babur informs that ‘when the dinner was placed, the Hindustani jugglers were brought in and performed their tricks, and the tumblers and rope-dancers exhibited their feats. The Hindustani sleight-of-hand men do several feats which I never saw performed by those of our countries.’

Then he narrates those tricks in detail and the way he admires them shows that he has no grudge against Hindustani natives.

(7) Guru Nanak Dev’s poignant narration

However, it does not mean that Babur was not a cruel warrior. His tyranny in the Punjab compelled a saintly votary of peace. Guru Nanak Dev to condemn him in these severe words in Guru Grantha:

आसा महला

खुरासान खसमाना कीआ हिंदुसतानु डराइआ।।

आपै दोसु न देई करता जमु करि मुगलु चड़ाइआ।।8।।

ऐती मार पई करलाणे तैं की दरदु न आइआ।।9।।

करता तूं सभना का सोई।

जे सकता सकते कउ मारे ना मनि रोसु न होई।।1।। रहाउ

सकता सीहु मारे पै वगै खसमै सा पुरसाई।।

रतन बिगाडि़ बिगोए कुतीं मुइसा सार न काई।।

आपे जोडि़ विछोड़े आपे वेखु तेरी वडिआई।।2।।

जे को नाउ धाराऐ बडा साद करे मनि भाणे।।

खसमै नदरी कीड़ा आवै जेते चुगै दाणे।।

मरि मरि जीवै ता किछु पाए नानक नामु वखाणे।।3।।5।।39।।

Its English translation is as follows:

Aasaa, First Mehl:

Having attacked Khuraasaan, Baabar terrified Hindustan.

The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death.

There was so much slaughter that the people screamed.

Didn’t You feel compassion, Lord? 1

O Creator Lord, You are the Master of all.

If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind. 1 ll Pause ll

But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it.

This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by dogs, and no one pays any attention to the dead.

You Yourself unite, and You Yourself separate; I gaze upon Your Glorious Greatness. ll2ll

One may give himself a great name, and revel in the pleasures of the mind, but in the Eyes of the Lord and Master, he is just a worm, for all the corn that he eats.

Only one who dies to his ego while yet alive obtains the blessings, O Nanak, by chanting the Lord’s Name. 3.5.39.

(translation by Islam Kotob)

The background of this heart-rendering lamentation of Guru Nanak Dev is the general massacre of the people and cruel treatment to thousands of prisoners at Bajaur and other places in Punjab. This barbarous act on the part of Babur was to strike terror in the indifferent or hostile populace. In this pathetic poem of Nanak Dev Babur’s cruelty is highlighted but here also the religious bigotry is not mentioned. Babur was, no doubt, a cruel warrior who could go to any extent to vanquish his foe. But after the surrender of the rivals he was usually considerate to them and very liberal in his treatment to his opponents.

(8) Charges against Babur

After his decisive war with Rana Sangram Singh the erection of Hindu heads in hill shape was an act of cruelty. He wrote thus:

“All the Hindus slain, abject (khwar, var. zar) and mean,

By matchlock-stones, like the Elephants’ lords,

Many hills of their bodies were seen,

And from each hill a fount of running blood.

Dreading the arrows of (our) splendid ranks,

Passed they in flight to each waste and hill.”

(Baburnama, Beveridge’s translation, p. 573)

After the victory over the Rana he assumed the title of Ghazi (Victor in a holy war) and wrote the following quatrain entering tughra on the Fath-nama:

For Islam’s sake, I wandered in the wilds,

Prepared for war with pagans and Hindus,

Resolved myself to meet the martyr’s death.

Thanks be to God ! a ghazi I became. (ibid, p. 575)

Of course, it is a religious bias but it is in the wake of an almost impossible victory, over one of the greatest warriors India has ever produced – Rana Sanga.

Similarly, erection of ‘a pillar of pagan-heads on a hill north-west of Chanderi was another act of cruelty. Beveridge comments:

“Babur’s account of the siege of Chandiri is incomplete, inasmuch as it says nothing of the general massacre of pagans he has mentioned of f. 272. Khwafi Khan Khar records the massacre, saying that after the fort was surrendered, as was done on condition of safety for the garrison; from 3 to 4000 pagans were put to death by Babur’s troops.”

If this is true, it is a slur on otherwise a very frank and truthful author.

Charges of religious bigotry have been labelled against Babur by many modern historians on account of the following incidents:

(i) The reference to the erection of the pyramids of skulls of the Hindus in his Memoirs.

(ii) the declaration of Jihad against Rana Sangram Singh and Medni Rao of Chanderi.

(iii) the massacre of a number of surrendered soldiers in the fort of Chanderi and the frequent use of the word ‘Kāfīr’.

His war against Rana Sangram Singh and Medini Rao of Chanderi were acts of an ambitious and expansionist ruler. While waging war, he took the refuge of religion to instill confidence and enthusiasm amongst his frightened soldiers. The massacre of a number of surrendered soldiers at Chanderi cannot be justified, and it was an ignominious act of total brutality but not that of religious ferocity. Similarly, the erection of the pyramids of skulls of the Hindus had much more the element of cruelty than that of religiosity. It was trait of many monstrous monarchs in the medieval period. But one must not forget that after the conquest Babur did not invariably indulge in the wanton demolition of Hindu temples, nor did he ever promote forcible conversion of the Hindus to Islam. He did not prohibit the religious assemblies and the movement of Hindu pilgrims and saints from one place to another. He behaved gracefully with the son of Rana Sangram Singh and other Hindu chieftains. At least six Hindu Rajas including Raja Bikramjit (second son of Rana Sanga) accepted Babur’s suzerainty and paid tributes. Even S.R. Sharma has admitted “there is no evidence of his ever having destroyed temple or otherwise persecuted the Hindus on account of their religion.” In the light of these facts it is very unjust to associate him with the demolition of the Rāma temple at his birthplace.

Erskine in his book “A History of India Under the Two First Sovereigns of the House of Taimur, Bāber and Humāyun” has strongly defended the element of humanity present in Babur’s character in the following words:

“No part of his character is more admirable than his uniform humanity and kindness of deposition. If, in the course of his memoirs, some cruel executions appear, they belong to the age, not to the man. The historians of his reign remark that whenever any, either of his nobles or brothers, had revolted or entered into cabels against him, no sooner did they acknowledge their offence and return to their duty than, to use the words of Khafi Khan, “contrary to the customs of Princes of Persia, Arabia, or India, he not only forgave them, but never retained towards them any feeling of resentment.”

(I, pp. 524-25)

Besides, Babur’s cousin brother Mirza Haidar praises highly of Babur in his book “Tharikh-i-Rashidi” by stating that Babur was ‘ adorned with various virtues and clad with numberless excellences, above all which towered bravery and humanity’. (quoted in S.R. Sharma’s Mughal Empire in India, p. 28)

R. Nath rightly writes in his book ‘History of Mughal Architecture’,

“We know him as a general and the founder of the great Mughal Empire in India. In spite of his thirty-six years’ ventures in war, he was essentially a man of peace: honest and graphic author, poet ardent lover of nature and maker of gardens, artist and above all, a humanist.” (chapter 2, p. 1)

(9) Babur’s literary achievements

Babur, the great warrior, who spent most of his life in army camps, is credited to have written many books. His Baburnama is a masterpiece, known throughout the world for its simplicity of style and honesty in writing memoirs. Besides, his following works, which are extant, have been briefly presented by Eui Mano of Kyoto University in well-researched article “On the Persian Original Vālidiyya of Khvaja Ahrar” published in “History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East, Studies in Honor of John E. Woods”, edited by Harrassowitz Verlag in following words:

(1) Mubayyin (The Commentary): A commentary in rhymed verse on the six tenets of the faith to be obeyed and the five religious obligations to be followed by adherents of the Sunni branch of Islam.

(2) Arùz Risãlasi (Treatise on Prosody): A work on prosody dealing with the rhymes to be used in poetry.

(3) Dìvãn (Collection of Poetry): A collection of the verses of Baur.

(4) The Five Hundred and Four Rhythms (The 504 meters): A work analyzing (taqti) the 504 rhythms based on the bayt (one line of a verse composed of two couplets) of Babur’s own poetry. This author has recently reported his discovery of this work in a manuscript, which has been tentatively called The collected Works of Babur, that was preserved in the Kitãbkhãnã- yi Saltanati in Iran.

(5) Vãlidiyya Risãlasi (A treatise of my Father): This is the work under consideration here. The circumstances of its production are as follows....” (p. 251)

It is astonishing that Babur, a man with sword, was able to write with pen and bequeath to the posterity the six literary jewels amidst frequent warfare and movements from Kabul to Karmanasa. It could be achieved only by a leader of great vision.

(10) ‘Mubayyin’, a commentary written by Babur on Islamic fiqh

Babur, a versatile genius as he was, wrote commentary on Islamic fiqh in his book ‘Mubayyin’. I tried to trace it in India but did not succeed. Then I learnt that Khamidbek Khasanov of Tashkent Islamic University has done some research on this book and written several articles. In addition, he has published his thesis ‘Scientific analysis of the treatise by Zakhiriddin Muhammad Babur on Islamic fiqh Mubayyin’. When I contacted him, he obliged me by sending the book. But it was not in the English language, so it could not be of any use for me. However, Prof. Khamidbek Khasanov Saidbekobich replied to my certain queries and that way I got slightly acquainted with the content of the book. Accordingly, Babur was a liberal ruler who interpreted the Islamic law with broad views.

From the Baburnama a lot of information on Babur’s work ‘Mubayyin’ is received. In 928 A.H., i.e. 1521 A.D. he composed this book, a Turki poem of 2253 lines to which Abul Fazl and Badauni give the name ‘Mubin’ (The Exposition), but of which the true title is said by the Nafa’isu’l-ma’asir to be ‘Dar fiqa mubaiyan’ (The Law expounded). Sprenger found that it was called also ‘Fiqa-i-baburi’ (Babur’s law). It is a versified treatise on Islamic Law written for the benefit of Kamran. Prof. Khamidbek Khasanov informs that Babur gave comprehensive instruction to his son on statecraft. Babur has quoted twice from the Mubin; once in connection with linear measures and the second time in connection with following a vow in both letter and spirit. He writes, “A pity it will be if the tongue which has treasure of utterances so lofty as these are, waste itself again on low words; sad will it be if again vile imaginings find way into the mind that has made exposition of these sublime realities.” Thereafter, Babur refrained from satirical and jesting verses. Babur informs that once he violated this vow and he had to suffer a lot.

For the author of ‘Mubayyin’ the demolition of temples is an alien concept. Therefore, one must appreciate that the intrepid warrior handled the sword and the pen with equal skill. Recently, an Encyclopaedia of Babur has been published and is available at State Museum of Literature named after Alisher Navoi, AS RUz. It contains Babur’s works including the Mubayyin.

(11) Babur’s Wasiyat-nama

Babur’s Wasiyat-nama is another document which reflects Babur’s eclectic personality.

The following is the Persian text of his Will.

Fig. 3.4: A portion from Babur’s Wasiyat-nama (printed).

The following English rendering by historian Radhe Shyam in his book ‘Babar’ is produced below:

1. O Son! The realm of Hindustan is peopled by various creeds. Almighty God be praised that he confers its sovereignty on thee.

2. Thou must cleanse the tablet of thy heart from sectarian bigotries and do justice according to the custom of each creed.

3. Above all, abstain from sacrificing cows, thus will the hearts of Hindustanis be won and the peasants be made loyal by the royal bounty

4. Destroy not the temples or worshipping places of any tribe under the royal rule: thus shall be satisfied the Padshah, the peasant with the Padshah

5. Islam is better advanced by the sword of kindness than the sword of oppression.

6. Close thy eyes to the disagreements of Sunni and Shia, otherwise the rift in Islam is made manifest.

7. Control thy many-minded subjects like the Four elements; thus will the body of the Sultanate be freed from various distempers.

8. Let (him) keep before his eyes His Highness Amir Timur Sahib Qirani’s Karnama so that he may become expert in government affairs.

(Appendix IV, Radhey Shyam’s book ‘Babar’, pp. 477-78)

There are eight sermons to Humayun by Babur in this Wasiyat. A.S. Beveridge and many historians have called it a fake and spurious document. She prepared a detailed argument on its spurious nature and published it in the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Britain and Ireland in January 1923 (pp. 78-82). Dr. Radhe Shyam in his book ‘Babar’ refuted the arguments of Mrs. Beveridge with equal force and termed the wasiyatnama as “a rare and roughly drafted document with special feature and content.”

Babur’s will appears to be a genuine document. But even if it is assumed that it is a fake will prepared subsequently, the credit goes to Babur that he was perceived as a genuine liberal monarch, who advised his son to treat the Hindus in a fashion which was subsequently followed by his grandson Akbar who became one of the greatest monarchs the world has ever produced.

(12) Babur’s sermon to Humayun in Sarva-deśa-vrittānta sanagraha

The fact that Babur’s Will was a genuine document is further supported by the following text of the Sanskrit book Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha of Maheśa Thākura in which Babur’s sermon to his son Humayun on the eve of his death has been recorded in the following words:

(i) न्यायः कर्त्तव्यः – justice is to be done always.

(ii) दानं कर्त्तव्यम् – charity is a part of duty.

(iii) लोकेषु सामीचीन्येन व्यवहर्त्तव्यम् – people should be properly treated.

(iv) परमेश्वरो येन समीचीनं मन्यते तथा यतनीयम् – what is right in the eyes of God should be followed.

(v) प्रजापालनं कर्त्तव्यम् – sustenance of subjects must be ensured.

(vi) अपराधिनामप्यपराधाः क्षन्तव्याः– misdeeds of even criminals may be forgiven.

(vii) कुत्रापि कार्ये कस्यापि विश्वासो न कर्त्तव्यः – one should not trust everyone in every work.

(viii) अनम्राणां च समूलघातमुत्खननं कर्त्तव्यम् – insubordinates should be thoroughly uprooted.

(ix) दुर्वृत्ता अपि दूरीकर्त्तव्याः – persons with bad conduct should be kept at distance.

Many such sermons were given by a dying father to his darling son. The last one was "पीडनीया अपि भातरः सर्वथा न पीडनीयाः" i.e. Brothers, even if they create troubles, should not be harassed.

It is corroborated by the testimony of Abul Fazl in Akbarnama which reads as follows: “Advice was given about munificence and justice, about acquiring the favour of God, cherishing subjects, protecting mankind, the accepting of apologies of those who had failed in duty and the pardoning of transgressors; about the honouring of those who did good service and the casting down of the rebellious and the oppressors”.

(13) Babur’s patronage to Hindu officers

Babur took good care of his subjects irrespective of caste or creed. Here it is important to note that although Babur had high regard for Abdul Quddus Gangohi, he ignored the clergy’s advice to subject Hindus to several disabilities in accordance with the sharia. He gave the Hindus freedom to perform their religious ceremonies and appointed some of them in his service. He sent Ramusi, the son of Diwa, an old servant from Bhira as an envoy to negotiate with Vikramāditya, the son of Rana Sanga on the surrender of Ranthambhor. He was so magnanimous that Bir Singh Deo, who had helped Rana Sanga with a troop of 4000 men, was kept in his service and enjoyed his confidence. Bir Singh became Babur’s so close confidant that Mādhava, the author of Vīrabhānūdaya epic, writes that Babur considered him as his brother and Humayun had also sent presents to Bir Singh’s son Vīrabhānu on the occasion of the birth of the latter’s grandson Vīrabhadra. Mādhava further informs that the relation between Humayun and Vīrabhānu was like brothers.

Another Hindu Birim Deo Malinhas mentioned in Babur-nama was probably an officer in his army who accompanied Tardika and others to capture Ghazi Khan. In addition, there were a number of Hindu officers in the Revenue Department. But Dr. S. Gopal’s view in the ‘Introduction’ of the book “Anatomy of Confrontation” that “Babur himself patronized Hindu temples and individuals, and in Ayodhyā itself he gave a revenue-free grant of a large piece of land to a Hindu ascetic” is not supported by any original document but is based on a hearsay that the land to the Danta-dhāvana mutt, which still exists and belongs to the Rāmānuja sect, was granted by him.

(14) Dr. Radhe Shyam’s unsubstansiated account of the demolition of Rāma temple at Ayodhyā

Despite all these incontrovertible historical facts, an accomplished historian like Dr. Radhe Shyam in his famous book ‘Babar’ could produce an erroneous graphic picture of the demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple without any concrete evidence. He examined this controversy in the following words:

“Let us examine the whole matter regarding the destruction of the famous Janamsthan temple at Ayodhya and the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi on its ruins. Immediately after the completion of the Chanderi expedition Babar marched towards the eastern region to deal with the Afghan insurgents. Moving via Kalpi and Kanoor, he crossed the Ganges and passing through Lucknow he entered Oudh on Saturday 7th Rajab 934 H./28th 1528 and encamped on the confluence of the Ghagra and Sarju rivers. From 2nd April 1528 to 17th September 1528 there is a gap in his Memoirs. It appears that during this period and until the beginning of the rainy season he remained busy in dealing with the Afghans. Before returning to Agra he appointed Mir Baqi to hold charge of Ayodhya. Shortly after Babar’s departure Mir Baqi, on his own account, attacked the Hindu temple with a large army. It is related that for seventeen days the Hindus offered resistance. At last failing to stand the onslaught they bowed before the inevitable. Mir Baqi, somehow managed to enter the temple and thereafter he tried to reach the sanctuary. Here the Brahmin priest of the temple, Shyamanand and the members of his family offered resistance to him and did not allow him to approach the sanctuary. Mir Baqi seized and killed the priest and the members of his family. He entered the sanctuary, but to his utter surprise he could not find a single idol there. Whether the temple was razed to the ground or not is still controversial issue. But it appears that he built the mosque over a part of the ruins or converted the temple into a mosque. The well known Babari Masjid, which still stands there, is claimed by the Hindus and Muslims both. The entire structure raises grave doubts. It may be observed that it would be quite injudicious to hold in any way Babar responsible for the destruction of the famous Janamsthan temple. Destruction of temples was neither in consequence with his policy nor attitude, especially at a time when he needed the support of the non Muslim population.”

(14) Dr. Radhe Shyam was probably not sure of this unsubstantiated story; so he dropped it in the Hindi version.

Peter Van der Veer went one step further in drawing upon local belief in his book “Gods on the Earth”:

“Mir Baqi destroyed the temple, but his efforts to build a mosque failed because each night everything that had been built during the day fell down again. This continued until Mir Baqi grew desperate and proposed to give up. Then the Faqir Khwaja dreamt that the mosque should not be built right over the garbha (sanctum) of the temple, but somewhat behind it. Thus the mosque was built in such a way that the garbha of the temple remained open to the Hindus for centuries in the form of a pit into which they could throw flowers.” (quoted in Anatomy of a Confrontation, Sarvepalli Gopal, p.30)

It is based on gossip and myth and has got no historical substance at all.

(15) Maheśa Thākura’s homage to Babur on his demise

On the demise of the emperor Babur, Maheśa Thākura, the author of “Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha” pays this glowing homage to his great personality:

तेषां स्वरूपस्यासाधारणधर्माणां च पूर्णताः विस्तारतः कथयितुमशक्याः। विश्वपरिपालनस्याष्टौ निदानानि तेषु पूर्णानि स्थितानि। तानि च-महाभाग्यम् अन्यत्र दुर्लभ उत्साहः परराष्ट्रग्रहणशक्तिः स्वराष्ट्रंरक्षणम् प्रभूततरावस्थानस्य यत्नः विश्वसुखितासंकल्पः सैनिकानां सन्तोषणं सैनिकानां तथावस्थापनं यथा ते परेषां दुखं दातुं न शक्नुवन्ति इत्येतानि।।

It is very difficult to describe the features and extraordinary attributes of Babur in full details. The eight attributes required for the maintenance of the world existed in him in toto. They are great fortune, enthusiasm which is rare elsewhere, the ability to conquer foreign territories, protection of one’s own territory, efforts to strive for better conditions, resolution for the welfare of all, satisfaction of the armed forces and their deployment in such a manner that they cannot harass subjects of their own kingdom.

This concern for all expressed on the part of the emperor Babur kept him faraway from religious bigotry.

(16) Abul Fazl’s eloquent tribute to Babur

Similarly, Abul Fazl has paid a very eloquent tribute to Babur in the Akbarnama:

King of the four quarters, and of the seven heavens; celestial sovereign; diadem of the sublime throne; great of genius and great-ness-conferring; fortune-increaser; of excellent horoscope; heaven in comprehensiveness; earth in stability; lion-hearted; clime-capturer; lofty in splendour; of active brain; searcher after knowledge; rank-breaking lion rampant; exalter of dominion; ocean-hearted; of illustrious origin; a saintly sovereign; enthroned in the kingdom of reality and spirituality, Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babar Padshah Ghazi. His pearl-like nature was a station for the marks of greatness and sublimity; freedom and detachment together with lofty restraint and majestic power flashed forth in his nature; in asceticism and absorption (faqr u fana) a Junid and Bãyazìd; while the magnificence and genius of an Alexander and of a Faridun shone from his brow.

(Akbarnama, vol. 1 chapter XVII)

(17) Tributes in his epitaph

As per his will, Babur was ultimately laid to rest in the garden of his choice at Kabul. Many of his descendants visited his burial place subsequently. Shah Jahan built a beautiful mosque, which stands even today. Jahangir took initiative in installing a beautiful inscription that stands at the grave head. The following glowing tribute is inscribed there:

“A ruler from whose brow shone the Light of God was that Back-bone of the Faith (zahiru’d-dîn) Muhammad Babur Padshah. Together with majesty, dominion, fortune, rectitude, the open-hand and the firm Faith, he had share in prosperity, abundance and the triumph of victorious arms. He won the material world and became a moving light; for his every conquest he looked, as for Light, towards the world of souls. When Paradise became his dwelling and Ruzwãn asked me the date, I gave him for answer, “Paradise is forever Babur Padshah’s abode.”

Ruzwān is the door-keeper of Paradise.

(18) Babur remains immortal in history

Babur was a cultured person. He was a poet and an accomplished writer. His autobiography is considered the second best prose piece in the Turkish language. His liberal literary attitude was so embedded in his heart that it embellished his unique personality and did not allow him the mingling of religious bigotry with governance.

On 26th December, 1530 Babur passed away in his garden place at Agra at a comparatively young age of forty-eight years. He remained king for 36 years and only for four years in India. During this period he stayed mostly in army camps and his life was crowded with inciting events, unexpected hardships, tumultuous upheavals and decisive victories. Though Babur is dead in physical form, yet he remains immortal in history.

Death makes no conquest of this Conqueror,

For now he lives in Fame.



Chapter Four

Babur had no role either in the demolition of any
temple at Ayodhyā or in the construction of the mosque

[(1) Babur’s Memoirs (2) Humayun-nama of Gul-Badan Begum (3) Account of Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari (4) Sarva-desa-vrittãnta-sanagraha of Mahesa Thakura (5) “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh” of Badauni (6) The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri (7) Rãmacharita Mãnasa of Gosvami Tulasi Das (8) Travel accounts of William Finch (9) Joseph Tieffenthaler’s description of Ayodhya (10) Francis Buchanan’s survey report (11) Conclusion]

It is a historical travesty that Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, who had no role either in the demolition of any temple at Ayodhyā or in the construction of the so-called Baburi mosque, has been facing fire and ire for the last 200 years for the commission of an act with which he was not associated at all. Although it is very difficult to convince a generation which has been fed on hatred for him, a very sincere and convincing effort needs to be made on the basis of historical documents to clear him from the ‘crime’ of converting a temple into a mosque.

For 240 years after its supposed construction in 1528 A.D. Baburi mosque does not figure in any text written by any indigenous or foreign authorities until the travel account of Jesuit priest Tieffenthelar in 1768 A.D. If it was really built in the year 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur, as is generally claimed by historians on the sole evidence of some fake inscriptions, it could have certainly found a mention in any of the following texts:

(1) Babur’s Memoirs

Babur’s Memoirs, variously called Babur-nama (History of Babur) or Waqiat-i-Baburi (Babur’s Acts) is one of the most detailed and frank diaries ever maintained by any monarch. In the Babur-nama he mentions the construction of only two mosques at Dholpur (Dulpur) and Agra. About the Dholpur he writes:

“On the east of this lake is a garden; I ordered a seat and four-pillared platform (talar) be cut out in the solid rock on that same side, and a mosque built on the western one.”( Baburnama, p. 606, folio 339b, dated 21st Sept. 1528 A.D.)

Babur depicts the Agra mosque in the following words:

“A stone building (tashdin Imarat) stands at the mouth of the well and there is an outer (?) mosque 3 outside (tashqari) the enclosure in which the well is. The mosque is not well done; it is in the Hindustani fashion.” (Baburnama, p. 533)

Beveridge explains it in the footnote on the same page:

3. Tash masjid; this, unless some adjectival affix (e.g. din) has been omitted by the scribe, I incline to read as meaning extra, supplementary, or outer, not as “mosque of stone.”

This account was written after 28th August, 1526. The construction of a mosque at Agra is corroborated by Jahangir’s following testimony in his Memoirs:

“When God Almighty bestowed the rule of India on this illustrious family, the late king, Babar, after the defeat of Ibrahim, the son of Sikandar Lodi, and his being killed, and after his victory over Rana Sanga, who was the chief of the Rajas of Hindustan, established on the east side of the Jumna, on improved land, a garden (charbagh) which few places equal in beauty. He gave it the name of Gul-afshan (Flower-scatterer), and erected in it a small building of cut red stone, and having completed a mosque on one side of it he intended to make a lofty building, but time failed him and his design was never carried into execution.” (The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri; or, Memoirs of Jahangir, pp. 4-5)

In addition, Babur has meticulously mentioned the number of masions and stone-cutters employed by him for the construction of various buildings in his Memoirs. He writes:

“But 680 men worked daily on my buildings in Agra and of Agra stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily on my buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gualiar and Kuil. In the same way there are numberless artisans and workmen of every sort in Hindustan.” (p. 520, folio 292)

Thus, Babur mentions his building activities at many places like Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gwalior and Kuil but not at Ayodhyā. One may argue that since this account was written in the year 932 A.H., i.e. from 18th October 1525 to 8th October, 1526, it is not a very conclusive evidence to disprove that he built a mosque at Ayodhyā in 935 A.D. which began on 15th September, 1528 and ended on 5th September 1529 A.D. However, on 1st February, 1529 Babur wrote in his diary:

“On Tuesday, after writing letters to be taken by those going to Kabul, the buildings in hand at Agra and Dulpur were recalled to mind, and entrusted to the charge of Mulla Qasim, Ustad Shah Muhammad the stone-cutter, Mirak, Mîr Ghias, Mir Sang-tarash (stone-cutter) and Shah Baba the spadesman. Their leave was given them.”

From this accout it is clear that Babur had no memory of any building activity going on at Ayodhyā in February, 1529.

Historians have so far been claiming that Babur, while settling affairs at Ayodhyā, had directed Mir Baqi in April 1528 to construct a mosque at Ayodhyā. Had he really given any such direction, he must have recalled it in his diary in February,1529 A.D. But since there was no such direction on his behalf, it is not mentioned in his diary. In fact, Mir Baqi and other nobles were on the pursuit mission against Bāyazīd and Biban in Eastern U.P. and Western Bihar. Thus there was no time for Mir Baqi to construct a mosque at Ayodhyā. Babur-nama almost confirms indirectly that Babur had no occasion to demolish any temple or build any mosque at Ayodhyā.

In addition, the following mention on 20th June, 1529 by Babur in his diary would confirm that the mosque was not built in 935 A.H.

“As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in army were worn out, the sultans and begs were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day leave was given to Baqi and for the army of Aud (Ajodhya).”

When I cross-checked this translation with that of Leyden and Erskine (published in 1826), I found the following translation:

“The same day (i.e. 21st June, 1529), about afternoon prayers, I gave Baqi Shaghawal and his party leave to go home.” (p. 423)

If this translation is correct, the leave granted to Baqi Shaghawal was for going home and if he went home as per the leave granted, he had no occasion at all to build a mosque at Ayodhyā. Baqi Shaghawal is never heard of thereafter. There is a discrepancy of one day between two translations.

Now these dates are analysed to arrive at a correct conclusion. The so-called Baburi mosque is said to have been built in 935 A.H. i.e. between 15th September, 1528 and 5th September, 1529 A.D. There is a misconception that since pages of Babur’s Diary from 3rd April to 17th September, 1528 are missing, the construction of mosque finds no mention in his Diary. But it is not correct because the mosque was built in 935 A.H. and only 3 days’ accounts for the year 935 A.H. are missing in his Diary. It is seen that on 21st September, 1528, i.e. only on the 6th day of the new 935 A.H. year Babur mentions the building of a mosque at Dholpur, far away from Ayodhyā. Thereafter, the movements of Babur and Baqi are known until 20th June, 1529, when Baqi was either dismissed or sent on leave. Thus, it was impossible to build a mosque at Ayodhyā by Babur or Baqi during the tumultuous period.

Baqi Tashkindi was an important army commander of the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban. Babur had taken personal interest and participated in the expedition against them after Chanderi war. Since 15th March, 1528 when he had crossed the Ganga river making a bridge of boats till 20th June, 1529, this expedition continued except brief spells and the rainy season. In the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban Babur himself had marched to several places from Chanderi to Chausa. Thus, where was the time for Baqi or Babur to demolish the temple and construct a mosque? Certainly it could not have been accomplished during those hectic days when an intensive expedition had been undertaken far from Ayodhyā against a mighty Muslim Afghan noble who defied Babur till the emperor’s death. Thus, Babur had no role to play in the Ayodhyā controversy.

(2) Humayun-nama of Gul-Badan Begum

Humayun-nama of Gul-Badan Begum is an authentic account of many events of Babur, Humayun, Sher Shah and Akbar’s times. She was the daughter of Babur and wrote the history of Humayun in a very faithful manner on the request of Akbar. She has mentioned the building activities of Babur in this book which was written in Turkish language. The book was translated into English by A.S. Beveridge. On page 98 of this book she writes:

“He commanded buildings to be put up in Agra on the other side of the river, and a stone palace to be built for himself between the haram and the garden. He also had one built in the audience court, with a reservoir in the middle and four chambers in the four towers. On the river’s bank he had a chaukandî built.

He ordered a tank made in Dholpûr, ten by ten, out of a single mass of rock, and used to say, ‘When it is finished, I will fill it with wine.’ But as he had given up wine before the fight with Rana Sanga. he filled it with lemonade.”

Again on page 102 she writes:

“When we had been in Agra three months, the Emperor went to Dholpûr; her Highness Maham Begam and this lowly person also went. A tank had been made there, ten (gaz) by ten, out of one piece (of rock). From Dholpûr his Majesty went on to Sîkrî. He ordered a great platform made in the middle of the tank, and when it was ready, he used to go and sit on it, or to row about. This platform still exists.

They also made a chaukandî in the Sîkrî garden, and my royal father put up in it a tûr-khana, where he used to sit and write
his book.”

Gul Badan Begum has mentioned Oudh in many contexts. She informs that six months after the death of Babur Biban and Bāyazīd advanced from the direction of Gaur and on hearing this news Humayun at once left Agra and, after defeating them returned to Chunar and thereafter to Agra.

On page 115 Gul-Badan Begum refers to Oudh in the following context:

“When his Majesty returned from the campaign against Bìban and Bãyazìd, he was in Agra for about a year. He said to my lady: ‘I am sad at heart in these days. If you approve, I would go with you to Gualiar’. Her Highness my lady, and my mother (ajam?) and my sisters Ma’suma Sultan Begam, whom we used to call Elder sister Moon, and Gul-rang Begam, whom we used to call Elder sister Rose, we all were in Gualiar in attendance on the beneficent ladies.

As Gul-chihra Begam was in Oude, and her husband, Tukhta-bugha Sultan, went to the mercy of God, her attendants wrote to his Majesty from Oude and said: ‘Tukhta-bugha Sultan is dead. (236) What is the order about the begam?’ His Majesty said to Mir Zaycha: “Go and bring the begam to Agra. We also are going there.”

On page 135 she informs that Baba Beg from Jaunpur, Mīrak Beg from Chunar and Mughal Beg from Oude had joined the Emperor Humayun but all they could not prevent the defeat inflicted upon by Sher Shah.

“Just now Baba Beg (Jalaw) came from Jaunpur and Mirak Beg from Chanada (Chunar), and Mughal Beg from Oude. (330) As these three amirs joined the Emperor, corn became dear.”

Thus, it is clear from the accounts of Gul-Badan Begum that Babur had not built any mosque at Ayodhyā, because had it been done, it would not have escaped her notice, as it was an accomplishment of her dear father, which she could have proclaimed proudly. Moreover, it appears from her account that after Bayazid, the Governor of Oudh, rebelled and ran away from Ayodhyā, Tukhta-bugha Sultan and Mughal Beg were the Governors of Oude during the reign of Babur and Humayun.

(3) Account of Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari

Just within 75 years of the said construction of the mosque in 1528, Ain-i-Akbari had been completed. Many persons do not know the difference between Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari and their subject arrangements. Therefore they get confused. Here the clarification is made. Akbarnama i.e. the Book on Akbar is a detailed official history written by Abul Fazl. It is in three parts. The first part is the history of the dynasty from Timur to the first seventeen years of Akbar’s reign. The second part is the history of Akbar from the eighteenth year of Akbar (1574 A.D.) to the forty-sixth year of the reign (1602) when Abul Fazl was assassinated on August 12, 1602 by the assassins of Bir Singh Dev Bundela at the behest of Prince Salim, later Jahangir. The third part is Ain-i-Akbari i.e. the Institutes of Akbar. Ain means the ‘mode of the government’. It is a very useful book, which contains Hindu philosophy, science, social customs and literature too. This part was written by him around 1590 A.D.

Abul Fazl is one of the greatest official writers India has ever produced. He was one of Akbar’s closest friends and a member of his Nava-ratna. He and his brother Faizi were two liberal persons who had influenced Akbar’s religious policies. He tried his best to bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims. On the goal of his writing, Abul Fazl stated:

“It has long been the ambitious desire of my heart to pass in review to some extent, the general conditions of this vast country, and to record the opinions professed by the majority of the learned among the Hindus. I know not whether the love of my native land has been the attracting influence or exactness of historical research and genuine truthfulness of narrative...” (Ain-i-Akbari, translated by Helen Blochmann, Volume III, p. 7).

From the pen of such a great personality Ayodhyā and Rāma have been mentioned thrice. In Ain-i-Akbari he writes thus on Ayodhyā:

“Awadh is one of the largest cities of India. It is situated in longitude 118°, 6’, and latitude 27°, 22’. In ancient times its populous site covered an extent of 148 kos in length and 36 in breadth, and it is esteemed one of the holiest places of antiquity. Around the environs of the city, they sift the earth and gold is obtained. It was the residence of Rãmachandra who in the Treta age combined in his own person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly office.

At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra, after its junction with the Sai, flows belows the fort. Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and seven yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them to be the resting-places of Seth and the prophet Job, and extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at Rattanpur is the tomb of Kabir the assertor of the unity of God. The portals of spiritual discernment were partly opened to him and he discarded the effete doctrines of his own time. Numerous verses in the Hindi language are still extant of him containing important theological truths.” (Ain-i-Akbari, Vol. II. pp. 171-172)

While describing Rāmāvatāra Abul Fazl writes as follows:

“He was accordingly born during the Tretã Yuga on the ninth of the light half of the month of Chaitra (March-April) in the city of Ayodhya, of Kausalya, wife of Rãjã Daśaratha. At the first dawn of intelligence, he acquired much learning and withdrawing from all worldly pursuits, set out journeying through wilds and gave a fresh beauty to his life by visiting holy shrines. He became lord of the earth and slew Rãvana. He ruled for eleven thousand years and introduced just laws of administration.” (Rãma-Incarnation, Vol- III, p. 291)

Abul Fazl further gives the following description of Ayodhyā:

“Ayodhyã, commonly called Awadh. The distance of forty kos to the east, and twenty to the north is regarded as sacred ground. On the ninth of the light half of the month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held.” (Sacred Places of Pilgrimage.)

Thus, Abul Fazl mentions Ayodhyā and Rāma at three places, While describing Oude i.e. Ayodhyā he writes that it was the residence (ālaya) of Rāmachandra who combined in his own person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly office.

It is the supreme salute to the personality of Maryādā Purushottama Rāma. Abul Fazl says it is the residence of Rāma i.e. Rāmālaya. In Sanskrit Devālaya means temple, as it is the residence of gods. Thus, Ramālaya means the temple of Rāma. In fact, this Ramālaya is used in the Badarikā-Māhātmya of the Skanda-purāna in the following verse:

स्वर्गद्वारे नरः स्नात्वा दृष्ट्वा रामालयं शुचिः।

न तस्य कृत्यं पश्यामि कृतकृत्यो भवेद्यतः।।।।

(स्कन्दपुराण : वैष्णव खण्ड : बदरिकाश्रम-माहात्म्य : अध्याय १)

If a pious person, having bathed at the Svargadvar ghāTa, visits the Ramālaya i.e. the house of Rāma (where he was born?) is blessed with everything.

And in 1994 A.D. when many top Hindu religious leaders formed a trust for the construction of the Rāma temple at Ayodhyā, they got it registered in the name of Rāmālaya only. Abul Fazl recalls Rāma as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He includes Ayodhyā as one of the important pilgrim places of India and reminds readers that there is a big festival on the Rāmanavamī day. But nowhere does he mention that there is a mosque built by the grandfather of Akbar, the great, who was his friend and patron king. Had Babur really built any mosque at Ayodhyā in 1528-29, Abul Fazl would have definitely mentioned its existence, particularly, when he is writing about the two tombs of Seth and Job at Ayodhyā. Thus, it is a strong proof of the non-existence of the so-called Baburi mosque in the last decade of the
sixteenth century.

(4) Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha of Maheśa Thākura

Maheśa Thākur, the founder of Khand+avalā Kingdom of Mithilā which was handed over by Akbar to him through his(Maheśa Thākura’s) disciple Raghunandana, wrote “Sarva-deśa-vr+ittānta sanagraha”. He started the writing of the history of the Mughal dynasty in the 19th year of the reign of Akbar, i.e. in 1575 A.D. For this purpose he contacted all those persons who were in the know of the historical events and perused all the documents relevant to his subject. In the following paragraph he has mentioned his method of writing the history of the Mughal dynasty:

"यत् एतदीयेभ्यो बहुकालीनेभ्यः सत्यवादिभ्यः सेवकेभ्यश्चिराय पृष्ट्वा पृष्ट्वा तानि लिखितवान्। किं च नानादेशगतैस्तादृशै सेवकै सुरत्राणाज्ञातो लिखित्वा प्रेषितानि तान्यवगतवान्। ततश्च लेखितुमारब्धवान् सर्वशः। तन्मध्य एव सुरत्राणराज्यैकोनविंशतिमे वर्षे स एव प्रात्यहिककर्मकलापलिखनरीतिमाविश्चकार यां ‘बाकानबीशी’ इति जना व्याहरन्ति। ततः प्रभृति तत एव लेखनमकरवं यतितवांश्च राज्यारम्भदिनतः प्रभृति सुरत्राणाज्ञापत्राणि नानादेश्यानि तत्प्रतिपत्राणि तद्विज्ञप्तिपत्राणि व्रज्याश्च संग्रहीतुम्। संगृह्य च तेभ्यो लिखितवान्। अनाश्वासेन वान्येषु जन्मतः प्रथमवर्षान्तरं स्वीयसकलचरितप्रणिधातारं महासुरत्राणमापृच्छ्यापृच्छ्य निर्णीय लिखामि। वर्त्तते च मम प्रत्याशा सुरत्राणभक्तितो निर्व्यूढमेतद् भविष्यतीति।" (पृ.12-13)

I wrote this text after repeatedly asking those persons who were in king’s service for long and who were truthful. I also consulted the correspondences from the officials appointed in various territories. Then I started writing everything. Meanwhile the emperor (Akbar) in the 19th year of his reign established the system of taking down every event daily. This system was called ‘Bakanabishi’ (Waqya Navisi) by the people. Thereafter, I followed the same pattern of writing and started collecting the royal decrees from the beginning and letters and documents from various Kingdoms. After collecting them I wrote from them uninterruptedly. I have been (with an effort) writing every event from the first year of the emperor’s life after consulting the emperor intensively and then taking a decision. I hope that this text will be authentic because of my devotion to the emperor.

In the beginning he has written the history of Babur and Humayun and in the context of Babur’s attempts to chase and capture Biban and Bāyazīd, he has mentioned Ayodhyā several times. He has mentioned the killing of Bāyazīd in a battle during the days of Humayun in 939 A.H. i.e. 1534 A.D. Moreover, he has given one more information that Tulug Beg Mirza, son of Muhmad Sultan Mirza, had revolted at Ayodhyā and Humayun had sent his brother Hindal to crush the revolt. But nowhere does he mention the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā. Had Babur built any mosque at Ayodhyā, with or without demolishing any temple, it would have got a mention in his book. Very few people are aware of the existence of this important historical text which is written in the Sanskrit prose. It is not in the traditional style of Sanskrit poets who describe any event in hyperbolic tone in verses. It is a pure historical text written in Muslim historians’ style and is based on historical events.

It was published by Patna University in the year 1962. Dr. Subhadra Jha was its editor who did not translate it into English or Hindi. Therefore, it could not be accessible to a vast section of students of history. He writes that it is an abridged version of Akbarnama. I have compared it with Akbarnama and found that its chapter on Babur is based on the same source of Akbarnama and therefore their contents tally to a great extent. It is either an incomplete work or its subsequent folios are missing.

(5) “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh” of Badauni

Abdul Quadir Badauni was a contemporary of Akbar and Abul Fazl. He was born on August 21, 1540 A.D. at Toda. In 1558-59 he went to Agra and studied under famous Saikh Mubarak Naguri along with Faizi and Abul Fazl. After the death of his father Saikh Muluk Shah he went to Badaun where he mastered many subjects like music, history and astronomy.

In 1574 he joined Akbar’s court. But since he was an orthodox Muslim always fighting for the supremacy of Sharia law, he could not win that much favour of Akbar as Abul Fazl and Faizi did. Therefore, he was always disgruntled against the trio. Akbar asked him to translate the Rāmāyana which he did but with a lot of criticism of the scripture.

He mentions in his work the submission of Bāyazīd before Babur and the bestowal of jagir on the Afghan leader. He further refers to the flight and death of Biban and Bāyazīd who was earlier the Governor of Ayodhyā. Had Babur built a mosque at the site of Lord Rāma’s birthplace or even at any place of Ayodhyā, Badauni would have gleefully mentioned it with comments like “Look, the birth site of Rāma has been reduced to a non-entity by Babur and Mir Baqi.” But Badauni nowhere mentions the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā in his voluminous history book “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh.” Thus, it is an indication that no mosque was built by Babur at Ayodhyā. Had it really been so, it would not have escaped the notice of an orthodox Sunni chronicler like Badauni. He would have declared with pride and made the grandfather of his patron king a great hero.

It is in consonance with the following observation of the established historian K.N. Panikkar in his article ‘ A Historical Overview’ published in the book ‘Anatomy of Confrontation’:

“A chronicler like Abdul Quadir Badauni of the sixteenth century, who wrote his books with the professed objective of demonstrating how the glory of Islam was declining during the liberal rule of Akber, was unlikely to have remained silent about the construction of a mosque at the site of a temple of major significance, if such an event had taken place.”

In the similar tone another established historian Harabans Mukhia writes in an article ‘The Rama Janmabhumi-Babari Masjid dispute’:

“If Badauni, a courtier of Akbar, had the slightest inkling that the mosque’s importance lay in its displacement of a holy temple of the infidels, he would have written of it in hyperbole with his even normally a very facile pen; but he didn’t.”

Since no mosque had been built by then, Badauni was not in a position to mention it. Therefore, the observations of Panikkar and Mukhia are not correct.

(6) The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri

Similarly, Emperor Jahangir, the great grandson of Babur in his memoirs “The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri” has mentioned that Babur built a mosque at Agra across the Yamunā during his last days and had a plan to make a lofty building also but because of his death he could not complete it. The following is the excerpt from Jahangir’s Memoirs:

“When God Almighty bestowed the rule of India on this illustrious family, the late king, Babar, after the defeat of Ibrahim, the son of Sikandar Lodi, and his being killed, and after his victory over Rana Sanga, who was the chief of the Rajas of Hindustan, established on the east side of the Jumna, on improved land, a garden (charbagh) which few places equal in beauty. He gave it the name of Gul-afshan (Flower-scatterer), and erected in it a small building of cut red stone, and having completed a mosque on one side of it he intended to make a lofty building, but time failed him and his design was never carried into execution.” (The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri; or Memoirs of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Rogers, edited by Henry Beveridge (1909), pp. 4-5)

Had Babur built a mosque at Ayodhyā, it should have been mentioned by his great-grandson Emperor Jahangir.

(7) Rāmacharita Mānasa of Gosvāmī Tulasi Das

Another text is Rāmacharita Mānasa of Tulasi Das which indicates that there was no demolition of the Rāma temple and construction of the mosque by then. Gosvāmī Tulasi Das started its composition on the Rāmanavamī at Ayodhyā in Samavat 1631, i.e. in 1574 A.D. He himself gives the date of the beginning of the composition of the great epic:

संवत सोरह सै एकतीसा। करउँ कथा हरि पद धरि सीसा।।

नौमी भौमवार मधुमासा। अवधपुरी यह चरित प्रकासा।।

जेहि दिन राम जनम श्रुति गावहिं। तीरथ सकल तहाँ चलि आवहिं।।

असुर नाग खग नर मुनि देवा। आइ करहिं रघुनायक सेवा।।

जन्म महोत्सव रचहिं सुजाना। करहिं राम कल कीरति गाना।।

(Bālakānd+a: Dohā 34)

Here I am producing the translation rendered into English verse by Rev. A.G. Father Atkins:

In the year sixteen hundred and thirtyone bright,

With my head lowly placed at my lord’s feet I write;

On Tuesday, the ninth day of Chaitra, month pleasing,

In the 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 their lord homage true;

On this festival day of lord Rama’s birth

They all sing with acclaim his high praises and worth.

Again only six lines after the above quotation Tulasi Das writes about Ayodhyā:

राम धामदा पुरी सुहावनि। लोक समस्त बिदित अति पावनि।।

चारि खानि जग जीव अपारा। अवध तजें तनु नहिं संसारा।।

सब बिधि पुरी मनोहर जानी। सकल सिद्धिप्रद मंगल खानी।।

विमल कथा कर कीन्ह अरंभा। सुनत नसाहिं काम मद दंभा।।

(Dohā 35)

This fair city opens to all Rama’s heaven,

The whole world knows well here is holiness given.

Beyond number souls from the four wombs are born.

But the souls who in Avadh die never return.

Well knowing this city the home of delight,

The giver of wealth, source of all that is bright,

Its history pure I’ll begin to relate;

Once heard it destroys passion, envy and hate.

This shows true nature of Ayodhyā which is a renowned pilgrim place. Even earlier in the managalācharana Tulasi Das remembers Ayodhyā as बंदउँ अवधपुरी अति पावनि। सरजू सरि कलि कलुष नसावनि।।This, too, confirms the holiness of Ayodhyā and it is related to pilgrimage.

At the end of the Lanakākānd+a, Tulasi Das describes Ayodhyā पुनि देखु अवधपुरी अति पावनि। त्रिबिध ताप भव रोग नसावनि।। In the beginning of Uttara-kānd+a Rāma says to his monkey friends and introduces Ayodhyā in the following words:

सुनु कपीस अंगद लंकेसा। पावन पुरी रुचिर यह देसा।।

जद्यपि सब बैकुंठ बखाना। बेद पुरान बिदित जगु जाना।।

अवधपुरी सम प्रिय नहिं सोऊ। यह प्रंग जानइ कोउ कोऊ।।

जन्मभूमि मम पुरी सुहावनि। उत्तर दिसि बह सरजू पावनि।।

जा सज्जन ते बिनहिं प्रयासा। मम समीप नर पावहिं बासा।।

अति प्रिय मोहि इहाँ के बासी। मम धामदा पुरी सुख रासी।।

(Dohā 4)

“Listen, Vibhishan, Angad, Sugriv! Pure and clean

“Is my city; my land is the fairest e’er seen!

“Tho’ for beauty men always of Paradise dream,

“And tho’ scripture, as all know, declares it supreme,

“Tho’ but few know the secret, yet this I declare-

“That dear to me is Avadh beyond all compare!

“Here’s my birthplace, this city delightful, secure;

“On the north River Sarju flows, sacred and pure,

“In which bathing, without any labours or pains,

“His abiding-place with me forever man gains;

“Very dear to my heart are all those who here dwell;

“They attain thus my realm, there and here all is well.”

Here, Rāma has declared in unequivocal language that nothing is as dear to him as Avadh, as it is his birthplace ‘जन्मभूमि मम पुरी सुहावनि’. It is a picture of a flourishing holy town which had not seen the agony of the demolition of a Rāma temple and existence of a mosque thereon. It is a scene of vibrant Ayodhyā.

Again in Uttara-kānd+a there is a detailed description of Ayodhyā after Dohā no. 26 were it is mentioned that: देखत पुरी अखिल अघ भागा।, i.e. just by seeing the city all sins disappear. This happens only in a tirtha i.e. pilgrimage place.

Again in the Uttara-kānd+a Awadh is described by Kākabhuśund+ī in the following words:

अब जाना मैं अवध प्रभावा। निगमागम पुरान अस गावा।।

कवनेहुँ जन्म अवध बस जोई। राम परायन सो परि होई।।

अवध प्रभाव जान तब प्रानी। जब उर बसहिं रामु धनुपानी।।

Despite the above descriptions many established historians have created confusion about Tulasi Das’s writings either due to ignorance or prejudice. “In ‘Communal History and Rāma’s Ayodhyā’ the eminent historian Prof. R.S. Sharma has commented on Ayodhyā in the following words:

“Tulasidas began writing the Ramacharitmanas at Avadhapuri, but he does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. In a verse (chaupai) he states that he began composing the manuscript at Avadhpuri, which could have been easily changed into Awadhtirtha without doing any damage to the metrical arrangement. He clearly specifies the place and the time when he wrote his famous Ramacharitamanas:

nawamī bhaumavāra madhumāsā,

Auadhpurī yah charita prakāsā
jehi din Rama janam śruti gāvamahi
tīratha sakal tahin chali āvamahi (Bālakānd+a)

The verses quoted above would show that he launched his manuscript on Tuesday, the ninth day of the second half of Chaitra. He adds whoever sings the story of the birth of Rama on that day obtains the merit accruing from his visit to all places of pilgrimage automatically, but he does not declare Avadhpuri a place of pilgrimage. He stresses the importance of the day when he started the book and not that of the place where he wrote. In the Ramacharitamanas of Tulasidas Ayodhya neither appears as a place of pilgrimage for the Hindus.”

This misunderstanding is due to many factors including the lack of proper appreciation of the Hindi expression. The mention– jehi din Rāma janama śruti gāvamahi, tīratha sakal tahin chali āvamahi- means in the literary style that on that day it becomes the supreme tirtha, i.e. place of pilgrimage. He is probably not aware of the similar expression in the Anuśāsana Parva of Mahābhārata where it is written:

दश् तीर्थसहस्राणि तिस्र कोट्यस्तथापराः।

समागच्छन्ति माघ्यां तु प्रयागे भरतर्षभ।।

In the Māgha month 10 thousand places of pilgrimage and other 30 crore centres of pilgrimage come to Prayag.
(Anuśāsana, 25/36)

Moreover, had he written Awadha-tirtha in place of Awadha-puri in the above chaupāī; there would have been clear Chhando-bhanaga i.e. digression in the metre.

The above quotations from Rāmacharita-mānasa confirm that in the literature of Tulasi Das, Ayodhyā was a place of pilgrimage par excellence. Many historians claim that since Tulasi Das did not mention the demolition of any Rāma’s temple at Ayodhyā no temple was demolished there. Here Harbans Mukhia leads from the front, when he states that if the mosque had been built at the site of Rāma’s birth itself with a temple to commemorate it, its demolition could only have driven Tulasi Das hopping mad. But the fact of the matter is that it was done around 1660 A.D., almost 37 years after his death. Then how could he mention it? During his time the Rāma temple was intact and there was no mosque at the Janma-sthāna of Rāma; so there is no such mention in his literature.

(8) Travel accounts of William Finch

Travel accounts of William Finch throw a lot of light on the religious condition of Ayodhyā in c. 1610 A.D. William Finch along with Captain Hawkins landed at Surat on 28th August, 1608. He was primarily a merchant and moved from Surat to Agra and then to Lahore and finally to Baghdad. In between, he covered many places in India between 1608 and 1611. He was a very keen observer and noted all his impressions in his diary. William Foster, the Editor of “Early Travels in India 1583-1619” comments thus on his observations:

“Based upon a carefully kept journal and giving a detailed description of a large extent of the country, it is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the dominions of the Great Mogul in the early years of the seventeenth century.”

Before going to Lahore, he had visited Delhi, Ambala, Sultanpur and Ayodhyā. He had a tragic death in Baghdad where he died in 1612 probably due to infected water. Finch’s apparel and much of his papers were saved and forwarded to the East India Company by Haggard. Rev. Samuel Purchas, while searching the Company’s archives for material, found Finch’s journal and printed it almost completely as the 4th chapter of the fourth book of part one of the “Pilgrimes”. From that book William Foster included it in his Early Travels in India 1583-1619. It was published by Oxford University Press in 1921.

The following is the travel account of William Finch on Ayodhyā:

William Finch’s account from Foster’s book.

The above quotation does not contain any spelling mistake because that was the pattern of writing in the early seventeenth century. The following informations are culled from the scrutiny of his travel accounts:

(i) Ayodhyā was a city of ancient note.

(ii) At the time of his visit in circa 1610 A.D. it was a seat of Potan, i.e. a Pathan king. He had visited Ayodhyā during the days of Jahangir. Ayodhyā was an important suba since the days of Akbar as stated by Abul Fazl.

(iii) The castle was built four hundred years ago.

(iv) There were ruins of Rāmachandra’s castle and houses.

(v) Indians acknowledged Rāma as a great God who took incarnation to see the ‘tamasha’ of the world.

(vi) In these ruins remained Brahmins who, for centuries, had been recording names of all such Indians who used to bathe in the river.

(vii) Pilgrims used to carry blackened rice-grains from a nearby cave.

A mosque is nowhere mentioned by Finch. He only talks about the ruins of the castles of King Rāmachandra. These castles were reported to be 400 years old. In fact, they were built during the Gahadavala kings’ reign and were around 450 years old. According to one of the conditions of Jejiya there could be no repairs or renovations of existing temples. Therefore, they were in ruins but they were under the control of the Hindus because Finch mentions that in these ruins remain Brahmins but he does not mention the mosque at all. It is a conclusive proof that there was no mosque in Ram Kot till 1610 A.D.

Similarly, Joannes De Leat (1631) and Thomas Herbert(1634) have given very vivid description of Ayodhyā but nowhere they have mentioned any mosque. According to their accounts there was an ancient temple built by Rāmachandra and there was an idol which was worshipped by devotees before going to the nearby cave which consisted of blackened rice-grains.

Since the existence of the temple was seen by William Finch (1610), De Leat (1631) and Thomas Herbert (1634) in the Ram Kot, the Rāma temple existed at the Janma-sthana, at least, till 1634 A.D. But when Lal Das went to Ayodhyā and remained there from 1667 to 1675, there was no semblance of the temple. Therefore, it appears that the temple was demolished sometime between 1635 and 1666 A.D. Our conclusion that it was demolished in 1660 A.D. is in consistency with this line of factual evidence.

(9) Joseph Tieffenthaler’s description of Ayodhyā

The first mention of the demolition of Ram Kot castles and the construction of the disputed mosque at the birthplace of Rāma is made by Austrian Jesuit Father Joseph Tieffenthaler in his book Descriptio Indiae written in Latin. Bernoulli,while translating this book in French from Latin, changed the title to La Geographic de Hindoustan. The meaning of the Latin title is Description of India, whereas the meaning of the French title is Geography of Hindustan. It is a well researched work on geography and provides a detailed description of 22 Provinces of India, its cities, its fortresses and smaller towns, during 1766-72. He wrote his account of Ayodhyā and Faizabad in 1767 A.D., as the date is recorded in his account of Faizabad. It is further confirmed by the following map of Tieffenthaler which is dated January 1768.

Fig. 4.2: Sketch of the confluence of Ghaghra and Sarayu
made by Tieffenthaler.

Very few scholars know that Tieffenthaler’s Latin work was translated in German by Bernoulli and published between 1785 and 1787. A copy of the cover page of the German translation is produced below:

Fig. 4.3: Cover page of Tieffenthaler’s
book in German version.

Tieffenthaler was born on 24th July, 1710 at Bozen, in the county of Tyrol, then in Austrian empire. He entered the Society of Jesus on 9th October, 1729 at the age of 19 years. In 1740 he left Austria for Spain where he stayed for two years. In 1743 he sailed from Portugal for India on East Indian Mission. After arrival in Goa he went to Surat in 1743. According to Father Severin Noti, the author of A Forgotten Geographer of India, he was destined for Jai Singh’s observatory. However, in the wake of Jai Singh’s death in 1743, he went to Agra where he joined Jesuit High School as the Rector. In 1747 he went to Narwar where he was appointed as a priest to the Bourbon Colony at Narwar, and carried on the duties of his assignment till 1765. After the Portuguese Prime Minister Pombal’s order that all Jesuits be expelled from Portuguese-controlled areas, he went to Calcutta and approached the authorities of the East India Company for financial assistance. Thereafter, he took up a tedious task of following the entire course of Ganga down to Calcutta and worked on Gogra (Sarayū) and the regions containing the sources of the chief rivers of India. Tieffenthaler died in 1785 at Lucknow and was interred at Padri Tolla Cemetery, Agra.

Fig. 4.4: Cover page of Tieffenthaler’s
book in French version.

He was a prolific writer. Apart from his work on Geography which is referred to above, he wrote many other books. He wrote on the origin of the Hindus and their religion in Latin, expeditions of Nadir Shah to India in German, the deeds of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in Persian and incursions of the Afghans and the Conquest of Delhi in French. He wrote a book on contemporary history during the period1757-64. In linguistics he prepared a Sanskrit-Parsee lexicon, apart from treatises in Latin on the language of the Parsees and on the proper pronunciation of Latin. In the area of religion, he wrote ‘Brahmanism’ and works on Indian polytheism and Indian asceticism. He also composed books on the religions of the Parsees and the Muslims.

In the field of the natural sciences he wrote on astronomical observations on the sunspots and zodiacal light, studies on the Hindu astronomy, astrology and cosmology. In addition, he wrote on the descriptions and observations of the flora and fauna of India.

Tieffenthaler has written extensively on Oudh. He has devoted 58 pages on the history, geography, topography, etc. of the entire Oudh range for six years from 1766 to 1772. How his magnum opus “Descriptio Indiae” was published has a very interesting story. His book was first published partly in Latin in 1776 and 1784. Then it was translated into German and published from 1785 to 1787. It was further translated and published in French between 1786 and 1791. Both German and French editions were translated and edited through the good offices of Anquetil and Bernoulli. So far no English translation of the entire book is available.

I think Late Abhas Kumar Chatterjee, an I.A.S. officer of Bihar Cadre, was the first person who quoted Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhyā in the midst of the controversy of Rāma Janma-bhūmi-Baburi-Masjid dispute in an article in Indian Express in 1990. He had quoted it not from his original book in Latin but from the French translation.Thereafter Tieffenthaler has been quoted by many persons including four historians who wrote ‘Report to the Nation’. Though there was not much difference in the quoted versions, some persons expressed doubts about the authenticity of the Tieffenthaler’s account. Thereafter, the Government of India got an authentic translated version and submitted it before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Even then, some sceptics were doubting that some tampering might have taken place in the official translation, though every word had been examined meticulously. Meanwhile, Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhyā was found by the present author in the 4th volume of the book “The Modern Traveller: A Popular Description, Geographical, Historical, and Topographical, of the Globe” by Josiah Conder. Although it was published in 1828, the present writer is the first person to bring it on the record in the Ayodhyā dispute. It was duly produced before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court during the course of argument. It ends all doubts and controversies about the authentic translation of Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhyā. Here an important question arises as to when Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhyā in English was published in an important book “Modern Traveller” in 1828 A.D., why did not a single historian quote it in any of the books written on Ayodhyā earlier. The simple answer may be that no one made an in-depth study of the Ayodhyā issue.

It is not a mere coincidence that the first text, which mentions the disputed mosque, emphatically attributes its construction to Aurangzeb, although it mentions the perception of some persons that the mosque was built by Babur. Details of Teiffenthaler’s accounts have been discussed in Chapter XI named “The existence of Rāma’s Janma-sthana and a temple thereon is not based on beliefs alone but on unimpeachable evidence also.”

(10) Francis Buchanan’s survey report

Francis Buchanan is the real defaulter who has created all confusion on Ayodhyā. He was born on 15th February, 1762 at Bardowie, Callander, Perthsire. He studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh. He also studied Botany under John Hope in Edinburgh.

“A surgeon by profession and a botanist by inclination” Buchanan joined the East India Company in 1784 as a medical officer. He came to India in 1794 and served in the Bengal Medical Service from 1794 to 1815. From 1803 to 1804 he was surgeon to the Governor General of India Lord Wellesley in Calcutta where he established a zoo that is now Calcutta Alipore Zoo. He tried to be associated with botanical museum but finding no spacious scope in that field, he became an expert on Indian society and culture.

In 1799 after the defeat of Tipu Sultan he was asked to survey South India. His book ‘A Journey from Madras through the Counties of Mysore, Canara and Malaber (1807)’ is well-known. He wrote another book ‘An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal’ in 1819.

He conducted the survey of Dinajpur and Rungpur in Bengal (1807-189), Purnia (1809-1810), Bhagalpur (1810-1811), Patna, Gaya and Shahabad (1811-13) and finally Gorakhpur (1813-1814). Why Buchanan was selected to conduct this survey is rightly speculated by William R. Pinch in his book ‘Peasants and Monks in British India’. Pinch writes,

“Buchanan soon developed a reputation as an irritant to the orientalist establishment, which was (in Vicziany’s words) “inclined towards a Brahmanical interpretation of Indian society.” By publishing an essay on Burmese Buddhism, Buchanan juxtaposed “the egalitarianism of Buddhism against the oppressive, hierarchical nature of Brahmanism. Buchanan’s hatred of the entrenched Brahmin class in India, together with his critical reading of the religious scriptures, marked him out as a man ideally equipped to act as the Company’s reporter on native affairs’.”(Appendix 1, p. 15)

Thus, Buchanan had bias against traditional Hinduism.

Buchanan made a survey of Gorakhpur and Ayodhyā in 1813-14. His original report on Gorakhpur Division which included Ayodhyā is still lying unpublished in the Oriental and India Office Collection of the British Library, and marked as manuscript no E97. Montgomary Martin published his survey reports in 1838 without acknowledging Buchanan’s name prominently. If Buchanan’s report lying in the British Library is compared with Martin’s published book, little difference is found on Ayodhyā topic. In Martin’s book the inscription(s), made available to Buchanan, their English translation and a map of Ayodhyā are missing. In his survey report Buchanan writes thus:

“...the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzabe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”

From the above quotation it is clear that in people’s perception it was Aurangzeb and not Babur, who was responsible for the demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque. The callous neglect of Buchanan in writing his report on the disputed shrine has changed the course of history since 1838 when M. Martin published his report wherein Buchanan has noted:

“What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill-founded. The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) (drawing N1) to have been built by Babur.”

It appears that Buchanan had seen (if he had really seen) the mosque from a distant place because he writes that it is ‘by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern’. The mosque was not ‘by far the most entire’ because it had not any minarette and without it the mosque could not be ‘the most entire.’ Similarly, if the mosque was really ‘the most modern’, it could be a construction of Aurangzeb’s period and not that of Babur’s which was remote by 285 years. Whatever may have been the reality Buchanan’s comments became the gospel truth for subsequent writers and all started attributing its construction to Babur instead of Aurangzeb.

Thus, it was Buchanan’s haste which created all confusion on Ayodhyā. It appears that he never visited the site of the Janma-sthana Masjid, though he claims to have visited. If he really visited the mosque, he visited it from a distant place. He never saw any inscription inside the mosque. What was given to him, he got it translated. He even did not know whether the inscriptions given to him were two or one because he has mentioned just one: ‘an inscription’. He used to have dialogue with the mahanta of Janma-sthāna temple. But he has not made it clear who this mahanta was. The mahanta’s views on the dynasties of Nepal have been quoted by him in another book “An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal.” But he has not quoted a single word of this Mahanta on the demolition of the temple. He has not even referred to another Janma-sthāna temple across the road as to whether it existed during his time or not.

(11) Conclusion

Thus, we have seen that the so-called Baburi mosque does not figure in any of the texts ranging from 1528 to 1668 A.D. When it is first mentioned in Tieffenthaler’s book, the construction of the mosque is emphatically attributed to Aurangzeb, and Babur’s name is carried by a few persons. However, during Buchanan’s survey of Gorakhpur during 1813-14 he was caught in a well-knit trap of forged inscriptions which indicated that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the behest of Babur. This forgery has been analysed threadbare in the next chapter and it has been conclusively proved that inscriptions were forged in nature. Thus, the only link connecting Babur with the disputed shrine does not exist. Nevertheless, historical facts and Babur’s image of a liberal emperor were sacrificed. Now an attempt is made here to relieve him of the false accusation that has resulted in a sinister campaign of hatred against him for decades. It must have been very agonizing for Babur who had once proclaimed:

With fame, though I die, I am content,

Let fame be mine, though life be spent.



Chapter Five

Inscriptions on the structure were fake and factitious

[(1) Introduction (2) Non-existence of any inscription during Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s visit (c.1770 A.D.) (3) Buchanan’s Report (1813-14 A.D.) (4) The tomb of Musa Ashiqan (5) Asghar’s petition (1877 A.D.) (6) Inspection by Judges (1885-86 A.D.)

(7) Anton Fuhrer’s Report (1889 A.D.) (8) Maulvi Shuaib’s Report (1906-07) (9) Inscriptions mentioned by Beveridge in Babur-nama (1921) (10) Communal riot of 1934 (11) Inscriptions submitted in Faizabad Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945 (12) Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai’s reading of the inscriptions (13) Factitious Inscription of Kanak Bhawan (14) Conclusion]

(1) Introduction

The construction of the so-called Baburi mosque is attributed to the Mughal emperor Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur on the main evidence of inscriptions fixed on the disputed shrine. However, on a close scrutiny, it is found that the inscriptions, which are now non-existent, were fakes. They were fixed subsequently on the structure almost 285 years after its supposed construction in 1528 A.D. and were replaced repeatedly. An analytical study of evidences will establish this historical fact which may astonish many readers.

Baburi mosque does not find any mention in any text before 1770 A.D. when Joseph Tieffenthaler visited it. But he, too, did not see any inscription on any part of the mosque. He was well versed in Persian and therefore any inscription inside the mosque would not have escaped his notice, particularly when he has given minor details of the mosque and its surroundings. Joseph Tieffenthaler writes that Ram Kot was demolished by Aurangzeb and adds that according to some persons’ version it was done by Babur. Had an inscription really existed anywhere in any part of the mosque a Persian knowing Tieffenthaler must have clarified in Buchanan’s manner that it was Babur and not Aurangzeb, who built the mosque. But since there was no inscription, there is no mention of it in his account and Tieffenthaler’s uncertainty about its builder continued.

When Syyed Mohammad Asghar, the Khatib and Mutawali of the masjid, had filed the petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad on 13th December, 1877 A.D. he claimed the existence of a lone inscription which read ‘Allah’ only. It was the sole evidence in support of his case. Had there been any other inscription in the mosque, he would have certainly mentioned it forcefully to buttress his claim.

Besides, in a counter affidavit filed on the 22nd December, 1885 in the suit Raghubar Das, Mahant Nirmohi Akhara vs. Sarkar Bahadur, Kaisar-i-Hind and Mohammad Asghar, Khatib and Mutwali, Jame Masjid, the defendant Asghar claimed before the Sub Judge, Faizabad that when Baburshah, the Master of the country and King of the time built the mosque and got the word ‘Allah’ engraved on its entrance door no one else could claim the right of ownership. Here also Mohammad Asghar emphatically claims that King Babur had got only ‘Allah’ inscribed on the entrance of the door. Were there any inscription in existence anywhere in the mosque Mohammad Asghar would have certainly referred to it.

Similarly, when the mosque was officially inspected by the Sub-Judge of Faizabad, Pandit Hari Kishan on 24th December, 1884 in the presence of both the Hindu and Muslim parties, he did not find any inscription except a superscription ‘Allah’ on the entrance to the enclosure. Similarly, when the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier inspected the mosque on 18.3.1886 in the presence of both the parties, he, too, found the same superscription of Allah and nothing else. Had the inscription, a copy of which was given to Buchanan in 1813 14, really existed in any part of the mosque, the Muslim party would have shown it to the inspecting Judges with pride and promptness.

When A. Fuhrer visited the mosque in 1889 A.D. he found two inscriptions besides one bearing Kalma. But inscriptions seen by him substantially differ from those of Beveridge and Ashraf/Desai. The date of the construction of the mosque in one inscription seen by Fuhrer above the entrance door of the Masjid was 930 H. i.e. 1523 A.D. which is before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan. The name of the builder of the mosque given in another inscription was Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi.

In “Annual Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra” submitted by Maulvi Shuaib in 1906 A.D. it is recorded that three inscriptions existed in the disputed mosque. The present writer is the first person who has produced Shuaib’s report on inscriptions in the Ayodhyā debate. After an analysis of the positions of these three inscriptions it appears that the inscription seen by Fuhrer which contained the date 930 A.H. was seen by Shuaib also. However, its place was changed and it was found below the pulpit of the mosque in 1906 A.D. Another inscription seen by Shuaib contained kalmāh instead of mere ‘Allāh’. About the third inscription Maulvi Shuaib writes that it records ‘the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram chandra was.”

In 1921 A.D. Beveridge procured copies of two inscriptions through the D.M. of Faizabad. One inscription was complete and beautifully translated by her. It has been highlighted and oft quoted in several books. The second inscription obtained by her was incomplete and, thus, under the process of tampering. Therefore, Beveridge could not get the complete copy of this inscription. The content of the second edict is at variance with that of Ashraf/Desai.

Similarly, two edicts cited in Faizabad Regular Suit no. 29 of 1946 have contents different from the text of Beveridge. Herein the date of the construction of the mosque is 923 Hijri i.e. 1516-17 A.D. In the judgment it is clearly mentioned that the date was physically verified by the Court which had deputed a Persian scholar who had read it after standing on a ladder. This date 1516-17 is an impossibility.

In his survey report Francis Buchanan wrote in 1813-14 that there was an inscription on the ‘walls’ of the mosque and got it translated by his unnamed Maulvi friend. But his Maulvi friend gave him the translation of five texts including two inscriptions. How Buchanan was not aware of the existence of the second inscription is intriguing, because he had been given the translation of both edicts. Though the content of the translation of one added text was similar to that seen by Beveridge, the appearance of the two inscriptions was quite different. Similarly, the second inscription, the copy of which was handed over to Buchanan, was quite different from subsequent inscriptions shown on the mosque. It appears that the presentaion of the translated version of supposed inscriptions was a creation of some fertile brain which beguiled Buchanan in believing it to be a genuine one. Thus, not only the contents of the inscriptions differed from each other but their locations and appearances also varied substantially from time to time. However, since the publication of Buchanan’s testimony in M. Martin’s book ‘Eastern India’ in 1838, the construction of the mosque has been ascribed to Babur.

After this brief introduction the existence and non-existence of inscriptions inside the disputed shrine on various dates are analysed below at length:

(2) Non-existence of any inscription during Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s visit (c.1770 A.D.)

The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler was the first person who mentioned the existence of the Ayodhyā mosque in his Latin book: “Description. Historique Et Geographique De L’ Inde”, which is an authentic text on geography in the context of Indian sub-continent. There is a general misconception amongst readers that Tieffenthaler was merely a traveller, who visited Awadh between 1766 and 1771. It is true that he came to India in 1742 but he remained here until his death in 1780 after spending around 38 years in this country. During this period he learnt and mastered many languages of the sub-continent.

E.A.H. Blunt, I. C.S., has written in his book “List of Inscriptions on Christian Tombs and Tablets of Historical Interest in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” about Tieffenthaler’s academic advancement in the following words:

“He was a man of considerable linguistic attainments, he spoke German, Italian, Spanish and French, wrote good Latin, and acquired a great knowledge of Urdu, Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit. He eventually composed a Sanskrit-Persian dictionary and wrote some treatises in Persian.”

Tieffenthaler had sound knowledge of Persian, as he had compiled a ‘Sanskrit Persian Dictionary’ and had written many texts in Persian. He wrote his observations in his diary after inspecting the structure. Some excerpts from his writings are quoted below:

“Emperor Aurangzeb got the fortress called Ram Kot demolished and got constructed at the same place, Muslim temple (Masjid) with three domes. Some believe that it was constructed by ‘Babbar’. Fourteen black stone pillars can be seen there, which existed at the site of the fortress. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque while two of the 12 (pillars) are placed at the entrance of the cloister, two others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It was narrated that these pillars, or rather the debris of the pillars skillfully made were brought from the island of Lanca or Selendip (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, the king of monkeys.

On the left is seen a square chest, raised five inches from the ground covered with lime, about 5 ells in length by not more than 4 in breadth.

The Hindus call it Bedi i.e. ‘the cradle’. The reason for this is that once upon a time, there was a house in this place where Befohan was born in the form of Rama besides his three brothers. Subsequently, Aurangzeb or according to another belief, Babbar, got this place destroyed in order to deny them the opportunity of practicing their superstitions. However, there still exists some superstitious cult in some place. For example, in the place where native house of Rama existed, they go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor.”

He has mentioned Bedi i.e. a crib and given its accurate measurements. He has described the Kasauti pillars. He has made several other minor observations. Tieffenthaler has written that Aurangzeb demolished it; but some people believed that it was done by Babur. Had there been any inscription on the wall of the structure, he, after reading it, must have declared that in view of the inscription the people’s perception that Aurangzeb had demolished it was incorrect. But the uncertainty about the builder of the mosque continued in his writing. Therefore, it is clear that there was no inscription in the building till 1770 A.D. Some scholars argue that even if there were an inscription on the mosque, its caligraphic writing would have been difficult to be deciphered by Tieffenthaler. But they should realise that he had that much talent like Buchanan’s to get assistance from an expert in Persian to clear his doubt and uncertainty.

(3) Buchanan’s Report (1813-14 A.D.)

The first mention of an inscription on the mosque’s wall was made by Francis Buchanan who conducted the survey of Gorakhpur Division in 1813-14 A.D. But rarely any historian of eminence has examined the authenticity of the two claimed inscriptions, the translation of which was given to him. Here for the first time they are being examined systematically.

About the inscription in the mosque Buchanan wrote thus in the survey report:

“Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of their remains to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benarase and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take up on myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill-founded. The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples, but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given (drawing N 1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurangzabe.” (emphassis added) (Buchanan’s original report, pp. 116-17)

Drawing N1 has been omitted in Martin’s published book. But when Buchanan’s drawing N1 was obtained from his original manuscript lying in the British Library, London and examined by me with the help of Persian scholars, it was found that Buchanan had been given the translated version of two inscriptions instead of one. They are preserved in British Library Oriental and India Office Collections. The reference is MSS. EUR. E 73. After getting permission from the British Library, London they are produced below:

The first inscription from
Buchanan’s manuscript.

The second inscription from
Buchanan’s manuscript.

The following is the handwritten translation made by Buchanan’s Maulvi friend:

Handwritten translation of Persian texts
made byBuchanan’s friend.

For the sake of smooth reading the typed version of the hand-written portion is placed below:

Gorukhpur Inscript

No. 1--

Translation

1st.

By order of King Babur whose justice is a building reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of the angels was erected by Meer Baquee a nobleman impressed with the seal of happiness.

This is lasting Charity in the year of its construction what declares in manifest “that good works are lasting.”

N.B. The word (Bavad Khair Baqee) signifying “There is lasting charity” or “good works are lasting” also mean “The charity of Baqee” and form an anagram of the year of the erection viz: 935.

From the Tughra

There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophetof God-

Say, O’ Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.

2d.

Nustalick

The victorious lord, Mooheyooo Din, Aulumgir, Badshah, the destroyer of Infidels, the son of Shah Juhan, the son of Juhangeer Shah: the son of Ukbar Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah, the son of Babur Shah; the son of Oomar Sheikh Shah; the son of Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohammad Shah; the son of Meeran Shah, the son of the Shaib-i-Qiran Meer Tymoor.

N.B. Sahib-i-qiran is applied to a Prince who has reigned above 30 Years.

From the Tughra

In the name of God, most merciful I testify that there is no God but God. He is one, and without equal. I also testify that Mohammad is his Servant and Prophet.

(This was engrossed) upon the propitious date of this noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah.” The words in the parenthesis are not on the Insc., but understood.

Nustalick writing

We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted with these facts that there was formerly a Prince named Saif Khan of the dignified throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The conforter of Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity.

The King having sent written orders and gurds for the purpose of seizing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “This World is nothing.” He gave orders that all the people should plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the plundering was over, he enquired whether anything remained. The attendants told him that there remained some grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut, upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. ‘That’ said he “will be of use to me.” In short having taken and torn although the middle and threw it over his shoulders (or neck) he became a Durvish.

Babur, one of the Princes, hearing the report of his becoming a Durvish and the other circumstances, privately presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats to eat and (addressing him) ‘thou’, said his Highness “shalt be King” Babur arose and having made his Salam, was departing. His Highness again said: “I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells. When thou becomest King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.

Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobedar received His Majesty’s commands- Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soobedar, and he erected this Massjid.

My dear Sir!

I have the pleasure of returning the inscriptions with a translation as close as I could make.

There seems to be some mistake in the transcript of that part translated “There is lasting charity” or which may mean “There was an instance of charity which perishth not, in the year of its construction” viz. the erection of the Musjid. However, this is not of much importance – It is also possible that one of the words which I have included in the date may not properly belong to it; in which case the number 923 would result instead of 935. You will easily ascertain which date is more correct.

The nustalik writing in the second inscription must either have been added by the copier engraved on the building at a date much prior to that of the Tughra – as the artist in graving his name positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building.

Dr. Buchanan Yours truly

Sd. (Illegible)”

All the translated materials have been divided into six segments by me in order to sift the husk from the grain.

Here it is important to note that out of six texts the Persian scholar translated five and considered them meterials of two inscriptions. However, the following three lines at the bottom of the first inscription were not explained by him.

Three lines at the bottom of the first inscription.

These lines contain the contents of the claimed two inscriptions in segments 1&2 but are written in a simpler style. Six lines of the first inscription have been shown in a line and a half here. The remaining portion repeats the content of the second segment. Though there are a few variations in the spellings of the two writings, they are minor in nature.

Buchanan mentioned only one inscription in his survey report, although he was given the translation of five texts and four out of them were having varied contents. Even then, he did not get alarmed and compare them with original inscriptions, if any, fixed on the mosque’s wall.

If these translations are minutely observed, it is clear that out of six segments only the text in segment 2 appears to be the inscription which might have been brought to his notice. The translation of this inscription is reproduced here for better appreciation of the factual position:

“There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the Prophet of God-

Say, O’ Mohammad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.”

In addition, the translation of segment 5 gives an impression of an inscription because it is written in a beautiful Tughra style and contains the kalma akin to the above inscription. However, the remaining four (1,3,4 & 6) are hand-written contents in a simple script on paper. The writing in segment six at the bottom is so long and written in such a style that it cannot be a part of the inscription. It is a fanciful story written by the copier of the inscription which appears to be based on the legend which he had heard before copying the ‘inscription’. Even Buchanan’s translator friend has suggested that it might have been added by the copier. If he could add long fanciful story in the second inscription, how could he have been prevented from adding Baqi story in the first inscription? When we read the translation of the content of segment 6, we would learn the fabrication and long flight of imagination the copier of the inscription has taken.

The genealogy on the left top (segment 4) from Timur to Aurangzeb is an interpolation, for had it been written in 1528 at the time of the claimed construction of the mosque, it should have ended with the name of Babur. However, the genealogy was added by the copier but he, too, had the impression that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, otherwise he should have continued the genealogy up to the contemporary Mughal King Akbar II who was on the imperial throne in 1813-14.

The following is the writing in segment 1 which is oft-quoted in the context of the claim that Mir Baqi built the mosque at the command of Babur:

It is a fabricated inscription because of the following factors:

(i) Here, one notices that five lines are horizontal and the sixth one appears vertical on the left margin. It has been done so because after the fifth line the second segment starts, and there is no space between the two. The vertical writing of the sixth line in the margin confirms that it could not be part of the original inscription. It appears that there existed a copy of the original inscription handed over by Buchanan on a piece of paper to some person who tried to add this factitious information. In doing so he faced paucity of space which compelled him in writing the sixth line vertically on the left margin. Had these texts of segments 1 and 2 been written in sequence this odd situation would not have arisen. In order to accommodate the sixth line he could have either shortened the size of the Tughra or omitted the content in segment 3, which is a repetition of the substance written at the top, in a simpler style. Apparently, the inscription which was shown to Buchanan is the segment 2 and the content in segment 1 is a later addition.

(ii) That the writing in segment 1 appears to be the addition made by the copier is further strengthened by the fact that the nature of the content in segment 1 is different from that in segment 2. If both segments were integral parts of the same inscription, their contents should have been in continuity and their subject should have been similar. Besides, they should have been written in the same calligraphy, as it has been done in segment 5 where some information about the name of the inscriber has been added in the same style of calligraphy to the sacred text, although the Tughra contains two different languages and two different scripts. Therefore, the first two texts in segments 1 & 2 could not be integral parts of the same inscription because it could not have been inscribed partly in the calligraphy and partly in diacritical marks. However, it is intriguing that no historian has ever doubted its veracity so far, despite so many glaring contradictions. When the size of letters in the inscription of Tretâ Kâ Thâkura was found slightly at variance, many historians made outcry and wrote that they were two separate edicts.

(iii) If they were the part and parcel of the same inscription the Kalma portion should have been at the top and the information about the construction of the mosque should have been written below the sacred Kalma.

Thus, the attribution of the construction of the Ayodhyā mosque to Mir Baqi at the command of Babur was not part of any inscription fixed in the mosque. It was the interpolation on paper by the copier of the inscription at the behest of some noble or clergy. It is clearly indicated by apparently vertical writing in the margin in a style different from that of the Tughra.

Buchanan was beguiled by a section of the clergy who conspired to declare Babur as the builder of the mosque. The atribution of the construction of Ayodhya mosque to Mir Baqi and Babur is as baseless as the fanciful story of Musa Asiqan. It is an irony that the whole course of history changed thereafter on the basis of a writing which was not part of any insciption. In Sanskrit this trend is called गतानुगतिक (gatānugatika), i.e. people blindly follow. No one ever examined this document and it was repeated mutatis mutandis in inscriptions fixed subsequently at intervals. Thus, the translation of the first segment given to Buchanan was a part of the fabricated paper. Nevertheless, he passed a verdict, against the people’s perception, that Babur had demolished the temple and built the mosque. According to people’s perception Aurangzeb was instrumental in demolishing the temple and building the disputed shrine, whereas according to Buchanan’s decree it was done by Babur five generations before Aurangzeb. After Martin published Buchanan’s report in his book in 1838 A.D., albeit without acknowledging Buchanan’s contribution, all subsequent writers attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur.

While one analyses the second inscription supplied to Dr. Buchanan’s translator, one finds that it has totally disappeared from all subsequent display of inscriptions.This is written in most elegant and handsome calligraphy. How could it disappear unless it was contrived? Buchanan’s Maulvi friend had read Moohummud Funa Ullah as the name of the engraver of the inscription. Some say it should be Fatā Ullāh because Funā Ullāh cannot be a proper name as Funā means annihilation. Moreover, Funā Ullāh will mean annihilation of God which is a ‘kufra’ in Islam.

Funa Ullah read by Buchanan’s translator may well be read Fataullah. But three initial words in the last line of the second Tughra are still not finally deciphered satisfactorily. Prof. Harsh Narain writes in his book “The Ayodhya Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources” that “it is not easy to decipher it fully and to our satisfaction.” When it was given to Dr. Nazre Ali, Head of the Arabic Department, Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic and Persian University, Patna, he, too, is of the view that whatever is written cannot be equated with tarikh-i-maimun. However, he suggests that the writer of the Tughra is Muhammad Fataullah and not Fanaullah.

The two pieces of information in segments 4 & 6 on the same paper are found to have been added by the copier. The top addition in segment 4 is the genealogy of the Mughal dynasty from Timur to Aurangzeb and it has been discussed above in brief. In the next sub-chapter there is a detailed discussion about the absurdity of the story of Musa Ashiqan which is contained in segment 6 of Buchanan’s second report.

It was beyond my comprehension that how Buchanan, a native of Great Britain, wrote ‘an inscription on its walls (of which a copy has been given (drawing N1)”. I was wondering as to how an inscription and that, too, a small inscription could spread over many walls. I asked Prof. K.M. Tiwary as to how Buchanan could make such a silly mistake. He explained that Buchanan’s expression means that there was one inscription but its copy was fixed on many walls. Then I understood that the inscription in segment 2, which contained the sacred Kalma, might have been fixed on two or three walls. He explained to me that when Buchanan visited the area, there was only one inscription and that contained the Kalma only.

However, drawing N1 shows two inscriptions which contained the translation of five texts. Four of them varied from each other in content. All this shows that Buchanan was not only casual but callous also in collecting the copies of the so-called inscriptions. It appears that he himself had not seen any inscription inside the structure. The translator of the inscription was not sure of the date whether it was 935 A.H. or 923 A.H. Therefore, he asked Buchanan to decide it according to the correctness of the context.

Out of six segments in the two claimed inscriptions, segments 2 and 5 are the quotations from the holy Koran. The first Tughra is the text of the chapter CXII of the holy Koran and the second Tughra starts with the most sacred recitation ‘Bismillah’. It includes Kalma and ends with a Persian sentence. Contents in segments 1, 4 and 6 are interpolations by the copier.

Now after a detailed analysis made herewith, it appears that Buchanan had been supplied the copy of one inscription in the mosque. It was the same which has been shown in segment 2. He asked some friend to get it copied and translated by some Persian-knowing scholar. The person(s) who copied the inscription made at least 4 interpolations in the text and handed them over to the translator. The translator did his job earnestly and translated all the texts which were given to him. Amongst these interpolations lay the text which declared that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur. After it was published in Martin’s book in 1838 an interpolated portion of an inscription written on paper became the gospel truth and all subsequent writers swore by that false information.

(4) The tomb of Musa Ashiqan

The next interpolation in the second inscription supplied to Buchanan is very interesting and reads as follows:

“We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted with the these facts that there was formerly a Prince named Saif Khan Oimyeed throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The conforter of Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity.

The king having sent written orders for the purpose of seizing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “ This World is nothing”. He gave orders that all the people should plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the plundering was over, he enquired whether anything remained. The attendants told him that there remained some grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut, upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. “That” said he “will be of use to me”. In short having taken and torn although the middle and threw it over his shoulders (or neck) he became a Durvish.

Babur, one of the Princes, hearing the report of his becoming a Durvish and the other circumstances, privately presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats to eat and (addressing him) “thou”, said his Highness “shalt be King” Babur arose and having made his Salam, was departing. His Highness again said: “I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells when thou becomes King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.

Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself remined him of it. Upon this the Soo bedar received His Majexty’s commands- Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soo bedar, and he erected this Massjid.”

It shows that by this fiction written on the copy of the inscription an attempt was made to create a general impression on Muslims in and around 1810 A.D. that Babur, even before becoming the king, had gone to Ayodhyā where darvesh Musa Ashiqan is said to have blessed him to become Emperor and asked him to build a masjid at the place where Hindus, by constantly ringing bells, had annoyed him. It is mentioned that Babur was beholden in a wretched condition by Musa Ashiqan. Babur became king at the age of 12 and if the story of Musa Ashiqan’s blessings is believed to be true, Babur visited him 32 years before his conquest of Hindustan. When Babur became the Emperor of India, he forgot this direction and on the reminder by Ashiqan, Babur directed Subedar Meer Baqaoola Khan to construct the mosque.

It is a myth in toto, as Babur had never visited Ayodhyā before or after becoming the emperor of Hindustan nor had he ever sought the blessings of Musa Ashiqan. Who was this Musa Ashiqan and who has heard of Prince Tugli Khan Oimyeed? Prince Tugli Khan Oimyeed is not known to history and similarly history is not familiar with Saint Musa Ashiqan before 1813 A.D. His name prominently figures in books starting from 1856 A.D. But all is based on this myth which was communicated to Buchanan. Musa Ashiqan does not figure in the list of 226 Sufi saints whose brief biographies have been written in the book “Biographical Encyclopedia of Sufies: South Asia” by N. Hanif. Nor does he figure in the list of Muslim Saints whose brief biographies have been written by Abul Fazl in the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazl has called saints ‘Awliya-i Hind’ and narrated brief biographies of all these saints with the following introduction:

“Inasmuch as the writer is a suppliant before the servants of God and the love of them is innate in his heart, he concludes this work with a notice of such among them as have been either born or have their last resting places in this country. He trusts that this course will be pleasing to many minds and a source to them of eternal bliss. For himself he will inhale fragrance from the garden of truth and receive the meed of his abundant toil.” (Ain-i-Akbari, translated by Col. H.S. Jarrett, Vol. III, p. 388.

In the long list of saints (walis) Musa Ashiqan does not figure at all. Prof. A.R. Khan, too, doubts the historicity of Musa Ashiquan. He writes:

“Of my research scholars (Dr. Yogaraj Malhotra and Tej Ram) and I have worked out the biographies from the contemporary and near-contemporary sources of all the persons in Babur’s service. No person by the name of Musa Ashiqan or Sayyid Mir Ashiqan under whose ‘patronage’ the mosque in question was supposed to have been built is traceable in Babur’s times.” (The Indian Express, March 17. 1990)

Of course, his tomb at Ayodhyā near Rāma-janma-bhūmi has been highlighted very much in the recent past and it has been claimed by many writers that two ‘kasauti’ pillars similar to those inside the extant mosque were erected in this graveyard. In the Annexure C of P. Carnegy’s book which contains some details of 31 Muslims’ monuments and tombs at Ayodhyā and its vicinity, there is no mention of any tomb in the name of Musa Ashiqan. Thus, it is clear that there was no tomb of Musa Ashiqan at Ayodhyā till 1870.

However, there was a tomb of an unknown Moor (Muslim) where these two columns were erected. Tieffenthaler had seen them and noted thus:

“There are to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five spans in height which occupied the site of the fortress. Twelve of these columns now support the interior arcades of the mosque: the two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor.”

Had this been the tomb of Musa Ashiqan, the saint who blessed Babur with the kingdom of Hindustan and who directed him to demolish Rāma temple and build a mosque thereon, it would have been popularly and reverentially known as Musa Ashiqan’s tomb. But Tieffenthaler casually mentions it and with no reference to Musa Ashiqan.

I was very curious to visit the tomb of Musa Ashiqan and know its details. What I learnt from the present mutwali of the tomb Ishtiaq Ahmed may be shocking for many historians.

Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed informed me in January 2011 that he was the second mutwali of this place and was looking after it since 1980 A.D. His mother Hasmati Begum was the first mutwali and had remained so for a period of 15-20 years till 1980. How she became the first mutwali of this tomb is very interesting. Ishtiaq’s sister Munni Begum had been married to Muhammad Yasin, an affluent person of this locality. When his sister left for Bombay along with her husband, she entrusted her house to his mother for guarding it. His father Jawed Khan was no more in the world by then. Therefore, Ishtiaq started living with his mother in his sister’s house. One day he saw this tomb which was in close proximity and after having seen the two attractive columns, an idea just struck him that the tomb could be a source of getting quick money. So, after sometime he declared that he had a dream which enlightened him to proclaim that the tomb near his house was that of Musa Ashiqan. Thereafter he made his mother Hasmati Begum the first mutwali of this tomb. He further informed me that earlier when the two ‘kasauti’ pillars were erected in the tomb upward-down, there were many visitors to the tomb and the earnings were satisfactory. But after the demolition of the so-called Baburi mosque on 6th Dec. 1992 the kar-sewaks damaged the tomb also and took away those pillars. Thereafter, it had no attraction. So, he started Urs in 2000 A.D. with chadar and gagar. When I asked him what ‘gagar’ meant, he informed me that it was ‘sherbet’. He started some construction there but it was stopped on the complaint of Haji Mehboob on 17th April, 2000. Thereafter, he has been getting some offerings, mostly from the Hindus who live in the vicinity. This is the story of the tomb of Musa Ashiqan. The mutwali is not much educated but intelligent enough to associate a neighbouring tomb with the name of a legendary person. Thus, this fake tomb of Musa Ashiqan was created in 1960’s and historians have been declaring it to be Musa Ashiqan’s real tomb without adequate scrutiny. Now it is clear that everything associated with the fake inscriptions is fancy and far from truth.

(5) Asghar’s petition (1877 A.D.)

On 13th December 1877 A.D. Syyed Mohmmad Asghar s/o Syyed Rajab Ali, Khatib and Mutawalli of the Masjid Bāburi at Janmasthan, Awadh filed a petition before the Commissioner, Faizabad and made the following claim in para 4:

"यह कि सुबूत तहरीरी जो हाकिम मातेहत ने मुनदरिज हुकुम फरमाया है कैफियत उस की यह है कि एक उम्दा सुबूत यह है कि दीवार अहाता बेरूने मस्जिद के दरवाजे पर नाम अल्लाह का कुन्दा व तहरीर है। चूँकि यह सुबूत तहरीरी बेहिस वहरकत है लायक मुलाहेजा मौका के है पस क्योंकि अदालत मातहेत में पेश हो सकता था अन्दरीन सूरत अपीलांट उम्मीदवार है कि बनजर इन्साफ मुलाहेजा मौका फरमाया जाये ताकि सुबूत बवजेह (अपठनीय) बहक अपीलांट जाहिर हो जाये।चघअव्वल यह कि जब बाबरशाह मालिके मुल्क व बादशाहे वक्त ने यह मस्जिद तामीर किया व अहाता मस्जिद के दरवाजे के उपर संगी पर लफ्ज अल्लाह कुन्दा कराके नसब किया व माफी उसके मसारिफ को तहरीर फरमायी तो बमुकाबिला मालिके मुल्क मकाँ तामरी गाह बादशाह वक्त के अन्दर मिलकियत दूसरे शख्स के कहाँ बाकी रही।"

It is evident from this submission that the best evidence claimed in support of the mosque was an edict on the door of the mosque which had the name of Allah inscribed there. This superscription of Allah had been seen by the Sub-Judge and the District Judge when they inspected the mosque in the presence of both the parties. During the inspection this was the only edict which contained only one word ‘Allah’ and nothing else. Had the inscription of Mir Bāqī really existed in the mosque, the petitioner must have proclaimed with pride that it was the best and conclusive proof. But since no other inscription except that which contained ‘Allah’ was on any part of the mosque, the petitioner Asghar claimed that it was the best evidence.

On 22nd December, 1885 Mohammad Asghar, Mutwali of Masjid Baburi and a defendant in the case Mahant Raghubar Das of Nirmohi Akhara vs. Sarkar Bahadur Kaiser-i-Hind and Mohammad Asghar, Khatib and Mutawalli of Jame Masjid filed a counter-affidavit and made the following claim:

"अव्वल यह क‌ि जब बाबरशाह मालिके मुल्क व बादशाहे वक्त ने यह मस्जिद तामीर किया व अहाता मस्जिद के दरवाजे के उपर संगी पर लफ्ज अल्लाह कुन्दा कराके नसब किया व माफी उसकी मसारिफ को तहरीर फरमायी तो बमुकाबिला मालिके मुल्क मकाँ तामरी शाह बादशाह वक्त के अन्दर मिकियत दूसरे शख्स के कहाँ बाकी रही।"

From the above statement of Mohammad Asghar in an affidavit before the Sub-Judge it is clear that the Emperor Babur had engraved ‘Allah’ only on the entrance of the compound wall and there was no other inscription anywhere in the mosque during the life of Mohammad Asghar. Since it is an admission on oath by the Mutawalli of the mosque, it has an added importance. Had there been any other inscription in the mosque, he would have claimed the right on the chabutara with more force in the Court.

(6) Inspection by Judges (1885-86 A.D.)

When the mosque was inspected by the District Judge Col. P.E.D. Chamier in 1886 A.D. nothing except Allah was found written in the mosque. In his judgment in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885 passed on 18.3.1886 he wrote:

“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties.... The entrance to the enclosure is under a gateway which bears the superscription ‘Allah’.”

Before this inspection, Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub-Judge, Faizabad had made a spot enquiry. In a judgment on 24th December, 1885 he wrote:

“An enquiry on the spot was made in presence of the parties and the pleaders for parties and Darogah of Nazul land. ...there is the wall of the mosque and the word ‘Allah’ is inscribed on it.”

Here it is to be emphasized that these two inspections were made by the Judges in the presence of all the parties concerned to decide the suit of Raghubar Das. Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that had any inscription really been in any part of the mosque, it would have been certainly mentioned in the judgment. Thus, not even the mutavali of the mosque knew the existence of any inscription except the one having ‘Allah’ inscribed at the entrance. Now a million-dollar question arises where did the inscriptions of Buchanan’s time disappear during the court enquiry. Had there been any inscription there in 1885-86, the Muslims would have shown it at least at the time of the court enquiry.

Protagonists of the existence of an inscription inside the mosque since its inception will have to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the detailed inscription at the time of Buchanan was missing in 1885-86 when two important court enquiries were held to decide the case. Was Buchanan a victim of a well-laid trap? Yes, he was. After his report was published by Martin in 1838; Buchanan’s wrong report overshadowed all other evidences and the construction of the mosque on the birthplace of Rāma was attributed to Babur instead of Aurangzeb. All subsequent writers started writing that it was Babur who built the mosque on the birthplace of Rāma. However, it appears that Martin made a very cryptic comment on Ayodhyā in his little known book ‘The History of the Indian Empire’. On Ayodhyā he wrote:

Oude or Ayodhya was famous in ancient Hindoo lore as the kingdom of Dasarath, the father of Rama, the hero of the famous epic the Ramayan. With the defects of its fall as a Hindoo kingdom as its history as a province of the Mughal empire, we are almost entirely unacquainted; but we know that it has retained its institutions to the present day, and that, in all respects, the Hindu element largely predominates throughout Oude.” (Vol. II, p. 59)

(7) Anton Fuhrer’s Report (1889 A.D.)

However, Dr. Anton Fuhrer, Ph.D. was the first archaeologist who found three inscriptions in the mosque and translated them into English. His report was published in 1889 in the Archaeological Survey of India report titled “The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, with notes on Zafarabade, Sahet-Mahet and other Places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh”. In his report he wrote, “The following inscriptions are of interest:

(A) Inscription No. XL is written in Arabic characters over the central mihrab of the masjid; it gives twice the Kalimah:

Baburi mosque inscription No. XL read by A. Fuhrer.

“There is no god but Allah, Muhamad is His prohet.” (Quran, Surah II)

(B) Inscription No. XLI is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in six lines on the mimbar, right hand side of the structure.

Baburi mosque inscription No.
XLI read by A. Fuhrer.

Translation:

1. By the order of Babur, the king of the world,

2. This firment-like, lofty,

3. Strong building was erected.

4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.

5. May ever remain such a foundation,

6. And such a king of the world.

The letters of this inscription have been mixed together by the copyist, and are therefore very indistinct.”

The salient features of this inscription are:

(i) It mentions Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi as the builder of the masjid.

(ii) No honorific title to the name of Babur, though he has been called the King of the world.

(iii) No date is given in this inscription.

(iv) A firment-like, lofty and strong building and not necessarily a mosque was erected and

(v) It was placed on the right-hand side from the pulpit of the masjid.

(C) “Inscription No. XLII is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. A few characters of the second and the whole third lines are completely defaced.”

Persian.

Baburi mosque inscription No. XLII read by A. Fuhrer.

1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.

2. In the name of him who…; may God perpetually keep him in the world.

3. ……………………………

4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in person of delight for the world.

5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another King of Turkey and China.

6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.

7. O God! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.

8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.

9. His counsellor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.

10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghori, composer.

The salient features of this inscription are:

(i) That the inscription is dated A.H. 930, i.e. 1523 A.D. i.e. three years before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan. Since it was a forged edict, the forger could not correctly place the date of the inscription.

(ii) It says that the foundation of this building was laid in the presence of Babur and the founder is his subordinate.

(iii) Mir Baqi is not mentioned in this inscription. The founder of this fort-mosque has been called counsellor and minister.

(iv) It is surprising that one of Babur’s grandees in the inscription who laid the foundation in the presence of Babur, has been compared with the King of Turkey and China. Comparing a mere grandee with an Emperor of China or Turkey is very improper.

(v) The grandee is credited with laying foundation of the fort mosque. In the presence of an emperor, can his subordinate lay foundation of a mosque?

(vi) Can this mosque at Ayodhyā be called a fort mosque? Was it called a fort masjid because of the fact that it was within the Ram Kot?

(vii) Was Mir Baqi a counsellor and Minister of Babur? No, a person bearing a similar name was a mere junior army commander (Beg), as per the factual position gleaned from Babur-nāmā.

(viii) Though the name of Mir Khan or Mir Baqi is not mentioned in this inscription; the name of the inscriber is given as Fatah-allah-Ghori.

Anton Fuhrer wrote that some words in the second line and the entire third line were obliterated and therefore illegible. But that does not make much difference because this illegible portion might have contained usual eulogy of Emperor Babur.

It is intriguing to note that this inscription is dated 930 H. i.e. 1523 A.D. three years before Babur’s conquest of Hindustan at the battle of Panipat. The date in the inscription is checked and found to be the same as in the inscription which was available with Fuhrer. The Persian text is no sad sī and it means 930 A.H. It is in the 6th line which is quite legible. Babur or his junior general Mir Baqi could not have come to Ayodhyā in the year 930 A.H. i.e.1523 A.D. Though Babur’s diary is not written for the period from 25th January 1520 to 16th November 1525, his activities during this period are well-known. He did not visit, nor had he any reason or occasion to visit Ayodhyā in 1523 A.D. Thus, he was not in a position to erect a mosque at Ayodhyā.Therefore, it is evident that this inscription was fake and fixed subsequently. The forger had no definite idea about Babur’s conquest and rule in India. Therefore, he committed this blunder which exposes the forgery.

In 1891 Archaeological Survey of India published a book “The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-western Provinces and Oudh.” In this book Fuhrer wrote,

“It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya: these were the Janma-sthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ka-Thakur. On the first of these Mir Khan built a Masjid, in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name.”

Even in this book Fuhrer held the view that the mosque was built in 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D.

(8) Maulvi Shuaib’s Report (1906-07)

Maulvi Shuaib’s report is produced here for the first time in a discussion on the Ayodhyā dispute. Ashraf Husain/Dr. Z.A. Desai refers to it in the article to be discussed in this chapter later. Maulvi Shuaib submitted the “Annual report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra” in 1906-07. The information relating to the inscriptions in the Ayodhyā shrine has been obtained by filing a petition under the Right to Information Act. The office of the Agra circle of Archaeological Survey of India vide its letter no. भा.पु.स. /17सू.09/ 55 dated 23 May 2001 furnished the relevant document. Appendix D of the Annual Report contains the list of inscriptions copied during the period. Serial Nos. from 10 to 12 contain the information on the three inscriptions in the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā and are shown below:

A portion of Appendix D from Maulvi Shuaib’s ASI Report (1906-07).

From the analysis of Shuaib’s report it is clear that there was one stone-slab below the pulpit of the mosque which was dated 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. This supports the Fuhrer’s testimony of 1891 A.D. However, the place is changed from the place above the entrance door to that below the pulpit of the mosque. Thus, the place of this inscription was changed in the intervening period i.e. after 1891 when Fuhrer wrote his article and before 1906 A.D. when Shuaib submitted his Annual Report. From Shuaib’s report it appears that there was one stone slab on the outside of the central arch and another on the inside of the central arch. No one except Shuaib ever saw any inscription on the inside of the central arch. The stone slab on the inside of the central arches of the mosque was a small one because it contains Kalmah only. The stone-slab on the outside of the central arch recorded “the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where the old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram Chandra was.”

(9) Inscriptions mentioned by Beveridge in Babur-nama (1921)

Almost thirty-two years after A. Fuhrer read the inscription A.S. Beveridge published two inscriptions in 1921 in her famous translation of Babur-nama (Memoirs of Babur). She wrote in Appendix ‘U’ of her book that she got these inscriptions through Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad on her I.C.S. husband’s request.

Therein she first quotes the following Persian text and Roman transliteration with the observation that the first inscription is inside the mosque:

Baburi mosque inscription read by Beveridge in Babur-nama.

Ba farmuda-i- Shah Babur ki ‘adilas

Bana’st ta kakh-i- garadūn mulaqī

Bana kard īn muhabit-i- qudsiyan

Amīr-i-sa‘adat-nishan Mīr Baqī

Bavad khair baqī! chū sal-i-bana’ish

‘Iyan shud ki guftam, Buvad khair baqī (935)

She emphatically asserts that ‘the translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a Musalman and as such of special value, are as follows:

1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens.

2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place of angels.

3. Bavad khair baqī! (May this goodness last forever!). The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said, Buvad khair Baqi!

Thereafter, Beveridge writes:

“The explanation of this is:

1st couplet: The poet begins by praising the Emperor Babur under whose orders the mosque was erected. As justice is the (chief) virtue of kings, he naturally compares his (Babur’s) justice to a palace reaching up to the very heavens, signifying thereby that the fame of that justice had not only spread in the wide world but had gone up to the heavens.

2nd couplet: In the second couplet, the poet tells who was entrusted with the work of construction. Mir Baqi was evidently some nobleman of distinction at Babur’s Court. The noble height, the pure religious atmosphere, and the scrupulous cleanliness and neatness of the mosque are beautifully suggested by saying that it was to be the abode of angels.

3rd couplet: The third couplet begins and ends with the expression Buvad khair baqî. The letters forming it by their numerical values represent the number 935 thus:

The poet indirectly refers to a religious commandment (dictum) of the Qoran that a man’s good deeds live after his death, and signifies that this noble mosque is verily such a one.”

Though there is not much difference in the content of the texts, given to Buchanan and Beveridge, yet the format is quite different. In Beveridge’s book the following differences emerge:

(i) The Tughra was an integral lower part of the inscription in the Buchanan’s epigraph. But it has disappeared in subsequent versions of the inscriptions. It finds no place in either Beveridge’s version or the stampage obtained by Ashraf Husain.

(ii) This Tughra is the text of Chapter CXII of the Holy Quran. The translation of the text handed over to Buchanan reads as follows:

“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.

Say, O’ Mohmmad, that God is one, that God is holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no equal.”

(iii) Though this Tughra was the integral part of the copy of the inscription supplied to Buchanan and said to have been fixed on the wall, yet its first part (There is no god, but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God) travelled to the chhajja after being separated from the original inscription and the second part was forgotten for ever. How could only half portion of the Tughra which was an integral part of the inscription on the wall, reach the chhajja has not been explained by anyone so far.

(iv) Though there is not much difference between the texts of Buchanan and Beveridge, yet the reading Shukri Kunam in Buchanan’s text makes difference from Shud chu guftem of subsequent readings. The first one means that we are grateful to Allah.

Then Beveridge deals with the second inscription in the following words:

“The inscription outside of the mosque is as follows:

Persian text:

Baburi mosque inscription given to
Beveridge quoted in Babur-nama.

Ba nam-i-anki dana hast akbar

Ki khaliq-i-jumla ‘alam la-makani

Darid Mustafà ba’d as sitayish

Ki sarwar-i-ambiya’ di jahani

Fasana dar jahan Babur qualandar

Ki shud dar daur giti kamrani

Thereafter, she produces the explanation received from the Muslim scholar:

“The explanation of the above is as follows:

In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muhammad, in the third Babur. There is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word la-makani in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although. He has no fixed abiding-place. In the first hemstitch of the 3rd couplet the poet gives Babur the appellation of qalandar, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to all worldly pleasures. In the second hemistich he gives the reason for his being so, that Babur became and was known all the world over as a qalandar, because having become Emperor of India and having thus reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for the earth.”

She further writes:

“The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be made to read further meaning into them but the language would not warrant it.”

Beveridge was not supplied the complete reading of the second inscription! So, a comparison with Anton Fuhrer’s inscription would not be appropriate. She herself wrote that ‘the inscription is incomplete’. It is intriguing why she was supplied an incomplete reading. Was the tampering in the Anton Fuhrer’s inscription still in the process? And since it could not be completed, she was not supplied the complete reading. Thus, the incomplete inscription given to Beveridge was in the process of being fabricated and hence the inscription above the chhajja was not genuine in nature.

(10) Communal riot of 1934

In the communal riot of 1934 the mosque was severely damaged, and the Hindu hooligans took away inscriptions from the mosque. All the three domes also were subjected to severe assault. During this communal trouble Hindu rioters took away inscriptions fixed in the mosque. An inscription in Urdu highlighting this attack and rebuilding the mosque was later fixed in the mosque. The British Government imposed community fines on the local Hindus and collected huge amount which was used for the restoration of domes.

Maulana M. Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai drew the attention of readers to the following important information given in the inscription:

“Below the restored epigraph is inscribed in four lines the following Urdu record concerning the fate of the original inscription:

A small inscription produced by Dr. Desai.

27 th March Sanah 1934 i. motābik 11 jilahijjah 1352 Hi. baroj hindū balabāi masjid shahid karake asli katabā uthā le gaye jisako Tahabbur Khan thikedar ne nihayat khubi ke sath tamir kiya.

On 27th March, 1934, i.e. 11 jilahijjah, 1352 Hindu hooligans took away the original ‘katbā’ (inscription) after having razed the mosque (masjid shahid karke) but thikedar Tahabbur Khan rebuilt it with finesse.

Though this inscription mentions that the mosque was razed (masjid shahīd karke) and the ‘katbā’ was taken away, yet the fact of the matter was that it was not razed to the ground entirely. However, its major upper portion was severely damaged.

(11) Inscriptions submitted in Faizabad Regular Suit no. 29of 1945

After 1934 communal riots the Muslim community made the restoration of two inscriptions. Texts of the restored inscriptions were placed before the court and examined by the Civil Judge, Faizabad in the Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945.

The content of the first inscription fixed above the pulpit inside the mosque was almost the same as that of Beveridge’s reading except a very vital difference that at the end of the edict the date of the construction of the building was shown as , i.e. 923. This 923 Hijari comes to 1516-17 A.D. It is an improbable date which is based on several Urdu texts that wrongly show Babur’s presence at Ayodhyā during that period.

In this judgment of Regular Suit no. 29 of 1946, dated 300346, there is a reference to the loss of original Katba (edict). This judgment has certain interesting references:

The learned Judge made the following observation in his Judgment:

“26-3-46. Inspected the mosque in the suit & found the following inscription on a stone tablet near the pulpit.”

An inscription submitted to Court in 1945.

Be faramudae’ shah Bābar ke adalash

Benāī asta Bā kakh-i-garadūn mulākī

Benā karade in mahabat kudasiān rā

Amīr Sa’ādat nishān Mīr Bāqī

Bobad khair bāqī chun sāl benāish

Ayan skukari Kunam bobad khair bāqī 923

Thereafter, the learned Judge writes:

“The first inscription contains three (lines) in (sic) couplets in Persian and when translated runs as follows:

“By the order of Shah Babar, whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well-known), Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeur, built this resting place for angels in 923 Hijri.”

The second inscription engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque, too, was substantially different from those of Anton Fuhrer and Desai. It showed Mir Baqi a resident of Isphahan which is in Iran. It was done to prove Mir Baqi a Shia, whereas from Babur-nama, he hailed from Taskind which is in Central Asia. The learned Judge writes:

“There are verses engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque which will be referred to later on, in which Mir Baqi has been described as an ‘Isphahani’ i.e. a resident of Isphahan.”

On page 12 of the judgment it reads –

“The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language on the eulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”

The second inscription reads as follows:

Another inscription submitted to Court in 1945.

Bismiltahir rahamanir rahīm va be Sikatī

Benāme unake ū dānāst akabar ke khāliqa Jumalah ālam lā makānī

Durūde mustafā bād aja sanāish ke saravar anabiā Jubadah Jahānī

Qhānah dar jahān Bābur qalandar ke shud dar daure getī kāmarānī

Chunān kash hafat kishavar dar girafatehJamīn rā chūn misāle shādamānī.

Dar ūn hajarāt yakī mīra moajjam ke nāmash mīr Bāqī Asfahānī
mushīr-i-saltanat tadabīr-i-mulakash kajīn masjid va hesār hasat bānī

Khodāya dar jahān pāyande bādā ke chataro takhato bakhato jindegānī.

Benāe ahad jin tārīkhe maimūn keh noh sad sī panja bebad nishānī.

Tammata hājāta tauhīd madah va nāt va sifat nurūllāh burahā naha khata abaduja
jaīfa nahīfa Fatahullāh Mohammad Gaurī.

The learned Judge comments that:

“The above inscription was read by Sheikh Karamatullah (D.W. 5) who climbed up the arch by means of a ladder & the verses are written in Arabic character.”

Sheikh Karamatullah was a witness (D.W. 5) in the case and he himself was Sunni, so his reading should not be doubted.

The text and the translation of this inscription are similar to those of Husain/Desai except the fact that here it is Baqi Isphahani, i.e. the resident of Isphahan in Persia and in Desai’s reading it has been deliberately changed to Asif Sani which means second Asif. Since Maulana Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai knew very well that Baqi was the native of Tashkind and not of Isphahan in Iran, he changed it to Asif Sani, i.e. second Asif.

(12) Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai’s reading of the inscriptions

Dr. Z.A. Desai, Superintendent, Persian and Arabic Inscriptions, Nagpur, published an article written by the Late Maulavi M. Ashraf Husain in “Epigrahia Indica, Arabic and Persian supplement (In continuation of the series Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica) 1965” published by Archaeological Survey of India. Dr. Desai has written a brief introduction that a rough draft of this article by his predecessor Maulavi M. Ashraf Husain, who retired in 1953 was found amongst sundry papers in his office with a note that it might be published after revision by his successor. Consequently, he claims, the same is published after ‘incorporation of fresh material and inferences and also extensive revision and editing’. But nowhere Dr. Desai has mentioned that which portions of Ashraf Husain’s article are revised by him and on what ground these revisions have been made. Therefore, it will be referred to as Husain/Desai’s reading.

About inscriptions at Ayodhyā Husain/Desai writes that the mosque contains a number of inscriptions. He further adds that on the eastern facade is a chhajja, below which appears a Quranic text, and above it there is an inscription in Persian verse. He further adds that “on the central mihrab are carved religious texts such as the Kalima (First Creed), etc.” Thereafter, he mentions the spots of other edicts in the following words:

“On the southern face of the pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit. Of these, the last mentioned two epigraphs have disappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the communal vandalism in 1934 A.D.; but luckily, I managed one of them from Sayyid Badrul Hasan of Fyzabad. The present inscription, restored by the Muslim community, is not only in inlaid Nasta’liq characters, but is also slightly different from the original, owing perhaps to the incompetence of the restorers in deciphering it properly.” (pp. 58-59)

Now the following questions arise from the above-mentioned comments:

(i) Why did Sayyid Badrul-Hasan make inked rubbing of only one inscription and leave another?

(ii) Who was this Sayyid Badarul Hasan? Was he a real or fictitious person?

(iii) How the ink-estampage was luckily recovered has not been disclosed in the article?

(iv) Why did Husain/Desai not produce the text restored by the Muslim community in his article? According to him this restored text is slightly different from the original, i.e. the inked rubbing. How did he believe that the inked rubbing is the original and the restored one is defective because of the incompetence of the restorers?

(v) Is it in the usual practice of epigraphic studies that the inked rubbing of an inscription without the presence of even a single witness should be accepted as evidence?

(vi) Did any established historian ever object to the authenticity and acceptability of this method when the Ayodhya debate was at its peak?

Husain/Desai produces the following text restored from the estampage. He informs that the epigraph below was inscribed on a slab of stone 68 by 48 cm, which was built up into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque:

Dr. Desai’s reading of the first inscription.

Translation of the inscription by Husain/Desai:

“1. By the order of King Babur whose justice is an edifice, meeting the place of the sky (i.e. as high as the sky),

2. This descending place of the angels was built by the fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

3. It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the date of its erection became manifest from words: “It will remain an everlasting bounty.””

Desai further adds:

“The numerical value of the letters of the chronogrammatic phrase contained in the second hemistich of the last line adds up to give the year A.H. 935(1529-29 A.D). There is also a play of the word Baqi in the above phrase: Baqi means everlasting and it is also the name of the nobleman builder; both the meanings are equally applicable here. The phrase can be translated as: It is the bounty of Baqi.”

The translation of this inscription by Husain/Desai is not different from that which was made available to Beveridge, although the author of this article says that the readings of Beveridge like those of Fuhrer were incomplete and inaccurate. But this inscription was not found by Fuhrer. Where had it disappeared then? In the footnote 4 of this article on page 59 it has been explained by Dr. Desai in the following words:

“It may be argued that since this epigraph is not quoted in Anton Fuhrer’s SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he wrote. But this is not the case, since the tablet was found there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuaib of the office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra (Annual Progress Report of the office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-07 Appendix D).”

But neither Dr. Desai nor any other historical epigraphist has quoted M. Shuaib’s report in the context of Ayodhyā dispute. In fact, this Annual Progress Report of ASI had gone into oblivion. It could be obtained by the present writer with some effort through the instrument of the RTI Act. Maulavi M. Shuaib’s report disproves the above claim of Husain/Desai. Salient features of this Report are enumerated below:

(i) In Appendix ‘D’ of the Report Maulavi M. Shuaib has given the list of inscriptions which include the three inscriptions seen by him in the disputed mosque. From an analysis of the content of these inscriptions of Maulvi Shuaib, it is clear that the inscription dated A.H. 930, i.e. A.D. 1523 seen by A. Fuhrer was intact in the ASI reprt of 1906-07.

(ii) But when Fuhrer had seen the edict dated 1523 A.D., in the year 1889 A.D. it was ‘above the entrance door of the masjid’. However, when Maulavi M. Shuaib saw it in 1906 it was ‘below the pulpit of the mosque’.

(iii) Similarly, the stone slab, which recorded the erection of mosque in 1528 A.D., was seen ‘on the outside of the central arch’ of the mosque by Maulavi M. Shuaib in 1906 A.D. whereas Buchanan did not mention its location and Beveridge mentioned ‘the inscription outside of the mosque’ in 1921 A.D. and Ashraf/Desai found it ‘over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja’.

(iv) The stone-slab containing the Kalma was an integral upper part of the second inscription, the copy of which was handed over to Buchanan. But this stone-slab translated by a Maulvi at the behest of Buchanan, mysteriously lost its form and half of the content. Fuhrer had seen the Kalma over the central mihrab of the Masjid, whereas in the Report of Maulvi Shuaib, it is on a stone-slab placed on the inside of the central arches of the Emperor Babur’s mosque.

Thus, none of the stone-slabs was permanently fixed at any particular place. Their contents and locations changed frequently at the sweet will of the managers of the mosque. Since none of the inscriptions was in situ and none was in the mosque for long, no reliance can be made on these edicts. Managers of the mosque had fabricated some stone-slabs which used to be fixed at times at central places and removed after some time when there was no need. Again, when any necessity was felt, some stone-slabs were fixed at different places and this was the reason for the complete chaos in content and variation of locations. The forged nature of the fabricated epigraph is confirmed beyond all shades of doubt.

About the second inscription Desai writes:

“The second inscription on the mosque, also in Persian verse, consisted of three couplets arranged in six lines. The epigraphic tablet, which was built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit, does not exist now, and therefore, the text of the inscription is quoted here from Anton Fuhrer’s work; for the same reason, its illustration could not be given. Anton Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes.”

The following is the translation of the text by Dr. Z.A. Desai published in “Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement.”

1. In accordance with the wishes of the ruler of the world, Babur,

2. A lofty building like the palace of the spheres,

3. (that is to say) this lasting house (of God), was founded

4. By the fortunate noble Mir (and) Khan (Baqi).

5. May ever remain such a founder of its edifice,

6. (and) such a king of the world and age!

Here the question arises that when the second edict was lost and there was no other text available and the reading in the article was relied upon Anton Fuhrer’s text, then on what ground, it was decreed that ‘Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes’. And why were the arbitrary changes made by the writer and editor? Mir Khan of the edict has been made Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). Wherefrom has Baqi landed in this edict? It is an arbitrary addition to correct a historically wrong statement that Mir Khan built the mosque.

Besides, there is another addition. In Anton Fuhrer’s translation it was ‘firment-like lofty strong building’. It was not necessarily a mosque. But here it is a lofty building like the place of the spheres’ and in the third line, ‘(of God)’ was added after ‘lasting house’. Here ‘of God’ has been added to prove it a mosque. If there could have been any other qualifying remark for a mosque, the addition of ‘of God’ could have been justified. But in its absence, this addition, too, is unjustified because it symbolized any building which was founded by Mir Khan (not Mir Baqi).

After reading these two inscriptions presented by Dr. Desai one can well understand why Dr. Desai had to obtain an estampage edict. Fuhrer’s inscription mentioned Mir Khan and not Mir Baqi as the builder of the mosque. This was corrected by Dr. Desai. He had to rectify a bigger blunder. The text restored by the Muslim community after 1934 communal riot contained the date 923 Hijri as the year of the construction of the structure. It was produced before the civil court, Faizabad in the litigation mentioned above. Maulana Ashraf Husain and Dr. Z.A. Desai, with profound knowledge of history, could not digest this historical blunder. So they invented the device of the inked estampage of the lost edict. But this could have been simply explained that 923 A.H. was not historically correct, so it should be 935 A.H. But the tragedy is that there has been foul play with the mosque inscriptions since 1813 A.D. when Buchanan was first informed about the inscriptions.

According to Husain/Desai the third record of Babur in the Ayodhyā mosque, comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre quality and a colophon, was over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja. The four-line text is said to have been executed in fairly good Naskh characters in relief amidst floral borders on a slab measuring about 2 m. by 55 cm. The text is claimed to have been fairly well-preserved.

The following is the text of the third inscription read by Husain Desai.

Dr. Desai’s reading of the second inscription.

It is a drastically changed version from that of Anton Fuhrer. Husain/Desai informs that it comprises “a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre quality and a colophon appears over the central entrance to the prayer chamber above the chhajja.”

Translation of the third inscription by Husain/Desai:

1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. And in Him is trust.

2. In the name of One who is Wise, Great (and) Creator of all the universe (and) is spaceless.

After His praise, blessings be upon the Chosen one (i.e. the Prophet), who is the head of prophets and best in the world.

The qalandar-like (i.e. truthful) Babur has become celebrated (lit. a story) in the world, since (in his time) the world has achieved prosperity.

3. (He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e. conquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner of the sky.

In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir Baqi the second Asaf,

Councillor of his government and administrator of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-wall.

4. O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune and life and crown and throne! The time of the building is this auspicious date, of which the indication is nine hundred (and) thirty five (A.H. 935=1528-29 A.D.).

Completed was this praise of God, of Prophet and King. May Allah illumine his proof! Written by the weak writer and humble creature, Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori.”

Dr. Desai has written that Anton Fuhrer must have been misinformed to affirm that “few corrections of the second and the whole third line completely defaced.”

Even if it is supposed that some words in the 2nd line and the whole third line are defaced, there is not much discrepancy in the meaning of the text of the inscription. But here we do find that Dr. Desai has extensively changed the text and meaning of the translated passage. It is quite different from what Anton Fuhrer had translated. Fuhrer had written that it is in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. He has made its translation in ten separate lines. Dr. Desai has considerably changed the meaning of the text without pinpointing how Anton Fuhrer’s translation was wrong. Since the beginning and the end of the text are the same and the inscription is said to be the same and there is no major variance in Fuhrer’s English translation from the Persian text, Dr. Desai’s text and translation appears to be arbitrary. He has changed the date of the inscription 930 A.H. (1523 A.D.) to 935 A.H. (1528 A.D.) without assigning any reason. In Dr. Desai’s translation the name of Mir Baqi, the second Asaf, appears whereas in Fuhrer’s text Mir Baqi’s name does not appear at all. Asaf was the Prime Minister of King Solomon. How a mere junior army officer (a Beg) can be compared with the Prime Minister of a highly venerated king? Then Babur is called a Qalandar in this inscription which is not found in the Anton Fuhrer’s translation. Similarly, a fort-wall, too, is suddenly included in Dr. Desai’s text. After 4th line Dr. Desai does not follow Anton Fuhrer’s translation and at the end he mentions Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori as the humble writer of this inscription. His name figures in the Anton Fuhrer’s translation too. But here in Dr. Desai’s text one sentence which means ‘May Allah illumine his proof!’ is added. Dr. Desai makes this comment in the footnote of page 61:

“The subject or purpose of this invocatory phrase is not known.”

Its purpose is very simple, i.e. to strengthen the proof in favour of the mosque.

Dr. Desai goes on explaining how Babur was called Qalandar but he does not explain how the changes, not found in the text read by Anton Fuhrer have taken place in the inscription.

Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai has made these changes only to evade certain unpalatable information contained in the inscription placed by Anton Fuhrer. The sixth line of this third inscription is very clear and it reads noh sad sī, i.e. 930 but Dr. Desai has added ‘panja’ five in this reading to make it 935 A.H. The plate of the edict shown in the Desai’s reading appears to be very clumsily and hastely written. Prof. Sushil Srivastava in his book ‘The Disputed Mosque’ has given the following opinion on the authenticity and date of the inscription:

“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; “Did Babur Build the Masjid?”)

In the footnotes of this chapter Sushil Srivastava writes that in his discussion with S.R. Faruqui in July 1987 the latter was inclined to feel that the style of calligraphy was representative of the nineteenth century. Thus, Desai took liberty in altering the third fake edict to keep it in conformity with historical facts and to strengthen claim in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board after it filed a case in the court in December, 1961.

(13) Factitious Inscription of Kanak Bhawan

Here I would like to make it clear that writing and fixing fake inscriptions in Ayodhyā shrines was not the prerogative of the Muslims alone. It was the handiwork of the Hindus as well. In the famous Kanak Bhawan temple of Ayodhya the following inscriptions were fixed in the 19th century with fictitious stories.

(i) (जरासन्धवधं कृत्वा भगवाँस्तीर्थपावनः।

आगात्सप्तपुरीमुख्यामयोध्याम्विचरन्पथि ।।

विश्रामं शिखरे प्राप्य परमामोदसंयुतः।

दिव्याङगनां तपस्यन्तीं नाम्ना पद्मासनां शुभाम्।।

शृङगाग्रे कनकागारे परया कृपया हरिः।

श्रीसीताराममूर्त्तिम्वै प्रदाय द्वारकामगात्।।

(ii) (चन्द्राग्नीवेदपक्षैपरिमित शरदि श्रीमतो धर्म्ममूर्त्तेः

पौषे कृष्णद्वितीयामहिसुतदिवसो् जीर्णामुद्धृत्य भूयः।

श्रीमद्गन्धर्व्वसेनात्मजनृपतिलको विक्रमादित्य नामा।

श्रीसीताराममूर्तिं कनकभवनसंस्थापयामास नूनम्।।

(iii) (इतिश्रीविक्रमशिलालेखांशः

श्रीमन्नृपतिविक्रमादित्य द्वारा युधिष्ठिर सं. २४३१ म्ह्याँ प्रतिष्ठित।

They may be thus translated:

(i) After having killed Jarāsandha, Bhagawān Kr+ishna, in course of journey, came to Ayodhyā, the most important among the seven sacred pilgrim centres. After taking rest at the mound the Lord, in a pleasant mood, handed over the idols of Sitā and Rāma blissfully to a penancing woman, who was having divine limbs, in the house made of gold. Then he went to Dwarka.

(ii) Vikramāditya, the son of Gandharvasena, renovated it in YuddhishThira era of 2431 in the month of Paush on the second day of the dark fortnight which was Tuesday. Thereafter, he installed the idols of Rāma and Sitā in the temple.

In this verse the date is given in a way where Sanskrit words denote certain numbers.

Chandra 1

Agni 3

Veda 4

Paksha 2

The rule in Sanskrit is अंकस्य वामा गतिः Thus, चन्द्राग्नीवेदपक्षै becomes 2431. The Yuddhisthira era is supposed to have started in 3143 B.C. Thus, the temple is claimed to have been renovated in 3143-2431=712 B.C. by Vikramāditya. No Vikramāditya is known to have flourished in the 8th century B.C. At the end, it is again claimed that it was installed by the king Vikramāditya in 2431 Yuddhisthira era.

This historically false claim does not end there. In the official document also it has been claimed:

THE ANCIENT & MODERN EPIGRAPHY

OF

KANAKBHAWAN

“THIS KANAK-BHAWAN (TEMPLE OF GOLD) THE CELESTIAL PALACE OF SHRI SITA-RAMJI IN TRETA RESTORED TO ITS FORMER POSITION BY MAHARAJA KUSHA IN THE BEGINNING OF DWAPAR, RECONSTRUCTED BY MAHARAJA RISHABHA IN THE MIDDLE OF DWAPAR VISITED AND LOVED BY BHAGWAN SHRI KRISHNA IN KALI-AGE 614 REBUILT BY MAHARAJA VIKRAMADITYA IN YUDHISHTHIRA ERA 2431. ADORED AND REPAIRED BY MAHARAJA SAMUDRAGUPTA IN V.S. 444 HAS BEEN AGAIN BUILT AND ENDOWED OVER THE RUINS PERPETRATED BY S. SALAR JUNG IN V.S. 1084 BY MAHARANI VRISHABHANU KUNWARI (SRI RAMPRIYA SANCHARI) THE ROYAL CONSORT OF H.H. MAHARAJA SAMI MATHEDRA SIR PRATAP SINGH JUDEO G.C.S.I., G.C.L.E. OF ORCHA THE HEAD OF THE CHIEFS OF BUNDELKHAND IN V.S. 1948 VAISHAKH SUDI 6th GURU-PUSHYA.”

Neither any Vikramāditya existed in 2431 Y.E. nor Samudragupta ruled in 444 Vikrama Samvat. It is not historically proved that S. Salar Jung ever came to Ayodhyā. Nevertheless, there was none to check the false claim of any inscription or document of the 19th century. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the disputed shrine had false and fabricated inscriptions.

(14) Fake inscription in Masjid Khurd at Rohtak

There is another instance of a fake inscription installed in the Masjid-i-Khurd at Rohtak. This mosque consists of two inscriptions; one is fixed over the central archway outside. It consists of three lines inscribed on a tablet measuring 53 cm. by 23 cm. It indicates faintly that this mosque was constructed in the reign of Babur by one Qadi Hammad. But there is another Tughlaq inscription occurring on the outer archway which was erected in A.H. 724 i.e. 1324 A.D. by Abul Muzaffar Tughlaq Shah. This appears to be in situ and therefore the inscription ascribing the construction of this mosque to Babur is fake. Thus, not only the inscriptions in Baburi mosque at Ayodhyâ were fakes but there were many other factitious inscriptions and documents which were spread over Northern India.

Here it will not to be out of context to mention that the British Resident to the King of Oudh in his communication dated August 14, 1855 wrote thus:

“His Majesty must be well aware that it is very easy for interested parties to obtain seals and signatures to any representations they may choose to make in the heat of religious excitement and …(illegible) the opposite party would easily obtain similar testimony in support of their assertions.”

Such cases of forgery and fabrication were not few and far between during the first half of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Oudh. Paul Horn in his article‘ Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Dihli’ published in Epigraphia India Vol. II (pp 130-48) has cited three more instances of this type.

(14) Conclusion

The following facts emerge from the detailed discussion made above:

(i) There was no inscription on the stucture before Tiffenthaler’s visit in 1767 A.D.

(ii) Buchanan was the first person to receive an inscription which may or may not have been fixed on the mosque at that time.

(iii) When the two Judges inspected the shrine in 1885-86 A.D. there was no inscription except super-scription of the word ‘Allah’ on the entrance gateway. Similar had been the case in 1877 A.D. when Asghar had filed a petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Fyzabad.

(iv) In 1889 the archaeologist Anton Fuhrer had found two inscriptions (excluding one with Kalma) on the walls of the sturcture. According to these inscriptions Mir Khan was the builder of the structure and 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 A.D. was the year of the construction of the building.

(v) Maulvi Shuaib’s Annual Report submitted for the year 1906-07 contained an inscription dated 1523 A.D. In his report the inscriptions were found at places different from earlier and later positions.

(vi) Texts in the copies given to Beveridge were at variance with those obtained by Fuhrer, particularly with the longer edict.

(vii) The format of supposed inscriptions given to Buchanan substantially disappeared in the subsequent inscriptions seen by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Desai.

(viii) Two inscriptions near the pulpit of the mosque were taken away by the Hindu rioters during 1934 riots.

(ix) One inscription restored by the Muslim community mentioned the date 923 A.H., i.e. 1516-17 A.D. clearly in figures.

(x) In one inscription recorded in the court proceedings of Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945 Mir Baqi was named Abdul Baqi and shown as the native of Isphahan in Persia against the conclusive evidence of Babur-nama that he was a Tashkindi.

(xi) Dr. Z.A. Desai arbitrarily changed the text and translation in the name of Maulana Ashraf Husain in order to rectify the historical blunders committed earlier in the fake inscriptions which were the outcome of ill-designed forgeries to strengthen the Muslim claim on the disputed mosque.

Thus, it is clear that there was no inscription associated with the mosque until the beginning of the 19th century. And even when some fake inscriptions were fixed in the mosque, particularly after the Muslims got the complete control of the inner portion of the mosque, they were replaced repeatedly and there were variations in their contents as well as in their sizes and locations. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon and must be discarded. No conclusion can be arrived at on their basis. Here it will not be out of place to mention that the Baburi mosque was not the isolated place where such fake inscriptions were fixed. During the Mediaeval period there were many mosques which were having factitious and fictitious inscriptions.

Besides, it is important to remember that Baqi’s name is not correctly written in the inscription which is claimed to have been fixed at the time of the construction of the mosque. Had it been a genuine inscription his correct name Baqi Shaghawal/Tashkindi/Beg/Ming-bashi, and not Mir Baqi, would have been written. It has been discussed at length in the next chapter.

Since the inscriptions in the Baburi mosque were not genuine, there has been a wrong impression about the history of its construction so far. There was a concerted attempt to produce fake inscriptions to buttress the claim on the mosque and in the process a hapless Babur, before whom mighty monarchs used to bow heads in battlefields, has been the victim of unexpected circumstances for the last 200 years. Here one is reminded of the following famous lines of T.S. Eliot from his poem ‘Gerontion’:

“History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors

And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions”



Chapter Six

Mir Baqi of inscriptions is a fictitious person
different from Bāqī of Bābur-nama

[(1) In 932 A.H. Dibalpur was bestowed on Baqi Shaghawal (2) In 933 A.H. Baqi Shaghawal is again mentioned in his Memoirs (3) In the year 934 A.H. Baqi ming-bashi figures in his Diary (4) In 934 A.H. he is mentioned as Baqi of Tashkind (5) One more mention of Baqi Shaghawal is found in 934 A.H. (6) In 935 A.H. Baqi is mentioned without any epithet at many places (7) On 13th June, 1529 Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur (8) On 16th June, 1529 he figures as Baqi Shaghawal again (9) On 20th June, 1529 Baqi Shaghawal was given marching order (Rukhsat) (10) Discrepency in Beveridge’s translation (11) Career of Baqi Shaghawal (12) The word ‘Mir’ as a prefix to a proper name (13) Mir Baqi’s so-called tomb at Shahnawa (14) Fabricated geneology of Mir Baqi (15) Another Baqi]

There prevails a general impression that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Babur at Ayodhyā and he built the disputed mosque at the command of the Mughal Emperor, Babur. However, the fact of the matter is that no person by the name of Mir Baqi is mentioned in the Babur-nama and the Baqi referred to in the Babur’s Memoirs was never Governor of Ayodhyā. The name Baqi has figured in Indian context at the following places in Beveridge’s translation of Babur nama.

(1) In 932 A.H. Dibalpur was bestowed on Baqi Shaghawal

Babur writes in his memoirs that he bestowed Dibalpur and sent him to Balkh with gifts:

“At the end of our first stage, I bestowed Dibalpur on Baqi Shaghawal and sent him to help Balkh; sent also gifts, taken in the success of Milwat, for (my) younger children and various train in Kabul.” (p. 463)

Though Babur has not dated this event, it falls into his two dated entries. Therefore, it could have occurred in either January or February 1526.

Thus, the substantive posting of Baqi Shaghawal in India was at Dibalpur near Lahore and not at Ayodhyā.

(2) In 933 A.H. Baqi Shaghawal is again mentioned in his Memoirs

“When Baqi Shaghawal went [to Balkh] I promised him a ser of gold for the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couple; one ser of gold was now given to Mir Hamah for Baba Shaikh’s head, over and above the favours referred to above.” (p. 546)

Though this, too, is not dated, it appears to have taken place in February, 1527.

(3) In the year 934 A.H. Baqi ming-bashi figures in his Diary

“(Jan. 12th 1528 A.D.) On Sunday the 19th of the month Chin-timur Sl. was put at the head of 6 or 7000 men and sent ahead against Chandiri. With him went the begs Baqi ming-bashi (head of a thousand), Quj Beg’s (brother) Tardi Beg, ‘Ashiq the taster, Mulla Apaq, Muhsin Duldai and, of the Hindustani begs, Shaikh Guran.” (p. 590)

Here Baqi is called ming-bashi, i.e. head of a thousand soldiers. Thus, he was a small army-commander. Chin-timur Sultan was the head of the contingent and Baqi was one of many commanders asked to work under Chin-timur. Therefore, Baqi could not be a Governor of Ayodhyā or the chief army commander stationed at Ayodhyā.

(4) In 934 A.H. he is mentioned as Baqi of Tashkind

(Sunday March 15th, Jumada II. 23rd) On this day the carts were taken over, and at this same dawn the army was ordered to cross. At beat of drum news came from our scouts that the enemy had fled. Chin-timur Sl. was ordered to lead his army in pursuit and the following leaders also were made pursuers who should move with the Sultan and not go beyond this word : Muhammad ‘Ali Jang-jang, Husamu’d-din ‘Ali (son) of Khalifa, Muhibb-i-’Ali (son) of Khalifa, Kuki (son) of Baba) Qashqa, Dost-i-muhammad (son) of Baba Qashqa, Baqi of Tashkind, and Red Wali. I crossed at the Sunnat Prayer, the camels were ordered to be taken over at a passage seen lower down. That Sunday we dismounted on the bank of standing-water within a kuroh of Bangarmawu. Those appointed to pursue the Afghans were not doing it well; they had dismounted in Bangarmawu and were scurrying off at the mid-day Prayer of this same Sunday.) (p. 601)

Here Baqi is called ‘Baqi of Tashkind’ and one finds Chin-timur Sultan, leading the army and Baqi his subordinate.

(5) One more mention of Baqi Shaghawal is found in 934 A.H.

Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub (var. Ni-khub) SI. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg, and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shaghawal. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh Bãyazìd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the bank of standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bãyazid’s family and relations (nisba?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.” (p. 602)

Here Baqi is again called Baqi Shaghawal

(6) In 935 A.H. Baqi is mentioned without any epithet at many places

(i) “(May 27th, 1529 A.D.) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpur and Kharid. Today came matters written by ‘Abdu’i-lah (kitabdar) and Baqi about the taking of Luknur. (p. 679)

Here Baqi appears to lead the expedition but Lucknow under his command is lost to Bāyzid and Biban.

(ii) “(May 28th) On Saturday (20th) Kuki was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Baqi.” (p. 679)

(iii) “(May 29th) That nothing failing to be done before my arrival might be neglected, leave to join Baqi was given on Sunday(21st) to Sl. Junaid Barlas, Khalifa’s (son) Hassan, Mulla Apaq’s retainers, and the elder and younger brethren of Mumin Ataka.” (p. 679)

(iv) “(May 31st, 1529) On the way up, Khalifa brought Shah Muhammad diwana’s son who had come from Baqi bringing this reliable news about Luknur. (p. 681)

Here Babur appears peeved about the loss of Lucknow and uses the name Baqi only without any epithet.

(7) On 13th June, 1529 Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur

“(June 13th) After crossing, we waited one day (Monday 7th) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me.” (p. 684)

Beveridge has arbitrarily equated Aud with Ayodhyā. It was an army of Oudh engaged in expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban.

(8) On 16th June, 1529 he figures as Baqi Shaghawal again

(i) “(June 16th, 1529) “Not getting reliable news about the enemy, we sent Baqi Shaghawal with a few braves to the interior to get information about him.” (p. 685)

Here Baqi has been asked to perform a duty unbecoming of a governor or a superior army commander.

(ii) On 17th June, 1529 Baqi is mentioned as Baqi Beg:

“(June 17th) Next day (Friday 11th) at the Other Prayer, one of Baqi Beg’s retainers came in. Baqi had beaten scouts of Bìban and Bãyazìd, killed one of their good men, Mubarak Khan Salwdni, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.” (p. 685)

(9) On 20th June, 1529 Baqi Shaghawal was given marching order (Rukhsat)

(June 20th) On Monday (14th) Jalal Tashkindi came from the begs and sultans of the advance. Shaikh Bãyazìd and Biban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahuba.

As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army were worn out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya).(p. 685)

Here there are two lapses on the part of Beveridge in translating the text. First, she has omitted Shaghawal in Baqi’s name. Secondly, Baqi had been granted leave ‘for going home’, but she has omitted this part in the English translation, although in the index on page 742 she has written ‘leave given him for home’. (p. 685)

In comparison to Beveridge's translation, Thackston’s translation is very vivid:

“Since the monsoon was near and the soldiers, horses and pack animals were exhausted after a five-or-six-month expedition, the sultans and begs were ordered to halt in the place they had reached until a fresh raiding party could come from Agra and those parts. That afternoon Baqi Shigavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”

Babur’s general order was that the sultans and begs were to halt in the place they had reached until fresh raiding party could replace them. Nevertheless, Baqi was given a marching order. It is not difficult to read between the lines.

(10) Discrepency in Beveridge’s translation

The general impression from Beveridge’s translation of the content on 13th June is that Baqi had come from Ayodhyā. But it is erroneous. He had been commanding expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban near Lucknow and had been reinforced with several troops along with many army commanders. So, he must have come to report with the troops at his command. Since Beveridge’s mind is obsessed with the forged inscriptions which she translated into English; she has made Ayodhyā’s association with Baqi. Otherwise, from the perusal of Babur-nama it is quite clear that Baqi had never landed at Ayodhyā. In Erskine’s translation it is merely said that Baqi Tashkandi arrived with his troops and Aud (Ayodhyā) is not mentioned. Erskine’s translation is as follows:

“That same day Baki Tashkandi arrived with his troops, and was introduced.”

Beveridge’s translation of the event on June 20 has caused immense damage to mediaeval Indian history and every scholar and student has been taken for a ride by this patently wrong translation. Beveridge translated from Turkish language and Erskine translated from the Persian rendering, faithfully done by Abdur Rahim Khan i Khana. Erskine has translated the event of 20th June in the following manner:

“I gave Baqi Sheghawel and his party leave to go home.”

Erskine’s translation appears more plausible because Beveridge herself writes on page 742 in Index I Personal: “leave given him (Baqi) for home 685.” i.e. Baqi was granted leave for going home. Beveridge remembers it in the Index that Baqi was granted leave for going home but forgets it in the main content.

In “The Babur-nama, Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor”, translated, edited and annotated by Wheeler M. Thackston and published by Oxford University Press, New York, Thackston has translated the two passages in the following words:

“Baqi Taskkandi came with the Oudh army that day (i.e. 13th June, 1529 A.D.) to pay homage.”

and

“That afternoon (i.e. 20th June, 1529 A.D.) Baqi Shiqavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”

In fact, here the Aud or Oudh army denotes the army of the Oudh area which was at the command of Baqi to chase and annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban and it was not the army stationed at Ayodhyā. From Beveridge’s translation an erroneous impression was made that since Baqi came with the Ayodhyā army, he was the Governor at Ayodhyā. Similarly, the translation ‘leave was granted to Baqi and Ayodhyā army’ gave an impression that they were allowed to go back to Ayodhyā. But the fact of the matter is that they were either granted leave to go back to their respective homes for ever or were dismissed from service because of their utter failure against Bāyazīd. Baqi is never heard of again after 20th June, 1529.

(11) Career of Baqi Shaghawal

In nutshell, this is the career of Baqi Shaghawal who hailed from Tashkind. He was merely a Beg, i.e. a petty army commander who first worked under Chin Timur Sultan. However, when Babur gave him an independent assignment against Bâyazîd and Biban, Baqi lost the crucial battle of Lucknow. Therefore, Babur got angry at his dismal performance and dismissed him. Baqi Shaghawal had no occasion to visit Ayodhyâ but so far, we have been taught that he was a noble soul, another Asaf and builder of the so-called Baburi mosque-all historical hoaxes.

However, one fact is clear that Baqi who was associated with Oudh was Baqi Shaghawal Tashkindi because on 13th June, 1529 the Baqi who went to meet Babur along with the army of Oudh and waited upon him was Baqi Tashkindi. He along with the army of Oudh was given leave on 20th June, 1529. How will the builder of the mosque not write his correct name in the inscription which was fixed at the time of its construction or inauguration? Since the inscription was a fake, and forgers were not aware of the correct name of Babur’s commander, they wrote Mir Baqi instead of Baqi Tashkindi.

Thus, readers will be surprisingly shocked to learn that Mir Baqi is not mentioned in the Baburnama at all and Baqi who is frequently mentioned in Baburnama is either Baqi Shaghawal or Baqi Tashkindi or Baqi mingbashi (head of a thousand) or Baqi Beg. It appears that his full name was Baqi Shaghawal and since he was from Tashkind he was called Baqi Tashkindi. At one place Babur has made it clear that Baqi was only a ming-bashi, i.e. head of a thousand troops. Baqi was a Beg. Begs used to be petty Turkish tribal or military heads. Before the battle of Panipat against Ibrahim Lodi Babur bestowed Debalpur on Baqi Shaghawal and sent him to reinforce Balkh. Debalpur lies between the Ravi and Beas, about 40 miles south-west of Lahore. When Baqi Shaghawal was sent to Balkh, he had been promised a reward of a ser of gold for ‘the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couples’. In that connection Baqi Shaghawal is mentioned second time in the Babur-nama in the beginning of February, 1527 A.D.

Thereafter, on 12th January, 1528 A.D. Baqi Ming-bashi (Ming-Begi, according to Erskine) is seen to have joined along with other Begs the expedition under the leadership of Chin Timur Sultan who moved with six or seven thousand troops against Chanderi. Since Baqi is frequently seen to chase Bāyazīd and Biban under the command of Chin Timur Sultan, it is necessary to know Sultan’s relations with Babur. During Babur’s time Uzbek Princes used to bear the title Sultan after their names. Therefore, this Chin Timur Sultan was an Uzbek Prince and distantly related to Babur from maternal side. In Babur-nama Babur has acknowledged his relation with Sultan at many places. Chin Timur Sultan was the son of Sultan Ahmad Khan. Babur writes:

“Up to this very date none of that clan who has come to me has been treated with anything but what is due a kinsman-witness Chin Timur Sultan, Esan Timur Sultan, Tokhta-Sultan and Baba Sultan, who are with me at this date. I have treated them all better and shown them more favour than my own flesh and blood.” (f. 201; Erskin’s translation)

While recollecting the battle against Rana Sanga Babur affectionately mentions Chin Timur Sultan in these words:

“Our brave and elevated brother Chin Timur Sultan, according to orders, carried a gallant reinforcement, joined in the combat, and having driven back the heathen, pushed on nearly to their centre. And a noble gift has been given to that our exalted brother.” (f. 321b; Erskin’s translation)

In the Chanderi expedition Baqi, who was just a Beg, was sent along with other Begs, like Tardi Beg, under the command of Chin Timur Sultan. Similarly, on March 15, 1528 A.D. Chin Timur Sultan was asked to lead his army in the pursuit of Bāyazīd and Biban. Baqi Tashkindi, who figures seventh in the list of 8 petty commanders, was directed to accompany and assist the Sultan, and implement his orders in the most obedient way. This shows the servile and subordinate status of Baqi who could not be the Governor of Ayodhyā.

Babur further informs that Baqi Shaghawal ably assisted Sultan in the pursuit of Bāyazīd and Biban. In close sequence Baqi’s name figures as Baqi Tashkindi and Baqi Shaghawal for the same mission and confirms that they are the same person.

On 27th May, 1529 when Babur rode round Kharid and Sekandarpur, he received letters from Abdullah and Baqi, which stated the taking over of ‘Lucknow by the enemy’. This Abdullah was Mulla Abdullah Kitabdar, who was very close to Babur. He had fought in the Panipat battle. He was at Khanwa also. He had been sent to take possession of Agra and was in-charge of Sambhal, too. So he had the precedence over Baqi. On 28th May, 1529 Kuki was sent ahead with a troop to join Baqi. On 29th May, 1529, some other commanders were sent to join and hold on till his arrival. Thus, Baqi had been made in-charge of the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban at Lucknow. Baqi sent a report narrating the details of the assault of the enemy on Lucknow. Babur further writes:

“They (i.e. Bìban and Bãyazìd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramzan (May 21st) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay and thorns in the fort took fire, so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (tanurdik tafsan); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the fort was lost.” (p. 681)

Thus, the Mughal fort at Lucknow under the control of Baqi was lost to Bāyazīd and Biban. When they learnt 2 or 3 days later that Babur was moving to chase them, they fled towards Dalmau.

Despite sending many reinforcements to Baqi, his team could not catch hold of Bāyazīd and Biban who were moving freely. Even the Sultans and Begs, who had been dispatched, had miserably failed.

It appears from ‘Tarikh-i-Shershahi’ written by Abbas Khan Sarwani in 1579-86 at the instance of Akbar that Bāyazīd ‘on several occasions had fought with the force of Firdaus Makani (Babar Badshah) and Jannat Āsyani (Humayun Badshah) and came out victorious.” (translated by B.P. Ambashthya, Patna, 1974, p. 252. It is a part of Elliot and Dowson’s monumental work ‘History of India as told by its own Historians’, Vol. IV, p. 354). Since Sarwani wrote this history book at the command of Akbar, the writer could not have dared to write a patently wrong account. Thus, Bāyazīd had defeated Babur’s troops at some stage. This may be the cause of Babur’s anger. What was the reason that the emperor Babur who could defeat Ibrahim Lodi and Rana Sanga could not catch hold of Bāyazīd or Biban during his various expeditions, although he made vigorous and continuous campaign for 15 months? Bāyazīd had been financed by his brother Mustafa’s widow Fath Malka, who had inherited the treasure of her father Muhammad Farmuli Kala Pahar, who was the nephew (sister’s son) of Bahlol Lodi and Governor of Avadh during Bahlol, Sikandar and Ibrahim Lodi’s time. It was said that he had amassed 300 mounds of pure crimson gold. The glitter of gold and other precious gems kept Bāyazīd beyond the bondage of Babur who had, by now, every reason to get angry.

Babur was rarely angry with his commanders. But this time he sent stern orders “to cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jamuna also; join Alam Khan to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary.” These directions show his disenchantment and disappointment with the leader of the expedition, i.e. Baqi. Under this background Baqi Tashkindi called on Babur near Dalmud (Dalmau) on 13th June, 1529. Beveridge’s translation reads thus:

“Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me.”

Let us now see what happened after the failed commander called on the Emperor. After a few days, Babur ‘dispatched Baqi Shaghawal with a few troops (or the word Miangi, perhaps means batmen) to procure intelligence of the enemy’. Can a Governor of a Province ever be entrusted with such an insignificant task? Next day Baqi tried to retrieve the situation by sending his servant Jumaa with information that he had routed one outpost of the enemy and killed one officer along with some men and sent their heads through one prisoner. But Bāyazīd and Biban remained elusive and Babur’s anger did not subside. While on 20th June, 1529 A.D. he issued a general order that ‘as the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army wore out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts’. However, he dismissed Baqi Shaghawal and his condemned troops by giving them leave for going home. Baqi was not given a single penny; while an allowance of 30 lakhs from Amroha was assigned to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, a nephew of Bāyazīd along with a special head-to-foot cloak (saropa) and a saddled horse, when he was granted leave. However, Baqi was not given even a horse.

He was disgraced and given leave for going home. He might have gone to Debalpur near Lahore, if his earlier assignment continued or gone to his native place Tashkind. But he is niether mentioned in the Babur-nama, nor heard of again anywhere. Beveridge’s omission of dispatching him home has cost Indian history costly because historians have accepted her translation at face value. Here another omission on her part is that she has written Baqi only instead of his complete name Baqi Shaghawal in the original. Mere Baqi is confused with Mir Baqi.

Had Baqi’s name really been Mir Baqi Babur must have mentioned him at least once as Mir Baqi. When Babur was camping near Dalmau, the Baqi who waited upon him along with the army from Oudh was Baqi Tashkindi and it was this Baqi who was given marching order along with the army of Oudh.

Thus, it is quite clear that the petty Army-commander stationed in the Oudh area was Baqi Tashkindi and not Mir Baqi, the name which figures in the inscriptions. The forgers of inscriptions did not know the correct name of Baqi and therefore mentioned his name as Mir Baqi instead of Baqi Shaghawal/Tashkindi used by Babur in his Memoirs.

In one inscription produced by A. Fuhrer, it was Mir Khan who built the mosque by the order of Babur. In the same inscription Husain/Desai arbitrarily added Baqi and produced it as Mir Khan (and) Baqi. In another inscription Husain/Desai again read the name of Mir Baqi; whereas in the same inscription Fuhrer had not found the name of Mir Baqi at all. But to-day, thanks to the forgers and the misinterpreters, the whole world of historians knows that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Babur, posted at Ayodhyā and he was the noble who built the mosque at the command of Babur. Our great historians have been teaching that Mir Baqi’s name is found in the Babur-nama and therefore its veracity is confirmed beyond any doubt. In the light of the above analysis one can conclude how hollow and shallow is the following comment of the four historians in their “Rāma-janma-bhūmi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation”:

“The contemporaneity of the inscriptions was shown by their text and date, and their accuracy was established by the fact that Mir Baqi finds mention in Babur’s memoirs as the governor of Awadh or Ayodhya at exactly the same time. (AH 935)”

The fact of the matter is that inscriptions were fixed 285 years after the supposed construction in 1528 A.D. and Mir Baqi of the inscriptions was a fictitious person who was never the Governor of Ayodhyā. In Index I, Personal A.S. Beveridge indicates the pages, where the name Baqi, and not Mir Baqi, figures in the following sequence:

“Baqi Beg Tãshkindi, shaghãwal and (later) ming-bãshì (= hazãrì)—sent to Balkh with promise of head-money (932) 463, 546; on service (934) 590, 601, 2; reports from Aùd (Oudh) (935) 679; on service with the Aùd (Oudh) army 684, 5; leave given him for home 685.” (p. 742)

Nowhere it is written that Baqi was ever Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. What Babur did not do to Baqi, our great historians have done by appointing him Governor at Ayodhyā.

(12) The word ‘Mir’ as a prefix to a proper name

Some historians claim that in Babur-nama Babur has not prefixed Mir to Baqi, because it was an epithet of a subordinate and not a part of his name. But it is not a correct assertion because Babur has added Mir epithet to a number of subordinates in his Memoirs. Some of them are cited below from Index I. Personal from Beveridge’s book:

1. Mír Ahmad Beg Itaraji Mughûl

2. Mír (Shaikh) ‘Alí Beg Turk

3. Mír ‘Alí mir-akhwuri

4. Mír ‘Azû

5. Mír Khurd bakawal

6. Mír Muhammadi-i-Mahdí khwaja

7. Mír Muhammad jala-ban

8. Mír Muhammad-i-yûsuf

9. Mír MûrtazaAll these persons were his subordinates. However, since Babur was a man of etiquette, he invariably prefixed the honorific title Mir to their names. Had Baqi of the inscriptions been a real person having the ‘Mir’ title, Babur would have definitely prefixed Mir to Baqi’s name and mentioned him at least once as Mir Baqi in his Memoirs.

(13) Mir Baqi’s grave at Shanwah

On 17th November, 2011 I went to the village Shanwah, claimed to be the village where the dead body of Baqi is buried, and met Syed Nabi Hasan, the present ‘Mutwalli’ of now non-existent Baburi mosque. I had a long conversation with him. He gave me the geneology of his family from Baqi to the present day and showed me the grave of Mir Baqi, the General of Babur and his ‘Governor’ at Ayodhyā. He took me to the Mir Baqi’s grave which was at a distance of hardly 100 steps from the place in open where we were talking to each other in the presence of villagers. I was shocked to see the non-descript grave, which was about 6 ft. long and lying in totally tattered condition. I was told by Nabi Hasan that there were two graves – one of Mir Baqi and another of his daughter. It was clear from the appearance that it could not be the grave of even a Mughal commander, what to talk of a Governor. I got it photographed and one photo is shown below:

Mir Baqi’s so-called grave at Shanwah.

From a mere look at the surroundings one can see that the entire area of Baqi’s ‘grave’ is in dilapidated condition. The entrance wall has collapsed almost completely and the rear wall, which was built not long ago as it is evident from its bricks, is on the verge of collapse on account of non-maintenance and lack of care. In the village many persons were joking the claim of Nabi Hasan by nick-naming him Mir Baqi. They were young Sunni boys who informed me in Nabi Hasan’s presence that the entire Mir Baqi’s legacy was concocted after the eruption of the Court dispute and Mir Baqi’s socalled grave was claimed on a vacant space lying between two buildings.

It is ridiculous to connect this grave to Mir Baqi who has been called, in an inscription, a magnificent noble, councillor and administrator of Babur’s kingdom, and compared with Asaf, who was the legendary Vizir of the great emperor Solomon. After visiting the grave of fictitious Mir Baqi I was reminded of the famous sher of the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Jaffer:

कितना है बदनसीब ‘जफर’ दफन के लिए,

दो गज़ ज़मीन भी न मिली कू-ए-यार में।।

Babur has given a chart of the revenues of Hindustan in his Memoirs. According to him the revenue of Aud (Oude) along with Bahraj (Baraich) was 1 crore 17 lakh, 1 thousand 3 hundred and 69. Babur had himself given a gift of 1 crore, 48 lakh and 50,000 tanka to Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmuli. Had Mir Baqi been really a Governor, could he have been assigned a paltry sum of Rupees 308, annes 3 and paise 6 as honorarium for the maintenance in view of his claimed august status? As stated above, an allowance of 30 lakhs was assigned to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, along with a special head-to-foot cloak (saropa) and a saddled horse, while he was granted leave. But Baqi was not paid even a pittance.

In fact, when Baqi was granted leave to go home, i.e. Tashkind, he is not reported to have come back. Therefore, there could be no tomb of Mir Baqi in the vicinity of Faizabad. Similarly, when Baqi could not be associated with the construction of the mosque, there could be no grant in his favour for the maintenance of the so-called Baburi mosque. It was just a ploy to establish the right of the Shias over the mosque.

After Baqi’s dispatch on leave for home in June, 1529 A.D. Tukhta-bugha Sultan, who belonged to the group of commanders that had taken expedition against Bāyazīd, was at Ayodhyā in some official capacity and after his death Mughal Beg was commander at Ayodhyā wherefrom he had gone to fight in favour of Humayun against Shershah who vanquished the Mughal army. Baqi Tashkindi was never close to Babur, whereas Tukhta-bugha Sultan was one of his favourite nobles. In his Memoirs Babur writes,

“For example there are now in my service Chin-tinur, Aisan Sultan, Tukhta-bugha Sultan, and Baba Sultan; on one and all of those I have looked with more favour than on blood relations of my own.” (p. 318)

(14) Fabricated geneology of Mir Baqi

In Regular Suit no. 29 of 1945 between Shia Central Board of Waqf, U.P. versus Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Mir Baqi has been frequently called Abdul Baqi or Mir Abdul Baqi. In this judgment it is mentioned on page 5:

“The witnesses who have deposed about the pedigree have also stated that they heard from ancestors that Mir Abdul Baqi (or Baqi) was a Shia and had come from Isphahan in Persia. There are verses engraved on a tablet in the central arch of the mosque which will be referred to later on, on which Mir Baqi has been described as an ‘Isphahani’, i.e. a resident of Isphahan.”

Later on, the learned Judge writes on page 12:

“The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language an (sic) eugulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”

Thus, it is clear from the above-mentioned observation that the inscription above the chhajja of the central arch has a reading different from what Mr. Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai have read and published because Mir Baqi has not been shown as the native of Isphahan in their reading of the edict. The following is the genealogy shown in the aforementioned Regular Suit between the Shia and Sunni Waqf Boards.

The first (top) person in the pedigree Syyad Abdul Baqi is reported to have existed in 1528 A.D. and the last one M. Zaki at the time of the litigation was in 1945 and in between there are only five generations in a span of more than 417 years. It is totally improbable because the gap between two generations is almost 70 years. Therefore, this genealogy cannot be correct. Here the name of Baqi is changed from Mir Baqi to Syyad Abdul Baqi.

When I met the present ‘Mutwalli’ Nabi Hasan Abbas at Shanwah, he informed me that Baqi gave this village to his (Nabi’s) ancestor Rajab Ali in kanyādāna of Sukunat Bibi, who was the granddaughter of Baqi. During the conversation, he furnished the following pedigree of his family:

After comparing the genealogy given by Nabi Hasan with that produced in the civil court Faizabad, it appears that Rajab Ali was not the son-in-law of Mir Baqi’s son but was the son-in-law of Baqi’s grandson. During conversation he informed me that the real name of Mir Baqi was Hujjabar Ali and Mir Baqi was his ‘Shahi-khitab’, i.e. royal title. It was confirmed by his cousin Ghulam Asghar, son of Muhammad Zaki. They reiterated that in the Khandani sajra Hujjabar Ali is recited in place of Mir Baqi. Then I asked him if Sukoonat Bibi was the daughter of the grandson of Mir Baqi, how could Mir Baqi give the village in the Kanyā-dāna. He gave me a very vague reply by saying that it was what he had heard from his forefathers.

Other names in both lists are similar more or less. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Mir Razab Ali was the Khatib of Baburi mosque in 1860, as he had filed an application to the Deputy Commissoner, Faizabad on 05-11-1860; whereas his son Muhammad Asghar, the Khatib of Baburi Masjid had made a representation to British Government on 30.11.1858. Another son of Razab Ali was Muhammad Afzal, who as Mutawalli of Baburi mosque, filed another pettition on 25-09-1866. It is slightly intriguing that father Razab Ali was Khatib of the mosque in 1860 and the son Muhammad Asghar was Khatib of the same Baburi mosque in 1858. If we follow the geneology produced in the Court from M. Asghar to Kalbe Husain who was Mutwalli of Baburi mosque in 1943, there is only one succession in between. If we view the entire geneology, we find that between Mir Baqi and the present Mutwali the generation gap is seven in a span of almost 500 years and this cannot be, therefore, genuine.

(15) Another Baqi

Indian History is aware of many Baqis. We come to know the name of one Mir Baqi Hisari who was the supervisor of the construction of mosques and is known through an inscription dated 31st August 1634 during the reign of Shah Jahan. The inscription is produced below with English translation:

An inscription of c. 1634 A.D.

Translation

(1) Allah is Great.

(2) On the 17th of the month of Rabiul-AwwaI, year (A.H.) 1044 (?) (31st August 1634) in the reign of His Excellency

(3) the refuge of the Caliphate, the shadow of God, Abu’l-Muzaffar Sihabud-din Muhammad Sahib Qiran-i-Thani.

(4) Shah Jahan Badshah Ghazi during (the time of) the governorship of the humblest servant of this court.

(5) Sharif Khan and under the supervision of the asylum of chiefship (i.e. Sayyid) Mir Baqi Hisari, this edifice (mosque ?) was completed.

(Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, In continuation of the Series Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1969, Edited by Dr. Z.A. Desai, p. 19)

It is likely that this Mir Baqi Hisari might have lived up to 1660 A.D. when Fedai Khan razed the temples to ground at Ayodhyā and on their sites mosques were erected under his supervision or this Mir Baqi Hisari might have been such a familiar name in people’s perception at the time of the fabrication of the inscriptions in the 19th century that his name was associated with the construction of the mosque.

Nevertheless, this much is certain that the genealogy of Mir Baqi, placed on record in the civil suit in the court and claimed elsewhere, is not genuine. Baqi is said to have lived in Babur’s time in 1528 A.D. and Rajab Ali’s one known date is 1860 A.D. Between these two persons (Baqi and Rajab Ali), there is a vast gap of 332 years and only two generations emerged during this long period. Therefore, Baqi of the forged inscriptions is a fictitious person different from Baqi of the Babur-nama. One can conclude it with the following words of Sir Walter Scott in Marmion:

“O, what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practice to deceive!” (p. 133)



Chapter Seven

Babur never visited Ayodhyā, nor did he ever issue
any sanad in favour of the disputed shrine

[(1) Shaikh Bãyazìd was appointed Governor of Ayodhya (2) Bãyazid’s rebellion (3) Babur’s march (4) On March 28, 1528 Babur was far away from Ayodhyã (5) Babur’s good hunting ground was not in the vicinity of Ayodhy (6) Beveridge’s clarification on Babur’s stay in Oudh (7) Babur’s journey to Oudh shown on maps (8) Missing pages of Babur’s diary (9) Babur’s movements during the period of missing pages restructured on the basis of subsequent entries (10) Ferishta’s History of Hindostan (11) Babur’s second expedition against Bãyazìd in 1529 A.D. (12) Confirmation of the news of the capture of Lucknow Fort under Baqi by Bãyazìd (13) Babur’s anger against his commanders (14) Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur (15) Babur dismisses Baqi who is never heard of again (16) Babur never issued any sanad for the disputed mosque (17) Four Farmans issued by Babur (18) Farmans confirmed by him (19) Several interpolations in revenue records (20) The land grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque (21) Conclusion]

There is a popular misconception that Bābur visited Ayodhyā and gave direction to his general Mir Baqi to demolish the Janma-sthāna Mandir and build a mosque at the site which is held holiest by the Hindus. But the fact of the matter is that Babur never visited Ayodhyā. It is proved by the minute scrutiny of Babur-nama and other literary sources of the sixteenth century.

(1) Shaikh Bāyazīd was appointed Governor of Ayodhyā

Babur’s association with Ayodhyā began with the bestowal of favours on Shaikh Bāyazīd, the younger brother of Mustafa Farmuli, who was a close confidant of Ibrahim Lodi and Governor of Ayodhyā. Mustafa Farmuli was the son-in-law of Muhammad Farmuli who had the nick-name Kala Pahar. Muhammad Farmuli, the son of Bahlol Lodi’s sister, had helped Sikander Lodi in his struggle for throne. Therefore, he was held in high esteem in the royal court. But he was so greedy for gold that he had collected 300 mans (मन) of gold. About Mustafa Farmuli and Bāyazīd Babur writes in his Memoirs:

“Sultan Ibrahim had appointed several amirs under Mustafa Farmuli and Firug Khan Sarangkhani, to act against the rebel amirs of the East (Purab). Mustafa had fought them and thoroughly drubbed them, giving them more than one good beating. He dying before Ibrahim’s defeat, his younger brother Shaikh Bãyazìd—Ibrahim being occupied with a momentous matter—led and watched over his elder brother’s men.” (p. 527)

Bāyazīd was the younger brother of Mustafā and both were sons of Muhammad Farmuli’s brother. Loyal to the Lodi dynasty he had fought in favour of Ibrahim but after Babur’s victory at Panipat Shaikh Bāyazīd and some other Afghan leaders went to Babur to show solidarity with him. Babur gave to Shaikh Bāyazīd 1 krur, 48 laks and 50,000 tankas from Aud. In early July, 1526 Babur wrote:

“I showed them greater kindness and favour than was their claim.” (p. 527)

On page 530 he wrote that Shaikh Bāyazīd and others were highly favoured commanders who had been given Eastern Paraganas. From page 544 it is clear that in accordance with the arrangement made by Babur, Humayun settled the matter by placing Bāyazīd in Oudh in early January (either on 4th or 5th), 1527 A.D. But after sometime, Bāyazīd’s activities started creating suspicion. On 28th August 1527 Babur wrote:

“As in these days people were telling wild news about Shaikh Bãyazìd, Sl. Quli Turk was sent to him to give him tryst in 20 days”.

On the close of the year 1527 A.D. Babur wrote in his diary:

“Though there had been no clear proof of Shaikh Bãyazid’s hostility, yet his misconduct and action made it certain that he had hostile intentions. On account of this Muhammad ‘Ali Jang-jang was detached from the army and sent to bring together from Qanuj Muhammad Sl. Mirza and the sultans and amirs of that neighborhood, such as Qasim-i-husain Sultan, Bi-khub (or, Ni-khub) Sultan, Malik Qasirn, Kuki, Abu’l Muhammad the lancer, and Minuchihr Khan with his elder and younger brethren and Darya-khanis, so that they might move against the hostile Afghans. They were to invite Shaikh Bãyazìd to go with them, if he came frankly, they were to take him along; if not, were to drive him off. Muhammad ‘Ali asking for a few elephants, ten were given him. After he had leave to set off, Baba Chuhra (the Brave) was sent to and ordered to join him.” (p. 589)

(2) Bāyazīd’s rebellion

On the eve of Chanderi expedition Babur received a disturbing news on 28th January, 1528 that “the troops appointed for the East (i.e. against Bāyazīd) had fought without consideration, been beaten, abandoned Laknau, and gone to Qanuj.” But Babur left it to the destiny and concentrated on Chanderi expedition. After the Chanderi expedition was successful, Babur again got news on 22nd February, 1528 that his troops had abandoned Qanuj (Kannauj) and gone to Rapri, whereas the enemy’s army under Biban, Bāyazīd and Maruf had taken over Shamsabad. One should remember that Bāyazīd had fought at Panipat on the side of Ibrahim Lodi, Malik Biban had deserted him on the eve of the battle, and Maruf Farmuli had been in rebellion against Ibrahim Lodi for more than three years before the battle of Panipat. All the three nobles combined to fight against Babur. Bāyazīd and Biban always stood together. Maruf’s two sons Muhammad Farmuli and Musa Farmuli joined Babur’s band-wagon. Babur himself moved towards Kannauj. On hearing his march, Bāyazīd, Biban and Maruf crossed Ganga and seated themselves in its eastern bank opposite Kannauj for preventing Babur’s passage. Babur, after having built bridge over the river Ganga, crossed the river along with army on 15th March, 1528. But since the crossing of the river had been delayed by one day due to some superstition, the enemy had fled. Babur ordered to chase them. However, the pursuit was not so vigorous and successful. On 16th March Babur dismounted at Bangarmau and on March 21, 1528 he visited Laknau.

While taking bath in Gomati (Gui), water got into his ear. Due to this factor or the effect of the climate his right ear was clogged and there was much pain in his ear, so he took rest for few days. Then he continued the campaign and while he was one or two marches from Aud he was told that the enemy was on the far side of the Sarda (Sirda) river.

(3) Babur’s march

Babur’s march is produced here in his own words:

“One or two marches from Aud (Oudh) someone came from Chin-timur Sl. to say, “The enemy is seated on the far side of the river Sird[a ?], let His Majesty send help.” We detached a reinforcement of 1000 braves under Qaracha.

Here it is important to note that Bāyazīd and Biban were on the far side of the river Sirda and not near Ayodhyā

(March 28th) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted 2 or 3 kurohs from Aud above the junction of the Gagar (Gogra) and Sird[a]. Till today Shaikh Bãyazìd will have been on the other side of the Sird[a] opposite Aud, sending letters to the Sultan and discussing with him, but the Sultan getting to know his deceitfulness, sent word to Qaracha at the Midday Prayer and made ready to cross the river. On Qaracha’s joining him, they crossed at once to where were some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could make no stand; they fled; a few having been dismounted, the heads cut off were sent in.” (emphasis added)

Babur further continued the journey:

“Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub (var. Ni-khub) SI. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg, and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shaghawal. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh Bãyazìd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the bank of standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bayazld’s family and relations (nisba ?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.

We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aud) in order to settle the affairs of Aud. People praised the land lying along the Sird[a] 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 m.) above Aud, saying it was hunting-ground. Mir Muhammad the raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the crossings over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sird[a]-water (Chauka?).

[April 2nd]. On Thursday the 12th of the month I rode out intending to hunt.”

(4) On March 28, 1528 Babur was far away from Ayodhyā

From an analysis of the itinerary of Babur we come to the following conclusions:

(i) Chin-timur Sultan was the leader of the military expedition against Bāyazīd, the Governor of Ayodhyā who was on the run and away from Ayodhyā.

(ii) Baqi Shaghawal like Tardi Beg was an ordinary Beg assisting Chin-timur and had no role to play at Ayodhyā as a governor or an army-commander.

(iii) On 27th Feb. 1528 Babur was at Kannauj, on 21st March he was at Lucknow and on 28th March, 1528 he was 2 or 3 kos from Aud above the junction of the Gogra and Sirda. There is no confluence of two rivers in the close vicinity of Ayodhyā. Aud in the Babur-nama or in the mediaeval literature is invariably not Ayodhyā. It is a vast track between Gomati and Sarayū rivers. This confluence of the two rivers Ghaghra (Sarayū) and Sarda (Sirda) still exists and is situated at a distance of 72 miles, i.e. 115 km from Ayodhyā

(iv) Thus, on 28th March, 1528 A.D. when Babur dismounted 2 or 3 kos from Aud above the confluence of the Ghaghra and Sarda rivers he was 115 km. away from Ayodhyā.

There Babur and his expedition team stayed for a few days to settle the affairs of Aud. What was this settling of the affairs of Aud? Here many historians have made flights of imagination. They have written that Babur went to Ayodhyā and on the advice of Musa Ashiqan he directed Mir Baqi to demolish the Janma-sthāna temple and build a mosque there. But this is totally improbable because the Governor or King at Ayodhyā was not a Hindu. He was Shaikh Bāyazīd who was an Afghan and now on the run. Therefore, Babur had to make arrangement for the successful chase of Biban and Bāyazīd and by deploying armed forces and officers to capture them he settled the affairs of Aud. Here Thackston’s translation makes the picture crystal clear. “Halt was called for a few days at this site in order to consolidate affairs in Oudh and that area.” Here the expression is ‘to consolidate affairs in Oudh and that area’. Consolidating affairs means making fool-proof arrangments against Bāyazīd, Biban and other Afghan ribel nobles. Had he appointed Baqi as the Governor of Ayodhyā he could have clearly written it, as he has done in case of Bāyazīd’s appointment.

(5) Babur’s good hunting ground was not in the vicinity of Ayodhyā

There he came to know through local residents that ‘the land lying along the Sirda 7 or 8 Kuroh (14-16 m.) above Aud’ was a good hunting ground’. Thus, this hunting ground was further away from Ayodhyā by 20-25 km. The total distance of this hunting ground (zamine-sikargahi) was almost 140 km. from Ayodhyā and it was near the confluence of Sarda and Ghaghra and not near Ayodhyā at all. It is the area under present Sitapur district which has got a vast tract of forest known as Naimisharanya where most of the Puranas were composed. In this area there could have been good ground for hunting. Ayodhyā or its vicinity could not have been a hunting ground because it was a flourishing town during the Gahadavāla and Delhi-Sultanate periods. This confusion has arisen because Aud or Oudh is invariably taken to be Ayodhyā. But Abdur Rahman Chisti in ‘Marat-i-Masudi’ and Ibn Battuta in the ‘Rahela’ take Oudh to mean the territory between the Gomati and Ghagra (Sarayū) rivers.

Therefore, it is an erroneous impression that Ayodhyā was a good hunting ground. In fact, Ayodhyā was one of the biggest towns of India as it is known from the testimony of Abul Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari. During the Sultnate period except a short interregnum Ayodhyā was the headquarters of Governors of Delhi Emperors and during the days of Muhammad binTughlaq it was so prosperous that it used to send grain to the famine stricken populace of the Doab and other parts of the country. From the following translation of Thackston, it is clear that fords were found in the river which could not be possible near Ayodhyā where there was deep water.

(6) Beveridge’s clarification on Babur’s stay in Oudh

Beveridge was the first person who made this clarification by writing

“I take this to be the Kali-Sarda-Chauka affluent of the Gogra and not its Sarju or Saru one. To so take it seems warranted by the contexts; there could be no need for the fords on the Sarju to be examined and its position is not suitable.” (p. 602 n.)

This confusion was created by the wrong reading of Sirda as Sirwa by John Leyden, Erskine and Elliot. Sushil Srivastava has rightly written in his book ‘The Disputed Mosque’:

“Leyden and the other two scholars were not aware that the river flowing by Ayodhya was the river Ghagra, called the Saryu by the local people. These scholars translated the Persian version of the memoirs of Babur, which is translation of the original Turki. Because of the script, they read:

In the Persian script, these letters appear similar. It is easy for a person who is not very familiar with any proper name to commit this mistake. As such, anyone can read:

A close reading of the text reveals that Babur described the river Sirda as shallow and with fords which could be used for crossing. The river Saryu (Ghagra) is deep and fast-flowing and the fords would be impassable. The river Sirda (Sarda) is, however, shallow and has fords. Beveridge translated the Turki manuscript of Babur’s memoirs and also acquainted herself well with the geography of the area around Faizabad. We can safely agree with her that Babur camped 72 miles north of Ayodhya, at the junction of the rivers Sarda and Ghagra, on 28 March 1528.”

Therefore, Prof. Shrivastava concluded that it is ‘doubtful that Babur ever came to Ayodhyā’.

(7) Babur’s journey to Oudh shown on maps

Similarly, one is grateful to Prof. R. Nath for the following map of Babur’s movements in the Oudh Region in 1528 A.D. in his book ‘Architecture of Baburi Masjid’ (p. 29):

Babur’s journey to Oudh (R. Nath).

Thus, in R. Nath’s map Babur’s location on 28th March, 1528 A.D. is at a distance of more than 100 km. from Ayodhyā.

Prof. Sushil Srivastava has candidly and vividly shown Babur’s encampment on 28th March, 1528 A.D. through the following map in his book ‘The Disputed Shrine’ (p. 68).

Babur’s journey to Oudh (Sushil Srivastava).

Babur’s march from Chanderi to Kannauj, Lucknow and Oudh based on the Babur-nama is prepared by us and shown below:

Babur’s journey to Oudh (present writer).

Now it establishes the fact that on 28th March, 1528 Babur was 115 km. away from Ayodhyā and on 2nd April, 1528 when the sequence of journey was lost, he was 140 km. away from Ayodhyā and therefore there was no question of his visit to Ayodhyā. Baqi Shaghawal or Tashqindi, who was a junior army-officer assisting Chin-timur Sultan in the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban, could never dare to break the army-command and go to Ayodhyā where he had no business because Bāyazīd and Biban were on the run and were far away from Ayodhyā.

(8) Missing pages of Babur’s diary

Unfortunately, the pages in Babur’s Diary from 3rd April to 17th September, 1528 are missing in all texts either on account of a storm on 24th May, 1529 or the privations suffered by Humayun’s library during his exile from Hindustan. Thackston, however, calls it ‘an unexplained break of five-and-a-half months occurs in the text at this point’. The implied meaning is that Babur himself did not write the diary for this period. Consequently, it has led to the opening of the floodgate of concocted stories resulting even in the imaginary bloodbath of thousands of persons at Ayodhyā.

Such stories like Babur’s attack on Ayodhyā cannot be true because Oudh was under the Muslim rule for 300 years and there was no Hindu king there during Babur’s reign. Therefore, there was no need of waging any war to capture Ayodhyā from any Hindu monarch. It was already under his domain and Bāyazīd had been appointed the Governor of Ayodhyā by Babur shortly after the battle of Panipat. Moreover, the Governor Bāyazīd had already rebelled and left Ayodhyā. Babur was after him in hot pursuit. Diversion to Ayodhyā would have served no strategic purpose. It could have antagonized a vast section of local populace and delayed the chase. Thus, there was no reason or occasion for Babur to visit or attack Ayodhyā.

(9) Babur’s movements during the period of missing pages restructured on the basis of subsequent entries

What Babur did during this period can be fairly built up. A.S. Beveridge points out that “much can be gleaned of Babur’s occupations during the 5½ months of the lacuna from his chronicle of 935 A.H. which makes several references to occurrences of ‘the previous year’ and also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this source it becomes known that the Afghan campaign, the record of which, is broken by the gap, was carried on.” If such references are put together it appears that Babur carried on his military operations against Afghans in the east and south Bihar as well. During this period of five and-a-half months he stayed at Jaunpur, Chausa, Buxar, Saran etc. in defeating and driving away the Afghans and compelling them to take shelter in eastern Bihar and Bengal and after settling the affairs of the eastern region Babur returned to Agra. Thus, Babur had some other agenda to follow and not to waste energy in antagonizing the vast multitude of his subjects whose hostility could have emboldened Bāyazīd to carry on the flag of revolt more vigorously. Beveridge has tried to fill the gap in the following manner:

(i) “Jaunpur (March 28th 1529 A.D.) To look at our ground of a year ago (yil-turgi yurt; i.e. close to the same day a year back) from which we had started for Jaunpur”.(folio. 365b)

(ii) “Chausa “(April 1st) we moved on, I going by boat, on Friday (Rajab 22nd). I landed opposite Chausa to look at the ground of a year ago (yit-turgi yurt) where the Sun had been eclipsed and a fast kept.(folio. 365 b)

During that year the Sun eclipse had taken place on the 10th May, 1528. From this confirmed date it is clear that Babur was at Chausa on 10th May, 1528. Thus, Babur’s mention of last year did not mean exactly one year but a round about figure.

(iii) Baksara (April 4th) – “On reaching the ground opposite Baksara (Buxar) where the army had been seated many days last year we went over to look at it.” ( f. 366)

(iv) Beveridge further writes that he swam the Ganges

“A year ago (yitur) an excursion had been made to look at the ground on which the camp now was, I passing through Gang swimming (? dastak bila), some coming mounted on horse, some on camels.” (f. 365 b)

(v) Babur bestowed Saran on a Farmuli Shaikhzada. From folio. 374b the following account is obtained:

“(May 8th 1529) Shah Muhammad (son) of Maruf to whom in last year’s campaign (934 H.) I had shown great favour and had given the Sãran-country, had done well on several occasions, twice fighting and overcoming his father.”

Here it is necessary to mention that Bāyazīd and Maruf Farmuli were brothers. Bāyazīd had joined Babur’s service in 1526 A.D. but revolted in the end of 1527 A.D. He had opposed Mughal army near Kannary. Maruf had never joined Babur’s service; though he was rebel against Ibrahim Lodi and Biban. But his two sons Muhammad and Mūsa had joined the Mughal service.

(vi) From folio 377 of his Memoirs it is known:

(May 29th 1529 A.D.)- “Today at the other Prayer a special dress of honour and a tipuchaq horse were bestowed on Shah Muhammad (son) of Maruf Farmuli, and leave to go was given. As had been done last year (934 H.) an allowance from Saran and Kundpla was bestowed on him for the maintenance of quiver wearers.”

Thus, from the above scrutiny it appears that after the hunt on 2nd April, 1528 at a distance of 140 k.m. from Ayodhyā, Babur went to Jaunpur, Chausa and Buxer in the pursuit of Bāyazīd and Biban. After bestowing Saran on Shah Muhammad in June 1528 A.D. he returned to Agra, when rains set in.

On account of the following misplaced doubtful passage of Beveridge in Babur-nama some confusion has been created by her and a few historians:

“After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards Ghazipur.”

It has been completely ignored by Wheeler M. Thackston in “The Babur-nama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor”, which has been superbly edited by him. Even if it is accepted that it is a genuine passage of the Babur-nama, the identification of this place with Ayodhyā is misconceived because Babur had no occasion to visit Ayodhyā. The place may be identified with Jaunpur where he had gone in 934 H and which had all the beautiful objects mentioned here, as it was the capital of the Shirqi dynasty for almost a hundred years only a half century ago.

(10) Ferishta’s History of Hindostan

Ferishta wrote the History of Hindostan up to the death of Akbar during the reign of Jahangir in the early seventeenth century. It was meticulously translated by Alexander Dow, Esq. and published from London. Ferishta has informed that his account of ‘Baber’ is based on Abdur Rahim Khankhana’s Persian translation of Baburnama and narrated the following activities of the Emperor after the fall of Chanderi:

“Advices were, about this time, received, that a detachment, which had been sent against the Patan chiefs of the tribe of Lodi, who held still the Eastern provinces, was defeated. The King, therefore, left Ahmed, the son of Mahommed, and grandson of Sultan Nasir of Malava, who had now joined him, in the government of Chinderi, and marched in person towards Kinnoge. He met his defeated troops at Raberi, and arriving at the river, he threw over it a bridge of boats. His general Timur was ordered to cross in the front, the enemy being then on the opposite shore. After a faint resistance, the Patans gave way; but Timur pursuing them, took part of their baggage, and a great number of their women and children.

The King, after this victory, hunted, for a days, upon the banks of the Gang, and then returned to Agra. He appointed Zeman, one of the posterity of Timur, for he was the son of Budeli ul Zeman Mirza, of Balich, governor of the city, and, in the year 935, marched himself to survey the country. He first took the route of Gualier, and viewed there the fortifications, the stone elephant, and the place of the Raja. He then visited the gardens of Rehim, and ordered some flowers and plants, of an uncommon kind, to be transplanted to Agra. He went to worship in the great mosque, built by the Emperor Altumsh, for whose soul he ordered prayers to be read, and returned, by another way, to Agra”. (pp. 115-16)

It appears that Ferishta’s accounts are correct and in conformity with the details of the Baburnama. Ferishta does not mention that many pages were missing in Khankhana’s Persian translation of Babur’s Memoirs. He narrates Babur’s pursuit of Afghan leaders, i.e. Bāyazid, Biban, etc. After initial success against them, Babur hunted, for a few days, upon the banks of the ‘Gang’ and then he returned to Agra. Here ‘Gang’ is in the sense of a general river, which is Sarayu in the present context. The missing pages, at present, are immediately after the hunt plan. Nevertheless, Ferishta informs that thereafter Babur returned to Agra and thus made no visit to Ayodhyā. He mentions the name of Timur (i.e. Chin-timur Sl. of Baburnama) as Babur’s general but does not mention the name of Mir Baqi or Baqi Shaghawal, as he was a petty troop-commander. After appointing Zeman, a descendant of Timur the Governor of Agra Babur marched himself to survey the country and visited the Gwalior palace of the (Hindu) Raja and the mosque built by the Emperor Iltutmish. All these accounts are in conformity with the details of the Memoirs of Babur and hence they are trustworthy. One should remember that Ferishta wrote the history within a hundred years of Babur’s death and it carries a lot of credibility. Thus, the missing pages do not allow the flight of imagination to Ayodhyā or the demolition of a temple or the construction of a mosque by Babur in the holy city.

(11) Babur’s second expedition against Bāyazīd in 1529 A.D.

After a lapse of 11 months on 23rd May, 1529 i.e. 15th day of the month of Ramzan one again finds the specific information of another expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban. On that day Babur marched from Kundbah (or Kundih) on the Sarayū river with a resolute mind to crush the traitors Biban and Bāyzid. After two night-halts by the way, Babur dismounted at a passage across the Saryu called Chupra-Chaturmuk on May 25, 1529 and sent a strong contingent to bar the river crossing of Bāyazīd and Biban. On the same night he faced a devastating storm which brought Babur’s tent down. Although Babur was unhurt, his books and manuscripts were drenched under rainwater. Babur could not sleep because he remained busy until the dawn with drying drenched documents.

On 26th morning he crossed water and on 27th May, 1529 he rode out to visit Sikenderpur and Kharid. On the same day he received Abdullah Kitabdar and Baqi’s letters informing him the capture of Lucknow by the enemy. Next day, i.e. on 28th May Babur dispatched Sultan Junaid Barlas and other commanders to join Baqi as reinforcement.

Thereafter Kuki was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Baqi. Then on 29th May, permission to join Baqi was given to Sb. Junaid Barlas and others. It appears that Baqi had been made the leader of the expedition against Afghan rebels this time.

On 30th May, 1529 Babur marched from Chapara-chaturmuk passage along with the Sarayū and after crossing 10 kos dismounted on the Sarayū in a village called Kilirah near Fathpur. But Beveridge writes in Babur-nama that ‘there seems to be no Fathpur within Babur’s limit of distance’ and therefore she suggests Nathpur which suits the context and is mentioned as a pargana in Ayin-i-akbari and is now in the Azamgarh district.

(12) Confirmation of the news of the capture of Lucknow Fort under Baqi by Bāyazīd

On 31st May, Babur marched at dawn and got into a boat named Asaish. On the way he got the confirmation of the capture of the Lucknow fort by Biban and Bāyazīd. Babur wrote thus on the subject:

“On the way up, Khalifa brought Shah Muhammad diwana’s; son who had come from Baqi bringing this reliable news about Luknur: They (i.e. Bìban and Bãyazìd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramzan (May 21st) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay and thorns in the fort took fire,so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (tanurdik afsan); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the Fort was lost. When the enemy heard, two or three days later,)of our return (westwards), he fled towards Dalmau.” (p. 681).

The capture of the Lucknow Fort which was under Baqi’s command by Bāyazīd and Biban was a big jolt to Babur who never forgot this defeat, nor did he forgive Baqi for this humiliation.

On the same day, Babur after crossing 10 kos dismounted at a place beside Jalisir on the Sarayū bank in the Sagri pargana. Beveridge identifies it with Chaksar, which was in Akbar’s sarkar of Manikpur and is now in the Rai Bareilly district. Dr. Trinath Mishra, an ex-IPS officer of the U.P. Cadre, has suggested that Sagri pargana is in Azamgarh district and Manikpur is situated on the bank of the Ganga and not on the Sarayū.

After staying there for one day Babur left the place and after marching 11 kos he crossed the Sarayū river and camped on its bank.

On 2nd June, 1529 A.D. he summoned several Begs and directed many of them to go in rapid pursuit of Biban and Bayzid. The march against them continued.

At night he enjoyed the catching of fish in the Sarayū river. On 3rd June Babur dismounted on the bank of a very slender stream which was the head-water of a branch of Parsaru.

Thereafter, on the 4th June he crossed the Tus river, a stream of the Sarayū river and stayed there for two days.

After celebrating the Id festival on 7th June there in the morning he rode on and after marching 10 kos he dismounted at a place on the bank of the Gomati river. It was at a distance of one kos from Maing located in Sultanpur district.

After marching 11 kos Babur crossed the Gomati river and dismounted on its bank on 9th June.

(13) Babur’s anger against his commanders

On 9th June, 1529 Babur was angry with his Sultans and Begs because though they had reached Dalmau, yet they had not crossed the river Ganga. Angered with the delay he sent a very emphatic order to cross the water at once and follow the track of the rebels and get to grips with the adversary. He portrayed it thus:

“Angered by this (delay), I sent orders, “Cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jun (Jumna) also; join ‘Alam Khan to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary.” (P. 684)

Babur continued the march and wrote in his Memoirs:

“(June 10th) After leaving this water (Gumti, Friday 4th) we made two night-halts and reached Dalmud (Dalmau), where most of the army-folk crossed Gang, there and then, by a ford. While the camp was being got over, majun was eaten on an island (aral) below the ford.”

On 10th June Babur left the Gomati bank and after two night halts he reached Dalmau, where most of the army-folk crossed the Ganga by a ford.

(14) Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur

On 13th June Babur wrote:

“After crossing, we waited one day (Monday 7th) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me:”

In this narration many historians find the proof that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Ayodhyā or at least the Commander of Mughal Army there. But it only signifies that he had come with the army which had been engaged in Oudh to annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban.

On 14th June Babur left Dalmau and after marching 22 kos and making one night halt on the way he dismounted beside Kurarah (Hura Khas) on the Arind water on 15th June. Next day, i.e. 16th June Babur marched early from that ground and dismounted opposite Adampur pargana. Beveridge locates Adampur on the right (west) bank of the Yamunā. Since the encamping place was full of dust Babur settled on an island and stayed there for several days.

On the same day 16th June, Babur sent Baqi Shaghaval with a few braves of the interior to get information of the enemy.(Bāyazīd and Biban). Next day i.e. on 17th June, 1529 one of Baqi Beg’s retainers came in and informed that Baqi had beaten scouts of Bāyazīd and after having killed one of their good men, Mubarak Khan Jalwani, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.

On 18th June 1529 A.D. Babur’s location was on the bank of the Jamuna river. On the night of 18-19th June there was a sudden flood in the Yamunā and by the dawn the whole of the island, where Babur was settled, was under water. Therefore, he moved to another down-stream place, which was at an arrow’s flight distance and settled there.

(15) Babur dismisses Baqi who is never heard of again

On 20th June Babur learnt that Bāyazīd and Biban had fled to Mahuba pargana, now in the Hamirpur district, after learning Babur’s expedition. On 20th June Babur ordered the Sultans and Begs of the expedition to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra. But he summarily and unceremoniously dismissed Baqi and the army of Awadh under him engaged in expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban for his utter failure.

The following is the account of the day’s events in Babur’s diary:

“Jalal Taskandi came from the begs and sultans of the advance. Shaikh Bãyazìd and Bìban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahuba.

As the rains had set in and as after 5 to 6 months of active service, of horses and cattle in army were worn out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya). Also an allowance of 30 laks from Amroha was assigned to Musa (son) of Maruf Farmuli, who had waited on me at the time the returning army was crossing the Saru-water, a special head-to-foot and saddled horse were bestowed on him, and he was given his leave.”

Thereafter, Babur set out for Agra.

Here it is important to note that Beveridge herself in the ‘Index Personal’ writes at the end ‘leave given him for home 685’. (p. 742), whereas in the main text she translates:

‘...leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya).’

Thus, in the main text she has omitted ‘for home’. Erskine has, however, translated this sentence as “I gave Baqi Shaghawal and his party leave to go home.” Erskine’s translation is apt and is supported by the addition of ‘home’ in the Index of the Beveridge’s translation. Wheeler M. Thackston has translated it as “Baqi Taskandi came with the Oudh army that day (i.e. 13th June, 1529 A.D.) to pay homage.” and “That afternoon (i.e. 20th June, 1529 A.D.) Baqi Shiqavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.” Here the translation is very clear and suggests that Baqi came with Oudh army and he along with the Oudh army was dismissed. It was not the army of Ayodhyā as added by Beveridge and Prof. Irfan Habib. It is not clear whether Baqi was dismissed from the expedition or from service but he was never heard of again.

This fact has been overlooked by historians with the result that Baqi, who was sent to Taskind for ever, continued to govern at Ayodhyā and build a mosque. After his leave, Baqi is never seen in the Babur-nama also. However, a fact in contrast is that while granting leave to two officers Musa and Baqi simultaneously, Babur assigned an allowance of 30 Lakhs and gave a saropa and a saddled horse to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, whereas Baqi was left high and dry. It also indicates that Baqi had fallen from grace and had been summarily dismissed on account of his initial failure at Lucknow.

Had Babur given any direction earlier to build any mosque at Ayodhyā with or without demolishing a temple, Baqi would have gladly informed Babur in his visit on 13th June, 1529 A.D. and Babur must have mentioned it in his diary. Had Babur directed Baqi to build a mosque on 20th June, 1529 at the time of Baqi’s departure, this could have found mention in his diary. Since there is no mention of any direction given for construction of any mosque in his diary, Babur had no role to play either in the demolition of a temple or the construction of any mosque at Ayodhyā.

The factual narration of the course of Babur’s expedition cited above ends many misconceptions among students of history. It is proved beyond doubt that neither Babur nor Baqi ever visited Ayodhyā. In fact, they had no reason or occasion to visit it.

There is a general impression that since Babur’s diary is not available between 3rd April, 1528 and 17th September, 1528, there is no mention of the construction of the mosque in his diary. Here one should remember that as per the fake inscription, Baburi mosque was built in 935 A.H. Hijri which started on 15th September, 1528. So, there is a gap of only three days in the year 935 A.H. in his diary. The period from 2nd April, 1528 to 14th September 1528 was a part of the Hijari year 934 and not 935.On 18th September, 1528 when his diary begins again he was in his court at Agra. On 20th September, he left for Gwalior. Thus, he was not in the vicinity of Ayodhyā during this period. Therefore, the contention that the demolition of a temple and construction of the mosque is not mentioned in Babur’s diary because of the missing pages is not correct, as only three days of the diary are having missing accounts for the Hijri year 935 during which the mosque could not be claimed to have been constructed by Mir Baqi.

Despite Babur’s resolution to annihilate Biban and Bâyazîd, they continued to evade during Babur’s reign. Only during the Humanyu’s reign Biban and Bâyazîd were killed at the battle of Daurah near Lucknow in September, 1537. Bâyazîd’s survival against the insurmountable might of Babur is really amazing. It was largely due to huge wealth placed at his disposal by his bhabhi, after her husband’s death, who was the daughter of the avaricious Awadh Governor Muhammad Farmuli. In Tārika-i-Sher Sāhi the author Abbas Khan Sarwani provides the following information about Bāyazid:

“When Miãn Mustafa died, he left behind a young daughter who was known as Mihr Sultan. Bîbî Fath Malka was a very able woman. She had given education to Bãyazid who was the younger brother of Miãn Mustafa. She told him to employ soldiers and that she would give money for it. Miãn Bãyazîd collected a huge number of followers with this money and accomplished many notable deeds. On several occasions he had fought with the forces of Firdaus Makãnî (Bãbar Bãdœãh) and Jannat Âúyãni (Humãyûn Bãdœãh) and had come out victorious11b. The names of Miãn Biban and Bãyazîd had thus become well-known”. (p. 252)

11b. E. & D. (IV, p. 354) have translated here: “and greatly distinguished himself, gaining several victories over the troops of the emperor Bãbar.”

Bāyazid had stood behind Mahmud Lodi solidly but in the battle at Daurah during the reign of Humayun he fought in a very inebriated condition and consequently he was killed. Nevertheless, Bāyzid had defeated Babur’s troops earlier, particularly at Kannauj and Lucknow where Mir Baqi had led the expedition.

In conclusion, it may be said with certainty that Babur had no occasion or reason to visit Ayodhyā. Then how could he demolish a temple and build a mosque at Ayodhyā? It was absolutely impossible.

(16) Babur never issued any sanad for the disputed mosque

Babur had not issued any Farman or Sanad in favour of the socalled Baburi mosque. The claim that the Emperor Babur had issued sanad of land grant for the maintenance of the Baburi mosque is bogus, as it is not testified to by the scrutiny of the firmans issued by Babur. Prof. S.A.I. Tirmizi, who was Director of National Archives of India, has written a book ‘Mughal Documents’ published from Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi in 1989. The first volume relates to the period from 1526-1627. It is a very well-documented book.

(17) Four Farmans issued by Babur

In the first volume, on pages 44 and 45, he has published the documents during the period of Babur (1526-1530). For the sake of authenticity the entire content is quoted below:

(i) 13 Zilqada, 933 A.H./11 August 1527 A.D.

1. Farman of Babur addressed to the revenue officials, confirms the grant of mauza Sahrgul Pindori (sic) pargana Vatala, yielding revenue of 5,000 tanka-i-siyah per annum in favour of Jalal, Qazi of the said pargana as Suyurghal. Instructs officials not to harass the grantees on account of mutawajjihat, malujihat and asks them not to demand fresh Farman or parwancha every year.

On the top of the document are (a) sarnama Huwal Ghani (b) Unwan Farman-i Zahirud Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi and (c) round dynastic seal. On the reverse are endorsements of the officials and the round seal of Zainud Din Khwafi, the great dastur and sadr. (IHRC, XXXXVI, Pt. II. 1951, pp.51-52).

(ii) 8 Rabi I, 934 A.H./2 December 1527 A.D.

2. Farman of Babur addressed to the diwans of Muhammad Sultan Bahadur, confirms village Auhadpur, tappa Haveli, qasba Fathpur Sandi with jama of 800 tanka-i-siyah and 250 bighas of land in the vicinity of the said qasba in favour of Qazi Abdud Daim, son of Ilhadad. The grantee is to realize the hasil there of as before and enjoy it as madad-i maash. He is not to be troubled on account of mal, jihat, ikhrajat and dhonka sali, or passi. (TKTB, p.144, IESHR, IV, 1967, p.220).

(iii) Rajab, 936 A.H./25 March 1530 A.D.

3. Sale-deed executed by Maulana Fathullah Abdullah and Piyare, sons of Ahmad, in favour of Miran Sayyid Nizamuddin for selling the right of milk khoti over 20 biswas of land in village Papri khurd, tappa Haveli, khitta Shamsabad at a price of 700 current tanka-i Adl Sikandari and in consideration of annual payment of 300 tankas.

The document bears tughra of Qazi Ismail as also signatures of the witnesses (IESHR, IV, 1967 pp.220-21).

(iv) Muharram 937 A.H./July-August 1530 A.D.

4. Farman of Babur addressed to the amirs, wazirs, shiqdars and mutasaddis of sarkar Tatar Khan, etc., confirming Qazi Abdul Halim, son of Qazi Abdus Samad, and his brothers in possession of the land and wazifa previously granted to them by the sanad of the Sultan Ibrahim and the tauqi of Sultan Sikandar, instructs them not to bother them with taufir, ushr, daroghana and shiqdarana and to exempt them from the payment of mal, jihat, ikhrajat and all the takalif-i diwani and lavazim-i-sultani. Asks them not to harass the grantees by demanding fresh Farman and parwancha and to honour the tauqi when it reaches them. The Farman was issued from the capital of Agra. (OCM, May 1933, p. 119).

(18) Farmans confirmed by him

In addition, Prof. Mehboob-ul Hasan in his book ‘Babur: Founder of the Mughal Empire in India’ has produced two farmans which were confirmations of the earlier grants made by the Lodi Kings. They are produced verbatim from the book.

(i) Another “Farman dated 24 Zul-qaad, 933/12 August, 1527, is in the Aligarh Muslim University Library. It was conferred as madad-i-mash the village of Doodraha, near the town of Mathurā on Qazi Husain, who was to enjoy the income of the village for his support. He was exempt from land tax and other imposts. The officials were ordered not to harass him, nor to demand from him a new Farman or parvancha every year. The Farman bears the seal of Babur. Inside is the name Zahirud-din Muhammad Babur and outside are the names of Babur’s paternal ancestors up to Timur. This Farman was also a confirmation of the grant made by the Lodi Kings.”

(ii) Another “Farman or parvanch was issued to Qazi Abdul Halim, the son of Qazi Abdul Samd, and is also a confirmation of the Farman given to him by Sultan Sikandar. By this Farman the Qazi was given the revenues of a number of villages for his support, and he was exempted from all taxes. Besides, no one was to harass him or ask him for the renewal of the Farman every year. No details of the villages granted to the Qazi are given in the Farman; not does it bear any date, except that it was issued from Agra in the month of Muharram.”

Thus, it is clear that Babur had issued four original Farmans and in addition, confirmed two earlier land grants. He had not made any land grant to the Baburi mosque. Since Babur had no role to play in either demolition of any temple at Ayodhyā or construction of any mosque thereafter, he was not involved in issuing any land grant to the Baburi mosque for its maintenance. It was the outcome of forged documentation, misinterpretation and interpolation. The fact of the matter is that in the post- 1857 revolt period Rajab Ali and Muhmmad Asghar received a cash nankar of three hundred two rupees, three annas and six paise from the British Government for providing the information on the designs of the enemies of the British Government and that was deliberately related to the Sanad issued by Babur, Awadh Nawab and the British Government.

(19) Several interpolations in revenue records

There are interpolations galore in the documents on the dispute of the shrine. In the settlement report of 1861 A.D. there are many tamperings and interpolations. But the most dishonest forgery is the interpolation of व जामा मस्जिद (wa jama masjid) after the original recording of आबादी जन्मस्थान under column no. 2. Since there was no space, it has been inserted below it and has disturbed the entire symmetry of the entries. The variation in the hand-writing and the crude construction of the sentence are the testimony to later insertions of the said words of ‘wa’ ‘jama masjid’. Moreover, in the second settlement of 1301 Fasli i.e. 1891-92 A.D. there is no mention of the Jama Masjid and it confirms the interpolation in the settlement report of 1861 A.D.

The matter had been enquired into by the District Magistrate of Faizabad who in his letter no. अ.शा.पत्र सं.324/ एस. टी./राजभू/ 94 dated 24th November, 1992 had attached a detailed report, a part of which is quoted below:

''अयोध्या में मौजा कोट रामचद्र के प्रथम बन्दोबस्त १८६१ के खाते में भूखण्ड संख्या-१६३ की प्रविष्टियों की छान-बीन की गई। उक्त के स्तम्भ संख्या-२ में उर्दू में घजमा मस्जिद आबादी जन्म स्थानच लिखा हुआ है।

घजमा मस्जिदच शब्द स्तम्भ-२ में आबादी शब्द के ऊपर आधे स्तम्भ में लिखा गया है। यदि लिखने का आशय घआबादी जमा मस्जिद जन्म स्थानच होता, तब आबादी शब्द जमा मस्जिद के पहले होना चाहिए था। इस बात से यह जिज्ञासा होती है कि क्या शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच तथा शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच तथा शब्द घआबादी जन्म स्थानच दोनों एक ही क्रम (सिक्वेन्स) में लिखा गया है अथवा भिन्न सिक्वेन्स में लिखा गया है। इस जाँच के क्रम में जिल्द बन्दोबस्त १८६१ में यह देखा गया कि किन गाटों के सम्मुख घजमाच तथा घमस्जिदच कहाँ-कहाँ लिखा गया है। सामान्यतः नामान्तरण की प्रविष्टियों को छोड़कर पूरे जिल्द बन्दोबस्त की मूल प्रविष्टियाँ एक ही व्यक्ति के द्वारा लिखी होनी चाहिए। उपरोक्त जिल्द बन्दोबस्त में खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ के खाना कैफियत में शब्द घजमाच तथा खाता आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ के सम्मुख अंकित शब्द घमस्जिदच के लेखों की ओर विशेषज्ञ का ध्यान आकृष्ट कराते हुए उनसे यह राय देने की अपेक्षा की गई कि उपरोक्त खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ में अंकित शब्द घजमाच तथा खतरा आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ में अंकित शब्द घमस्जिदच तथा खतरे की भूमि गाटा संख्या- १६३ के स्तम्भ-२ में अंकित शब्द घजमा मस्जिदच में समानता है अथवा भिन्नता। इस बिन्दु पर विशेषज्ञ की राय से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि जिस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने खाता खतौनी संख्या १, २, ६ एवं खतरा आबादी संख्या १३ व ४७ में शब्द घजमाच मस्जिद लिखा है, उस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने गाटा संख्या १६३ के स्तम्भ-२ में उर्दू शब्द घजमाच एवं घमस्जिदच को नहीं लिखा है। इस प्रकार जिल्द बन्दोबस्त १८६१ में एक ही शब्द भिन्न-भिन्न स्थानों पर भिन्न-भिन्न व्यक्तियों द्वारा लिखा गया है।''

The District Magistrate had obtained the expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The relevant portion of this report is quoted below:

''उक्त जिल्द बन्दोबस्त में खाता खतौनी संख्या १,२,६ एवं खसरा आबादी संख्या- १३ व ४७ में विद्यमान शब्द घजमाच व घमस्जिदच नमूना लेख बतौर है।

२-उपरोक्त सभी को परीक्षा इस प्रयोगशाला में वैज्ञानिक रीति से किया गया, परिणाम निम्न प्रकार है

जिस व्यक्ति/व्यक्तियों ने खाता खतौनी संख्या- १,६ व ६ के कैफियत के खाने में विद्यमान उर्दू शब्द घजमाच को लिखा है उसने गाटा संख्या-१६३ के स्तम्भ २ में उर्दू शब्द घजमाच नहीं लिखा है।

उपरोक्त तीनों लेखों की लिखावट एक दूसरे से भिन्न है।''

उस नानकार को जबतक कि मस्जिद जिसके वास्ते ये नानकार दी गयी थी बरकरार है। हसबे शरायत, दर्ज जैल कायम फरमाते हैं।''

Thus, it is clear that the addition Jama Masjid was an interpolation in the revenue records. Like fake inscriptions these records, too, are forged and fabricated documents.

It appears that Mir Rajab Ali and his sons Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Asghar were residents and petty zamindars of the village Shanwah. In the 1861 settlement report of village Shanwah vide Had Bast no. 571 the village has been shown as Khalasa (government) and his sons have been shown as pattidar and under the prevailing revenue system inherited from the Mughal and Nawab governments they were, as pattidars, entitled to nankar in the shape of nankar/muafi land in the same village. It appears that Mir Rajab Ali had assisted the Britishers in the 1857-58 revolt; so they bestowed many favours on his family. Even though they could not furnish any documentary evidence to the British Government, they succeeded in claiming that during the period of Awadh Nawabs they were getting an annual grant of Rs. 308 annas 3 and paise 6 as nankar and muafi from the village Shanwah. The British Government made the cash payment till 1863-64 but thereafter they commuted it into a conditional muafi land grant. By 1870 A.D. the revenue-free land grant with superior proprietary rights was bestowed on M. Afzal Ali and M. Asghar in the villages of Sholapur and Bhuharnpur.

(20) The land grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque

This conditional grant was in lieu of certain services to be rendered by the family of Mir Rajab Ali. It had nothing to do with the maintenance of the Baburi mosque. The Urdu content quoted by the Waqf commissioner is his interpolation. Had it really been related to the maintenance of the mosque; this revenue-free right should have been in relation to the land of the Ram Kot where the mosque was situated or in its close vicinity.

However, the Waqf commissioner Faizabad in his report has written:

“It appears that in 935 A.H. Emperor Babar built this mosque and appointed Syed Abdul Baqi as the mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque (vide clause 2 statement filed by Syed Mohammad Zaqi to whom a notice was issued under the wakf Act.) An annual grant of Rs. 60/- was allowed by the Emperor for maintenance of the mosque and the family of the first mutwalli Abdul Baqi. This grant was continued till the fall of the Moghal Kingdom at Delhi and the ascendancy of the Nawabs of Oudh.

According to Cl. 3 of the written statement of Mohammad Zaki Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan, King of Oudh increased the annual grant to Rs. 302/3/6. No original papers about this grant by the king of Oudh are available.”

From this report it appears that Syed Abdul Baqi built the Baburi mosque and he was made the mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque and was given an annual grant of Rs. 60 for the maintenance of the mosque and the family of the first mutwalli Abdul Baqi. Babur had given 1 krur 48 laks and 50 thousand tankas to Bāyazīd on the latter’s calling on the Emperor. On 20th June, 1528 when Baqi Tashkindi was sent home on leave or dismissed Babur had given an allowance of 30 laks to Musa, son of Maruf Fazmuli. But Abdul Baqi, who is identified with Mir Baqi, the Governor of Ayodhyā, was given a paltry amount of Rs. 60 for the whole year to maintain both the mosque and the family of the Governor. Mir Baqi was never the Governor of Ayodhyā and even if it is supposed that he was a Governor, could a liberal Babur give him Rs. 60 per annum to maintain the mosque and his family? It is ridiculous. Then the Waqf Commissioner, on the testimony of Syed Mohammad Zaqi wrote that the first Awadh Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan increased this annual grant to 302 rupees, 3 annas and 6 paise. However, even the Waqf Commissioner admits that ‘no original papers about this grant by the King of Oudh are available.’ But he has not recorded the fact that since the reign of Babur no sanad ever existed. The Waqf Commissioner further added in his report.

“After the Mutiny, the British Government also continued the above grant in cash upto 1864, and in the latter year in lieu of the cash grant, the British Government ordered the grant of some revenue free land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur. A copy of this order of the British Government has been filed by the objector Syed Mohammad Zaki (vide Flag A). This order says that ‘the Chief Commissioner under the authority of the Governor General in Council is pleased to maintain the Grant for so long as the object for which the grant has been made is kept up on the following conditions’. These conditions require Rajab Ali and Mohammad Asghar to whom the sanad was given, to perform duties of land holder in the matter of Police Military or political service etc.

The object mentioned above is elucidated in the Urdu translation as follows:

Thus, the original object of the state grant of Emperor Babar and Nawab Sa’adat Ali Khan is continued in this Sunnad by the British Government also, i.e. maintenance of the mosque. The Nankar is to be enjoyed by the grantees for so long as the object of the grant, i.e. the mosque is in existence.”

The following is the full text of the alleged ‘Sunnud’ issued in favour of Rajub Ally and his son Asghar:

“Chief Commissioner

It having been established after due enquiry that Rajub Ally and Mohamed Usgar received a Cash Nankar of Rs.302/3/6 Rupees three hundred and two, and annas three and six pies from Mouzah Shanwah Zila Fyzabad in rent free tenure under the former Government. The Chief Commissioner under the authority of the Governor General in Council is pleased to maintain the tenure Grant for so long as the object for which the grant has been made is kept up on the following conditions. That they shall have surrendered all sunnuds title deeds, and other documents relative to the grant.

That they and their successor shall strictly perform all the duties of land-holders in matters of Police and any Military or Political service that they may be required of them by the Authorities and that they shall never fall under the just suspicion of favouring in any way the designs of enemies of the British Government. If any one of these conditions is broken by Rajub Ally or Mohamed Usgar or their successors the grant will be immediately resumed.”

Here it is important to note that in old English the verb “to resume” means “to take back.”

A copy of the original sanad is placed at the end of this chapter.

From an analytical study of the above Sanad the following points emerge:

(i) It was not issued for the maintenance of the Baburi mosque at Ayodhyā.

(ii) It was issued in continuation of the former government’s issuance of Nankar in favour of an individual belonging to Mouzah Shanwah Zila Faizabad.

(iii) It was issued for the performance of duties in matter of police, and an intelligence (?) (torn) or political service which was required of the grantee by the Authorities. In addition, he was not supposed to favour designs of enemies of the British government in any way.

(iv) If any of the conditions were broken by the grantee, the grant was to be revoked.

(v) It was to last as long as the object of its grant was kept with imposed conditions.

(21) Conclusion

Thus, it is clear that this grant had nothing to do with the maintenance of the mosque. However, the Waqf Commissioner in his report dated 8th February, 1944 arbitrarily changed its object by fraudulently inserting the following Urdu text:

"उस नानकर को जबतक कि मस्जिद जिसके वास्ते से नानकार दी गयी थी बरकरार है। हसबे शरायत, दर्ज जैल कायम फारमाते है"

It is not found in the original ‘sunnad’. In P. N. Mishra’s opinion this “service grant was given for helping the Britishers to defeat and rout the freedom fighters.” After 1857 revolt the Britishers were in need of the collaborators who could provide intelligence against those freedom fighters who were making plans to free the motherland from the yoke of servitude. Here it is important to remember that Mangal Pandey, the famous freedom fighter, who ignited the 1857 revolt, was born at Surhurpur near Faizabad, although many claim that he was a native of Nagwa village in Balia District. Encyclopaedia Britannica corroborates the view that he was born near Fyzabad.

According to this report the above cash grant of Rs. 308 and slightly more continued upto 1864 and then the British Government changed it into revenue-free land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur with certain conditions. In 1864 the British Sanad was issued in favour of Rajab Ali and his son. Abdul Baqi was made Mutwalli in the year 1528 A.D. and Rajab Ali, alive in 1864 A.D., was the son in law of Husain Ali, who was the grandson of Abdul Baqi. Thus, between Abdul Baqi and Rajab Ali, only three generations had passed in a span of 336 years. This incredulous genealogy should have been properly scrutinized and discarded by our historians and legal luminaries for the sake of objectivity and fairness. Blind acceptance of incredible family tree for such a long period shows lack of proper appreciation of historical evidences.

Besides, many established historians have given a picture that since most of the Hindus supported the Britishers during 1857 revolt, the British Government made many favours to the Hindus. It is far from truth. The intensity of the revolt in the entire Oudh province was immense and both the Hindus and Muslims participated in this first war of independence with equal zeal and dedication. However, many rulers supported the British Army. But the fact of the matter is that before the British take-over of Oudh, both Hindus and Muslims used to offer puja and namaz in the disputed shrine and when the Britishers were at the helm of governance, the Hindus were deprived of this tradition and they were directed to perform puja outside at a chabutara. It was gross injustice to the Hindus based on iniquitous decision.

Similiarly, Babur, who never visited Ayodhyā, nor did he ever order the demolition of any temple or construction of any mosque in the holy city, has been facing the accusation for last two hundreds years without any historical reality. The present author has tried his best to place all historical facts on record. It is for readers to decide. The following sane saying of Francis Bacon in his book ‘Advancement of Learning’, which is quoted below, has been the author’s inspiring guideline :

“It is the true office of history to represent the events themselves, together with the counsels, and to leave the observations and conclusions thereupon to liberty and faculty of every man’s judgement.”



Chapter Eight

Aurangzeb’s ascendancy to the throne led to the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā

[(1) Dara Shukoh’s introduction to Tarjumã-i-Joga-Vãsishta (2) “Storia do Mogor” of Niccolo Manucci (3) Jesuit Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s account (4) Accounts of the French scholar C. Mentelle published in 1801 A.D. (5) People’s perception at the time of Buchanan’s visit (6) A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical Vol. 2, 1842 (7) Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875 (8) Accounts of William Finch (9) Joannes De Laet’s book (10) Accounts of Thomas Herbert (11) Sahifa-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadurshahi (12) Mention of Saif Khan in the interpolated portion of Buchanan’s inscription (13) Genealogy in the Buchanan’s inscription (14) Hadiqa-i-shuda of Mirza Jan (15) Muraqqa-i-khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami (16) Tarikh-i-Awadh (Hissa Doyam) of Allama Muhammad Nazamul Gani Khan Rampuri (17) Avadha-vilãsa of Lãladãsa (18) Dvyāśraya Kãvya of Hemachandra Sùri (19) Inscription of Bhãva-Brihaspati in the Bhadrakãlì Mandir near Somanãth temple (20) Sridhara’s Veraval inscription in the vicinity of Somanãtha (21) Description of Somanath by Abul Fazl. (22) Mosques built during Aurangzeb’s period (23) Fedai Khan, the iconoclast (24) Conclusion]

It is an irony that despite the fact that Joseph Tieffenthaler, the first person to mention the existence of the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā, wrote that Aurangzeb (according to some, Babur) demolished the Ram Kot and built a mosque thereon, it is called Baburi mosque. Even during Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā in 1813-14 the people’s perception was that Aurangzeb destroyed the Rāma Mandir at Ayodhyā, though he was beguiled by a factitious inscription to believe and decree that it was built by Babur. Now it is examined here how Aurangzeb and not Babur was responsible for the demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque.

(1) Dara Shukoh’s introduction to Tarjuma-i-Joga-Vaśishta

Aurangzeb had a very special reason to demolish all temples related to Rāma. His bete noire Dara Shukoh had written in 1656 A.D. an interesting introduction to the Persian translation of the famous Sanskrit work ‘Yoga-Vaśishtha’ Rāmāyana under the title ‘Tarjuma-i-Joga-Vashishta’. In this introduction Dara mentions that he had a dream wherein Rāma had embraced him warmly and affectionately, and given some sweets which he ate from Rāma’s hand. To a religious bigot like Aurangzeb it must have looked a confirmed case of apostasy, as Rāma appeared assisting Dara in his endeavour to occupy the throne by blessing him and feeding him sweets – a sign of celebration in victory.

The following excerpt is quoted from Dara Shukoh’s introduction to the Persian translation of the ‘Yoga-Vāśishtha’ called ‘Tarjuma-i-Joga-Vashishta’:

“When I had gone through the Persian translation of this book (the Joga-Vashishta), which is attributed to Shaikh Sufi, I saw in a dream two dignified figures of calm appearance, one of them standing on a higher level than the other. I was drawn involuntarily to their presence… and Vashishta with great affection and graciousness placed his hand on my back, and said: ‘Rama, here is an earnest seeker of knowledge, and a comrade (lit. brother) of yours in true search of the Reality; embrace him’. Ramchandra held me in his embrace with great warmth and love. Then Vashishta gave to Ramchandra some sweets which I ate out of his hand. After having seen this in dream my desire to have this book translated became greater than ever; and one man from among my servants was appointed to translate this work. This translation was completed under the supervision of the Pandits of Hindustan.” (pp. 116-17, Dr. K.R. Qanungo’s book ‘Dara Shukoh’.)
Therefore, after the brutal murder of Dara Shukoh in 1659 A.D. and ultimate success in the succession war, Aurangzeb might have diverted his attention to Ayodhyā, the birthplace and capital of the ideal king Lord Rāma. Fedai Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s foster brother and favourite on account of Fedai’s unflinching support to him in the war against Dara and his worthy son Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also.

(2) ‘Storia do Mogor’ of Niccolo Manucci

A contemporary independent literary source, which indicates the demolition of Ayodhyā shrines, is the account of Niccolo Manucci. Manucci was an Italian, who came to India in the year 1656 A.D. He fought in the succession war at Samugarh in favour of Dara Sukoh. After the defeat of Dara he was in the service at Jaswant Singh’s court for many years. Thereafter he joined the court of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. After a few years he took to the profession of a Vaidya. He had very intimate knowledge of Mughal court happenings. He died in India in 1710. He wrote his diary meticulously and it was first published under the name of ‘Storia-do-Mogor’ (The Story of the Mughals) in the year 1837, by the Government of Ceylon.

The following two excerpts from his book are very valuable in the Ayodhyā context:

(1) “In this realm of India, although King Aurangzeb destroyed numerous temples, there does not thereby fail to be many left at different places, both in his empire and in the territories subject to the tributary Princes. All of them are thronged with worshippers; even those that are destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited for the offering of alms. (Vol. 3, p. 244, London, John Murray, published for the Government of India, 1907)

(2) “The chief temples destroyed by King Aurangzeb within his kingdom were the following:

Maisa (? Mayapur),

Matura (Mathura),

Caxis (Kashi),

Hajudia (Ajudhya),
and an infinite number of others ; but, not to tire the reader, I do not append their names.” (ibid, p. 245)

From the account of Manucci it is clear that Aurgangzeb had demolished temples at Ayodhyā. In fact, Manucci is the contemporary historian who confirms that temples of Ayodhyā were demolished by Aurangzeb. Since Manucci had very intimate knowledge of the developments in the empire, his account confirms that temples at Ayodhyā were demolished by Aurengzeb’s order. Manucci has named only four places where chief temples were demolished and Ayodhyā is one of them. Therefore, it is a certainty.

In Manucci’s account another very significant point is that despite the demolition of temples, the Hindus were thronging the demolished sites which they were worshipping reverentially and where they were giving alms in charity. Thus, the Hindu tradition that even after the demolition of temples the sites retain their sanctities and therefore they are always objects of worship is confirmed by the testimony of an independent witness.

(3) Jesuit Father Joseph Tieffenthaler

The strongest evidence in support of the fact that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma comes from a book of geography written by an impartial observer, a Jesuit Father, Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Ayodhyā in circa 1770 A.D. The following detailed account of Joseph Tieffenthaler quoted in the book ‘The Modern Traveller’ published in 1828 from London is the clinching evidence in favour of this fact:

“The modern town extends a considerable way along the banks of the Goggrah, adjoining the new city of Fyzabad, which, during the government of Sujah-ud-Dowlah, was the seat of the Court. “Its appearance, in 1770, is thus described by Tieffenthaler: “Avad, called Adjudea by the learned Hindoos, is a city of the highest antiquity. Its houses are, for the most part, only of mud, covered with straw or with tiles; many, however, are of brick. The principal street, running from S. to N., is about a league (mille) in length; and the breadth of the city is somewhat less. Its western part, as well as the northern, is situated on a hill; the north-eastern quarter rests upon eminences; but, towards Bangla, it is level. This town has now but a scanty population, since the foundation of Bangla or Fesabad; a new town where the Governor has established his residence, and to which a great number of the inhabitants of Oude have removed.’ On the southern bank of the Deva (or Goggrah), are found various buildings erected by the Gentoos in memory of Ram, extending from east to west. The most remarkable place is that which is called Sorgodoari, that is to say, the heavenly temple; because they say, that Ram carried away from thence to heaven all the inhabitants of the city. The deserted town was repeopled and restored to its former condition by Bikramajit, the famous king of Oojein. There was a temple here on the high bank of the river but Aurungzebe, ever attentive to the propagation of the faith of Mohammed, and holding the heathen in abhorrence, caused it to be demolished, and replaced it with a mosque with minarets, in order to abolish the very memory of the Hindoo superstition. Another mosque has been built by the Moors, to the east of this. Near the Sorgodoari is an edifice erected by Nabalroy, a former Hindoo governor.
But a place more particularly famous is that which is called Sitha Rassoee, the table of Sitha (Seeta), wife of Ram ; situated on an eminence to the south of the city. The emperor Aurungzebe demolished the fortress called Ramcote, and erected on the site, a Mohammedan temple with a triple dome. According to others, it was erected by Baber. There are to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five spans in height, which occupied the site of the fortress. Twelve of these columns now support the interior arcades of the mosque: the two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor. They tell us, that these columns, or rather these remains of skilfully wrought columns, were brought from the Isle of Lanca or Selendip (Ceylon) by Hanuman king of the monkeys.
On the left is seen a square chest, raised five inches from the ground, covered with lime, about five ells in length by not more than four in breadth. The Hindoos call it Bedi, the cradle; and the reason is, that there formerly stood here the house in which Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram, and where also, they say, his three brothers were born. Afterwards, Aurungzebe, or, according to others, Baber, caused the place to be destroyed, in order to deprive the heathen of the opportunity of practising there their superstitions. Nevertheless, they still pay a superstitious reverence to both these places; namely, to that on which the natal dwelling of Ram stood, by going three times round it, prostrate on the earth. The two places are surrounded with a low wall adorned with battlements. Not far from this is a place where they dig up grains of black rice changed into little stones, which are affirmed to have been hidden underground ever since the time of Ram. On the 24th of the month Tshet (Choitru), a large concourse of people celebrate here the birth-day of Ram, so famous throughout India. This vast city is only a mile distant from Bangla (Fyzabad) towards the E.N.E. On the high bank of the river is a quadrangular fortress with low round towers. The walls are out of repair, and it is unfurnished with inhabitants. Formerly, the governors of the province resided here. Saadut Khan, frightened by an evil augury, transferred the government to Bangla. It is now completely destroyed.
From the place where the guns are planted to Oude, a distance of two miles, the Goggrah flows in an easterly direction, making a double elbow; one near the western part of the city, the other at a short distance westward: turning then towards the N.E. by E., it washes the city of Oude; after which it returns to an easterly course, near the northern part. But it changes its course almost every year. Its channel is equal in breadth to that of the Danube, near the citadel of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, but the volume of its waters is not so great. During the rainy season, it extends to a great width, so that, in some places, it is above a league and a half across.
“Bangla or Fesabad was founded by Saadut Khan, after he had abandoned the city of Oude. A Persian by origin, he was for more than forty years governor of this province. He built a palace, planted an excellent garden in the Persian taste, and fixed his residence here. By degrees, this place became a large town. The present governor, his grandson, (Sujah-ud-Dowlah,) adorned it with numerous buildings, after the English had restored it to him in 1765, with the whole province. He also enlarged the market place, which was before confined, and strengthened the fortress with a fosse, round towers, and a rampart.”

Between three and four miles from Fyzabad, on the southern bank of the Goggrah, there was a remarkable place planted with bushy trees, of which Tieffenthaler gives the following account:

“It is seated upon a hill somewhat steep, and fortified with little towers of earth at the four corners (of the enclosure). In the middle is seen a subterranean hole, covered with a dome of moderate dimensions. Close by is a lofty and very old tamarind-tree. A piazza runs round it. It is said that Ram, after having vanquished the giant Ravan, and returned from Lanka, descended into this pit, and there disappeared: hence, they have given to this place the name of Gouptar (or Gouptargath), You have here, then, a descent into hell, as you had at Oude an ascension to heaven.” As the scene of many of the leading events in the great epic poem of the Ramaynna, Oude might be expected to abound with spots of traditional sanctity.

In view of the detailed analysis on Tieffenthaler’s account in Chapter XI only relevant points for this chapter are being discussed below:

(i) Aurangzeb demolished the fortress of Ram Kot which covered vast area.

(ii) Aurangzeb constructed a masjid with three domes at the same place, although some believed that it was done by ‘Baber’.

(iii) Fourteen black stone pillars were in the building; twelve supported the interior arcade and two others formed part of the tomb of a certain Moor (Muslim).

(iv) These pillars were reportedly brought by Hanuman from Lanakā.

(v) There was a cradle (Bedi) which was a square box 5 inches above the ground measuring 5 ell in length i.e. 5×45 inches 225 inches which comes to 18 ft. 9 inches and 4 ells, i.e. 15ft. in width. Some translations erroneously mention 5”×5”×4.”

(vi) At this Bedi Lord Vishnu was born as Rāma, along with his three brothers.

(vii) Devotees go around (make pradakshinā) the birthplace of Rāma three times and prostrate on the floor.

(viii) On the Rāma Navamī festival there is a big mela to celebrate the birth day of Rāma, which is famous in the whole of India.Tieffenthaler was an eyewitness to the then prevailing situation at the disputed site at Ayodhyā. He was an impartial witness. He has written that Aurangzeb demolished Ram Kot within which was situated the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi, and built a mosque on the same site. This account of Tieffenthaler is a clinching evidence that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb after demolishing Ram-Kot. It is a historical fact which he was aware of. However, some people were under the impression that it was the work of Babur and he honestly mentioned it. How Babur’s name was associated with this mosque has been separately discussed in Chapter IX.

The first mention of the demolition of Ram Kot castle and construction of a mosque thereon is made by Joseph Tieffenthaler who visited Oudh during 1766-71 and significantly he mentions that it was Aurangzeb who constructed the disputed mosque.

(4) Accounts of the French scholar C. Mentelle published in 1801 A.D.

The fact that during the reign of Aurangzeb many temples of Ayodhyā including the Svargadvar temple were demolished by the order of Aurangzeb is confirmed by an unexpected corner i.e. the writing of a French scholar published in 1801 A.D.

The following French text has been taken from “Courses of Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History” divided in 125 lessons. It was prepared by C. Mentelle, Member of the National Institute, and delivered by him at the Central School of Four Nations. Volume III contains Geography and History of Asia, Africa and America. It was published by Chez Bernard, Bookshop of the Engineering School, 31 quai des Augustins, Paris, in1801.

“9°. Province d’Aoud, ou Avad.

Cette province, située au N. de la précédente, est de forme très-irrégulière. Elle a environ 64 lieues de PO. à l’E.; et 56, du N. au S. Les rivières principales sont le Gange et le Gagra , qui coule dans le même sens que le Gange, et y porte ses eaux.L’air y est généralement très - bon; les chaleurs et les froids y sont à-peu-près de la même durée. Les blés, toutes sortes de grains, le riz, le gibier, en sont très-estimés. Les montagnes qui la bornent au N., sont couvertes de forêts ou se trouvent beaucoup de tigres d’une grosseur extraordinaire, des bufles sauvages, des rhinocéros, des éléphans, etc.

AVAD , appelée aussi chez nous Aoude et Oude, et que les Indiens lettrés nomment Adjudea, sur le Gagra, es* une ville de la plus haute antiquité; aussi est-ce dans cette ville que l’on place les dix incarnations de Vischnou , dans la personne de Ramgi , dont le père étoit souverain d’Avad. Les Indiens y viennent de très-loin en grand pélerinage. Il n’y a que quelques maisons en brique ; les autres ne sont que de limon couvert de paille.

Encore Avad est-elle bien tombée depuis la fondation de Faisabad, tout près au N.O., ou se tient le gouvernement de la province.

Il y avoit autrefois à Aoud un édifice appelé le Temple Céleste , d’ou l’on disoit que Ram ou Ramgi avoit enlevé au ciel tous les habitans de la ville. Cet édifice et plusieurs autres ont été détruits par ordre d’Aureng-Zeb, comme servant à maintenir un culte superstitieux.”

The English translation of the relevant portion of this text made available to us by Satyan Jha of Sorbonne University, Paris IV, Paris is produced here:

“Province Aoud, or Avad

This province, located to the north the previous shape is very irregular. It has about 64 miles S.W. to E., and 56 N. S. The main rivers are the Ganges and the Gagra, which flows in the same direction as the Ganges and its water. The air is usually very good, the heat and cold are at nearly of the same duration. The wheat, all kinds of grains, rice, gram, are much esteemed. The mountains that bound it to the north, are covered with forests where many tigers of extraordinary size, wild buffaloes, rhinos, elephants, etc.

Avad, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indians name it Adjudea (अयोध्या)is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the bank of the river Ghaghra (घाघरा) and we consider that the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramji, whose father was the King of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage.

In those days at Ayodhya there was an edifice called the Celestial Temple, from where it is said that Ram or Ramji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of the city. This temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Aurangzeb as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).

Mentelle refers to the Svargdvāra temple at Ayodhyā and adds that this temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Aurangzeb as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).”

Here it is important to note that Svargadvar and Treta Ka Thakur temples were built during the regime of the Gadhawal Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries. An inscription of King Jayachandra of this dynasty relating to the Treta Ka Thakur temple was found and mentioned by Anton Fuhrer in his report. It is accepted by almost all scholars including Hans Bakker that these two temples were demolished by Aurangzeb’s order. Now the riddle remains why would the Muslim marauders who demolished Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā in 1528 A.D. leave these two temples unmolested, when they were standing just at a very short distance from it? The simple answer is that all the three temples were demolished by the same set of iconoclasts and they were none other than the marauders of Aurangzeb.

This testimony of C. Mentelle is brought here before the history students in India for the first time. Though Mentelle appears to be an ardent critic of inhuman practices of the Hindus such as cutting their heads or tongues particularly at Devi Patan, yet his writing confirms the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā by Aurangzeb’s order

(5) People’s perception at the time of Buchanan’s visit

Buchanan visited Ayodhyā in A.D. 1813-14. Although on the basis of an inscription, a copy of which was given to him, he refuted the Hindus’ general belief prevailing at that time that all the three prominent temples at Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Mathurā were demolished by Aurangzeb, the fact remains that even around 1810 A.D. Hindus believed and rightly believed that all the three temples at Kāśī, Mathurā and Ayodhyā were demolished during Aurangzeb’s regime.

After great efforts a copy of the survey report in manuscript has been obtained from the British Library, India Office. Buchanan’s original report in manuscript contains the following account:

“Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzeb, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded. The bigot, by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) (drawing N1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurungzeb. This renders the whole story of Vikrama exceedingly doubtful, especially as what are said to be the ruins of his fort, do not in any essential degree differ from those said to have belonged to the ancient city, that is, consist entirely of irregular heaps of broken bricks, covered with soil, and remarkably productive of tobacco; and, from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to suppose that it was a part of the building actually erected by Rama.”
Here it is important to mention that Buchanan himself writes that the mosque at Ayodhyā was by far the most entire, and had every appearance of being the most modern. How can a mosque built in 1528 A.D. be most modern in 1813, i.e. almost 300 years later? Since in Buchanan’s own testimony it is indicated that the mosque was most modern, it may be presumed that it was built around 1660 A.D. instead of 1528 A.D. Again Buchanan’s comment that the mosque was most entire shows his ignorance about the architecture of mosques or his haste in preparing the report. How can a mosque without minarets be called most entire?

Similarly, his knowledge about Vikrama’s time is also very hazy. It appears that Buchanan lacked a sound knowledge of history. Moreover, his observations at times are biased and he may be accused of suppressing facts, e.g. he met the Mahanta of Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā, but he does not mention the Mahanta’s version here.

Very few persons know that Buchanan wrote another book ‘An Account of the Nepal Kingdom’ which was published in 1819 A.D. after his departure from India. In this book, he has twice referred to the opinion of the Mahanta of the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā.

On page 15 of the book he writes:

“Concerning the colony from Chittaur I received another account, from the Mahanta, or prior of the Janmasthana at Ayodhya. He alleges that Chaturbhuja, a prince of the Sisaudhiya tribe, having left Chittaur conquered Kumau and Yumila, where he established his throne,”

Again on page 287 he writes:

“It was said by the Mahanta of the Janmasthana at Ayodhya that they first settled in the Almora country….”

Here it is surprising that though Buchanan had intimacy with the Mahanta of the Janmasthāna, yet he has not quoted a single word of the Mahanta in his report on Ayodhyā. Had he done so, his report would have carried more conviction.

Besides, there is a lot of confusion about Buchanan’s survey report and M. Martin’s published account. When Robert Montgomery Martin submitted the survey reports before the Court of Directors of the East India Company in February 1838, he made the following observation about the Buchanan’s survey in the introduction of the report:

“During a period of seven years the survey was sedulously pursued by Dr. Buchanan, and then brought to a close, after an expenditure of about 30,000/- and when only a portion of the territories under the government of the Bengal Presidency were investigated. The materials collected and the observations made were forwarded by the Supreme Government to the home authorities in 1816 and have since remained in the East India. On my completion of the Marques’s Wellesley’s Dispatches, I asked and obtained permission to examine the manuscripts connected with this survey; that examination convinced me that a judicious selection from the documents and information collected would be extremely valuable, by placing before the British Public a minute and official description of the condition of the mass of the people; while it would also tend to promote such further inquiries in India as will, I trust, enable us ere long to obtain a complete insight into the social state of the millions of our fellow subject by whom it is inhabited.”
In 1838 Martin published the book ‘The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India’ which included the edited version of Buchanan’s report and an additional survey report of Assam. But Martin did not give Buchanan explicit credit for his surveys. Therefore, many scholars are confused and they quote Buchanan’s report as that of Martin. It is really surprising that an avid reader and sound research scholar Hans Bakker never refers to Buchanan when he quotes from Martin’s book. Similarly, Prof. Sushil Srivastava is unaware of Buchanan’s survey when he takes excerpts from Martin’s book. In addition, readers are unaware of the original and edited portions in Martin’s book. The Bihar and Orissa Research Society separately published Buchanan’s original reports on Patna, Bhagalpur, Purnea and Shahabad districts but his report on Gorakhpur district, which includes Ayodhyā, is still lying in the manuscript form in the British Library, India House in London. For the sake of authenticity, a copy of the original report of Buchanan lying in the manuscript form was obtained by me from the British Library and it is found that there is little difference between the Buchanan’s manuscript and Martin’s published text on Ayodhyā. But Martin has omitted the copies of the two inscriptions given to Buchanan along with their translation and the interesting addition of the copier. In addition, ‘The Map of the Ruins of Ayodhyā’ prepared under Buchanan’s supervision is missing.

(6) A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical Vol. 2, 1842

This Gazetteer was written J.R. M’Culloch, ESQ, and published from London in 1842.

“Oude, a town of Hindostan, in the above prov. and kingdom of which it was the former cap; on the Gogra across which an iron bridge, the materials having been brought from England is said to have been recently thrown 74 mile E. Lucknow; Lat. 26048’ N. Long. 8204’ E. It extends a considerable distance along the banks of the river, stretching as far as Fyzabad. It is said by Hamilton to be tolerably populous; but except along the river’s brink, it consists wholly of ruins and jungle, among which are the remains of various celebrated Hindoo temples. Hindoo pilgrims still visit Oude; and did so in great numbers, until Aurangzebe demolished most of their places of resort. A mosque erected by that monarch, and 2 tombs, greatly venerated by mohammedans are now the principal and almost sole remaining public edifices. ( Mod.Trav. ix, 312-315)”
After the publication of Buchanan’s report on Ayodhyā in M. Martin’s book ‘Eastern India’ in 1838 all subsequent writers on Ayodhyā started associating Babur’s name with the construction of this mosque. This Dictionary is, however, one exception. When M’culloch says that a mosque erected by that monarch is the principal and almost sole remaining public edifice, he means the mosque at Rāma-Janma-bhūmi because the grand Svargadvārī mosque built by Aurangzeb had been badly damaged long before that time by Bairagi Sadhus, and it was in such a bad shape that Buchanan did not even take notice of it in 1813-14. From M’Culloch’s Dictionary it is indicated that no demolition had taken place before Aurangzeb’s reign. It attributes the construction of this mosque to Aurangzeb.

(7) Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875

This tradition of attributing the demolition to Aurangzeb did not die completely. The esteemed Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1875) refers to a photograph of a mosque built at the Janma sthāna by Aurangzeb. This photograph was forwarded by Ram Narayan along with his English translation of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya which was published in the Society’s Journal in 1875 A.D. In the Proceedings of the Society it is mentioned in the following words that this photograph had been exhibited:

“The translation will appear in No. II of Part I of this year’s Journal. Four photographs forwarded by the author were also exhibited, viz., views of the Mosque which Aurangzib built upon Rama’s birthplace, of the Maniparbat, Svargadvar, and of an old Mosque in Faizabad.” (pp. 138-39)

From this proceeding it is clear that Ram Narayan had sent four photographs which included one that showed ‘the Mosque which Aurangzeb built upon Rāma’s birthplace’. Thus, it appears that till 1875 A.D. the tradition, which believed that the mosque on Rāma’s birthplace was built by Aurangzeb and not by Babur, did not die.

(8) Accounts of William Finch

Finch visited the Ram Kot of Ayodhyā in 1610 A.D. He found the ruins of the castle and houses of the great God Ramchandra who took the incarnation to see the ‘tamasha’ of the world. In ruins Brahmans used to remain and record the names of devotees. There was no trace of the Baburi mosque during his visit which took place in the time of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. From the accounts of William Finch it is clear that the temple existed there and the mosque had not been built till 1610 A.D. His accounts have been quoted in Chapter IV of this book.

(9) Joannes De Laet’s book

Joannes De Laet’s book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’ was published in 1631. It is an authentic travel account. De Laet mentions the palace of Rāmachandra ‘who took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world’. It means that Rāmachandra was born there. He refers to the ‘worshipping of the idol’ in the vicinity. It shows that until 1631 there was no mosque in the Ram Kot area and the people were worshipping the idol of Lord Ram there.

(10) Accounts of Thomas Herbert

Herbert was a celebrated traveller. His book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ was first published in 1634. Thomas Herbert worte that there were many antique monuments at Ayodhyā and especially memorable one was the pretty old castle built by Rāmachandra about 9,94,500 years ago. There was no mention of any mosque until 1634 in Ram Kot area. If the temple in the Ram Kot area remained intact until the reign of Shah Jahan, it may reasonably be presumed that it was demolished during the rule of Aurangzeb.

(11) Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi

On account of the book ‘Hadiqe-i-Shuhada’, written by Mirza Jan, who quoted 12 lines from Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi, people get carried away that it is mentioned in Sahifah-i-chahal that Babur demolished the temple and constructed the mosque on the site of Rāma’s birth. However, a scrutiny of the writing in this book indicates that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple at Ayodhyā but nowhere it is mentioned that the temple was demolished by Babur; rather the tenor of the text suggests that it was demolished by Aurangzeb because the temples at Mathurā, Varanasi and Awadh are mentioned in a similar vein. Since Mirza Jan gave the credit of the demolition of the mosque to Babur in his own book; the ghost of the demolition further clung to Babur.
‘Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi’ is a fake text said to have been written by an unnamed daughter of Bahadur Shah ‘Alamgir’, the son and successor of the mighty Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. Twelve lines from this book on the disputed shrine have been quoted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’. Mirza Jan claims to have found a copy of the book on 11th July, 1816 A.D. (15th Shaban, 1231 A.H.) which was lying in the library of Mirza Haydar Shukoh, son of Mirza Sulayman Shukoh. He claims to have copied the following passage verbatim from the original book written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir I:

IBĀRATI NASĪF, AT-I BIST-O PANJUM AZ SAHIFAH-I CHIHAL NĀSA’IH-I BAHĀDURSHĀHI KI BA-TĀRÍKH-I PÍNZDAHAM SHA’BĀN 1231 HIJRI NAQL SHUDAH DAR KUTUBKHANAH-I MIRZĀ HAYDAR SHUKOH IBN MIRZĀ SULAYMĀN SHUKOH DĀKHIL SHUD AZ KITĀB-I MADHKŪRAH NAQL KARDAH SHUD:

“Bādshāhān ulu ‘I- ‘azm rā tazim ki… ghalabah-ī dīn-o Islām malliūz dāshtah hamah mushrikān rā matī-I Islām dārand, wa az akhdh-I jizyah ki bar kuffār-i fujjār ijrā’ yāftah ast dar mah guzarand, wa jamī rājgān rā az hukm-i ihdār-i roz-i īdayn wa piyādah istādah māndan bairin-i masājid ki dar ma’milah-i khud-hā ba-farmān-i bādshāhī sākhtah and tā inqidā-i namāz-o khu’tbah mu’afnah dārand. Wa mu’abid-hā-i mushrikīn-i Hunid wāqi’-i Mathurā wa Banāras wa Awadh waghayrah rā ki kuffār-i nābakār ba-i’ tiqād-i khud-hā jā rā mawladgāh-i kanhaiyā wa maqma-ī rā Rasoi-i Sītā wa makān-ī ra qarārgāh-i Hanumān qarār dādah and wa mī-giyand ki ba’d fath-i Lanka Rāmchandar Hanumān rā dar ān jā nishānīdah ast mismār gastah barā’i taqwiyyat-i Islām dar ān hamah jā masājid ta’mīr shudah and, ān masājid rā az jum’ah-o jamā’at khālī nah dārand, chumān-ki qadghan ast ki rasm-i butparastī ba-i’tān nah shawad wa sadā-i nāqus ba-gosh-i ahl-i Islām nah rasad.”

(Sahīfah-i Chihal Nasā’ih-i Bahādurshāhī, quoted in Mirzā Jān, Hadīqah-i Shuhadā, p. 6)

The Persian text in Roman transliteration and the English translation of the passage are from Harsh Narain’s article: “The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Urdu and Persian Sources” in the book “Ayodhyā : History, Archaeology and Tradition” published by All India Kashiraj Trust, Varanasi. The erudite scholar’s translation is as follows.

Keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exemption to Hindu Raja-s from dancing attendance on ‘Id days and from waiting on foot outside mosques till the end of prayer (Namaz) and discourse (Khutobah), and ‘keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built to strengthen Islam after demolishing temples of idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Varanasi and Awadh, etc., which the wretched Kafir-s have, according to their faith adjudged to be the birthplace of Kanhaiya in one case, Sita Rasoi in another, and Hanuman’s abode in a third and claim that after conquest of Lanka Ramachandra established him there. And, as has been stressed, idol-worship must not continue publicly, nor must the sound of bell reach Muslim ears. (p. 318)
This evidence is of dubious nature. Bahadur Shah I, the son and successor of Aurangzeb, ascended the imperial throne after the death of Aurangzeb. But he never declared himself to be Alamgir, although he himself called a ‘Ghazi’. He had one daughter whose name was Dahr Afroz Banu Begum who expired on 25th January, 1703 during the reign of Aurangzeb at the age of 40 only. It is intriguing to learn that Mirza Jan read the book ‘Sahifah-i Chihal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi’ and quoted profusely from it in his own work Hadiqa-i-Shuda but did not mention the name of the daughter of Bahadur Shah who has been called Alamgir. Mirza Jan further claims that he had seen this book in the year 1816 A.D. (1231 A.H.) in the library of Mirza Hyder Shukoh who was the son of Sulaiman Shukoh. Sulaiman Shukoh is a historical figure who was a very brave and handsome son of Dara Shukoh and fought heroically in the war of succession in favour of his august father Dara Shukoh. He had been married to the daughter of Raja Jai Singh’s sister in 1653 A.D. His one daughter by the name of Salima Begum was married to Prince Muhammad Akbar in June 1662 and another daughter was married to Khwajah Bahauddin in 1668 A.D. Sulaiman Shukoh had two daughters and no son. He had been captured alive on December 27, 1660 and was slowly poisoned to death in May, 1662. Therefore, Mirza Hyder Shukoh is a fictitious person. Even if it is hypothetically supposed that Sulaiman Shukoh had any son by the name of Mirza Hyder Shukoh, he must have been born before December 1660, when Sulaiman was captured and kept in captivity. Therefore, it is not possible for Hyder to live until 1816 A.D. when Mirza Jan utilized his library. Besides, the fact is that Sulaiman Shukoh had no son.

The following is the genealogy of Sulaiman Shukoh.

Thus, Sulaiman Shukoh had no son and hence Mirza Jan’s claim is contradicted completely by historical facts. Here it is important to note that even if Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasaih Bahadurshahi is accepted as a genuine book, the information received is that three temples at Mathurā, Kāśī and Ayodhyā were demolished. Since Ayodhyā has not been separated from the other two, it may be presumed that it was razed to the ground by the order of the same emperor, i.e. Aurangzeb Alamgir. He is the ideal ruler Sahifah-i-chahal is referring to, as he had imposed the Jazia tax on the Hindus and subjected them to the utmost rigours. Though the book was fictitious in nature, yet Prof. Harsh Narayan is of the opinion that the book remained in circulation in the nineteenth century because another writer Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Sarur (1787-1867) in his book Fasana-i-Ibrat, written in 1860 circa but published first in 1884, writes:

“And in the Sahifah-i Bahadurshahi it has come to be described in detail with reference. “Whoever may choose may look into it.” (Ayodhya History, Archaeology and Tradition, p. 319)

Since Sarur claims in his book that he is in the direct lineage of Musa Ashiqan, it appears that he was the person who fabricated the fanciful story of this fictitious saint on the inscription supplied to Buchanan’s translator.

(12) Mention of Saif Khan in the interpolated portion of Buchanan’s inscription

It is interesting to learn that Buchanan, who had seen only one inscription in the mosque, got the translation of five texts from his friend. But he made no query, as he was in a hurry to complete the survey. In segment six of the inscription there is a fanciful story of Saif Khan and Musa Ashiqan. The latter is said to have been betrothed to the daughter of the vazier of Saif Khan credited to have blessed Babur to become the Emperor of Hindustan and then instigated the King to get the Rāma temple demolished and a mosque constructed on that site. It is stated in the interpolated portion that Musa Ashiqan was betrothed to the daughter of the Wazir of Prince Saif Khan. The following four Saif Khans are known to Mediaeval Indian History:

(i) Saif Khan Koka – He was born during the period of Akbar and died at a very young age of 18 in 1572 A.D. Thus, he could not be the preceptor of Babur.

(ii) Saif Khan Saiyid Ali Asghar – He was a favourite noble of Emperor Jahangir. Therefore he, too, could not be a contemporary of Babur.

(iii) Saif Khan Mirza Safi – He was married to the sister of Mumtaz Mahal who has been immortalized by her husband Shah Jahan with the construction of the world-famous Taj Mahal. Thus, he, too, could not be the mentor of the Mughal monarch Babur.

(iv) Saif Khan, son of Tarbiyat Khan, was the favourite of Aurangzeb. When Dara Shukoh and his son Sipihr Shukoh were brought to Agra in the 2nd year of Aurangzeb’s reign, Saif Khan was commissioned to put Dara Shukoh to death, and this was effected on 30th August, 1659. Next day, he conveyed Sipihr Shukoh to the fort of Gwalior by the order of the Emperor. On return, he was appointed the Governor of Agra in 1659. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Awadh and these two cruel Governors combined to demolish temples at Ayodhyā including the shrine at the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi. This Saif Khan, too, might have been partly instrumental in the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā. Therefore, the name Saif Khan might have been conected with this episode.

(13) Genealogy in the Buchanan’s inscription

Genealogy on the second page of the inscription given to Buchanan is as follows:

“The victorious lord, Mooheyooo Din, Aulumgir, Badshah, the destroyer of Infidels, the son of Shah Juhan, the son of Juhangeer Shah: the son of Ukbar Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah, the son of Babur Shah; the son of Oomar Sheikh Shah; the son of Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohammad Shah; the son of Meeran Shah, the son of the Shaib-i-Qiran Meer Tymoor.”

Had it been written during Babur’s reign, the genealogy would have ended with Babur’s name. Since it has continued till the reign of Aurangzeb, the natural presumption will be that either it was written during the reign of Aurangzeb or the writer had the knowledge that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s time. Even if it is supposed that it was added on the eve of Buchanan’s visit in 1813 14, this Mughal genealogy should have come upto 1813-14 when the Mughal King Akbar II was reigning. Since it did end with the name of Aurangzeb, it may well be presumed that even the copier had the impression that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb.

(14) Hadiqa-i-shuda of Mirza Jan

In 1855-56 Mirza Jan wrote a book ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’ wherein he claimed thus:

और राम दरबार की मस्जिद फिदाई खाँ सूबेदार की बनाई थी जिसको काफिरों ने यहाँ तक सताया है कि एक दो मिनारी और मुत्तहूदी दीवार अलग कर दी है; बल्कि अमजद अली शाह के वक्त में उसकी तामीर का हुक्म भी हुआ था मगर उसकी मौत फी मोहलत जुल की फुर्सत मुदई यह हसरत साथ कही गयी और किले की मस्जिद कि बालफाल किला लच्छमन महन्त को मुआफ हो गया है और मस्जिद को भी गोशा खुमार में मकान हो गया है। वहाँ सदर मुसलबा खान मीर से वह महन्त ने फिर ले ली। ऐसी मस्जिदों का हाल, जो कब्जा अख्त्यार हनूद में हों, जाहिर है।

The mosque of Ram Darbar was built by Fedai Khan. It has been damaged by the infidels who have torn the two minarets and the wall. During the days of Amjad Ali Shah, orders had been issued for its reconstruction. But with his sudden death, he took this wish along with him, while the Qila Masjid was given to the Mahant of the Qila as muafi. The mosque has been converted into a house. The possession of mosques under the Hindus is well-known.

Svargadvāra temple is called the Rāma-darbar by the Urdu writers of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, from this testimony of Mirza Jan it is known that Fedai Khan, the Governor of Awadh had demolished the Svargadvar temple and constructed a mosque thereon. Fedai Khan was the fauzdar/subedar at Ayodhyā during 1658-62 and 1670-72. His full name was Fedai Khan, Azam Koka. He was the foster brother of Augangzeb and his great favourite. It was he who had blocked the march of Sulaiman Shukoh near Haridwar and succeeded in preventing Sulaiman from joining his father in 1659 A.D. He was also assigned the task of chasing Shuja in the east. Again, he was made the Governor at Ayodhyā in 1670 A.D. It appears that he demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D. Since the Svargadvar temple was the most magnificent, it is specifically named and other temples are clubbed together. It has been argued earlier that had the Janma-sthāna temple been demolished in 1528, there was no reason to keep the Svargadvar temple unmolested then because it stood at a short distance from the Janma-sthana temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militia men of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D.

(15) Muraqqa-i-khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami

The writing of Mirza Jan was followed by subsequent Muslim authors. Sheikh Muhammad Azmat Ali Kakoravi Nami wrote Muraqqa-i-khusrawi in 1869 A.D. Its one chapter is relevant and some extracts are produced here:

और राम दरबार में मस्जिद फिदाई खाँ सूबेदार ने बनायी थी, इस्लाम की बुनियाद जमायी थी और उसके मुत्तसिल एक टीला था। राजा राम चन्दर ने वह मुकाम हनुमान अपने रफीक को बसिला फतह लंका दिया था।च

फिर मस्जिद बाबरी में, जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी, शिर्कत की ऐलानिया पूजा होने लगी। मुन्तजम चाँदी के जूते खाके सरंगों हुए। किसी ने खबर न की। पहले तो शेख अली हजी का कौल मुवाफिक हुआ था-

बिबी करास्ते बुतखाना ए मरा ऐ शेख।

कि चूँ खराब शवद खाना ए खुदा गर्दद।।

फिर इन्कलाब फलक से ऐसा जमाना हुआ कि मस्जिद तोड़ के बुतखाना हुआ। यहाँ जफलत का पर्दा ऐसा आँखों पर पड़ा कि किसी को न सूझा।’’

And Fedai Khan Subedar built a mosque at Ram Darbar and strongly laid the foundation of Islam there. There was a mound opposite to it. King Ram Chandra, being pleased with the conquest of Lanka, bestowed it upon his loyal friend Hanuman.

Then in the Baburi mosque, where there was Sītā Rasoi, started the worship openly. Officers, after taking bribe (silver shoes) , became their loyal servants. No one took notice. First the saying of Shaikh Ali Haji was true to the situation—“The butkhana on the way that was considered a bad place became the abode of God!”

Thereafter, a drastic change occurred—mosques were pulled down and temples were constructed there. But there was a veil of neglect on our eyes and we remained in slumber.

Now from this observation in the book it is clear that the Hindus had started worship in the so-called Baburi mosque openly for long and the officers were siding with the Hindus allegedly after taking bribe. The Muslims were negligent and no one took its notice and they remained in slumber till 1855 A.D.

(16) Tarikh-iAwadh (Hissā Doyam) of Allama Muhammad Nazamul Gani Khan Rampuri

In Tarikh-i-Awadh (Hissa Doyan) of Allama Muhammad Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859-1932 A.D.) the following extract is quite relevant:

‘‘जब इन्तहा को दर्शन सिंह की हकूमत पहुँची तो अजोध्या में कई बरस तक अजान और गावकुशी बन्द रही। शायद अहद हकूमत मुहम्मद अली शाह में फिर अजान की रस्म जारी हुई और गावकुशी भी बदस्तूर रही हो।

अल गर्ज यहाँ तक हंगामों की नौबत आयी कि सिवाए मस्जिद मुंहदिमा हनुमान गढ़ी के मस्जिद बाबरी जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी, इसके सेहन में भी हिन्दुओं ने बुतखाना बनाया और मस्जिद वाक्या रामघाट दरया को भी खराब करके इसके सेहन में अपने मस्कन बनाये। मस्जिद में कूड़ा डालने लगे और मुसलमानों की सैकड़ों कब्रं तोड़कर इऔटों और पत्थरों से बड़ी शान व शौकत के बुतखाने बनाये।

Translation:

During the rule of Darshan Singh no Azaan was ever held and the cow-slaughter was stopped. Perhaps during the reign of Muhammad Ali Shah the Azaan and cow-slaughter were allowed.

At last, the tussle went to such an extent that except the mosque adjacent to Hanuman-garhi, the Hindus made Butkhana even in the corridor of the Baburi mosque where Sītā Rasoi existed. The Hindus damaged Ram Ghat mosque also and in its corridor constructed a temple. They started placing garbage in the mosque and constructed magnificent temple from the bricks and stones after digging hundreds of graves of the Muslims.

After Galata conference in 1718 A.D. Rāmānandi Bairagis became so active that they recovered most of the temples alienated to the Muslims or Saiva saints. P. Carnegy was astonished to see the new vitality of the Hindu religion. He wrote thus in his famous book on Ayodhyā: “Great astonishment has been expressed at the recent vitality of the Hindu religion at Ajudhia.” P. Carnegy has given details of 203 Hindu sacred places in the Appendix A of his book.

(17) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

Lal Das composed Avadha- vilāsa in Awadh in sa‚vat 1732, i.e. 1675 A.D. He writes in the first Viśrāma:

संवत सत्रह सय बतिस सुदि बैशाष सुकाल।

लाल अवध मधि रहि रच्यो अवध विलास रसाल।।46।।

Lal Das has not directly mentioned the demolition of the Janma-sthana temple, nor even that of the Svargadvar one. The question arises why he has not mentioned the demolition of any temple. There are many reasons for this non-mention. Right from the days of Alexander’s invasion of India, the writers and poets of this continent have seldom mentioned any act of ignominy. Secondly, when Lal Das reached Ayodhyā in 1765 A.D., the demolition of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was a fait accompli. Therefore, he made it prudent not to mention it specifically. Thirdly, Lal Das has made it clear in the beginning of his epic that after due deliberation he is of the opinion that one should not reveal secrets, as wise women do not show their breasts but keep them hidden.

गूढ़हि भली न प्रकासही बानी लाल बिचारि।

जिमि कुच प्रकट न गुप्त ही राखति नागरि नारि।। (I. 35)

Lal Das was aware of the wanton destruction of temples, pundits’ abodes of learning, ponds, wells, etc. during the reign of Aurangzeb and depicted them in the following words:

बापी कूप तड़ाग तुराबै। विप्र ग्रेह देवल भहरावै।। (VI. 253)

In the following lines the poet has given enough indication about the upheaval at Ayodhyā:

सात बरष रह्यो अवधहि माहीं। जानि पाप कीए कछु नाहीं।।

तब मम हृदय भई इह बानी। राम धाम की कथा बखानी।।

मेष राशि भयो शनि दुखदाई। तीरथ शरण रह्यो मैं जाई।।

ग्रह के गुण भयो चित्त विक्षेपा। तातें ग्रंथ यह कीन्ह संक्षेपा।।

जो शनि मोंहि विक्षेप न करतो। तौ कछु बहुत बात मैं धरतो।।

जो न हौं तीरथ सरन रहातो। तौ शनि मोहिं मारि लै जातो।।

जो कोउ तीरथ सरन रहावैं। ताकि बात जमहू न चलावै।।

राम भक्त निर्दोष मन जग सों रहत उदास।

लालदास ता भक्त की तीरथ करत हैं आस।। 390।। (XII. 390)

Though the poet blames the arrival of Saturn (sani) in the Mesha (Aries) rashi for all his woes, yet it may easily be gleaned from these lines that in the wake of the upheaval at Ayodhyā, following the demolition spree of the three important temples at Ayodhyā, the poet had to abandon his plan of composing the epic on a larger scale. He might have come to Ayodhyā with a high hope of composing a large epic and settling there forever. But he had to shorten the epic in the background of those developments. These lines are very important and loaded with a lot of meaning.

ग्रह के गुण भयो चित्त विक्षेपा। तातें ग्रन्थ यह कीन्ह संक्षेपा।।

जो शनि मोहिं विक्षेप न करतो। तौ कछु बहुत बात मैं धरतो।।

On account of the demerit of the Saturn planet which represented Emperor Aurangzeb, the poet was very sad at heart. But for this development, the poet would have inculcated many matters in the epic. The demolition of temples is skilfully indicated by the poet in the previously mentioned depiction. The very fact that in the Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das, only Janma-sthāna and no temple thereon is mentioned indicates that in 1675 A.D. when he composed the Avadha vilāsa, the temple had been demolished and this has been obliquely referred to in the aforequoted chaupais.

In the pathetic wailing of Lakshmī (y{eh&foyki) immediately after the above passage, one is reminded of the pathos of the poet following the heart-breaking acts of demolition at Ayodhyā:

पुनि सब देव गये हरि लोका। लक्ष्मी बैठि करति मन शोका।।

लागत सून भवन बिनु साइऔ। भोग सुंध कछू न सुहाइऔ।।

चितवति रहति कछू नहिं बोलै। विरह लहरि कै परी झकोलैं।।

मन में बहुत हीनता आनी। छीन शरीर भयो पियरानी।।

बैठी ऊंचे लेत उसांसा। कर कपोल चित उड़त अकासा।।

जानैं और पीर नहिं कोई। भई आइ पिय बिछुरत जोई।।

मनहीं मन महि करति बिचारा। पुरुषारथ अब कौन हमारा।।

कछु नहिं कह्यो गए केहुं देसा। आवति है मन माँहिं अंदेसा।।

काधौं भयो केहुं भरमाए। कैसे मोहि तजत बनि आए।।

सदा समीप रहत मोहि लीये। राषत रहे बहुत सुष दीये।।

आजु कहा मन महिं कछु आई। पूछौं काहि कहै समुझाई।।

अस को नारि और जग माहीं। राषैं रोकि आवतै नाहीं।।

अवधविलास (XII. 392)

Though this lamentation is in a different context, yet it lucidly depicts the void created by the demolition.

But the most important factor of the direct non-mention of the demolition of temples at Ayodhyā is the general age-old psyche of the authors of the country.

Here it is remarkable to note that all the references to the demolition of temple at Ayodhyā have been made by foreign dignitaries viz. Niccolo Manucci, Tieffenthaler, Francis Buchanan and C. Mentelle. Even in the Indian texts the demolition of Janma-sthāna temple can be inferred from the fact that wherever there is a mention of only Janma-sthāna or Janma-bhūmi and not of any temple or building, it indicates the state of the non-existence of the temple and construction of the mosque on the demolished site. This is the reason that some recenssions of the Ayodhyā māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das are silent on the subject. It can be easily appreciated when one is apprised of the historical reality that there is hardly a mention of any defeat of Indian rulers since the days of Alexander or demolition of any temple since the shocking sack of the Somanātha shrine. Here I am giving instances of three occasions when the demolition of the Somanātha shrine by the iconoclast Mahmud of Ghazni should have been mentioned but instead a false and self-satisfying explanation was given.

(18) Dvyāśraya Kāvya of Hemachandra Sūri

The Prākrita epic Dvyāśraya Kāvya written by Hemchandra Sūri, one of the greatest literary personalities India has ever produced is, by and large, a biography of the famous Jain King Kumārapāla. He was a great Jain Dharmāchārya and Prime Minister of King Kumārapāla. After ascending the throne in 1143 A.D. when Kumārapāla was free from internal and external strifes within a few years, he asked his guru Hemchandra Suri as to what was the noblest work that he should undertake. Hemchandra Suri suggested that the reconstruction of the Somanātha temple was the most sacred work to be undertaken. Here Hemchandra Suri does not say that it was destroyed by Mahamud of Ghazni. He says that this temple was destroyed on account of the waves of the ocean and, therefore, reconstruction was suggested by him. There was an occasion for Hemchandra Suri to tell him that it was destructed by Mahmud of Ghazni, but he never mentioned this ignominy of the Hindus inflicted by Mahmud of Ghazni. Hemchandra Suri had further advised Kumārapāla that so long as the construction of the temple would continue, he should abstain from meat and wine, and follow brahmāchārya. After two years the new temple was constructed and Hemchandra Suri took him to the sanctum sanctorum of Somanātha, the temple where a new Jyotirliñga was installed. He was present in all religious rites and installed the Jyotirlinaga in the newly constructed Somanātha temple. Hemchandra Suri was known as Kalikāla Sarvajña and this reconstruction took place only 120 years after the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni at Somanātha. Therefore, he was aware of this historical event of great defeat and demoralization in 1026 A.D. when the temple was desecrated and Jyotirlinga was destroyed.

(19) Inscription of Bhāva-Brihaspati in the Bhadrakālī mandir near Somanātha temple

There is an inscription at Pattan Somanātha in the Bhadrakali temple hardly 100 yards from the famous Somanātha temple. The inscription contains 64 lines and it asserts that Bhāva Brihaspati of Vārānasī was always perturbed by the demolition of Somnātha temple and, therefore, he went from Vārānasī to Saurāshtra and met the famous king Jaya Singh Siddharāja and impressed upon him to build a new temple at Somanātha, but before he could undertake the work Siddharāja died. Thereafter, Bhāva Brihaspati met the new King Kumārapāla and requested him to rebuild a new temple at Somanātha. Here also there was an occasion for Bhāva Brihaspati to tell the real reason for the destruction of the temple by Mahmud of Ghazni and his army but he never revealed the real reason for the destruction of the temple when he made his request to Kumārapāla. Rather he informed King Kumārapāla that this temple had decayed because of the negligence of the greedy and ill-conceived ministers and, therefore, he suggested to him to rebuild the temple. Kumārapāla was very happy with this suggestion and he granted the entire village for the maintenance of the family of Bhāva Brihaspati and his descendants.

(20) Śrīdhara’s Veraval inscription in the vicinity of Somanātha

Similarly, there is an inscription from Veraval in the vicinity of Somanātha dated 1216 A.D. It mentions Somanātha and its two temples built by the local Governor Śridhara. It showers praises on the Chālukya dynasty, Śrīdhara and the Śaiva priest of the temple. It narrates the subjugation of a heroic Hammira by Śrīdhara. But nowhere it directly or indirectly indicates the destruction of the famous temple or its restoration. The inscription consists of 51 verses in 40 lines. The two lines, which mention Somanātha in the inscription, are quoted below:

श्रीसोमनाथायतनस्य रेखा भूमेरिवोद्ध्र्वाङ्गुलिरत्र भाति।

अनन्यसाधारणशोभमेतत्पुं पुरारेरिति सूचयन्ती।। (verse 4)

This Somanātha temple is shining like a pointing finger of the Earth and indicates the exceedingly beautiful town of Mahadeva.

(21) Description of Somanātha by Abul Fazl

Abul Fazl has written extensively on Pattan Somanātha and its holy temples but nowhere does he mention that it was destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni, although he mentions Mahmud of Ghazni in connection with the history of the area. The following is the account of Abul Fazl on Pattan Somanātha:

“In the second district is Pattan, a city on the seashore possessing a stone fort. This they call Patan Somnath. It is both a capacious harbour and a town having nine stone towers on the plain, within an area of three kos on the seashore. Good swords are made here, there being a well in the vicinity the water of which gives them a keen edge.

The ports of Manglor, Diu, Purbandar, Korinar, Ahmadpur and Mozaffarabad are about this coast. A spring of the Sarsuti (Saraswati) rises near Somnath. The Brahmanical shrines are numerous, but among these Somnath, Paranchi, and Korinar are accounted among the most sacred. Between the rivers Haran and Sarsuti about 4,000 years ago, 560,000,000 of the Yadu race while engaged in sport and merriment, fell to fighting and all of them perished in that field of death, and wonderful are the legends that they relate. Two and a half kos from Pattan Somnath is Bhal ka Tirath (or the shrine of the Arrow). In this place an arrow struck Sri Kishn and buried itself under a pipal tree on the banks of Sarsuti. This they call Pipal sir, and both these spots are held in great veneration. An extraordinary event occurs at the town of Mul Mahadeo where there is a temple dedicated to Siva. Every year on a certain day before the rainy season, a bird called Mukh appears. It is somewhat smaller than a pigeon, with a coarser beak and pied in colour. It alights on the temple, disports itself for a while, and then rolls over and dies. On this day, the people of the city assemble and burn and white kinds of perfume and from the proportions of black and white in the plumage of the bird, they calculate the extent of the coming rainfall, the black portending rain, the white, drought.”

Here Abul Fazl includes Somanātha temple amongst the most sacred temples but does not mention that it was once destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni, although he mentions Mahmud at several places in the history of this area.

Thus, there were these four occasions when the destruction of Somanātha temple by Mahmud of Ghazni could have been naturally mentioned but it was never done at all.

Etablished historians, who seek direct evidence to the demolition, must reply to the question as to how many ignominious events right from the days of Alexander to the mediaeval period have been described by poets, writers and historians in ancient and mediaeval period? Alexander’s invasion is totally blacked out in Sanskrit and Prakrit literature. In books like the Mudrā-Rākshasa by Viśākhadatta it should have been mentioned by the author but there is not even a hint of Alexander’s invasion and the defeat of some Indian kings like Porus. There is hardly any mention of Mahmud’s invasion and destruction of temples in Sanskrit or any Indian language. The writers might have felt disgusted in mentioning such types of incidents and, therefore, they have avoided, except very few cases where the temples were totally retrieved. The epic ‘Madhurā-vijaya’, composed by the Gangādevī, queen of Kumāra Kampana, son of Bukka Raya I, is one example which was written after the retrieval of the great Madurai temple.

(22) Mosques built during Aurangzeb’s period

Where writings remain mute, pictures speak and speak eloquently. The so-called Baburi Masjid, which had three domes, resembles many mosques which were built during Aurangzeb’s reign at his behest. The following few photographs confirm the fact that the disputed structure was constructed during Aurangzeb’s rule:

Gyān Vāpi mosque built at Vārānasī by the order of Aurangzeb.

It is recorded in Masir-i-Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan that this mosque was built after demolishing the famous Viśvanātha temple at Vārānasī following the general order of Aurangzeb issued on 9th April, 1669 to demolish all temples in the Empire. Mustaid Khan informs that on 2nd September, 1669 news came to the Court that according to Emperor’s command, his officers demolished the temple of Viśvanātha at Benaras. On the same site the present mosque was built and it is still in existence. This mosque with three domes has striking resemblance to the so-called Baburi mosque.

Mosque built at Mathura on the Krishna-
janma-bhumi by Aurangzeb’s order.

Mustaid Khan writes in Masir-i-Alamgiri that in January 1670 which was the month of Ramzan, the religious-minded Emperor ordered the demolition of the temple on the Krishna-janma-bhumi at Mathura which was accomplished by his Officers in a short time, and a grand mosque replaced the Kesava Rai temple constructed by Bir Singh Deo Bundella in Jahangir’s time hardly half-a-century before the demolition. The grandeur of the temple had dazzled the Muslim chroniclers and the construction of the mosque involved a vast expenditure.

This mosque, too, has close resemblance to the so-called Baburi mosque.

Badshahi Mosque at Lahore.

This mosque was built in 1673-74 by Fedai Khan who had earlier demolished the temple of Rama on his birthplace at Ayodhya. An inscription over the entrance gate of the mosque, which is adjacent to the Lahore Fort, testifies to the fact that it was built by Fedai Khan at Aurangzeb’s command. Historically, this information is correct, for Fedai Khan was the Governor at Lahore during this period. Like other Aurangzebi mosques this, too, has three domes which were apparently bedecked with glasses subsequently. This mosque also largely resembles the disputed shrine.

There are many such mosques of Aurangzeb’s time which have three spires and have strong resemblance to the Baburi Masjid.

In contrast, the Panipat mosque, which is claimed to have been originally built at the behest of Babur in 1526 after his historic victory at Panipat, has only one dome and has a design different from that of the so-called Baburi mosque. A picture of the Panipat mosque, which is called Kabuli Bagh mosque also, is placed below:

Panipat mosque built
during Babur’s reign.

I have personally visited all these places except Lahore and compared architectural designs of the mosques. Mosques at Ayodhya, Benaras and Mathura constructed at the command of Aurangzeb have largely similar look.

During the reign of Aurangzeb most of the mosques built at the behest of the Emperor are three-arched shrines. Thus, the photographs of the mosques shown above are conclusive proof that the disputed mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple at the site during the reign of Aurangzeb. Now there should be no doubt about this indisputable historical fact.

(23) Fedai Khan, the iconoclast

Now the question arises as to when it was demolished during the reign of Aurangzeb?

Svargadvāra temple is called Rāma-darbar by many Muslim writers and it is reported that it was demolished by Fedai Khan, the Governor of Aurangzeb. From Masir-ul-Umara, written by Nawab Shams-ud-Daula Shah Nawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai Khan and translated into English by Beni Prasad and H. Beveridge, it appears that Fedai Khan was the Subedar of Awadh from 1658 to 1662 A.D. He was again Governor of Awadh during the period of 1669-71 A.D. The Masir-ul-Umara informs that Fedai Khan distinguished himself during his long service under the Emperor Shah Jahan by his rectitude and trust-worthiness. When Aurangzeb ascended the throne, Fedai Khan was, on account of his fosterage relation, the recipient of royal favours. If further furnishes the following information: “When the King, in pursuit of Dara Shukoh, halted at the garden of Agharabad near Delhi; he was given a drum and sent off with the Amiru i umara Shaista K. to dispose of the affair of Sulaiman Shukoh who had hastened from Lucknow and was seeking to join his father. The Khan (Fedai) went ahead of the Amiru-i-umara to Buriya (?) and learnt that Sulaiman Shukoh wished to go with the assistance of Prithi Singh, the ruler of Srinagar, by the crossing at Haridwar to Lahore. Fedai travelled eighty kos in twenty-four hours and arrived at Haridwar. On account of his arrival, Sulaiman Shukoh was unable to cross and had to go to the hill-country, to Srinagar. Fedai returned to court and obtained leave to go with Khalil Ullah K. who had been appointed to pursue Dara Shukoh. At the time when Aurangzeb came to Qasur with the intention of proceeding to Multan, he was summoned to the presence, and on the death of Iradat K., the subahdar of Oudh, he was made faujdar thereof and of Gorakhpur. After the battle with Shuja and his flight, he was appointed to assist Muazzam K. Mir Jumla and attached to Sultan Muhammad and directed to pursue the fugitive Shuja. When Sultan Muhammad in the very crisis of the struggle with his uncle became vexed by the supremacy of Muazzam K. and joined Shuja and afterwards repented and became an object of ridicule by returning to the imperial army, Muazzam K., in accordance with orders, sent Fedai with a body of troops to take charge of the prince and to conduct him to court. In the fourth year he became Mir Atish (superintendent of artillery) in succession to Safshikan K., and received a robe
of honour.”

Here it is important to note that Iradat Khan died in August 1658 and thereafter Fedai became the subedar of Ayodhyā. Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan furnishes information in Maasir-i Alamgiri that in the fourth year, i.e. 1662 Fedai Khan became Mir Atish i.e. Superintendant of Artillery. Since Dara Shukoh had claimed to have been blessed by Rāma in a dream, he was considered an apostate both by Aurangzeb and Fedai Khan and this was the reason that all the temples of Ayodhyā including that of Janma-sthāna were demolished by Fedai Khan at the behest of Aurangzeb in 1660 A.D. after the brutal execution of Dara Shukoh in August, 1659 and fatally flawed flight of Shuja from Decca on May 6, 1660. Therefore, it appears that when Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh during the period 1658-62 A.D.,the three temples at Ayodhyā were demolished. Had it been done in 1670 A.D. after the general order of Aurangzeb to demolish all temples in his jurisdiction, probably it would have been mentioned in Maasir-i-Alamgiri of Saki Mustaid Khan, as it has been done in case of Viśvanātha temple at Kāśī and that of Keśava Rai temple at Mathurā. Similarly, had it been done during the stay of Lal Das at Ayodhyā between 1667 and 1675 A.D., it would have been very difficult for him to completely ignore it in the Avadha Vilāsa.
The fact that Fedai Khan was the Governor of Awadh after the death of Iradat Khan in August 1658 is confirmed by the exhaustive table 4(a) prepared by M. Athar Ali in his book ‘Mughal India; Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture’ (p. 273). It appears that till April 1660 Fedai Khan was engaged in military expeditions against Shuja. In February 1660 Muhammad Sultan returned to his father’s fold with a fond hope of forgiveness from Aurangzeb. Fedai Khan had been entrusted to escort him to the imperial fort. Khafi Khan informs in Muntakhab-Al Luab that when Fedai Khan reached the court, he was received with royal favours. (Aurangzeb in Muntakhab-Al Lubab by Anees Jahan Syed, p. 153). But after he handed over the custody of Prince Muhammad Sultan to Alah Yar Khan on 26th April, 1660/25th Shabas under the Emperor’s order, he was free from the burden of military expeditions. Thereafter, he had ample time to carry out the instruction of the Emperor in regard to the demolition of shrines at Ayodhyā.

Fedai was a favourite officer of Aurangzeb who was entrusted with the demolition of temples and construction of mosques at the command of the Emperor, as it is gleaned from the following reference of Chhatra-prakāsa written by Lal Kavi.

Fedai Khan, the foster brother of Aurangzeb Alamgir, was a favourite officer of the Emperor who used to assign him important task of demolishing temples and breaking idols. It is clear from a contemporary composition ‘Chhatra-prakāsa’, written by Lal Kavi alias Gore Lāla. He was a family priest of king Chhatrasāla, Raja of Bundelkhand and a brave warrior who accompanied the king in many of his battles. The Bundela king raised the banner of revolt against Aurangzeb so valiantly that Poet Bhūshana wrote ^ शिवा को सराहूं कि सराहूँ छत्रसाल को’] i.e should I praise Sivaji or Chhatrasāla?

Chhatraprakāsa is a book on the history of the Bundelas and its details are, by and large, historically correct. The book was first published at Fort William in 1829 by its editor Major Price. Capt. W.R. Pogson of the Bengal Army wrote the book ‘A History of the Bundelas’, wherein he incorporated his English translation of Lal Kavi’s composition. Lal Kavi informs that when Aurangzeb ascended the throne, he started harassing the Hindus by various means such as imposing heavy taxes on them and demolishing their temples.

जब तें साह तखत पर बैठे। तबतै हिन्दुन सौ उर ऐठे।

महंगे कर तीरथनि लगाये। बेद दिवालै निदर ढहाये।।१२।।

घर घर बांधि जेजिया लीन्हे। अपने मन भाये सब कीनै।

स्बा रजपूत सीस नित नावै। एस्ंड़ करै तिन पैदल धावै।।१३।।

एस्ंड़ एक शिवराज निबाही। करै आपनै चित की चाही।

आठ पातसाही झुकझौरै। सूबनि बाधिं डांड़ले छोरै।।१४।

It has been lucidly translated by Pogson in the following words:

“From the time that Ourungzeb ascended the throne, a great persecution of the Hindoos commenced : their temples were pulled down; their places of religious resort destroyed; their images mutilated; and a tax was levied on every house. The Rajpoots of the adjacent country were conquered, made obedient to the Emperor, and powerful armies were against those who resisted his commands. All were reduced to submission except one Raja, named Sheo Raj, who set a noble example of heroism and independence.

Thus, it is gathered from a contemporary source that no sooner had Aurangzeb ascended the throne than he started harassing the Hindus by imposing taxes and demolishing temples. It is corroborated by his iconoclastic activities in 1661 and 1662 A.D. In 1661 the famous temple of Kuch Bihar was razed to ground and in its place a mosque was built. In 1661-62 Abdul Nabi, faujdar of Mathura, destroyed a Hindu temple and constructed a mosque on its site. Therefore, there should be no surprize that Fedai Khan demolished the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D.

When Aurangzeb decided to raze the temples of Bundelkhand to ground, he called Fedai Khan and entrusted this job to him. It has been vividly described by Lal Kavi in his book in the following words:

ठौर ठौर के गिरे दिवालैं। स्नुत हिये हिन्दुन के हालै।।

पातसाह फरमान पठायौ। हुकुम फिदाई खां कौं आयौ।।

दोहा- नगर औड़छें में सुने हिंदू धरैं गुमान।

ते नित पत्थर पूजिकै फैलावत कुफरान।।

ऊंची धुजा दिवालिन राजै। घंटा संख झालरै बाजै।।

छापै देत तिलक दै ठाढ़े। माला धरै रहत मन बाढ़े।।

ऐसा हुकुम सरे का नाहीं। क्यो ऐ करत चित्त की चाही।।

जो कहुं कान संख धुनि आवै। मुसलमान तौ भिस्त न पावै।।

सीसौ औटि कान जौ नावै। तौ दोजख तैं खुदा बचावै।।

ताते ढाहि दिवाले दीजै। तिन के ठौर मसीदैं कीजै।।

सुलना तहां निवाज गुदारै। बाँग देहि नित सांझ सकारै।।

न्याउ चुकावै फाजिल काजी। जाते रहै गुसांई राजी।।

दोहा- सुनत कान फरमान यह, कही फिदाईखान।

हुकुम चलाऊं साह कौ, मेटि कुल्ल कुफरान।।५५।।

ढाहि दिवालै कुफर मिटाऊं। पातसाह कौ हुकुम चलाऊं।।

जा कहुं बीच बुंदेला आवे। तौ हममो पर फतै न पावै।।

जौ मानी मनसूबनि मौजे। जोरन लगे ग्वालियर फौजै।।

महस अठारह तुरी पलानै। धूमघाट पर धुज फहरानै।।

यह सुनि महाबीर रस छायौ।। बन बांधि धुरमंगद धायौ।।

Its translation by Pogson is as follows:

“The power and authority of the Emperor had been generally acknowledged and established, the temples and holy places of the Hindoos pulled down, and their hearts trembled at beholding the sacrilegious destruction of all they held sacred and dear; for, an impenal mandate had been received by Fidaee Khan, stating, that ‘in the city of Oorchha the Hindoos practiced the rites of idolatry, sounding the Sunkh, ringing bells, making offerings to the manes of deceased ancestors, putting marks on their foreheads, wearing necklaces, and conducting themselves with contumely, pride, and presumption; that by the toleration of such rites, infidelity remained in the world; that the sound of the Sunkh prevented Moohummudans going to heaven; and that it had therefore become expedient to suppress those customs, and to decree that their temples should be destroyed, and mosques built on their sites; that if the temples were new or repaired, their upper parts should be demolished, and minarets erected, in order that they might become mosques for Mohummudan worship; that Moollahs should be appointed to read in them the glorious Qooran, pray morning and evening with a loud voice, and that Qazees should be nominated for the administration of justice; for with the equity of the Qazee God is well pleased;’ it being obvious, that when their temples no longer existed, their faith would dwindle away.

On the receipt of this decree, Fidaee Khan prepared to carry it into execution. Apprehending, however, that the Boondelas would assemble in defence of their religion, he collected the imperial forces, amounting to eighteen thousand men; and vowing the destruction of the infidels, should they oppose the imperial mandate, unfurled his standard, and encamped at Dhoom Ghaut.”

Thus, it is established that Fedai Khan was an expert at demolishing temples and therefore Mirza Jan and other subsequent writers were right in attributing the demolition of some temples at Ayodhya to Fedai Khan. From the account of Lal Kavi the mode of turning temples into mosques is revealed. After demolishing the upper parts of temples, minarets were erected in their places to make them mosques.

The mosque built by Fedai Khan at Lahore shown in this chapter later, resembles the so-called Baburi mosque to a large extent. Besides, it has been argued earlier that had the Janma-sthāna temple been demolished in 1528; there was no reason to keep the Svargadvar temple unmolested then because it stood at a short distance from the Janma-sthāna temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militiamen of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D.

(24) Conclusion

Thus, there are many evidences which prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by the order of Aurangzeb. From the Ayodhyā-māhātmya it appears that it was the most magnificent temple. It does not appear probable that any group of marauders which came to Ayodhyā for the demolition of one temple could leave another equally important temple at a short distance. Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts. Since there are positive evidences of Tieffenthaler, Mentelle and many Muslim authors that Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb, it is but natural to presume that the Janma-sthāna temple, too, was demolished by him only.
The demolition of temples was taking place since the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign, nay, from his Viceroy’s days, when he had demolished the Somanâtha and Chintâmani temples in Gujarat. In 1661 when the King of Kuch Bihar was defeated by Mir Jumla, Aurangzeb’s Governor of Bengal, the principal temple of the capital of Kuch Bihar was demolished and a mosque was built thereon. The name of the capital was changed to Alamgir-nagar. In 1661-62 A.D. Abdun Nabi Khan, Aurangzeb’s Faujdar at Mathura, built a Jama Masjid in the heart of the city on the site of a mandir which was different from the famous Keshav Rai’s temple. It seems that after the execution of Dara Shukoh on 30th August, 1659 there was a jubilation in the conservative Muslim camp because he was executed for apostasy by the victorious Emperor Aurangzeb. Once Aurangzeb was in the saddle, his foster brother Fedai Khan, who was the Governor of Ayodhyâ, demolished all temples there at the Emperor’s command and built mosques at those places as marks of the triumph of the ‘true faith’ over the infidelity. It must be remembered that except forged inscriptions there is no contemporary or early evidence to link Babur with the demolition of any temple, whereas contemporary chronicler Niccolo Manucci, Tieffenthaler, who was the first person to mention the Baburi mosque, Francis Buchanan, who found the general perception that Aurangzeb razed the Râma-janma-bhûmi temple to the ground, the French Scholar Mentelle and J.R. M’culloch&all attribute the demolition of Ayodhyâ’s temples to Aurangzeb. Similarly, Fedai Khan, and not Mir Baqi, is given credit by Muslim writers for the demolition of the Hindu temples and construction of mosques at Ayodhyâ. Therefore, we should conclude that it was the year1660 A.D. when the temples at Ayodhyâ, including the Râma-janma-bhûmi temple, were demolished and mosques were built on those sites by Fedai Khan at the behest of Aurangzeb.

It must be indicted in the words of Antoine Boulay Dela Meurthe, who had exclaimed on the execution of the Duc d’ Enghien in 1804:

“C’est pire qu’un crime.”

i.e. it is worse than a crime.



Chapter Nine

How has demolition ghost been haunting Babur

(1) Galta Conference (2) Ascendancy of Bairagi Sadhus at Ayodhyã (3) End of the liberal attitude of Awadh Nawab after Asaf-ud-daulah (4) Mirat ul-Ahwal-i-Jahan Numa of Ahmed al-Behzahani (5) Mirza Jan’s Hadiqah-i-Shuhada (6) Fictitious composition श्री तुलसी दोहाशतक by Râmabhadrâchârya: (7) Other motives for associating Babur’s name (8) Tarikh-i-Daudi (9) Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya (10) Buchanan’s survey report (11) Other British authors (12) Persons associated with Babur’s authorship to the mosque (13) Dates associated with the temple’s demolition by Babur are incorrect (14) Lad Khan Temple of Lord Úiva (15) Tomb of Noah.

(1) Galta Conference

It has been shown in the last chapter that it was Aurangzeb Alamgir who demolished the Hindu temples at Ayodhyā and built the disputed mosque at the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. When Francis Buchanan made a survey of Ayodhyā in 1813-14, he found that the demolition of the temple at the birthplace was generally attributed by the Hindus to Aurangzeb. Now the question arises as to how Babur’s name got associated with this disputed shrine. One needs to probe historically this development. Though the first four Oudh Nawabs were, by and large, very liberal in their religious dealings, yet one factor, which gradually aggravated the communal tension at Ayodhyā and other places, has largely escaped the notice of historians. This little noticed factor is the Galata (near Jaipur) conference which was held in 1718 (some say 1723) under the patronage of Amber’s Raja Sawai Jay Singh (1699-1743 A.D.), the founder of the city of Jaipur.
This Galata conference witnessed the final ascendancy of the Rāmanandī sect over Rāmānuja’s Śrī Sampradāya in North India. Svāmī Bālānanda Das, a very dynamic leader of the sect, was entrusted with the organization of the Vaishnavas not only on the spiritual but on the military level also. Thereafter, the Vaishnavas, particularly the Rāmānandīs, started spreading to various Vaishnava pilgrim centres for retrieving their holy places from the Śaivas and the Muslims. Immediately after this conference Abhayarāma Das strengthened the Nirvānī Akhāda at the Hanumān tīla in Ayodhyā, Govinda Das established Nirmohī Akhāda at Rāmatīrtha (Rāmghat) and Rāmaprasāda Das expanded the Badā Sthāna in the heart of Ayodhyā, not very far from the disputed mosque. Bairāgī Vaishnavas established their ascendancy at Ayodhyā in the middle of the 18th century. It was a marked difference from the position which they had faced in the beginning of the 18th century when they had been brutally belaboured by Śaiva Samanyāsīs.

The situation of the Bairāgīs was so precarious in the beginning of the 18th century that persons in Samanyāsī garb attacked them so ruthlessly on the eve of the Rāmanavamī festival that Raghunātha Prasāda of the Badā-sthān, in the book ‘Śrī-mahārāja-charitra’, had to bewail thus:

वही समय संवत जो गावा। रामजन्म अवसर जब आवा।।

जुड़े लोग कौशलपुर जाई। बरनि को सकइ भीर बहुताई।।

तहा वेष सन्यास अपारा। आयुध धरे बीर बरियारा।।

जटा विभूति धारे सब अंगा। अनी अपार सुभट रन रंगा।।

बैरागिन सन बैर बिगारा। व्यर्थ बैर बिन किये विचारा।।

कीन्ह अनीति तहा तिन जाई। वेष विराग भये दुखदाई।।

गयउ निकसि सब वेष विरागा। तिनके त्रास अवधपुर त्यागा।।

जहा बैराग वेष कहू पावही। ताहि भाति बहु त्रास देखावही।।

तिनके डर सब लोग डेराने। जहा तहा बैठि एकान्त लुकाने।।

बदलि वेषि छाप छपाई । कोइ निज-भाति न देहि देखाई

बदलि वेषि निज छाप छपाई। कोइ निज-भाति न देहि देखाई।।

(2) Ascendancy of Bairagi Sadhus at Ayodhyā

These Bairagis, after the Galata conference, turned the tide and became a dominant force not only in Ayodhyā but in the whole Awadh Province within 50 years. The Samnyāsi mendicants were evacuated from Ayodhyā, and shrines, which were dilapidated or neglected for long, were taken possession of. Bairagis moved not only in sadhu garbs but joined the Awadh army also in a large number. All these developments were adequate to signal alarm in Muslim camp which was dominated by the Shia clergy and intellectuals in the Awadh court.

Carnegy gives a list of 203 Hindu religious institutions that were established in Ayodhyā until 1870 A.D. and writes that ‘great astonishment has been expressed at the recent vitality of the Hindu religion at Ajudhia’. (Appendix A to his book ‘A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’ )

The emergence of Vaishnava Bairagis was really a matter of great concern for the Muslim religious leaders of Ayodhyā and in order to retain their hold on the converted places of worship, they started fixing fake inscriptions on the structures. Since this mosque was built within the Ram Kot area on the ‘janmasthān’ of Lord Rāma, they started safeguarding their claim in all possible ways. We know from the testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler that despite the fact that the temple had been converted into a mosque-like structure, the Hindus did not forego their right of worshipping inside the mosque. They used to worship the ‘Bedi’ and prostrate in front of the site of Rāma’s birth and make ‘pradakshinā’ around it. Carnegy has categorically written that until 1858 both the Hindus and the Muslims were offering prayers and namaz inside the disputed shrine. It has been repeated in the official district gazetters subsequently and repeatedly that both Hindus and Muslims used to offer prayers inside the disputed mosque.

Since Awadh Nawabs professed the Shia faith, the Awadh clergy were dominated by the Shias. Till the death of the liberal Nawab Asafud-dullah in 1797 A.D. the clergy did not have ascendancy over the state affairs because the eighteenth century Nawabi State of Awadh owed as much to Hindu ascetic warriors as to the Shi’i Qizilbash cavalry’. 87% population of Awadh was constituted of the Hindus. Therefore, all the Awadh rulers from the first Nawab Sa’adat Khan to Asaf-ud-dulah were favourably disposed towards the Hindus.

Now, the clerics combined and their leader Sayyid Dildar Ali harboured an intense animosity towards the Hindus. He was not ready to consider the Hindus a protected minority. He wanted instant persecution of the Hindus. All this was bound to result in communal clashes. In 1807 A.D. there was a communal riot between the Muslims and the Hindus at Lucknow. Thereafter, the gap got further widened between the two communities.

As stated, the clergy under the liberal rule of the first four Awadh Nawabs were always apprehensive that if it is proved that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb after demolishing the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple and if a claim was made by the Hindu Bairagis that under the Islamic law no mosque could be built over a forcibly occupied land, the just and liberal Awadh Nawabs would restore it to the Hindus by an order or with an acquiescence. They were witness to the gradual takeover of many alienated places of worship by the Bairāgīs. Therefore, during the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in 1770 A.D. although it was known to everyone that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, yet some persons had started propagation that it was done by Babur. But it could not gain momentum because even on the eve of Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā in 1813-14, the general perception of people was that it was Aurangzeb who had demolished the temple at Ayodhyā. When people could not be convinced with Babur’s association with the mosque through gossip, they were to be convinced by fake inscriptions which were produced before Buchanan who, without scrutinizing its authenticity, pronounced a judgment which became the gospel truth in the subsequent period.

The Muslim clergy had helplessly seen that in the heart of Ayodhyā a Rāmānandi Bairāgī Sādhu Abhyarama Das was not only allowed to construct a grand Hanuman temple at a tila (mound) by early Nawabs of Awadh but was given revenue-free land grant also for constructing residential houses for Bairāgī sadhus at Hanumān-tīlā. Bairāgī Govind Das succeeded in establishing Nirmohī Akhada which consistently fought cases against the Muslim groups.

In addition, the Nawab Asaf-ud-daullah granted 1 acre of land to Dayarama for the establishment of the Khākī Akhādā and adequate land (0-1-0) to Kishan Datt Pande for the establishment of Nārāyana on Lakshmana ghāt. Because of consistent insistence on Rāma-janma bhūmi by the Hindus one Mir Masum-ali Mafidar granted 1-1-0 land to Rāmadāsajī of Gudar sect for the establishment of the Janma Asthān temple and worship of Rāmachandra. In addition, so many Muslim Landlords granted land to a several temples at Ayodhyā, e.g. Azhar Husain Mafidar gave 2-3-0 acre of land for the establishment/expansion of the hermitage (Asthan) of Rāma-prasāda and Mir Omadali Jemindar gave a grant of 2 acres to Ram Charan Das for his Thākura dwāra and 4 acres of land for his akhāra. Naval Rai, the Prime Minister and Army Commander of the second Nawab, renovated and built the magnificent Nageshwar temple at Ayodhyā.
The first Nawab Sa’adat Khan shifted his residence to a place at a distance of 2 miles from Ayodhyā. The place was called Bangla and later Faizabad. When in 1766 A.D. Shuja-ud-dulah shifted his capital lock, stock and barrel from Ayodhyā to Faizabad, it was a great boost for the Hindu Bairagis because almost the entire Muslim clergy and bureaucracy left Ayodhyā and settled at Faizabad. Thus, Ayodhyā became a predominantly Hindu city, dominated by Rāmānandī Sādhus who substantially damaged the converted Svargadvāra mosque, so beautifully painted by William Hodges only a decade ago. Picture of the Svargadvāra mosque painted by Hodges in 1783 is shown in chapter XII and that of the mosque in the present condition is shown in chapter XVI of this book.

In addition, Treta Ka Thakur temple, which had been converted into a mosque, was taken over and repaired by Rânî Ahalyâbâi Holkar who beautifully built the adjoining Ghât in 1784 A.D. A Qila was converted into Lakshmana temple by the Hindus during the same period. Amongst important mosques, only the mosque at the birthplace of Râma remained physically intact.

Thus, the situation was really alarming for the Muslim clergy which devised ways to arrest this trend. The association of Babur’s name instead of that of Aurangzeb with the mosque was one such device to keep their claim on the mosque intact. Aurangzeb’s very name was despised by the Hindus, particularly by the Bairagi Sadhus, and anything associated with his name was targeted for demolition or damage.

(3) End of the liberal attitude of Awadh Nawab after Asaf-ud-daulah

With the death of Asaf-ud-daula in 1797 A.D. ended the eclectic policies of Awadh Nawabs and in 1819 when the Nawab Ghazi-ud-Din Haider (1814-1827) declared Awadh to be a Shia State, many restrictions were placed on the Hindus and the Sunnis. Nasiruddin Haydar (1827-37) and Amjad Ali Shah (1842-47) were religious bigots who persecuted both Hindus and Sunnis. The main reason for the conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis was the cursing of Caliphs during the Muharram festival, the duration of which was extended to 40 days. In 1828 A.D. Nasiruddin Haydar issued a warning that “those who could not passively hear the execrations against the Caliphs, either to quit the city, or strictly confine themselves to their own homes.” In the same year Muharram fell in July and on the 10th of the Muharram the Sunnis and Shias violently clashed at the Karbala of Makarim-nagar where six persons were killed and nine wounded. Thereafter, the Nawab Nasiruddin let loose his army on hapless Sunnis whose 400 structures were razed to the ground and properties were looted. Many respected Sunni religious leaders had to leave the Awadh court. In 1824 A.D. Maulana Hayder left Awadh court following a dispute with the King on religious matters.
Since the lead in hatred against Hindus was taken by the Shia clergy and they had now the patronage of the Government from the beginning of the 19th century; they tried to strengthen their hold on religious shrines. Aurangzeb was an avowed Sunni and during his time most of the subedars were perceived to be Sunnis, it was, therefore, very difficult to claim any Shia right over this shrine. Since Aurangzeb’s reign had ended hardly a hundred years ago, it was not possible to make much tampering with the history of this period. On the contrary, Bābur’s rule was in distant past and very few incidents of his reign were in people’s memory, so they thought that they could take more liberty in attributing the construction of the mosque to him and his ‘Governor Mir Bāqī’. Thus, Bābur was shown to have built the mosque through an inscription which is now proved to be a fabricated one. Since Mir Bāqī was claimed by the clergy to be a Shia, the Imamship devolved on a Shia family.

Dr. Francis Buchanan became an easy instrument who without examining the real or unreal fixing of the inscription in the structure wrote his conclusions merely on a translation of the reading of an inscription which was not even an eye-impression of the original, if that ever existed.

The fact of the matter is that an elite section of the Muslim society took advantage of the opportunity of Buchanan’s survey and supplied him with two fake documents which associated Babur’s name with the structure. One was an interpolation to an inscription which gave credit to Babur for ordering Mir Baqi to build the mosque. Another write-up on the copy of the same edict was the story written by the copier of the inscription which associated Babur’s arrival at Ayodhyā before conquering Hindustan and becoming the emperor with Musa Ashiqan’s blessings. The following is the story written by the copier of the inscription. Many persons have got confused with this story and misunderstood it as a part of another inscription. However, it is not a part of any edict and is only a story, a mere myth and nothing more than that. It is quoted below:

“We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted with the (sic) these facts that there was formerly a Prince named Saif Khan Oimyeed thereone. His Wuzeer had a daughter betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The Comforter of Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity.

The king having sent written orders for the purpose of seizing the property in the Wuzeer’s house; at that moment Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that “ This World is nothing”. He gave orders that all the people should plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in his house’ – The people did as he directed. As soon as the plundering was over, he enquired whether anything remained. The attendants told him that there remained some grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut, upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram”. “That” said he “will be of use to me”. In short having taken and torn although the middle and threw it over his shoulders (or neck) he became a Durvish.

Babur, one of the Princes, hearing the report of his becoming a Durvish and the other circumstances, privately presented himself before His Highness. Beholding the wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats to eat and (addressing him) ‘thou’, said His Highness ‘shalt be King’ Babur arose and having made his Salam, was departing. His Highness again said “I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their bells, when thou becomes King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.”

Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal throne was created King; but forgot His Highness’s directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobadar received His Majesty’s commands – Meer Baqaoolla Khan then Soobedar, and he erected this Massjid.”

For the unknown brain which could create such an improbable story, the scribing of an insription associating Babur’s name was a very easy job. But he did not know that Babur maintained a diary and never came to Ayodhyā. As the proverb goes >wB ds ij (;k iSj) ugha gksrs] i.e. untruth has got no wings and hence it is caught one day. This lie, too, has now been nailed and ill-cooked broth has been spoiled.

(4) Mirat ul-Ahwal-i-Jahan Numa of Ahmed al-Behzahani

Here an effort is made to identify the clergyman who supplied the fake inscription to Buchanan on the basis of a book ‘Mirat ul-Ahwal-i Jahan Numa’ written by Ahmad-al-Behbahani, a Shia ecclesiast and a native of Iran who came to India in May 1805 and lived here till February 1809 A.D. He spent major part of his stay in Awadh, mostly at Faizabad and Lucknow and wrote that Mir Abdul Bari was the Imam of Faizabad mosque at that time. Since he was the Imam of the powerful Faizabad mosque, he might have taken lead in the propagation that Mir Baqi, a name sounding similar to his own name, built the disputed mosque at the behest of Babur, the Emperor. Buchanan might have come in his contact and got the copy of the fake inscription. Behbahani narrates that at the time of his departure from Faizabad both the Hindus and the Muslims were weeping and sobbing. It was in October 1808 A.D. He gives the following account:

“On the one side the Muslims and on the other side the Hindus both were weeping and sobbing. The Hindus because of the reason that one of the enemies of their Mahanth or priest had made captive and confined him in woods. They had approached me for help, and on the condition of their behaving well with the Muslims I had pleaded his case to the Nawab Wazir who got him freed and placed him in his seat.” (p. 219)

It is not clear whether the adversary of the Mahanta was a Hindu or a Muslim. But this much is very evident that even in seating or unseating a Mahanta, the Shia clergy or the Nawab had a pivotal role. The book is translated by Prof. A.F. Haider and published by the famous Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, Patna (December, 1996).

(5) Mirza Jan’s Hadiqah-i-Shuhada

In his Urdu book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada, which was published at Lucknow in 1856 A.D., Mirza Jan attributed the demolition of the temple and construction of mosque to Babur. Thereafter, all the Urdu and Persian writers started singing in the same tune and credited Babur to have performed this crescentade. Mirza Jan was an active participant in the Jehad by Ameer Alim in 1855 for recapture of Hanuman-garhi during the reign of Wajid Ali Shah. His book was so inflammatory that the Governor General banned it. Mirza Jan wrote:

“In short, even as the Muslim rulers cleared up Mathura, Banaras etc. from the dust and dross of Kufr, they cleared up Faizabad and Awadh also from the filth of false belief, inasmuch as it is a great place of worship and was the capital of Rama’s father. Here they broke the temples and left no stone-hearted idol intact. Where there was a big temple, there they got a big mosque constructed, and, where there was a small pavilion, there they erected a plain camp mosque/enclosure. Accordingly, what a majestic mosque Babar Shah has got constructed in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa ‘Ashiqan: Its date is ‘Khair-i Baqi. It is still known far and wide as the Sita Ki Rasoi mosque. (Ayodhya History, Archaeology and Tradition, p. 317)”
Mirza Jan wrote that the mosque was constructed in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan. According to him, its date of construction is Khair-i-Baqi, i.e. 923 A.H.(1516-17 A.D.). Since Mirza Jan was a very popular Muslim leader and in his book he attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur, all the subsequent Muslim writers ascribed its authorship to Babur. However, Mirza Jan lacked the knowledge of history, particularly the date of Babur’s conquest of Hindustan, hence he placed the construction of the mosque 923 A.H. and it was blindly followed by other Muslim writers.

(6) Fictitious composition श्री तुलसी दोहाशतक by Rāmabhadrāchārya:

During his deposition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court Svāmī Rāmabhadrāchārya,Tulasī Pīthādhīśvara at Chitrakūta, cited eight dohas from “ Śrī Tulasi Dohā-śataka.” He claimed that it was composed by Gosvāmī Tulasi Das. Despite all respect to his great personality it is made clear here that Gosvāmi Tulasi Das never wrote this book; rather it is the creation of the genius of Rāmabhadrācharya. His deposition in the court is quoted below:

तुलसीकृत ‘श्रीतुलसी दोहाशतक’ में गोस्वामी तुलसीदास जी ने स्पष्ट रूप से मुस्लिमों तथा बाबर के कृत्यों एवं अयोध्या में श्रीराम जन्म मन्दिर मीरबाकी द्वारा तोड़कर मस्जिद बनवाने का वर्णन किया है जैसे-

मंत्र उपनिषद ब्राह्मनहुँ बहु पुरान इतिहास।

जवन जराये रोष भरि करि तुलसी परिहास।।

सिखा सूत्र से हीन करि, बल ते हिन्दू लोग।

भमरि भगाये देश ते, तुलसी कठिन कुजोग।।

बाबर बर्बर आइके, कर लीन्हे करवाल।

हने पचारि-पचारि जन, तुलसी काल कराल।।

सम्बत सर वसु बान नभ, ग्रीष्म ऋतु अनुमानि।

तुलसी अवधहिं जड़ जवन, अनरथ किय अनखानि।।

राम जनम महिं मंदिरहिं, तोरि मसीत बनाय।

जवहि बहु हिन्दुन हते, तुलसी कीन्ही हाय।।

दल्यो मीरबाकी अवध, मन्दिर रामसमाज।

तुलसी रोवत हृदय हति, त्रहि त्रहि रघुराज।।

राम जनम मंदिर जहाँ, लसत अवध के बीच।

तुलसी रची मसीत तहँ, मीरबाकी खल नीच।।

रामायन घरि घन्ट जहं, श्रुति पुरान उपखान।

तुलसी जवन अजान तहँ, कियो कुरान अजान।।

I salute to the beauty of these verses. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that they are fictitious. If it is not exposed, a time will come when these verses will be treated as the genuine composition of Tulasī Das.

(7) Other motives for associating Babur’s name

Now other motives associating Babur’s name with the mosque may be examined. The Shia clergy had soft corner for Babur because at one time in his career, Babur had accepted Shiism under the suzerainty of the Persian King Shah Ismail Safawi. Therefore, the natural presumption was that Babur would have appointed many Shia Governors during his reign in India. Thus, they perceived a Shia Governor in the name of Mir Baqi.

Another reason ascribed to Babur’s association with the construction of the mosque, in view of Prof. Sushil Srivastava, was to “add respectability and strength to their claims over the mosque.” Aurangzeb’s name was a dreaded and despised one amongst the Hindus. But Babur commanded respect amongst the Hindus including Sanskrit poets. Therefore, the construction of the mosque was attributed to Babur instead of Aurangzeb.

(8) Tarikh-i-Daudi

Babur’s supposed association with Ayodhyā grew in phases and was based on fiction. The ‘Tarikh-i-Daudi’ written by Abdullah during the days of Jahangir is first such work and it is not a history book. Most of the texts contain stories and myths which he came to know through hearsay but termed them as history. The following is the account written by Abdullah in his book:

“In one of the histories it has come to notice that in those very days Babar Badshah, whose name was Babar Qalandar, came to Dihli adorning himself with the garb of an ascestic and entered the royal palace. One of the courtiers brought it to the royal ears that a qalandar from among sages is standing in the court feasting on the elegance of the Sultan. Sultan Sikandar made some of his courtiers bring him in. When Babur Qalandar emerged from the door, he immediately shook hands with the Sultan, by the Sultan’s taking his hand into his, inferred the greatness of fortune in the Sultan’s hand, and felt in his heart that the affluence of his Sultanate is abundant. Sultan Sikandar asked him, “With what are faqir-s exalted?” Babar Qalandar said, “With Qalandar-hood.” The Sultan uttered this couplet extempore (rather sardonically):

Hazar nuktah-i barik-tar ‘zi mu in-ja’ st

Na har ki sar ba-tarashad qalandari danad.

Here there are thousand finesses finer than hair. Not everyone with shaven head knows qalandar-hood). Babar Qalandar glanced at the Sultan with the feeling of being humbled and uttered this couplet:

Na har kasi ki kulah kaj nihad-o tund nashist

Kulah-dari-o a in-I sarwari danad.

Not everyone who puts on an awry cap and sits tight knows cap-wearing and the way of kingship.

“The Sultan was pleased at this and asked his courtiers to take due care of boarding and lodging of the faqir-s including Babar Qalandar. After a few days, the Sultan wanted to see Babar Qalandar, but the latter had left the very next day. The Sultan began to squeeze his hands in repentance and remarked that Huma (a bird of paradise) had fallen into his hand.” (but he let it escape)(quoted in Harsh Narayan’s article ‘The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute’). The bird Huma signifies great fortune.

But here in Tarikh-i-Daudi Babur meets King Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517 A.D.) and not Musa Ashiqan. There is no mention of Babur’s association with the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque, till the reign of Jehangir, i.e. 1621 A.D. At best it highlights Babur as a darvesh.

(9) Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya

At the same time we find that in the beginning of the 19th century Maulawiyy Abdul Karim, who claimed to be in the line of mythical Mir Musa Ashiqan, wrote a book in Persian which was translated into Urdu by Maulaviyy Abdul Ghaffar under the title ‘Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya’. The Urdu translation was published in 1932. The information contained in this book is relevant and important and therefore it is quoted here:

“When a boy, Sultan Babar, who belonged to the family of Amir Timur, came from Kabul to the town of Awadh in disguise, donning the garb of an ascetic. These days, the town of Awadh was under the Sultanate of Sikandar Lodhi and the place was a (second) capital of the Sultanate. Sultan Babar paid a reverential visit to His Holiness Shah Jalal and Sire Musa Ashiqan and solicited occult favour from them, so that the ancestral Sultanate of Hindustan might come into his hands thanks to the blessings of those saints. Prince Babar took leave of those personages, went to Kabul, mustered an army, brought it to Hindustan, and fought with Sultan Sikandar Lodhi (sic) at the (battle-) field of Panipat….”

From the account it appears that Maulawiyy Abdul Karim might have created the story of Musa Ashiqan’s blessings to Babur before the latter’s conquest of Hindustan and he was instrumental in getting it forged on the second fabricated inscription. The idea behind associating Babur’s name with the construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā after demolishing a temple was to enhance the prestige of such Muslim saints, real or imaginary.

The writer Abdul Karim committed a historical blunder by associating Babur with Sikandar Lodi. It appears that he based his story on Tarikh-i-Daudi written by Abdullah during the reign of Jahangir. Karim has introduced Musa Ashiqan in the story which is far from real history.

The installation of the fake inscription inside the mosque in 1813 circa not only influenced the survey of Francis Buchanan but also had the impact on the report submitted by the Court Superintendent Hafizullah to the Faizabad Court in 1822 A.D. In this report Hafizullah wrote to the Court that the mosque was built by Babur on the birthplace of Rāma, the son of Daśaratha. After Mirza Jan’s book ‘Hadiqah-i Shuhada’ was published in 1856 A.D. all the subsequent Muslim writers followed him by writing that Babur built the mosque after demolishing the temple in 1516 A.D. (923 H.)

(10) Buchanan’s survey report

It is a historical fact that when Francis Buchanan made a survey of Ayodhyā in 1813-14, he found that the destruction of the temple at Ayodhyā was generally attributed by the Hindus to Aurangzeb. It is confirmed by the following excerpt from Buchanan’s survey report:

“Unfortunately, if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzeb, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”

However, Buchanan was beguiled by a fabricated inscription which was handed over to him. He got it translated by his un-named Muslim friend and then on the basis of the translation he pronounced the following judgment:

“What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded. The bigot, by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) (drawings N1) to have been built by Babur, 5 generations before Aurungzeb.”

Buchanan’s observation is based on an inscription which has been proved to be fabricated in chapter five. Buchanan’s many observations are bizarre.

Although his survey on many subjects is well recorded, his comments on Indian history reflect his poor knowledge of the subject which may be gathered from his following comments:

“—and the doubt will be increased, if we suppose, that the latter Vikrama, the son in law of the Emperor Bhoj was the person, who constructed the temple at Ayodhya. This I am inclined to think was probably worshipped before the time of the elder Vikrama, yet his worship, as that peculiarly distinguishing a sect of bigots, seems to have been first established by Ramanuja about the time of the latter Vikrama, who may from thence be supposed peculiarly eager to discover the traces of the deity of his own sect. ” (Buchanan’s Manuscript, EUR 91, p. 116)

Buchanan’s statement is historically wrong because no Vikramaditya was son-in-law of King Bhoja and Rāma’s worship as a sect was established by Rāmānanda and not by Rāmānuja.

Buchanan’s report was published by R. Montgomery Martin in his book “The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India” in 1838. Martin was unfair to Buchanan as he did not give any explicit credit to the latter and arbitrarily made random cuts in his survey reports. After the Martin’s book it became the basis of all subsequent writings by British authors who made it a fashion to attribute the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque to Babur without going into in-depth study of the subject.

(11) Other British authors

Apart from Buchanan and Martin other British authors of nineteenth century, too, considerably contributed to erroneously creating conclusions that the mosque was built by Babur who visited Ayodhyā. In April 1826 William Erskine completed John Leyden’s translation of the Babur-nama into English and captioned it as “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-din Muhammad Babur, Emperor of Hindustan.” In this book he wrote that Babur had camped near Ayodhyā on 28th March, 1528.

In chapter seven of the present book it has been shown that Babur had camped at a distance of 115 k.m. from Ayodhyā on the confluence of Sirda and Sarayū. Therefore, his observation that Babur had camped near Ayodhyā on 28th March, 1528 A.D. is incorrect.

In the f.n. 2 of the same page of Leyden’s the following comment is made on Ayodhyā:

“After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards Ghazipur.”

When Erskine wrote the book ‘A History of India in the Time of Babur and Humayun’, published from London in 1854, he reiterated that Babur had visited Ayodhyā and stayed there. Then in 1855 Mirza Jan wrote the book ‘Hadiqah- i-Shuhada’ and claimed that Babur had visited Ayodhyā before becoming the emperor of Hindustan and on the prompting of Musa Ashiquan he had directed Mir Baqi to demolish Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple and construct a mosque thereon.

Besides, in the monumental work ‘History of India as Told by its own Historians’ of H.M. Elliot and John Dowson published in 1873 A.D. the destruction of the temple has been attributed to Babur. P. Carnegy and all writers of British official Gazetteers invariably held Babur responsible for the demolition of the temple.

Since the idols were surreptitiously installed in the disputed shrine in December, 1949 everyone has been calling it Baburi Mosque. Protagonists of the temple agitation have been deriding Babur for the demolition of Rāma’s temple and construction of a mosque. Babur was never associated with it but the entire course of History was changed by the survey report of Buchanan who fell into a
well-knit trap.

(12) Persons associated with Babur’s authorship to the mosque are fictitious persons

(i) Musa Ashiqan

As stated earlier Musa Ashiqan is a fictional character. Feristha, whose full name was Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, wrote a history book called ‘Gulshan-i Ibrahim’ or more popularly known as ‘Tarikh-i-Firishta’. He was born in 1560 A.D. and died in 1620 A.D. In 1593 he started writing a book on Indian history. The 12th chapter of this book is ‘An Account of Saints of India’. But he does not mention Musa Ashiqan in this book. Had he really blessed and motivated Babur to conquer Hindustan and had his stature been really so high, as presented in the 19th century texts and stories, he would have definitely found place in this book.
Ferishta gives a very interesting story which establishes that Musa Ashiqan was known neither to Babur nor to Ferishta. He informs that after return from Gwalior Babur was seized with an intermitting fever which continued on him for 8 months. It gets indirect support from Babur-nama which informs that Babur fell ill no less than six times and each time his illness lasted for not less than two weeks. According to Ferishta when Babur fell ill this time, “some superstitious people advised him, during his sickness, to write a poem in praise of Chaja Ahrar, one of the saints, to induce him to intercede with God for his health. Baber, though it is highly probable he did not give much credit to the power of the saint actually wrote the poem, in the measure of Mowlavi Jami. The king recovered from his disorder about the eighth of the
first Ribbi.”

Had Musa Ashiqan really been a saint by whose blessing Babur had become the emperor, he would have sought his blessings in this hour of crisis.

In the last chapter of the Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl has given brief biographies of large number of saints under the heading ‘Awliya-i-Hind’ meaning ‘Saints of India’. In this chapter he has narrated the lives of important saints of the Delhi Sultanate period and the Mughal period. It includes some saints of Babur’s time like Shaykh Maudud Al- Lari and Shykh Haji Abdul Wahhab-al- Bukhari. But in this long list also, Musa Ashiqan’s name does not figure anywhere. Had Musa Ashiqan been instrumental in establishing the Mughal Empire by his blessings, his name would not have escaped the notice of Abul Fazl and a host of scholars assisting him in the composition of the book.
Similarly, Abul Fazl writes that when Babur was concerned with the precarious condition of his son Humayun, Mir Abu Baqa was sitting there. He was one of the prominent fazils of his time and Babur held him in high esteem. Baqa suggested that the only course left for the survival of Humayun was to offer the most valuable thing the emperor possessed and leave Humayun to God. Thereafter, the story is well known that Babur offered himself in lieu of his son’s life. But here also Musa Ashiqan does not figure at all in this gravest situation that Babur faced in his life. Had Musa Ashiqan really bestowed the Kingdom of Hindustan on Babur by his blessings, the latter would have approached Ashiqan in this dire situation. But here Mir Abu Baqa is the saint whose advice Babur followed. Thus, Musa Ashiqan appears to be a figment of imagination of subsequent generations. Similarly, Mir Baqi has been produced to be a fictitious personality, different from Baqi of Babur-nama.

It is indicated earlier that the temples at Ayodhyā were demolished and mosques were built there during the Subedari of Fedai Khan. It is confirmed by the writings of Mirza Jan in 1855-56 and subsequent Muslim writers who categorically wrote that the Ram Darbar, i.e. Svargadvāra mosque was built by Fedai Khan after demolishing the temple there. However, they invented a Shia Governor Mir Baqi who was declared to be a native of Isphahan in Persia. After making the following pedigree, the Shia clergy took possession of the mosque.

(ii) Mir Baqi of the inscriptions is another fictitious personality. Masir-ul-Umara is an encyclopaedia of nobles of the Mughal period. In this nobles’ encyclopaedia also there is no mention of Mir Baqi during the reign of Babur. Had Mir Baqi been the Governor of Ayodhyā and builder of the Baburi mosque, his name should have figured in this book written by Nawab Shams-ud-daula Shah Nawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai Khan because even personalities far lower than a Governor’s rank have found places in the book.

Pedigree of Mir Baqi: It is proved conclusively in chapter VI that Mir Baqi of the inscription is different from Baqi of Babur-nama. Epigraphic Mir Baqi is a fictitious person. The following pedigree will indicate it.

Here the name of Mir Baqi is changed to Abdul Baqi and we find that in the latter half of the 19th century Rajab Ali, M. Afzal and M. Asghar were fighting all litigations on behalf of the mosque and all of them were Shias.

From this pedigree it is clear this Rajab Ali who was the great grandson-in-law of Syyad Abdul Baqi was alive in 1860 A.D. Abdul Baqi was alive in the year 1528 and his great grandson-in-law Rajab Ali was fighting litigation in 1860 A.D. after a gap of 332 years. In between lived only two generations S. Hisab Ali alias Ata Hussain and Hussain Ali. It is never humanly possible. Therefore, Baqi could not be a contemporary of Babur. Nevertheless, we find that by associating Babur’s name with the mosque and inventing Mir Baqi’s role in the construction of the mosque, the Shia clergy, who were at loggershead with the Sunni Ulemas in the first half of the 19th century, succeeded in capturing a mosque which was, out and out, a Sunni mosque built along with the Svargadvāri and Treta Ka Thakur mosques during the reign of Aurangzeb.

(13) Dates associated with the temple’s demolition by Babur are incorrect

Apart from the inscription seen by Fuhrer which contained the date 930 A.H. and another one read by the Maulvi who records the date 923 A.H. in the Court proceeding of Faizabad Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945; several Urdu writers of 19th century have mentioned 923 A.H. (i.e. 1516 A.D.) as the year of the construction of the mosque. Such instances have been quoted by Prof. Harsh Narain in his article ‘The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute.’

(1) Mirza Jan wrote Hadiqah-i Shuhada in 1855. The work was so inflammatory that it was banned immediately after its publication. It mentions that Babur Shah got constructed a mosque under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan in 923 A.H. i.e 1516 A.D. which is derived from Khair-i Baqi.

(2) Fasanah-i-Ibrat was written by Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867) in 1860 circa. It was published in 1884 A.D. It says that the mosque was built in 923 A.H. under the patronage of Ashiqan.

(3) Diya-i Akhtar was written by Haji Muhammad Hasan. It was published in Lucknow in 1878 A.D. It says that Sayyid Musa Ashiqan built a mosque after demolishing Rājā Rāmachandra’s palace and Sita’s kitchen by the order of Zihurddin Babur, king of Delhi in 923 A.H. and king Aurangzeb Alamgir built another mosque at the same site.

(4) Muraqqa-i Khusrawi was written by Shaykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorwi Nami (1811-1893). It is known as Tawarikh-i Awadh also. The work was completed in 1869 A.D. It mentions the patronage of Musa Ashiqan in the demolition of the temple which occured in 923 A.D.

(5) Tarikh-i Awadh in five volumes was written by Muhammad Najmu ‘I-Ghani Khan Rampuri.’ It was published in Lucknow in 1919. It says that the mosque was built under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan and its date is Khayr i Baqi (923).

(6) Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matl’an-Nur al-Mashriq was written in Arabic by Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abdul Hayy. It was translated into Urdu by Maulana Shams Tabrez Khan in the name of Hindustan Islami ‘Ahd. It says that Babur constructed the mosque in 923 A.H.

Contents in these texts are in complete contrast to the constant propaganda of established historians that the demolition theory was propounded and propagated by the British authorities to sow the seed of separation between the two communities, so that they can rule the country without any protest or hindrance.

All these authors were unaware of Babur’s Memoirs and correct course of history. Therefore they carried on the incorrect date. Thus, these testimonies, too, testify to the fact that dates ascribed to the construction of the so-called Baburi mosque were at variance in different texts and inscriptions and they varied from 923 A.H. to 935 A.H. Factitious inscriptions were fixed in the mosque belatedly and replaced repeatedly.

(14) Lad Khan Temple of Lord Śiva

An amusing instance of an interchange of names is that of Lad Khan Temple situated at Aihole in the State of Karnataka. This temple, which is dedicated to Lord Śiva, was built by the Chalukyan Kings either in the 5th or 7th century A.D. It is one of the oldest Śiva temples in that region. Subsequently, it was associated with a short stay of a person named Lad Khan who is stated to be either a petty ruler or a little known Muslin saint. Despite the fact that it is a living temple thronged by thousands of devotees every year, the name Lad Khan Temple is still clung to this Śiva Temple for centuries. A picture of the Lad Khan Temple at Aihole is placed below:

Lad Khan Temple of Lord Śiva.

If the name of a Muslim remains stuck to a Hindu temple both in common parlance and architects’ texts for centuries, we should not be surprised, if Babur’s name has remained attached with a mosque built by Fedai Khan at the instance of Aurangzeb for the last two centuries.

(15) Tomb of Noah

In Ain-i-Akbari Abul Fazl has written that there were two tombs of Seth and Job at Ayodhyā. They were six and seven yards respectively in length. But by the time Carnegy’s book was published in 1870 A.D. and the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh came in 1877-78; one more tomb of Nuh appeared and a claim was made that it was built by Alexander, the great in the 4th century B.C. Just to give glory to their claim this tomb was brought into existence in a deceitful manner and a story was concocted. The fact is that the tomb of Prophet Noah or Nuh is situated in the town of Najaf in Iraq. Ibn Battuta had visited the graves of Noah and Ali and Adam at Najaf. He has given a detailed account of these graves in his book ‘Travels in Asia and Africa (1325 1354)’.

The relevant extract from Ibn Battuta’s travels is as follow:

“We went on from there and alighted in the town of Mashahad ‘Alf at Najaf. It is a fine town, situated in a wide rocky plain-one of the finest, most populous, and most substantially built cities in ‘Iraq’. It has beautiful clean bazaars. We entered by the [outer] Bab al-Hadra, and found ourselves first in the market of the greengrocers, cooks and butchers, then in the fruit market, then the tailors’ bazaar and the Qaysaruya, then the perfumers’ bazaar, after which we came to the [inner] Bab al-Hadra, where there is the tomb, which they say is the tomb of Alf. One goes through the Bab al-Hadra into a vast hospice, by which one gains access to the gateway of the shrine, where there are chamberlains, keepers of registers and eunuchs. As a visitor to the tomb approaches, one or all of them rise to meet him according to his rank, and they halt with him at the threshold. They then ask permission for him to enter saying “By your leave, O Commander of the Faithful, this feeble creature asks permission to enter the sublime resting-place,” and command him to kiss the threshold, which is of silver, as also are the lintels. After this he enters the shrine, the floor of which is covered with carpets of silk and other materials. Inside it are candelabra of gold and silver, large and small. In the centre is a square platform about a man’s height, covered with wood completely hidden under artistically carved plaques of gold fastened with silver nails. On this are three tombs, which they declare are the graves of Adam, Noah, and Alf. Between the tombs are dishes of silver and gold, containing rose-water, musk, and other perfumes; the visitor dips his hand in these and anoints his face with the perfume for a bleassing.”

(Ibn Battuta: “Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354” translated by H.A.R. Gibb reprint 2007 p. 81-82)

Tombs of Seth, Job and Nuh are mentioned in Carnegy’s book and the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh (1877-78). The account from the Gazetteer is given below:

“The Tombs of the Patriarchs—Adjoining the Maniparbat are two tombs, of which General Cunningham writes that “they are attributed to Sis paighambar and Ayub paighambar, or the Prophets Seth and Job. The first is seventeen feet long and the other twelve feet. These tombs are mentioned by Abul Fazl, who says: “Near this are two sepulchral monuments, one seven and the other six cubits in length. The vulgar pretend that they are the tombs of Seth and Job, and they relate wonderful stories of them.” This account shows that since the time of Akbar the tomb of Seth must have increased in length, from seven cubits, or ten and a half feet, to seventeen feet, through the frequent repairs of pious Musalmans.” These tombs are also mentioned at a later date, in the Araish-i-Mahfil. To these tombs, Colonel Wilford adds that of Noah, which is still pointed out near the police station. The Colonel’s account is as follows: “Close to Ajodhya or Oudh, on the banks of the Gogra, they show the tomb of Noah, and those of Ayub, and Shis or Shish, (Job and Seth). According to the account of the venerable Darvesh who watches over the tomb of Nuh, it was built by Alexander the Great, or Sikandar Rumi. I sent lately (A.D. 1799) a learned Hindu to make enquiries about this holy place: from the Musalmans he could get no further light; but the Brahmans informed him that where Nuh’s tomb stands now, there was formerly a place of worship dedicated to Ganesha, and close to it are the remains of a baoli, or walled well, which is called in the Puranas Ganapat Kund. The tombs of Job and Seth are near to each other, and about one bow-shot and a half from Noah’s tomb; between them are two small hillocks, called Soma-giri, or the mountains of the moon : according to them these tombs are not above four hundred years old; and owe their origin to three men, called N”uh, Ayub, and Shis, who fell there fighting against the Hindus. These were, of course, considered as shahids, or martyrs; but the priests who officiate there, in order to increase the veneration of the superstitious and unthinking crowd, gave out that these tombs were really those of Noah, Job, and Seth, of old. The tomb of Nuh is not mentioned in the Ain-i-akbari, only those of Job and Seth.”

If a tomb of Noah at Najaf in Iraq can be shown at Ayodhyā and its construction can be attributed to Alexander in the 4th century B.C. by predating it more than 2000 years, the attribution of the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque at Ayodhyā in 1660 by Aurangzeb to Babur in 1528 should not surprise readers.

In this book it is proved beyond all shades of doubt that Babur had no role to play either in demolition of any temple or construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā. In fact, he had no occasion or reason to visit the holy city. Inscriptions inside the mosque were fake and fabricated. Babur’s association with Musa Ashiqan and Mir Baqi in connection with the demolition of the Rāma temple is a fanciful story invented in the early 19th century and it has been continuing for the last 200 years without scrutiny by any historian. Thus, the demolition ghost has been haunting Babur so far because of several factors enumerated above. By borrowing the words of Lord Byron from his book ‘Don Juan’, it may be concluded thus:

“It’s strange-but true;
for truth is always strange;

Stranger than fiction.”

It is now hoped that truth will triumph over fiction.



Chapter Ten

A tale of two edicts (Tretā Kā Thākura and Vishnu-hari inscriptions)

[(1) Introduction (2) TOI report dated 1st Sept. 2001 (3) Treta Ka Thakur inscription found by A. Fuhrer (4) Dr. Jahnawi Shekhar Roy’s observation (5) A picture the inscription (6) Annual Report of Lucknow Museum (1950-54) (7) Pushpa Prasad’s article (8) The content of the inscription (9) Prof. Irfan Habib’s fallacious explanation (10) Verbatim translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription with ‘anvaya’ (11) Comments on the inscription]

(1) Introduction

After I had taken voluntary retirement from Indian Police Service on 31st May, 2001 Shri Dilip Padgaonkar, the patriarch patron of the ‘Times of India’, New Delhi met me in C.I.S.F. guesthouse in Delhi in June 2001 and asked many questions on the Ayodhyā dispute. One question was as to why the Hindu side did not produce clinching evidence which proved that there existed a temple at the disputed site before the construction of the mosque. I replied that when I was the O.S.D. on the Ayodhyā dispute in the Ministry of Home Affairs, I had suggested archaeological excavation of the adjoining land by an independent body like UNESCO. When the Ministry was mulling the idea, many scholars opposed it on the wild allegation that it was a conspiracy to demolish the Baburi mosque by digging trenches in the vicinity. Therefore, it could not be done. However, I informed Padgaonkar that there was still a key to the Ayodhyā solution and it was the stone edict discovered from the debris of the mosque during its demolition on 6th December, 1992. I told him that if by palaeographic test it was confirmed that the inscription was genuine and the script was of the 11th or 12th century; its content could lead to the conclusion that there existed a temple at the site. I further informed him that the place and date of the discovery of the inscription wass irrelevant, if it was found to be genuine, because its content confirmed the construction of a temple at the Rāma-janmabhoomi. The objection of some secular historians that the ‘Karsewak Archaeology’ would not be accepted does not hold ground because now the nation has got an inscription, whether found through a formal excavation or vandalism. It is immaterial whether it was discovered at Ayodhyā or Ambala on 6th December, 1992 or 10th January, 1980. If it belongs to the 11th 12th century, it is a strong proof that at this site Anayachandra, the Governor of Gahadavāla King Govindachandra (1114-54 A.D.) had built a magnificent temple at Ayodhyā.

I advised him to get it probed and if my argument held good, the edict ought to be examined by an independent, impartial team of UNESCO experts. Shri Padgaonkar took interest and two correspondents worked on the subject and a report was published in the Times of India on 1st September, 2001 with the caption ‘Stone writ could hold key to Ayodhyā’. TOI team had contacted the UNESCO team which informed them that if they got formal request, they would do this job.

(2) TOI report dated 1st Sept. 2001

The following is the report published in the TOI on the front page as the lead news on 1st September, 2001:

Stone writ could hold key to Ayodhya

NEW DELHI/PATNA: A 12th-century stone inscription recovered from the debris of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could hold the key to the resolution of the temple-mosque imbroglio. Experts believe the 20-line inscription comprising 30 verses in Sanskrit said to have been embedded in the lower portion of a wall of the structure that was demolished on December 6, 1992 could provide conclusive proof of the existence of a Rãma temple at the site in the 12th century and even earlier.

Although little has been heard of the inscription, believers in its ‘magical’ power to resolve the dispute include hardcore Sangh Parivar elements as well as religious leaders, among them Puri (sic.) Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, who have been working for a solution to the problem outside the VHP umbrella.

A leading proponent of the ‘inscription as key’ theory has been Acharya Kishore Kunal, who took voluntary retirement from the IPS recently and is now vice-chancellor of the Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. In his younger days as an IPS officer working in the Union home ministry, he acted as the Centre’s negotiator for the Ayodhya dispute.

Acharya Kunal, who was behind the renovation of the Hanuman temple at Patna, has been arguing that the authenticity of the inscription could be verified by an independent organisation like UNESCO. Once that is done, he says, it would be easier to persuade the Muslim leaders for a solution.

According to an article published in the journal, Itihas Darpan, in 1996, the inscription is written in the Nagari script which was in vogue in the 12th century. The inscription (verse 5) pays obeisance to the “janmabhùmi of that incarnation of Vishnu which possesses the highest and most desirable glory in this world and whose splendour was constantly enhanced by performing thousands of brave deeds.” There could be little doubt about this incarnation being Rãma .

The inscription (verse 21) refers to a temple of Vishnu-hari built by King Nayachandra. It says that stone slabs, chiselled out of solid boulders brought from the mountain peaks, were arranged to form “a unique temple the like of which had not been constructed by any other previous king.” It adds that the temple was crowned with a golden kalasa (copula) lending great beauty to it.

The inscription refers twice to the Gahadavala king, Govindachandra, who reigned in this part of the country from 1114 to 1154 A.D. Nayachandra appears to have been a vassal of the Gahadavala king.

The 1.10 m × 0.56 m buff sandstone, found broken into two pieces from the debris of the demolished structure, was inspected by a team of experts from the Archaeological Survey of India in March 2000 under instructions from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. It has since been kept at the Ram Katha Kunj under the seal of the high court. Ram Katha Kunj, which was the office of the VHP in the Janma-bhumi complex, prior to the demolition, is now part of the land acquired by the Central Government on January 7, 1993.”

When the TOI team contacted the UNESCO authorities, they informed them that they were ready to undertake the task, provided they were formally requested to do so by the appropriate authority. This was never done. Therefore, the dispute persists, although even established historians have not doubted the authenticity of the edict.

However, Syed Shahabuddin, a former IFS officer and an ex-M.P., who is convener of Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee, wrote to me the following DO letter dated 8th September, 2001:

“Dear Shri Kunal, 8th September, 2001

You had promised to see me in Delhi but you did not come. Now your name has been mentioned in the Times of India in connection with the fake tablet smuggled into the debris of the Babari Masjid by the karsevaks in December, 1992.

I would like to draw you attention to the article by Prof. Champa Lakshmi in a Frontline issue, perhaps in 1993, throwing doubt on the authenticity of the tablet. She has now retired from the JNU and lives in Chennai.

Since no excavation was carried out under controlled conditions, I had myself objected in 1993 to this as well as other architectural artefacts being taken over by the Government from the VIP for safe custody.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Acharya Kishore Kunal,

Vice-Chancellor,

Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, (SYED SHAHABUDDIN)

Darbhanga”

I have high regards for Syed Shahabuddin for his tenacity of purpose and ever-searching zeal on the Ayodhyā dispute. I think no one can match him in the country in collecting and commenting on any article on the subject as expeditiously as he does. I do not object to his interpretation because that is always in consonance with his line of arguments.

After introducing a brief background of the Vishnu-hari edict, the Treta Ka Thakur inscription discovered by A. Fuhrer is discussed first at length.

(3) Treta Ka Thakur inscription found by A. Fuhrer

A. Fuhrer had found one inscription at Ayodhyā in the debris of the Treta Ka Thakur temple converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb. He thus wrote about this inscription:

“Inscription No XLIV is written in twenty incomplete lines on a white sandstone, broken off at either end, and split in two parts in the middle. It is dated Samvat 1241 or A.D. 1184, in the time of Jaychchandra of Kanauj, whose praises it records for erecting a Vaishnava temple, from whence this stone was originally brought and appropriated by Aurangzeb in building his masjid known as Treta-ki-Thakur. The original slab was discovered in the ruins of this Masjid, and is now in the Faizabad Local Museum.”

For doubting Thomases it is neccesary to quote Jas. Burgess, the then Director General of Archaeological Survey of India in the Preface (dated 5th February, 1889) of “The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur with notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and other places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh” wherein he highly appreciated the professional capability of Fuhrer in the following words:

“The bulk of the letter-press is by Dr. Fuhrer, whose trained and varied scholarship is a sufficient guarantee for its accuracy and research. The architectural descriptions of the buildings were prepared by Mr. Smith. My work has been to unite these into one connected account, to supervise the printing, and pass the drawings through the press. To the MS. of his report Dr. Fuhrer added a bulky appendix of forty-six inscriptions collected during his tour between 14th February and 31st March 1886. These were in Arabic. Persian and Sanskrit, many of which were unknown before. ‘Some of these inscriptions,’ Dr. Fuhrer mentions, ‘are of great historical importance, especially in settling the question of the time of the first appropriation of the ancient Buddhist and Hindu temples by the Musalmans.’ The Arabic and Persian inscriptions being mostly short, and belonging directly to the buildings described, have been engrossed in the text; the longer Sanskrit ones, as directed by Government, have been kept for separate publication in the Epigraphia Indica.”

Thus, it is clear that Fuhrer visited Ayodhyā and found the inscription. The D.G., A.S.I. testified to the fact that Fuhrer’s “trained and varied scholarship is a sufficient guarantee for its accuracy and research.”

Though Jas. Burgess, the Director General of A.S.I. and the editor of this Volume wrote in the Preface that the Sanskrit inscriptions found by Fuhrer would be published, yet it was never published either in the Epigraphia Indica or in any other journal or in any book on the Gahadavāla dynasty.

However, the Gazeteer-writers and historians went on writing that Tretā Kā Thākura temple was built by Jayachandra in 1241 Sa‚vat, i.e. 1184 A.D. and it was converted into mosque by Aurangzeb. Hans Bakker, too, wrote on the similar line and added:

“To my knowledge this inscription has never been published. The site is known as ‘Treta Ka Thakur’ (Skt. Tretanatha), Lord of the Tretayuga (i.e. Rãmachandra) but the Sanskrit name is not attested in any written source.” (pp. 52-53)

He further furnished this information:

“The inscription is now in possession of the State Museum in Lucknow (Arch. Dep. 53.4).”

(4) Dr. Jahnawi Shekhar Roy’s observation

Thereafter, Dr. J.S. Roy, a scholar of Varanasi, went to the Lucknow Museum and after examining the edict wrote ‘A Note on Ayodhyā Inscription’ in the book ‘Ayodhyā-History, Archaeology and Tradition’ published by All India Kashiraj Trust, Fort Ramnagar, Varanasi in 1994. In the article he wrote,

“We found the relevant No. 53.4 Mark on the stone. The inscription is about 2’8” in length and 10” in width. It is in two pieces. The original having been split during the excavation or otherwise, along an irregular crack. An ink impression was taken from the original inscription. The writing is in 10 lines, we give the text, as we could decipher, here. The portion on the text on the left half of the inscription is put under the column A and that on the right half under the column B.”

Then Roy made a very fragmentary and unsatisfactory reading which carries no meaning. Nevertheless he arrived at the following conclusion:

“It is clear from the above text that the inscription has nothing to do either with the temple Treta ka Thakur or with Maharaja Jayachandra. It seems that there has been some confusion in marking the inscription as No. 53.4.”

Roy further made the following erroneous observation:

“It will be interesting to note the differences between the present and the original inscription referred (to) by Fuhrer. The original was in twenty incomplete lines, while the present inscription has only ten lines. The original was broken off at either end, and split in two parts in the middle. The present one, though broken in the middle, does not break off at either as its ends are clear end cut.”

Roy’s conclusion that the writing is in ten lines is totally incorrect. Even from a visual observation it is clear that the inscription contains 20 lines and the break is in the middle of the inscription and the two parts are in vertical continuation. It is very clear from the angles of the broken pieces. Though they are not broken at 1800, yet the angles of the broken lower portion and the upper portion of the two parts are almost the same and even the broken letters of both the portions match each other.

(5) A picture of the inscription

I obtained a photograph of the edict from the Lucknow Museum and it is placed below:

The inscription discovered by A. Fuhrer
presently atLucknow Museum.

(6) Annual Report of Lucknow Museum (1950-54)

I checked the register of the entries of the edicts. This serial 53.4 has the following reading on page 63 of the Annual Report of Lucknow Museum, April 1950-March 1954:

Page-63

क्र.सं. रजिस्टर सं. संक्षिप्त विवरण प्राप्ति स्थान प्राप्ति साधन

५५ ५३.४ अभिलिखित खण्डित शिलापट्ट फैजाबाद फैजाबाद संग्रहालय से

(2’ 4” × 10.5”) जिसपर

दसवीं शती की देवनागरी लिपि

में २० पंक्तियों का एक लेख

खुदा है जो बहुत मिट गया है।

This record confirms that this inscription contains twenty (and not ten) lines as the Fuhrer’s inscription was reported to have contained. Likewise, it is broken in the middle as well as at the top because only one word from the first line is legible. The Lucknow Museum edict, too, is on a white sandstone like Fuhrer’s inscription. Fuhrer did not give measurement of the inscription; where as the Lucknow Museum inscription measures 2’4” in length and 10.5” in width. Moreover, the entry in the accession register confirms that this inscription came from Faizabad Museum. Thus, there is not a single element of doubt in this edict which goes against facts found by Fuhrer.

(7) Pushpa Prasad’s article

Pushpa Prasad is another scholar who wrote an article ‘Three Recently Found Inscriptions at Ayodhyā’ which was published in the ‘Proceedings of Indian History Congress’, 2003, printed in 2004(pp.348-50). Pushpa Prasad’s article is full of fancies and fictions. How she took Jahnavi Shekhar Roy to be female is amusing. Jahnavi-Shekhar is an epithet of Lord Siva. In Sanskrit and Hindi ‘Jahnavi’ means the Ganges and Shekhara is forehead. In the attributive compound (Bahuvrīhi) it is derived thus: ‘He, on whose forehead Jahnavi exists i.e. Śiva’. She arbitrarily decreed that ‘the two blocks were not at all parts of the same inscription, and belonged to two independent epigraphs’. Then she made the following desertation:

“The purported single inscription is actually an assemblage of two different inscriptions, each incomplete. The upper segment is broken from all the sides and it is most likely that it forms the middle part of some stone inscription. Its text on paleographic grounds relates to a land grant of the Gahadavala dynasty.”

She further commented:

“The lower block is broken from the top and right side and contains an invocation to a god or goddess. It seems to be associated not with the Gahadavala but with the Chandella dynasty, on paleographic grounds.”

According to her, the Lucknow Museum inscription is an assemblage of two different inscriptions, each incomplete. Her presumption is not correct because the two parts, when put together, show that the broken letters are continuous on both parts. It is clearly seen in the 11th line that although four letters दि व म तः are broken yet they are in continuity in the upper and lower parts of the inscription. It is conclusive evidence to prove that both upper and lower parts of the inscription are complementary to each other. In addition, the width of the two parts is almost the same. Besides, both are sandstones. Thus, they are parts of the same inscription without any doubt. Like Fuhrer’s inscription, it is incomplete. The upper or lower part is not broken from all sides and it does not form the middle part of some inscription. It is in the Śardūlavikrīdita metre and from its study it appears that it is the left side of an inscription which must have been four times larger in width. The top left side is not broken by a fall but it is deliberately cut by a sharp-cutting weapon. Its motive is discussed subsequently in this chapter only.

(8) The content of the inscription

The content of the inscription is composed in Śardūlavikrīdita metre and not a single group of words deciphered so far carries any concrete meaning on account of incomplete sentences. It does not relate to any land grant by the Gahadavāla dynasty. Whatever decipherment has been made by her does not carry any such sense. To substantiate it, her reading is produced below:

Text of the upper inscription:

तथ.... मत्र भाग दयता

9. Not clear

10. Not clear

B. Text of the lower inscription:

1. Not clear

2. Not clear

3. व दान हति विहति कीडित वद्व

4. सोयं... जलधि..... तेज निर्वि मन

5. दिपु। सुनाग........... जयति दिपु म

6. नाथ जनन्य...........चण्डचिरिश्यण्डक

7. विम दनः ........... भय पावनं।। न्य

8. रं सरस्वत्यपि। मे...... सरसि-संगम

9. ना कारि सुरारि वैरो चरण (वैरोचन) नाम्रात्मनः

10. यकायक्षः शा

About the lower block she has written that it contains an invocation to a god or goddess. It, too, is not correct because whatever she has deciphered and published does not carry any element of invocation to any god or goddess. Moreover, her decree that the upper part belongs to the Gahadawāla dynasty and the lower to the Chandella dynasty on paleographic grounds, too, is not convincing because she has not cited such differences which are embedded in the edict. Her contention that both the inscriptions are written and engraved by two different scribes or engravers, too, is not correct, because the hand-writings don’t look different apparently.
The contention that sizes of letters in the lower part of the inscription are bigger than those of upper part also does not hold good because on measurement it is found that the size of letters in the top portion of the inscription is the smallest and the size in the middle part of the inscription is larger than the top portion and the size of the lower portion has increased further. Therefore, all are parts of the same inscription. If the hand-writings don’t differ, then it could be the discretion of the scribe who might have started with a particular size, but after engraving some portion, he might have come to the conclusion that the space was more than the required engraving, so he might have enlarged the size of the letters to cover the space. Variations in the size of letters are found in many inscriptions, e.g. Prayaga-praśasti of Samudragupta contains letters of different sizes.
It is clear from the Museum records that this edict came from Faizabad Museum in 1953. The presumed date of the inscription shown in the register is the tenth century, whereas the inscription found by Fuhrer is that of the twelfth century. When the Museum officials were asked as to how this discrepancy had arisen, they explained that those who made entries presumed the dates on the general nature of the inscription and not on their actual readings. What Roy or Pushpa Prasad could decipher did not make any meaning. Pt. Bhavanāth Jha deciphered almost the completely available edict but we, too, have not succeeded in having any meaningful content because of the following factors:

(i) The width of the edict, which is available at present, is only one-fourth of the complete inscription. It is presumed on the fact that most of the writings are in Śardūlavikrīdita metre and words found are hardly one fourth of the metre. It is confirmed by the reading कालिन्दीसुरसिन्धुंगम...in the 18th line which is followed by नाकारिसुरारिके... in the 19th line. Many words are missing between these two words.

(ii) Someone has deliberately deleted around 40% of the content in the first five lines from the top. It is not broken by a fall. It is cut either by a saw or by a chisel. It is deliberately done to obliterate certain unfavourable content. It is very evident from the view of the edict. Even the two loops seen on the top right side or left side of the bottom cut are not on the face but in the back. It may be possible that the date of the inscription 1241 samavat might have been mentioned in this portion and on the basis of this date Fuhrer might have presumed that it related to King Jayachandra. Since the content available indicates the praise of some king, he presumed that it contained the eulogy of King Jayachandra and since it was found in the debris of Tretā-Kā-Thākura mosque, it was presumed that it related to the construction of this temple.
But the question arises as to when this tampering was made? Although J.S. Roy does not inform us that this portion was deliberately obliterated or broken in the top-left portion of the edict, it is clear from his deciphered text that it was missing during his inspection also. In fact, he has read thus ¶1. पया....................तिपंकविपिच्छिच''. He has read it in the first line, although it is actually in the second line. The first line is almost completely broken off. What J.S. Roy has read is the content after the chiseled portion. It is पया...... In other lines upto the fifth one his deciphered portion starts after the cut part only. Therefore, the tampering in the white sandstone had already taken place before J.S. Roy had an ink estampage. Thus, it seems that this tampering had been made before 1953 A.D. when it was in Faizabad Museum. There only, some unscrupulous person did this mischief before 1953 and probably after December, 1949.

The following points indicate that it is the same edict which was found by Fuhrer and mentioned in his report:

(i) This edict of Lucknow Museum, too, is of white sand-stone, as mentioned by Fuhrer.

(ii) It is in twenty incomplete lines as reported by Fuhrer.

(iii) It is broken off at the top to the extent that the first line is hardly visible. Even at the bottom, the reading is not clear.

(iv) The deliberately obliterated content creates doubt that the lost portion alluded to the date and construction of the temple.

(v) Now there is no record of pre 1953 inscriptions of the Faizabad Museum. In fact, the old grand Faizabad Museum is not in existence now. Its pre1953 articles were transferred to Lucknow Museum and nothing remains at Faizabad. But the officials of the Tulasi Smāraka Bhawan at Ayodhyā, which now houses all discovered articles since 1982, informed me that there was no article prior to 1953 in this Museum. The officials of Lucknow Museum replied that there is no other portion of the inscription left in any part of the Museum.

The text of the inscription, as deciphered by Pt. Bhavanath Jha, is as follows:

1. ++++++++++++++मम++++++

2. +++++++++++प्रग्रापनृतिपकविपिहि

3. +++++++++++त्नांसकां कः शशध(र)

4. +++++++++++येत्सिन्धो सन्ततपं

5. +++++++++++नि आशिखे(षे)वे यं शंतो

6. लकलि+नल्पकल्पपृक्तप्रक्लेश

7. रोत्थः+++करमये वाहिनी यत्र पंके

8. +तत्वयः ग्रसदावारपारगः। शाशीद्दास

9. तीन्द्र।।अ+(ग)मसमररंगासद्मतुल्य

10. तीभग्नमु+++ताशेषुविपक्वस्यासु+

11. सुधास्यन्दिदिक++दिवमतः।। मूला

12. ++++++जवाद्धिजाता+++

13. पद्धामद्धाध+तिविहितक्रीडितकृ

14. सौर्यजलधि+++गतेजोनिधिः

15. दिषु। सुनागसु+ह्यत्रिशान्तादिषुव

16. नादुक्त्वा लक्ष++++खण्डविरि (?)ण्डक

17. विमर्दनः परप+++सतःपावनं।। न्य

18. रंसरस्वत्यपि।। कालिन्दीसुरसिन्धुंगम

19. नाकारिसुरारिके+चरणन्यस्तात्मन

20. यकायस्थःशा++ननन्दनःशु

Despite deciphering it, there is no coherent meaning of the apparently unintelligible content because the sentences are not complete. As stated above, the available edict is only one fourth of the original inscription in width from the left.

(9) Prof. Irfan Habib’s fallacious explanation

On 6th December, 1992 when Baburi Mosque was demolished, an inscription was found containing 20 lines in the debris. Thereafter, a lot of controversy has been generated about its genesis and content. Historians proclaiming lack of its authenticity stress more on the mode of its discovery than the genuineness of its content or palaeographic certainty. Prima facie, the edict seems to contain the epigraphical style of the 11th-12th centuries. Therefore, no doubt can be created about its time. Again, another doubt is deliberately created that it might have been located elsewhere and after having brought it from that place to Ayodhyā it was shown to have been recovered from there. But it does not appear to have been brought from some other place. Even if it is supposed that it came from some other place, the historical value of its content would not be diluted because of its palaeographic certainty. Had this inscription been known earlier, it could have been declared then with all the pride. Even an established historian Pushpa Prasad examined and found it of the 12th century on the palaeographic ground. The language of the inscription cannot be attributed to a modern composer because its style is different from the modern day versification.
However, one allegation has been strongly made by the established historians that “this is really the inscription found by Fuhrer, surreptitiously removed from the Lucknow Museum and paraded off as a find from the Babri Masjid.” These noted historians may realize that the broken inscription deposited in the Lucknow Museum and marked as 53.4 is still available there. If the allegation of the theft of Fuhrer’s edict has to be substantiated, it has to be presumed that it was stolen from Faizabad Museum and not from Lucknow Museum and that, too, in pre-1953 period. Therefore, it does not sound reasonable at all that an inscription as important as the Vishnu-hari temple inscription was stolen in pre-1953 period and kept secret for almost 40 years and was suddenly ‘paraded off as a find’ on 6th December, 1992.
Even if Prof. Irfan Habib’s allegation is accepted that Karsewaks deliberately damaged the Vishnu-hari edict to erase the date of the installation of the Vishnu-hari inscription; it cannot be the same edict because it does not contain any praise, nay even the name of Jayachandra anywhere. The inscription mentions the name of King Govindachandra who was the greatest of the Gahadavāla kings and whose date is almost certain (1114 to 1155 A.D.). This inscription refers to the king Govindachandra and none else. But it mentions his many subordinates at Ayodhyā such as Sallakshana, Alhana, Anayachandra and Āyushchandra. The temple was constructed by Anayachandra but the content was inscribed during the days of Āyushchandra. However, Prof. Habib has explained the content of the inscription in the following words:
“The inscription that had been noticed by Fuhrer, had carried, as its date the year 1241 Samvat, corresponding to AD 1184. The extant inscription allegedly found at Babri Masjid has the date portion chopped off. If this has been done to ward off suspicions about its being the same as Fuhrer discovered inscription, then we must infer that it had carried the same date, viz. 1241 Samvat/AD 1184. If so, the ‘Govindachandra’ of this inscription cannot be identical with Govindachandra, the Gahadavala ruler, who reigned from 1114 to 1155, as Professor Pushpa Prasad suggests, but must be a Gahadavala prince of the same name who claimed paramountcy over this territory in 1184 as a rival to king Jayachandra. This is strongly suggested by the casual way Govindachandra is referred to in lines 15-16 in the phrase: Govindachandra-ks+tipãla-rãjya-sthairyãya, & c., ‘for the stability of Govindachandra’s kingdom’. No titles of a paramount ruler are affixed to him, especially when this was an age when fantastic titles were the vogue – such as Parambhattaraka, Maharajadhiraja, Parameshvara, Paramamaheshvara, Ashvapati, Gajapati, Narapati, Rajatrayadhipati, Vividha vidya vichara vachaspati, which were ‘usually employed by the Gahadavala kings’ (e.g. Epigraphia Indica, XIV, p.193; Pushpa Prasad, Sanskrit Inscriptions of Delhi Sultanate, Delhi, 1990, p.56). It is, therefore, most unlikely that the ‘Govindachandra’ of this inscription is the same as the earlier imperial Gahadavala ruler of that name. Rather, he seems to have been some weak Gahadavala princeling of whom Anayachandra, the local chief of Ayodhya, was a major supporter at this time.” [p. 35]

[Prof. Irfan Habib’s article ‘Ayodhyā (Awadh) down to the Mughal Ocupation’ published in the ‘Proceedings of the Indian History Congress’, 67th Session 2006-07]

Now it is a fantasy to state that the Govindachandra of this inscription (Vishnu-hari) cannot be identical with the great Gahadavāla emperor Govindachandra because he has been called Govindachandra-kshitipāla-rājya-sthairyāya. It has been misleadingly translated by them as ‘for the stability of Govindachandra’s kingdom’. The correct translation will be “for the stability of the kingdom of Govindachandra, who is the king of the earth.”Kshiti in Sanskrit is earth and pāla means ‘a protector, guardian, keeper’ (Apte, Sanskrit – English dictionary). In addition, Govindachandra has been called धरणीद्र (Dharanīndra) also in this Vishnu-hari inscription. Now a king of Central India has been called धरणीद्र, the master of the whole world and even then Prof. Habib calls it ‘the casual way’, whereas he has no doubt about the authenticity of the fake inscriptions of the Baburi mosque wherein the name of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi was not even properly recorded.
Prof. Habib should realize that his observation that Govindrachandra seems to have been some weak Gahadavāla princeling of whom Anayachandra, the local chief of Ayodhyā, was a major supporter at this time is a total fancy because the Sāketa-mandala was obtained by Anayachandra, the builder of the grand temple, on the birthplace of Rāma, by the grace of his master Govindachandra who was called the owner of the earth. Even then, Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry.

Similarly, the following observation of Prof. Habib is completely untenable:

“Since the presumed princeling Govindachandra is not further heard of, it is possible that Ayodhya passed under the control of Jayachandra after A.D. 1184.”

Ayodhyā was under the Gahadavāla kingdom at least since 1092 A.D. when the great grandfather of Jayachandra, Chandradeva visited it on pilgrimage in 1090-91 (vide Chandrāvatī plates of Chandradeva of V.S. 1150, E.I. vol. xiv, pp.192-196) and remained under it till 1194 A.D. when Jayachandra was defeated and killed in the battle with Muhammad Ghori at Chandawar in Etawah district. Uttarakosala, i.e. Ayodhyā has been mentioned in many inscriptions of Gahadavāla Kings including those of Govindachandra. Thus, the above suggestion of Prof. Habib is contradicted by historical facts.

Again, either the content in the inscription has been misunderstood or readers have been misled by making the following observation-

“The inscription begins with the praise of Lord Shiva; and attributes the beauty of Ayodhya, to “the presence of Avimukta (i.e. Shiva), goddess Visalakshi (i.e. Parvati) and Lalita (Durga)” with no mention of Lord Rama. Even when referring in one sentence to Vishnu, his praise covers his four incarnations: “who killed Hiranyakashipu, subdued Bana in battle, destroyed the prowess of Baliraja and performed many such deeds, he killed the wicked Dasanana (Ravana), who could be more than ten.” (For the text and translation of the inscription see Pushpa Prasad, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Mysore, 2003 (IHC, Patna, 2004), pp.351-359). Clearly, even to the builders of the Vishnu-Hari temple, Rama, as incarnation of Vishnu, did not require to be mentioned separately or specifically despite the temple being in Ayodhya. Indeed, the presiding deity at Ayodhya was held to be Shiva, not even Vishnu.”

It is true that the inscription begins with the praise of Śiva ue% f'kok;. But from this obeisance it cannot be concluded that the presiding deity at Ayodhyā was Śiva and not even Vishnu. These historians regard Tulasi Das as the greatest devotee of Rāma but neither his Rāmacharita-mānasa nor Vinaya-patrikā begins with the obeisance to Rāma. The latter begins with praise to Ganapati and the former with Ganeśa and Sarasvatī. But that does not diminish his devotion to Rāma.

Their second observation that the inscription attributes the beauty of Ayodhyā to the presence of Śiva, Pārvatī and Durgā is incorrect and misleading. Here the body of Ayodhyā is not compared but the body of Āyushchandra has been compared with Kāśī where reside Avimukta (Śiva), Viśālākshī (Pārvatī) and Lalitā (Durgā). Here pun has been played to mean the physical similarity of Āyushchandra and Kaśi. There is no comparison with Ayodhyā and no presence of Śiva, Pārvatī and Durgā has been shown at Ayodhyā.

(10) Verbatim translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription with ‘anvaya’

The image of the inscription is produced at the end of this chapter. Here it is presented in the verse form followed by अन्वय which will help readers to understand the translation easily and correctly. The text is based on the readings of K.V. Ramesh and T.P. Verma.

The translation has been done with the help of two erudite Pandits Śri Govind Jha and Śri Bhavanath Jha of Patna, who have suggested some readings to accommodate the text grammatically.

Verse 1.

............. नमः शिवा[य]।

Obeisance to Śiva.

In the first verse, only this much content is available, the rest is totally obliterated. However, there is enough space to accommodate a verse in the Śārdūlavikrídita metre. It might have been a eulogy of Lord Śiva.

Verse 2.

[पायाद् वत्रिदश]स् त्रिविक्रमतनो(नु) [खर्वेप्यखर्वाकृतिः]

प्रंशुत्वेन निखर्वषोडससमुद्देशां दधानस्तनुम्।

संवर्त्तप्रमदोद्धतः (तं) कुलगिरिग्रावप्रहारक्वणद्

ब्रह्माण्डं करसम्पुटेन विधुव(न)न् मध्यो ह[रिः सर्वदा]।।२।।

अन्वयः - त्रिदशः त्रिविक्रमतनो खर्व अपि अखर्वा आकृतिः प्रंशुत्वेन निखर्वषोडससमुद्देशान् तनुं दधानः संवर्त्तप्रमदोद्धतं कुलगिरिग्रावप्रहारक्वणद् ब्रह्माण्डं करसम्पुटेन विधुनन् मध्यः हरिः सर्वदा वः पायात्।

May you all be ever protected by Lord Vāmana in the form of Trivikrama who, though being dwarf, is tall with a physique which is an embodiment of all sixteen branches of knowledge. He bears in his palm the Universe which gets disturbed by cloud Samavarta and Pramad, as they strike against the rocks of Kulagiri and create echo.

Metre is the Śārdūlavikrídita.

Verse 3.

......................................................................

(श्रीम)द्भार्ग्गववि(क्रमः सुयशभृ)द्वंसो(शोऽ)वतंसो भुवः(।)

यस्मिन्रा(जति पा)लपंक्तिभिरिनस्स्थायिन्युंचद्भुज(:)

(वीरा)श्चोपचिते परार्थघटनाबंध्याननं (ना) जज्ञिरे।।३।।

अन्वयः -(श्रीम)द्भार्ग्गवविक्रमः सुयशभृद्विद्वंशः भुवः अवतंसः(बभूव)। यस्मिन् पालपंक्तिभिः इनः उदञ्चद्भुजः राजति। स्थायिनि उपचिते वीराः च परार्थघटनाबंध्याननाः जज्ञिरे।

The third śloka is quite mutilated and the reading is uncertain and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, except the first line, it has been completed and translated thus:

The dynasty, which was as ornament of the world, carries the reputation of having a long line of kings as mighty as Bhargava Parasurāma. Blessings are showered on it by the Sun along with a galaxy of kings in the raised-hand position. In this dynasty were born a number of heroes who were always ready to help others.

In this verse the world भार्ग्गवविक्रमः has been explained as भार्गव इव विक्रमः यस्य सः, i.e. he who possesses prowess like that of Bhargava. इनः is the synonym of the Sun – इनो भगो धामनिधिश्चांशुमाल्यब्जिनीपतिः।।

(Amarakośa, Ist canto, 31) Hand-raising position symbolizes showering blessings.

The reading संक्लिमिरिव is a construction which is not familiar to the Sanskrit literati. Therefore, this sentence cannot carry any meaning. However, from minute observation संक्लिमिरिव looks like पंक्तिभिरिनस्. Here परार्थघटनाबंध्याननाः is परार्थघटना अबंध्याननाः in the Sandhi-process and परार्थघटनायाम् अबन्ध्याननाः in Samāsa. अबन्ध्य in Sanskrit means “not barren, fruitfull, productive” (Apte, p. 165). Bānabhatta has used it in the Kādambarī – अबन्ध्यवांच्छितफलप्रदान – in the same meaning as it is used here. The epithet here means – those kings never failed in philanthropic acts, i.e. in providing assistance to others.

Verse 4.

ते चंडीपतिचंडतांडवचलन्चूडा[मणिः]------

ब्रह्मांडोच्चकपालरंध्रसरणीप्रस्थायिसत्कीर्त्तयः।

वीरास्तत्र कुले जनिं जगृहिरे ये भार्ग्गवीयाहव

क्षीणक्षत्रियशेषरक्षणविधौ बद्धोऽभियोगग्रहः।।४।।

अन्वयः - चंडीपतिचंडतांडवचलन् चूड़ा(मणि......) ब्रह्माण्डोच्चकपाल- रंध्रसरणी- प्रस्थायि-सत्कीर्त्तयः ते वीराः तत्र कुले जनिं जगृहिरे ये भार्गवीयाहव- क्षीणक्षत्रिय-शेषरक्षणविधौ अभियोगग्रहः बद्धः।

They were in the family of those who were always determined to protect the surviving Kshatriyas who had been rendered weak in the battle against Paraśurāma, and whose fame emanated through the cavity on the skull-shaped upper space of the cosmic globe (ब्रह्माण्ड) placed like the gem on the matted hair of the dancing Śiva.

In this śloka the reading यै in place of ये will make it correct grammatically.

Verse 5.

वंश्यन्तदेव कुलमाकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढमप्रतिम[विक्रम]जन्मभूमिः ।

यत्रातिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा मा नो जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री ।।५।

अन्वयः - तत् एव वंश्यं कुलम् आकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढम् (अपि च) अप्रतिमविक्रमजन्मभूमिः यत्र अतिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा (वर्तते स) नः जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री मा जनिष्ट।

It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxiety (over Bhārgavas’ war) and is the birthplace of the man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Here resides the person who is illuminous with glory on account of thousands of valorous deeds. He may not generate greed in us even for the most sought after wealth by the world.

In the first line of this Vasantatilakā śloka it is clearly mentioned that it (the place where the inscription was recovered) was the abode and birthplace of Rāma, the man with unmatched valour. Here अप्रतिमविक्रम denotes Rāma because of two factors. The background is the ending of all anxiety over the war with Paraśurāma and अमितविक्रम is one of the thousand names of Lord Vishnu (verse 81, sr. no. 641) who in his seventh incarnation as Rāma had forced Paraśurāma to retreat forever to Mahendragiri after his marriage with Sītā. In Rāma-rakshā-stotram Rāma has been called अप्रमेयपराक्रमः in 23rd śloka and in the Vālmīki Rāmāyana (Kishkindhā. 11.93) Sugrīva calls Rāma विक्रमे वरः i.e. first in heroic worth.
The meaning of तदेव वंश्यं कुलम has not been properly understood by scholars because वंश and कुल are commonly known as synonyms in the sense of dynasty. In Sanskrit kulam+ means abode, residence also. V.S. Apte’s ‘The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary’ gives the second meaning of Kulam+ as “the residence of a family, a seat, house, an abode.” (p. 364). In Amarakośa Kulam’s synonyms are defined as – कुं गृहे पितालोके कुबेरे चैककुण्डले In Haimakośa it is कुं कुल्ये गणे देहे जनपदेऽन्वये. In Raghuvam¢śa it has been used in this sense only – वसन्नृषिकुलेषु सः (12.25).

But scholars who did not know the second meaning of the word ‘Kulam+’ have played havoc with its meaning. Even a celebrated epigraphist K.V. Ramesh has been totally stumped and his following translation, presented before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, has been a real अनर्थ “Noble was that very family which was the birthplace of valour which had successfully removed the sufferings of the other (kshatriya clans).” The translation of Mr. Ramesh is not correct on account of many factors which are enumerated in the following paragraphs:

In this śloka kula means place and not dynasty because Vam¢śyam is already preceding kulam. It relates to Rāma, as Ayodhyā is the birthplace जन्मभूमिः of that great man who was amitavikramah (अमितविक्रमः). i.e. matchless in valour and it was Rāma and Rāma alone in the context.

Whereas the translation of the first line of the verse was beyond comprehension for those who did not know the exact meaning of the word kulam in the context, the translation of the second line is slightly intriguing because by a Sandhi rule, it may have a different meaning all together. First, I produce the अन्वय of the śloka:

यत्र (जन्मभूमौ) अतिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा (वर्तते स) मा ने जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री

Where (in that abode) resides the person who is illuminous in glory with thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for the most desired wealth in the world.

This is the simple meaning of the second line of the verse. Here मा नरे जनिष्ट has been translated as ‘may not generate’ in us. The indeclinable मा is used in the prohibitory sense, as in म् मा कुरु धनजनयौवनगर्वम् (Śankarāchārya), i.e. don’t boast of wealth and manpower. In the Gítā Lord Krishna has advised Arjuna क्लैव्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ। मे is the shortened form of म् मह्यम्, i.e. for me and अजनिष्ट of the लुङ् लकार becomes जनिष्ट by the Sūtra न माङ् योगे which prohibits addition अट् to the formation.

But K.V. Ramesh has taken the whole expression as मामेऽजनिष्ट, i.e. मामे was born. अजनिष्ट is in the लुङ् लकार and by the Sandhi rule अ is assimilated with ए of में and an अवग्रह ऽ is optionally added or even omitted. Thus, the whole meaning changes and the translation of K.V. Ramesh runs as follows:

“… in which Mame, the abode of thousands of perfect and extremely valorous deeds and who was the utmost favourite of the world.”

The fact of the matter is that the correct reading in the inscription is मा नो and not मा मे. The relevant portion of the inscription is produced below:

सा ह स स ह स्र स मि द्धधामामा नो ज

Anyone can see here that the thirteenth letter is not like the eleventh or twelfth and hence it cannot be में It has got more resemblance to नौ But even if it is accepted that it is में; there is little difference. में is singular and नो is plural. Then the meaning will be: “He may not generate greed in me even for most exciting wealth hankered after in the world.”

Ramesh has taken जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री in the nominative singular case whereas it is taken by us in the plural, objective case. Both are grammatically correct but the second suits the situation more favourably.

Sanskrit scholar Dr. Mohan Chand Tiwari in his book अष्टाचक्रा अयोध्याः इतिहास और परम्परा has wilfully made an arbitrary explanation by combining देव of तदेव and कुल of कुलमाकुलता —and made it देवकुल. Then he has presented the misleading meaning“उल्लेखनीय है कि गहड़वालकालीन ‘विष्णुहरिमन्दिर’ शिलालेख की चौथी पंक्ति में यह कहा गया है कि ‘जब समस्त क्षत्रियगण रक्षा करने में क्षीण हो गये थे तब देवकुल में जन्मभूमि की प्रतिमा व्याकुल हो गयी थी।” (p. 561)

Many enthusiastic historians, too, have translated it on the same line. It indicates the lack of sound knowledge of the Sanskrit language on their part.

Verse 6.

मा मे दयास्तु वपुषि द्रविणेषु तृष्णा निष्णातिरप्यविरसा रसनेद्रियार्थे।

इत्युद्गृणन्ननुदिनं स दिनेशवत्सो मामैष[णापि] जगदे जगदेक[वीरः]।।६।।

अन्वयः - मे वपुषि मा दया अस्तु द्रविणेषु तृष्णा (मा अस्तु)रसनेद्रियार्थे निष्णातिः अपि अविरसा अस्तु इति अनुदिनम् उद्गृणन् स दिनेशवत्सः जगदेकवीरः मा मा एषणा अपिजगदे।।

‘Let me have no attachment to my body, no thirst for wealth and no indulgence for sensual pleasures’. Reciting thus daily, the scion of the Sun (Karna) used to be called the matchless hero in the world.

K.V. Ramesh, too, has translated दिनेशवत्स as Karna but he takes the King to be Mame, whereas in our translation Karna is the name of the King. In the last verse, we have read  मा नो instead of मामे and here मामैषणापि instead of  मामेपदेन Therefore, there is some difference in the translation. Here मामैषणापि has been read by an erudite Sanskrit scholar Pt. Govind Jha of Patna and therefore it has been accepted as an accurate reading.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 7.

तद्युद्धकेलिदलिताखिलमेदभिल्लपल्लीसहस्रवनितासु निकुंजगासु।

उत्कंटका विटपिनो विटविष्टितानि ते स्वस्तनेषु जघनेषु मुहुर्लिखन्तः।।७।।

अन्वयः - तद्युद्धकेलिदलिताखिलमेदभिल्लपल्लीसहस्रवनितासु निकुंजगासु ते उत्कण्टकाः विटपिनः विटविष्टितानि स्वस्तनेषु जघनेषु मुहु लिखन्तः (आसन्)।

When in the sportive battle thousands of wives of the defeated tribes of Meda and Bhilla took refuge in forest hamlets, scratches on their breasts and thighs were repeatedly made by thorny plants, as if they were imitating amorous activities of the paramours of those women.

Though this śloka appears to be quite difficult to comprehend in the context, yet it may be presumed that it may show the pathetic condition of the wives of the soldiers of the rival camps. The poet imagines through a metaphor that bushes become sensuous after seeing those damsels, and by the movement of their thorns they write some sexual entreaties. It is worth mentioning here that the depiction of the sad plight of enemy’s women in order to highlight the prowess of the victor is a long poetic tradition in Sanskrit literature.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 8.

पुरा कीर्त्या न्यस्तन्तदनुतनुनाध्यासितुमना

मनस्वी स्वर्लोकं परिणतिमुपेत्यातिशयिनीं (।)

स सर्व्वसं क्षत्रं क इव भुवि सल्लक्षणसुते

श्रिया सार्द्धन्दध्रे हुतभुजि विवस्वानिव महः।।८।।

अन्वयः - पुरा कीर्त्या न्यस्तं तदनु तनुना अध्यासितुमना मनस्वी अतिशयिनी परिणतिं स्वर्गलोकम् उपेत्य (धन्यो भवति) क इव भुवि श्रिया सार्द्धं सल्लक्षणसुते (प्राप्ते सति) सः सर्वस्वं क्षत्रं (प्राप्य) हुतभुजि विवस्वान् इव महः दध्रे।

He, the resolute noble Karna, first sent his fame to the heaven and then, intending to reach there in person, bestowed his entire asset along with his throne upon his son Sallakshana in the same way as the Sun bequeathes his lustre to the fire – an event unique in the world.

The metre is S’ikharinī.

Verse 9.

तद्धाम निस्सीमममह्यमन्यैरन्येव सा काचन दानशक्ते।

अमानुषं पौरुषमाविरासीत्सल्लक्षणे विश्वविलक्षणन्तत(:)।।९।।

अन्वयः - तद्धाम निःस्सीमम् अन्यै अमह्यम्, दानशक्तिः सा काचन अन्या इव (आसीत्) ततः सल्लक्षणे विश्वविलक्षणम् अमानुषं पौरुषम् आविरासीत्।

By the power of that gift his Sallakshana’s) boundless glory was beyond anybody’s tolerance and was embedded in him a gallantry unparalleled in human being and a vigour rare in the world.

The metre is Upajāti.

Verse 10.

खडगः श्रीकरवालताधिकरणं बाहुर्महावाहिनी

कीर्त्ति संभृतसूपकारविधये पाच्यं सदा दंशनम्।

राज्येनापि विना निजोपकरणान्येतानि निःकंटकं

यत्साम्राज्यपरिच्छदं विरचिरे चिंतावितानोज्झितम्।।१०।।

अन्वयः -(यस्य) खड्गः श्रीकरवालताधिकरणं, महावाहिनी बाहु कीर्ति (च वर्तते) दंशनं सदा संभृतसूपकारविधये पाच्यं (भवति)। (सः) निजोपकरणानि एतानि विना अपि राज्येन निष्कण्टकं चिन्तावितानोज्झितम् यत् साम्राज्यपरिच्छदं विरचिरे। (विरचितम्)

His hand itself was a sword, his arm was indeed his great army and his fame, like sumptuously cooked delicacies, was ever palatable. These personal instuments, even without inheriting a kingdom, enabled him to spread an empire extensively without hindrance and worries.

It is Śārdūlavikrídita metre.

Verse 11.

समराजिरभाजोऽस्य चिरं नित्रिंश एव सः।

खड्गश्चापि धृतो मूर्ध्ना यो जहाराशुजीवितम्।।११।।

अन्वयः - अस्य समराजिरभाजः चिरं निस्शाः एव सः खड्गः च (आसीत्) यः मूर्ध्ना धृतः अपि आशु जीवितं जहार।

The king, while in the battlefield, could be terrific for long, and his holding aloft a ruthless sword which was quick to end lives (of his foes).

The metre is Anushtup.

Verse 12.

मलयवलयस्यान्ते शांते वियत्तटिनीतटे

हिमगिरिगुहागेहद्वारे दरीमधिनैषधीं।

प्रथमलिखितां सिद्धैर्यस्य प्रशस्तिपदावलीं

पठति निपुणं त्रैणं मोदान्नभस्थलचारिणाम्।।१२।।

अन्वयः - यस्य प्रशस्ति पदावलीं सिद्धै प्रथमलिखितां मोदान्नभस्थलचारिणां त्र्सणं मलयवलयस्य शान्ते अन्ते वियत्तटिनीतटे हिमगिरिगुहागेहद्वारे अधिनैषधीं दरीं निपुणं मोदात्पठति।

The band of wives of the air travellers (i.e. apsarās) happily sing (lit. read) the verses of his eulogy composed for the first time by the Siddhas in the serene surrounding of the Malaya mountain, on the banks of the heavenly river Ganga, at the entrance of the caves of the Himalayas and in the caverns inhabited by huntingtribes.

The metre is Harinī.

Verse 13.

कैलासाचलमेखलासु मलयस्वच्छेषु मेरो शिरो-

भागे स्वर्ग्गतरंगिणीतटभुवि स्थानेषु चान्येष्वपि।

कृत्वा तर्प्पणशिल्पजां प्रतिकृतिं वृद्धोपदेशात्पति-

प्राप्त्यै खेचरकन्यकाभिरनिशं यद्वाहुरभ्यर्चते।।१३।।

अन्वयः - यद् बाहु कैलासाचलमेखलासु मलयस्वेच्छेषु मेरो शिरोभागे स्वर्गतरंगिणीतटभुवि अन्येषु स्थानेषु च खेचरकन्यकाभिः अनिशं वृद्धोपदेशात् तर्प्पणशिल्पजां प्रतिकृतिं कृत्वा पतिप्राप्त्यै अभ्यर्चते (अभ्यर्च्यते)।

His arm is worshipped, on the advice of the elderly persons, by the celestial damsels with an intention to get (matching) husbands, by sculpturing his images, on the terrains of the Himalaya, in the pristine pure regions of the Malaya Mountains, in the area along the banks of the heavenly Ganga and in other regions.

The metre is Śārdūlavikrídita.

Verse 14.

(रज्यद्दारः) सः पेशलैरिष्टसिद्धिप्रा(प्तः प्रातः)......पह्नरं (वं) सं् जगद्भिः।

गेहे यस्य श्रीविलासाभिरामे व्यागाद्वै तं गीयते चारणौघै।।१४।।

अन्वयः - रज्यद्दारः सः पेशलै इष्टसिद्धिप्रा(प्तः) अपह्नवं (प्रातः) जगद्भिः (प्राप्नोति)। यस्य श्रीविलासाभिरामे गेहे व्यागाद्वै तं चारणौघै गीयते।

He, the husband of pleasing wives, deserved oblations from handsome persons who concealed themselves from the world to obtain desired things and in whose house, which was full of wealth and comforts, multitudes of wards sang his glory.

In the reading of K.V. Ramesh, the first word is एज्यग्व which carries no meaning. Pushpa Prasad has suggested the reading रज्यद्वारः But the appropriate reading will be रज्यद्दार which means he who has pleasing wives.

The metre is Mālinī.

Verse 15.

अमरपुरपुरन्ध्रीबन्धुतामव्यलीकां भजति सुकृतराशौ तत्र सल्लक्षणाख्ये।

प्रतिवपुरिव तस्य प्राप्य सद्योऽनवद्यं सुतमुदितविवेकं लोककौतूहलं तत्।।१५।।

अन्वयः - तत्र सल्लक्षणाख्ये सुकृतराशौ अमरपुरपुरन्ध्रीबन्धुताम् अव्यलीकां भजति। तस्य प्रतिवपु इव सद्यः अनवद्यम् उदितविवेकं सुं प्राप्य तत् लोककौतूहलं जातम्।

When Sallakshana, the abode of virtues, started to enjoy the company of damsels of the heaven (i.e. when he was dead), his son, who was just like his father in appearance, wise and free from sins, pleased his subjects who were full of excitements.

The metre is Mālinī.

Verse 16.

अल्हणः प्रणयपेशलः सतां गर्ज्जतां क्रकचकोटिरुत्कटः।

आनिनाय नयनिह्नवेन यः प्रहृतां प्रकृतिचंचलां श्रियम्।।१६।।

अन्वयः - अल्हणः सतां (प्रति) प्रणयपेशलः गर्ज्जतां (प्रति) क्रकचकोटि (इव) उत्कटः (आसीत्)। यः नयनिह्नवेन प्रकृतिचञ्चलां श्रियं प्रहृताम् आनिनाय।

Alhana, who was dear to gentlemen and a sharp-edged saw to war-mongers, retrieved the splendour of the Goddess of wealth, fickle, though, in nature, by fair means.

The metre is Rathoddhatā.

Verse 17.

लोकोत्तरः स खलु कोऽपि यदाभिमुख्येऽ

हंकार राशिरगलच्चिरसंभृतोऽपि।

संसारिपाशभिदु (दार) दृशैव यस्य

जाता श्लथाः सुकृतदुकृतकंचुकाश्च।।१७।।

अन्वयः - सः खलु कोऽपि लोकोत्तरः यदाभिमुख्ये चिरसंभृतः अपि अहंकारराशिः अगलत्। यस्य संसारिपाशभिदु(दार) दृशा एव सुकृतदुकृतकञ्चुकाः च श्लथाः जाताः।

He (Alhana) was extraordinary indeed; in front of whom heaps of arrogance (of foes), which were accumulated for long, used to melt away. By his liberal look the cloaks of good and bad deeds of his subjects used to be loosened.

Here in the third line दार has been restored after दु to complete the meaning.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 18.

पौरुषप्रतिरंध्रीति पुंध्रीति च बिभ्यताम्।

येन लोकानुरुद्धापि प्रतिषिद्धा नगोन्नतिः।।१८।।

अन्वयः - पौरुषप्रतिरंध्री इति पुरन्ध्री इति च बिभ्यतां (जनानां कृते भवति) येन लोकानुरुद्धा अपि नगोन्नतिः प्रतिषिद्धा।

He used to destroy the manliness (of his foes) and made those, who were afraid, effeminate. Beyond people’s belief, his reputation far dwarfed mountains’ heights.

The metre is Anushtup.

Verse 19.

तद्भातृजो जगति मेघसुतः श्रुताढयः श्रीमानभूदनयचद्रपदाभिलभ्यः।

गोविंदचंद्रधरणींद्रगुरुप्रसादात् साकेतमंडलपतित्वमलंभि येन।।१९।।

अन्वयः - जगति तद्भातृजः श्रुताढयः मेघसुतः श्रीमान् अनयचन्द्रपदाभिलभ्यः अभूत्। येन गोविन्दचन्द्रधरणीन्द्रगुरुप्रसादात् साकेतमण्डलपतित्वम् अलम्भि।

That Alhana’s nephew (brother’s son) and the son of Megha, rich in wisdom, was Anayachandra who became the ruler of Sāketa mandala with the grace of the elderly Govindachandra, the Lord of the earth.

Here श्रीमानभूदनयचद्र has to be taken as श्रीमान् अभूद् अनयचद्र.Therefore, अनयचद्र and not नयचद्र was the name. If Nayachandra is taken to be the name, the construction after the sandhi will be श्रीमान्+अभूत्+नयचद्र=श्रीमानभून्नयचद्र....

However, K.V. Ramesh has translated it in such a manner that it was Meghasuta, who after superseding Anayachandra became the ruler of the Sāketa-mandala. He has read पदाभिलंघ्य in place of पदाभिलभ्यः। But it will be better if Meghasuta is translated as the son of Megha instead of Meghasuta, the proper name. There is no context of superseding Anayachandra in the verse. Here it should be remembered that Alhana, Anaychandra, etc. were not kings but mere Sāmantas who were appointed by Gahadavala kings. Therefore, the right to primogeniture does not arise. The king appointed the ablest of them as Governor. Therefore, there was no question of supersession.

Some scholars wonder how a sāmanta could have a wretched name like Anayachandra, i.e. the moon of injustice. But Sanskrit is a very interesting language. Here Anayachandra does not mean अनयस्य चन्द्र but अनयेषु चन्द्र i.e. moon amongst darkness generated by injustice. Its implied meaning is that when the person is present, the darkness of all sorts of injustice vanishes. Thus, it is a tribute to the person.

Pushpa Prasad’s translation amusingly contains both versions. While translating verse 20, she has followed K.V. Ramesh and called Meghasuta the ruler of Sāketa who superseded Anayachandra. But in the translation of Verse 21 she writes, “he (Anayachandra) caused the construction of the beautiful temple of Vishnu Hari.”

Some scholars have named Nayachandra as the ruler of Sāketa mandala and identified him with the author of the Rambhā-mañjarī. But the poet Nayachandra belonged to the 14th/15th century A.D. and wrote Hammīra-vijaya epic in post-Alauddin Khalji period. Therefore, both cannot be equated.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 20.

शश्वत्संगररंगनर्तितरिपुस्धेंन युद्धोद्धुरा

वीरास्तेन न केवलं बलवता ये दुर्म्मदा मोचिताः।

अप्युद्दामचमूप्रदाननिरतस्वान्तेन चैकान्ततो

दुरारूढ वयस्यता मदमसौ कल्पद्रुमस्याजितः।।२०।।

(दूरारूढवयस्यतामदमसौ कल्पद्रुमस्यार्जितः।।)

अन्वयः - तेन बलवता शश्वत् संगररंगनर्तितरिपुस्कन्धेन युद्धोद्धुरा ये दुर्म्मदाः वीराः (ते) न केवलं मोचिताः। अपि च उद्दामचमूप्रदाननिरतस्वान्तेन एकान्ततः कल्पद्रुमस्य असौ दूरारूढवयस्यतामदं अजितः (अर्जितः)

He used to cut the neck of his frenzied enemies in his constant battles. He not only dispelled arrogant warriors, but also provided an army which surpassed the pride of everlasting helpfulness (friendship) of a Kalpa-tree.

To avoid छन्दोभंग दुरारूढ may be changed to दूरारूढ, i.e. stood from distance. अर्जित has been preferred to अजित to carry more simple meaning.

The metre is Śārdūlavikrídita.

Verse 21.

टंकोत्खातविशालशैलशिखरश्रेणीशिलासंहति -

व्यूहैर्विष्णुहरेर्हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दरं मन्दिरम्।

पूर्व्वैरप्यकृं नृपतिभिर्येनेदमित्यद्भुं

संसारार्णवशीघंघनलघूपायान्धिया ध्यायता।।२१।।

अन्वयः - येन संसारार्णवशीघंघनलघूपायान् धिया ध्यायता टंकोत्खातविशाल- शैलशिखरश्रेणीशिलासंहतिव्यूहै हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दरं पूर्वैः अपि नृपतिभिः अकृतम् इदम् अत्यद्भुह्नतं विष्णुहरे मन्दिरं (निर्मापितम्)Ð

He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple adorned with a gold Kalaśa, on a scale, never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with the blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks.

This verse is the testimony to the construction of a magnificent temple at the Janma-sthāna site on a scale never reached by previous kings. It appears that the temple’s tower was taken to such an unprecedented height that looked like a spire or a steeple stretching up to the heavens.

This verse is full of alliterations: विशालशैल-शिखर-श्रेणीशिलासंहति - has five श. It appears this Rāma Mandir has been called Vishnu-hari temple to continue the alliteration विष्णु of Vishnu-hari has been matched with व्यूहै and हरि with हिरण्य. Similarly, there is an alliteration in कलशश्रीसुन्दरं and मदिरम् Thus, the whole line is full of alliterations:

व्यूहैर्विष्णुहरेर्हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दरं मन्दिरम्।

Besides, Vishnu and Hari were freely used for Rāma in texts composed around 1000A.D. Rāma-mānasa-pūjā is a text which is claimed to be the part of Agastya Sam¢hitā. Its one manuscript dated 1783 A.D. is available in Pennsylvania University. Its reference No. is UPenn Ms. Coll. 390, Item 429. A copy of this manuscript has been obtained by us from the University. Its 58th verse reads as follows:

अनन्त विश्वेश हरे मुकुन्द गोविन्द विष्णो भगवन्नमस्ते।

श्रीकेशवानन्त नृसिंह विष्णो श्रीरामचद्राय नमो नमस्ते।।५८।।

Here readers will note that while saluting Rāma he has been addressed as Hari and Vishnu also. Agastya Sam¢hitā is supposed to be a text composed before 1000 A.D.

The metre is Śārdūlavikrídita.

Verse 22.

गोविन्दचंद्रक्षितिपालराज्यस्थैर्याय निद्रंभुजार्गलस्य।

अथ प्रपेदेऽस्य पदं कनीयानायुष्यचंद्रोल्हणसूनुरेव।।२२।।

अन्वयः - अथ गोविन्दचन्द्रक्षितिपालराज्यस्थैर्याय निस्तन्द्रभुजार्गलस्य अस्य पदं अल्हणसूनु एव कनीयान् आयुष्यचन्द्र प्रपेदे।

Then younger Āyushchandra, the son of Alhana, whose tireless shoulders were like safety laches for the safety of the kingdom of Govindachandra, the protector of earth, took over the post (of the samant).

The metre is Upajāti.

Verse 23.

न साहसांकेन न शूद्रकेण तस्योपमानं विदधु कवींद्राः।

कृं भिया यस्य पुरो न कामादन्येन मन्ये धनुराततज्यं(ज्यम्)।।२३।।

अन्वयः - तस्य उपमानं कवीन्द्राः न साहसांकेन न शूद्रकेण विदधु। यस्य पुरः मन्ये कामात् अन्येन भिया धनु आततज्यं न कृतम्।

Even best of the poets did not find his match either in Sāhasān¢ka or in Sūdraka. Fearing from him, none except Kāmadeva dared draw the bowstring in his presence, out of fright.

The metre is Upajāti.

Verse 24.

उद्दामसौधविबुधालयनीमयोध्यामध्यास्य तेन नयनिह्नुत वैशसेन।

साकेतमंडलमखंडमकारि कूपवापीप्रतिश्रय तडागसहस्रमिश्रम्।।२४।।

अन्वयः - उद्दामसौधबिबुधालयनीम् अयोध्याम् अध्यास्य तेन नयनिह्नुतवैशसेन कूपवाणीप्रतिश्रयतडागमिश्रं साकेतमण्डलम् अकारि।

While residing at Ayodhyā, which was full of towering abodes and temples, he pacified dissension through his righteous conduct, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, rest-houses and ponds throughout the Sāketa-mandala.

This verse is the clinching evidence that Ayodhyā had many grand temples on the eve of the Muslim conquest.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 25.

निद्रानिरोधविधये निजवल्लभानां हेमाचलामलशिलातलतल्पलीनाः।

कस्तूरिकैणतरुणीश्रवणोपभोग्ययोग्यं जगु सरसमग्नरसो यशोऽस्य।।२५।।

अन्वयः - अस्य सरसमग्नरसः कस्तूरिकैणतरुणीश्रवणोपभोग्ययोग्यं यशः हेमाचलामलशिलातलतल्पलीनाः (त्रियः) निजवल्लभानां निद्रावरोधविधये जगु।

For preventing their husbands from being asleep, the damsels, resting on beds as spotless as the wide surface of a golden mountain, were singing in mellifluous poem, his (Āyuschandra’s) fame which was very pleasant to the ears of the young musk-deer.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 26.

अविमुक्तविशालाक्षी ललितानंदिता सदा।

काशीव यस्य देहश्री सतां निर्व्वाणकारणम्।।२६।।

अन्वयः - यस्य देहश्री सदा ललितानन्दिता अविमुक्तविशालाक्षी काशी इव सतां निर्व्वाणकारणं (भवति)।

His physique is as attractive and pleasing as the city of Kāśī (Varanasi) inasmuch as both have the common attributes expressed here in through pun श्लेषालंकार. In case of Āyuśchandra, his wide eyes oversee (his realm) always and in case of Kāśī, which is an अविमुक्तक्षेत्र, i.e. the place of salvation on account of the presence of Goddess Viśālākshī. The first, i.e. Āyuśchandra is always pleasing and joyful, and the second, Kāśī is delighted on account of its having Lalitā ghat. The first is the means of removing the misery of good men and the second gives salvation to devotees.

Many scholars have not understood its meaning. Therefore, they have written that it has references to the deities named in this verse. In fact, attractiveness of the personality of Āyushchandra has been compared with Kāśī.

The metre is Anushtup.

Verse 27.

अस्थिभ्यो वितरन्हिरण्यकसिपुं संयम्य बाणं रणे

कुर्व्वाणो बलिराजबाहुदलनं कृत्वा बहून्विक्रमान्।

कुर्व्वन्दुष्टदशाननस्य हनन..............................कः

को(ऽ)प्यन्यः स दशाधिको................ पुण्योतता।।२७।।

अन्वयः - अस्थिभ्यः (अस्थिभिः) हिरण्यकसिपुं वितरन्, बाणं रणे संयम्य, बलिराजबाहुदलनं कुर्वाणः बहून् विक्रमान् कृत्वा दुष्टदशाननस्य हननं कुर्व्वन्... कः अपि अन्यः दशाधिकः...पुण्योतता।

Separating (flesh and blood of) Hiranyakaśipu from his skeleton, subduing Bānāsura in battle, suppressing the arms of demon king Bali and having performed many acts of’ valour and having killed wicked ten-faced Rāvana (were the acts of Rāma). Who else can compare with him in virtues?

It mentions the incarnations of Narasim¢ha, Krishna, Vāmana, and Rāma.

The metre is Śārdūlavikrídita.

Verse 28.

अद्येह (तस्य) नृपते.........तो निहन्ति

पाश्चात्यभीतिमपि भीषणबाहुदण्डः।

तेजः प्रभावमहतां महसीयमेव

पूर्व्वापरा...........................................।।२८।।

अन्वयः - अद्य इह (तस्य) नृपते भीषणबाहुदण्डः पाश्चात्य(त्त्य)भीतिम् अपि .....तो निहन्ति। (यतो हि) प्रभावमहतां तेजः महसीयम् एव (भवति)। पूर्व्वावरा......

And now the King, having fierce arms, annihilated the fear coming from the west. The brilliance of the mighty great ruler (spreads) in the east and west like a festive occasion.

The śloka is incomplete but carries much sense it purports to part with.

The metre is Vasantatilakā.

Verse 29.

पुण्यै प्रजानां परिणामवद्भिः ख्याते क्षितौ राज.......... श्री आयुष्य(चद्र)...

Because of the subjects’ virtues the King being famous in the world... the illustrious Āyushyachandra.

The metre is Upajāti.

(11) Comments on the inscription

In the above inscription the most important verses are 5, 21, 24 & 27. Verse 5 indicates that it was the birthplace (janma-bhūmi) of Rāma (अमितविक्रम, i.e. a man with matchless power). Verse 21 mentions the construction of Vishnu-hari temple. Verse 24 is a testimony to the fact that Ayodhyā had many grand temples and Verse 27 indicates many incarnations including that of Rāma who killed Rāvana.The veracity of the date of the edict can be easily confirmed by its epigraphic nature and no one has expressed any doubt about its origin of the 11th-12th century. The only confusion has been created about the place of the discovery but the text of the edict leaves no doubt about its place of origin.

Thus, it seems that the temple, which was demolished by Aurangzeb subsequently, had been built by Anayachandra, a sāmanta of King Govindachandra when the former was Governor of Sāketa. After his death when Āyushchandra became the Governor, he built thousands of ponds, wells and inns in the Sāketa mandala. During his period Ayodhyā had many towering temples too.

Twelve Kasauti pillars in the disputed sturcture were the clear proof that the mosque had been built after demolishing a temple because the pillars stood in situ and therefore they were the part of the original structure. They had not been brought from any other place or from any other building. This is the basic understanding of archaeology which has been dealt with at length in the second volume.

The inscription mentions the names of King Govindachandra, Governors Karna, Sallakshana, Alhana, Anayachandra and Āyusyachandra. The Janma-bhūmi temple was erected by Anayachandra during the reign of King Govindachandra (1114 55 A.D.) and the inscription was placed during the feudal Lordship of Āyushyachandra. Since Āyushyachandra established thousands of wells, ponds, tanks and rest-houses in Sāketa-mandala, it must have taken 20 years in accomplishing it. Thus, the temple might have been built around 1130 A.D.

The inscription belongs to the period of King Govindachandra but he is not credited to have constructed the temple. After going through the inscription many times it is concluded that it was Anayachandra, who was the son of Megha, and nephew of Alhana, who constructed the temple. This Anayachandra was given the Governship of Sāketa-mandala by King Govindachandra. Anayachandra made such a wonderful Vishnu-hari temple of a series of chiselled big stones with a gold-made kalaśa on the top of it as no other king in the past had done. Of course, it is a hyperbolic statement. After the death of Anayachandra the governance of Sāketa was entrusted to Āyushchandra who was the younger son of Alhana. He was a poet who claims to have far excelled Sāhasān¢ka and Śūdraka. During this period Ayodhyā was full of large palaces and temples.

Those who claim that there was no temple at Ayodhyā on the eve of the Muslim conquest may read this line of the 24th verse: उद्दामसौधविबुधालयनीम् अयोध्याम् अध्यास्य। Here विबुधालय means देवालय i.e. temple. Thus, there were many grand temples at Ayodhyā in the 12th century A.D. Here is the genealogy of the Governors at Ayodhyā under the Gahadavāla Kings gleaned from this inscription:

Thus, this inscription is a testimony to the fact that the temple built by Anayachandra at the birthsite of Rāma was a huge temple with a series of towers looking like spires touching heavens.

The discovery of Vishnu-hari temple inscription after a lapse of several centuries strengthens the saying of Henry David Thoreau:

“Let us not underrate the value of a fact; it will one day flower into a truth.”



Chapter Eleven

The existence of Rāma’s Janmasthāna and a temple thereon is based not on beliefs alone but on unimpeachable evidences also

[(1) Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya of the Rudra-yãmala (2) Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya of the Skanda-Purãna (3) Ayodhyã-mãhãtmya preserved in Bodleian Library, Oxford.(4) Satyopãkhyãna (5) Vishnu-hari inscription (6) Avadha-vilãsa of Lal Das (7) Testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler (8) Exact birth-site of Rãma (9) William Finch (1608-11 A.D.) (10) Joannes De Laet’s book (published in 1631) (11) Accounts of Thomas Herbert (first published in 1634) (12) French scholar C. Mentelle’s account of Ayodhyã (13) Buchanan’s report (14) Archaeological evidence (15) Janam Sãkhí evidence of Guru Nanak Dev (16) Hafizullah’s report to the Faizabad’s law-court in 1822 (17) Forcible occupation of the mosque by the Nihang Sikhs in November, 1858 (18) Complaint of Syyed Muhammad (19) Reports of the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey (20) Complaint of Mir Rajjab Ali (21) Petition of Mohmmad Asghar (22) Muraqqa-i-Khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami (23) Apriori Evidence (24) 1902 Markers (25) Maratha Records (26) Jaipur Kapad Dwãr records (27) Philip Baldaeus’s account (28) Some other foreign accounts (29) Testimony of early Gazetteers (30) P. Carnegy’s writing (31) Pûjã and Namãz in the same shrine of Bijapur built by Ibrahim Shah (32) Edward B. Eastwick’s “Handbook of the Bengal Presidency” (1882) (33) Hans Bakker’s conclusions (34) Visit of Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar to Ayodhyã (1859 A.D.) (35) Two Mughal Sanads on Ayodhyã highlighted for the first time (36) Maulvi M. Shuaib’s Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1906-07 (37) Sea of humanity at Ayodhyã on the Rãmanavamì day]

It is an irony that though there are indigenous literary sources, foreign travellers’ accounts, a detailed inscription and archaeological excavation reports, all supporting the existence of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā, yet established historians have been misleading the nation by spreading unsubstantiated propaganda incessantly that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the claim that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple existed thereon. The following evidences testify to the fact that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple did exist at the sacred site.

(1) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala

Rudra-yāmala has got a long tradition of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, which depicts the Janma-sthāna i.e. birthplace of Lord Rāma in a very significant manuscript copied in 1801 A.D. from an ancient text. It has 16 chapters which include one chapter entitled Dāridrya-bhañjana. The following ślokas highlight the merit of the birthplace of Lord Rāma. In addition, it is a testimony to the fact that there existed a temple at the site of the birthplace of Lord Rāma and devotees used to visit it.

दुर्ल्लभो(?)अयोध्यावासोदुर्लभंसरयूजलम्।

दुर्ल्लभाजन्मभूमिश्चदुर्ल्लभंरामदर्शनम्।।32।।

मनसापि स्मृता येन अयोध्या नगरी शुभा।

नतेषांपुनरावृत्तिर्यावदाहूतसंप्लवम्।।33।।
i.e., Rare are the opportunities to reside at Ayodhyā, to bathe in the Sarayū river, to visit the birthplace of Rāma and to have the darśana of Lord Rāma. Even if one remembers the auspicious pilgrim city Ayodhyā, he is bound not to be born until the deluge.

सरयूतीरमाश्रित्य शाकमूलफलैरपि।

तस्मिन्भोजितोविप्रोकोटिर्भवतिभोजिता।।34।।

He, who dwells on the bank of the Sarayū river and lives on vegetables, roots and fruits and feeds one Vipra, will get the benefit of feeding one crore Vipras.

सरयूतीरपूतानां जन्मभूम्याः विलोकिनाम्।

दर्शनात्पातकंतेषांकल्पकोटिशतायुता(न्)।।35।

All sins of those persons, who after being purified by bathing on the Sarayū’s bank visit the janma-bhūmi, are effaced, by its mere glimpse, for hundreds, thousands and crores of kalpas.

राममन्दिरमासाद्य दर्शनं क्रियते नरः(रै)।

मनसापिस्मृंयेनमुच्यतेचरणत्रयात्।।36।।

Having reached the temple of Rāma men, who have his darśana (glimpse) or even his rememberance, are liberated from the charana-trayam, i.e. birth, life and death.

दर्शनं जन्मभूमेश्च स्मरणं रामनामतः।

मज्जनंसरयूतीरेकृंवैपापनाशनम्।।37।।

अयोध्यानगरं पुण्यं स्मृं वै पापनाशनम्।

धान्यंयशस्यमायुष्यंपुण्यंपापहरंफलम्।।38।।

सुखसौभाग्यमारोग्यं अयोध्यासरयूजलम्।

By the darśana of the Janma-bhūmi or the remembrance of the Rāma-nāma or bathing in the Sarayū river all sins are destroyed. He, who remembers the sacred Ayodhyā, is blessed with wealth, reputation, long life, virtues and destruction of sins.

यइदंशृणुयान्नित्यंचरित्रंरामजन्मनः।।39।।

दर्शनात्स्मरणाद्वापिसर्वपापैप्रमुच्यते।।40।।

He, who listens to the story of the birth of Rāma or has a glimpse (of him or his temple or idol) or remembers him, is liberated from all sins.

इति श्रीअयोध्यामाहात्म्ये दरिद्रभञ्जनमाहात्म्यमहिमावर्णनो नाम द्वादशोऽध्यायः।।

(Folio no. 25r.)

(Here ends the description of the importance of the destruction of the poverty chapter).

In this canto it is clearly mentioned that there existed a Rāma mandir which was visited by devotees. The present writer is the first person to bring this evidence before readers. This evidence is conclusive to prove that there existed a temple earlier on the site of Rāma’s birth. In addition, there are several verses in the seventh canto which are quoted below:

जन्मस्थानंततोगच्छेदृषिदेवैर्नमस्कृतम्।।12।।

यद् दृष्ट्वा मानवो भक्त्या गर्भदुखक्षयो भवेत्।

विनादानेनतपसाविनातीर्थैर्विनामखै।।13।।

Then one should go to the Janma-sthana, which is saluted by sages and gods, by seeing which, one is liberated from all miseries and the cycle of birth without donation or penance or pilgrimage or sacrifices.

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेणमुच्यतेजन्मबन्धनात्।।14।

If people fast on the Rāmanavamī day, bathe in the Sarayū and make donation, they are liberated from the bond of birth.

कपिलागोसहस्रं च यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलंसमवाप्नोतिजन्मस्थानस्यदर्शनात्।।15।। Ð

By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one gets that much virtue which is accumulated by donating a thousand kapila cows everyday.

रत्नकोटिसहस्राणि यो ददाति द्विजातये।

तत्फलंसमवाप्नोतिजन्मभूमेश्चदर्शनात्।।16।।

By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one gets that much virtue which is obtained by donating a thousand crore gems to Brāhmanas.

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणां च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।

तत्फलंसमवाप्नोतिजन्मभूमेश्चदर्शनात्।।17।।

(Folio 17v. : Adhyāya 7)

By a mere glimpse of the Janma-bhūmi one obtains that much virtue which is gathered by the devotion to mother, father and the Guru.

(2) Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna

The Ayodhyā-māhātyma of Skanda Purana is another authentic and dependable evidence which proves that the site of the disputed shrine was the birthplace of Lord Rāma. There are many versions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna. The following is the description of the Rāmajanma-bhūmi in the Skanda Purāna published by Khemraj Shrikrishnadass:

तस्मात् स्थानत ऐशाने रामजन्म प्रवर्तते।

जन्मस्थानमिदंप्रोक्तंमोक्षादिफलसाधनम्।।18।।

To the north-east of that spot is the place of the birth of Rāma. This holy spot of the birth is said to be the means of achieving salvation, etc.

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठादुत्तरे तथा।

लौमशात्पश्चिमेभागेजन्मस्थानंततःस्मृतम्।।19।।

It is said that the place of birth is situated to the east of Vighneśvara, to the north of Vasishtha and to the west of Laumśa.

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासजयो भवेत्।

विनादानेनतपसाविनातीर्थैर्विनामखै।।20।।

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारी हि मानवः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेणमुच्यतेजन्मबन्धनात्।।21।।

Only by visiting it a man can get rid of staying (frequently) in a womb (i.e. rebirth). There is no necessity for making charitable gifts, performing penance or sacrifices or undertaking pilgrimages to holy spots. On the Navamī day the man should observe the holy vow. By the power of the holy bath and charitable gifts, he is liberated from the bondage of births.

कपिलागोसहस्राणि यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलंसमवाप्नोतिजन्मभूमेप्रदर्शनात्।।22।।

By visiting the place of birth one attains that benefit which is obtained by one who gives thousands of tawny-coloured cows everyday.

आश्रमे वसतां पुंसां तापसानां च यत् फलम्।

राजसूयसहस्राणिप्रतिवर्षाग्निहोत्रतः।।23।।

By seeing the place of birth one attains the merit of ascetics performing penance in hermitage, of thousands of Rajasuya and Agnihotra sacrifices performed every year.

नियमस्थं नरं दृष्ट्वा जन्मस्थाने विशेषतः।

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणाञ्चभक्तिमुद्वहतांसताम्।।24।।

तत्फलंसमवाप्नोतिजन्मभूमेप्रदर्शनात्।।25।।

(Adhyaya 10, p. 293R.)

By observing the holy rites particularly at the place of birth he obtains the merit of the holy men endowed with devotion to mother and father as well as preceptors.

From a reading of this passage it is clear that the birthplace of Rāma is mentioned with its location which is indicated to the east of Vighneśvara, west of Laumaśa and north of Vasishtha. But it does not give the exact distance from these markers, nor does it indicate any temple or building at the site.

However, the Ayodhyā Māhātmaya of the Skanda Purāna preserved at Bodleian Library, Oxford has the following ślokas which give exact distances from various places and indicate that there was a royal palace built by Brahmā at the site:

जन्मस्थानं ततो गच्छेदृषिदेवैर्नमस्कृतम्।

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठाच्चोत्तरे तथा।

लोमशात् पश्चिमे भागे जन्मस्थानं ततः स्मृतम्।

One should go to the Janmasthāna which is worshipped by sages and gods. It is located to the east of Vighneśvara and north of Vasishtha and west of Lomaśa.

धनुपंचाशतादूर्ध्वं स्थानं वै लोमशात्पश्चिमे।

विघ्नेश्वरात् सहस्राष्टावुन्मत्ताच्च धनुशतम्।

This area is regarded as Janma-sthāna which is 500 dhanush west of Lomaśa and 1000 dhanush from Vighneśvara and 100 dhanush from Mattagayanda.

मध्ये तु राजभवनं ब्रह्मणा निर्मितं स्थलम्।

जन्मस्थानमिदं प्रोक्तं मोक्षादिफलदायकम्।

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासक्षयो भवेत्।

In its centre is the royal palace made by Brahmā. It is called Janma-sthana, which is the giver of deliverance and by the darsana of which one is liberated from the stay in the mother’s womb.

Bakker has made calculation of all these sites and has come to this conclusion:

“Notwithstanding all the difficulties discussed above, the original location of the Janma-sthãna is comparatively certain since it seems to be attested by the location of the mosque built by Babur in the building of which materials of a previous Hindu temple were used and are still visible. The mosque is believed by general consensus to occupy the site of the Janmasthana.”

Similarly, the manuscript preserved at Vrindavana Research Institute in Bengali script, which has been marked ‘B’ by Bakker in his comparative study, corroborates the distance, direction and existence of a royal place at the birthplace of Rāma. Relevant verses are quoted below:

जन्मस्थानं ततो गच्छेदृषिदेवैर्नमस्कृतम्।।11।।

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे वासिष्ठाच्चोत्तरे तथा।

लोमशात् पश्चिमे भागे जन्मस्थानं ततः स्मृतम्।।12।।

धनुपञ्चाशतादूर्ध्वं स्थानं वै लोमशस्थलात्।

विघ्नेश्वरात् सहस्राष्टावुन्मत्ताच्च धनुशतम्।।13।।

Then he (the pilgrim) should go to the birthplace (of Rāma) which is worshipped by sages and gods. It is situated to the east of Vighneśvara (temple), to the north of Vasishtha and to the west of Lomaśa. It is 500 dhanush above Lomaśa site and 1008 dhanush from Vighneśvara and 100 dhanush from Unmatta (Matagajendra).

मध्ये तु राजभवनं ब्रह्मणा निर्मितं स्थलम्।

जन्मस्थानमिदं प्रोक्तं मोक्षादिफलदायकम्।।14।।

यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासक्षयो भवेत्।

विना दानेन तपसा बिना तीर्थैर्विना मखै।।15।।

At the centre is built the royal palace built by Brahmā. It is called Janmasthāna and gives salvation, etc. and the mere sight of which releases a man from returning to the mother’s womb without donation, penance, pilgrimage and sacrifice.

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।16।।

कपिलागोसहस्रञ्च यो ददाति दिने दिने।

तत्फलं समवाप्नेति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।17।।

जन्मान्तरसहस्रेषु यत् पापं समुपार्जितम्।

तत्सर्वं नाशमायाति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।18।।

मातापित्रोर्गुरूणाञ्च भक्तिमुद्वहतां सताम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नेति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।19।।

By glancing the Janma-bhūmi one gets the fruit of donating a thousand Kapilā cows. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi all the sins gathered in thousands of births are liquidated. By a glance at the Janma-bhūmi one gets all the merits obtained by devotion to mother, father and elderly people.

गुरुशुश्रूषारतिमतां तीर्थसेवारतात्मनाम्।

सत्यव्रतपराणाञ्च आश्रमाणाञ्च यत् फलम्।।20।।

सत्यव्रतपराणाञ्च स्वधर्मपरिपालनम्।

तत्फलं समवाप्नोति जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।21।।

By a glance of the Janma-bhūmi one gets all merits of those who serve teachers, render service in pilgrim places, tread the path of truthfulness and follow their dharma.

आश्रमे वसतां पुंसां तापसानां च यत् फलम्।

राजसूयसहस्राणि प्रतिवर्षाग्निहोत्रतः।।22।।

Those, who perform penances in hermitages and perform a thousand Rājasūya sacrifices by Agnihotra, obtain equal merit by taking a glance at the Janma-sthāna.

नियमस्थो नरो दृष्ट्वा जन्मस्थानं विशेषतः।

विवर्णवदनो भूत्वा मार्जयेद् भूमिजं रजः।।23।।

जन्मस्थानं नरो दृष्ट्वा मुच्यते जन्मसंकटात्।

(Adhyaya 5, folio 13V.-14V.)

However, the Skandapurāna published by Venkatesh Press does not contain the śloka which mentions the existence of a royal palace built by Brahmā at the birthplace of Rāma. It seems that this version of the Skandapurāna is representative of the third and final phase of the text which was prepared after the temple and the castle were demolished.

This view is expressed by V.S. Pathak and J.N. Tiwari in their article “Rāma Janma-bhūmi Bhavana – The Testimony of Ayodhyā Māhātmya” published in the book ‘Ayodhyā’ of Kashi Raj Trust. One may or may not agree with this view but the two recessions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya confirm that there was a Rāmālaya at the site of the birthplace of Rāma. There is a mention of the construction of a royal palace built by Brahmā at the site of Rāma’s birthplace in the Boldevin Manuscript published by Ramanarayana Das.

There are many established historians who try to confuse readers by writing that the lower date of the Skanda-Purāna cannot be determined with certainty. However, there is one manuscript of the ‘Ayodhyā-māhātmya’ which was kept in the library of Jīva Gosvāmī, the well known disciple of Chaitanya Maha-prabhu. (चैतन्य महाप्रभु)

Hans Bakker has thrown some light on this important manuscript in the following words:

“Jiva Gosvami (A.D. 1523-1608) possessed a M.S. of the A.M. in his library as it is attested by a supposedly autographed hand-list of titles of texts at his disposal. The list dates from V.S. 1654 (A.D. 1597) and comes from the Rãdha Dãmodara temple in Vrindaban founded by Jiva Gosvami. It is presently kept in the VRI. (Vrindavan Research Institute) (Acc. No. 5425)”

In spite of all these facts, the four historians have made the following observation in the “Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation”:

“We have used the printed version of the Skanda Purãna (Khemaraj edn, Bombay, 1910) and two other versions found in manuscript in the Vrindavan Research Institute, Vrindavan, and the Bodlian Library, Oxford. These texts are of recent origin and the insertion of interpolations in the Ayodhya-mahatya section of the printed Skanda Purana seems to have continued at least till the 18th century. The internal contents of the Skanda Purana including the mention of Vidyapati, who passed away in the first half of the 16th century, show that the core of this Purãna was not compiled earlier than the 16th century”.

The report to the nation is a beautifully written document with a lot of distorted and misleading statements. The established historians claim that they have used two versions of the manuscript found in the Vrindavana Research Institute. If they really read these two versions, they would have come to know that there was a catalogue of manuscripts in the library of Jīvagosvāmī in 1597 A.D. which contains two verses from the Ayodhyā-māhātmya. In the report they have passed a judgment that ‘these texts are of recent origin’. How can a manuscript of 400 years’ standing be of recent origin? They further pronounce that interpolations in the Skanda-purāna are as late as the 18th century and the core of the Purāna was not compiled earlier than the 16th century A.D. because it mentions the name of Vidyāpati. The Vidyāpati of the Skanda Purāna is a legendary figure, different from the famous Maithilī poet. Had these historians really read the relevant portion they could have easily known this fact. Besides, Vidyāpati did not live in any part of the 16th century. He copied the Bhāgavata Purāna in his own handwriting in the Lakshmana Sam¢vat 299, i.e.1408 A.D. at an advanced age during his exile in Nepal. He is supposed to have died by 1450 A.D. at a very ripe age.

It is true that many interpolations exist in many Purānas. But it does not mean that the core of the Skanda Purāna was written in the 16th century A.D. When Alberuni visited India along with Mahmud of Ghazni, he, too, had found the existence of all the 18 Mahāpurānas, which included the Skanda Purāna also. Though many Puranas belonged to the pre-Gupta period, the core of most of the Purānas was composed from the Gupta period (4th century onwards) to the end of the first millennium of the Christian era. Interpolations made thereafter are few and far between. Our contention is that the Vrindāvana Sanskrit Manuscript represents the oldest version and it includes everything, the mention of Janma-sthāna, a structure thereon and the exact location of the Janma-sthāna.

In the Badarikā-māhātmya of the Skanda-purāna it is made clear that if a devotee takes bath at the Svargadvāra Ghāt and visits Rāmālaya, i.e. the (natal) house of Rāma, he is blessed with everything. The relevent verses are as follows:

अयोध्यां विधिवद् दृष्ट्वा पुरीं मुक्त्यैकसाधनीम्।

सर्वपापविनिर्मुक्ताः प्रयान्ति हरिमन्दिरम्।।

विविधविष्णुनिषेवणपूर्वका-

चरितपूजननर्तनकीर्तनाः ।

गृहमपास्य हरेरनुचिन्तना-

ज्जितगृहार्जितमृत्युपराक्रमाः।।

स्वर्गद्वारे नरः स्नात्वा दृष्ट्वा रामालयं शुचिः।

न तस्य कृत्यं पश्यामि कृतकृत्यो भवेद्यतः।।26।।

(स्कन्दपुराण : वैष्णव खण्ड : बदरिकाश्रम-माहात्म्य : अध्याय १)

People, who visit Ayodhyā, the city which grants salvation, are liberated from all sins and go to the abode of Hari (Hari-mandir). They, who render various services toVishnu and worship him, perform dance, or recite His charita and renounce home, overcome death by meditation on Hari. If a pious person, having bathed at the Svargadvār ghāt, visits the Ramālaya, i.e. the house of Rāma (where he was born?) is blessed with everything.

Nevertheless the established historians have made the following misleading observation:

“The various versions of the Ayodhya-mahatmya seem to have been prepared towards the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th; even as late as that the birthplace was not considered important. It is significant that the Janmasthana is not mentioned in any itinerary of pilgrimage given in the Mãhãtmya.”

Again, these established historians are reminded of the fact that the Vridavan Manuscript existed in the 16th century and therefore their sweeping remarks cited above are devoid of merit. Another observation that even by the end of the 18th or the beginning of the 19th century the birthplace was not considered important indicates their ignorance because it is clearly mentioned – ‘यद् दृष्ट्वा च मनुष्यस्य गर्भवासक्षयो भवेत्’ which means that having seen the birth-site of Rāma a man is liberated from the agony of staying in mother’s womb, i.e. he gets Moksha. In Hindu religion, out of the four ‘purusharthas – Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksha, the last is considered the supreme. Even then the established historians claim that the birthplace of Rāma was not considered important.

The oldest Vrindavana Manuscript gives the following location of the Janma-sthāna:

विघ्नेश्वरात् पूर्वभागे- East to the Vighneśvara temple

वासिष्ठाच्चोत्तरे तथा - North to the Vāsishtha (Kunda or āśrama)

लोमशात् पश्चिमे भागे - West to the Lomaśa (temple or āśrama)

जन्मस्थानं ततः स्मृतम्- Janma-sthāna is located

After indicating the above directions, i.e. the Janma-sthāna is situated east to the Vighneśvara (Ganeśa) temple, north to the Vāsishtha (Kunda or āśrama) and west to Lomaśa Rishi’s hermitage, the distance is calculated in the following words: धनुपंचाशतादूर्ध्वं स्थानं वै लोमशात् पश्चिमे, i.e. it is located at a distance of 500 dhanush west of Lomaśa’s (hermitage); विघ्नेश्वरात् सहस्रात्तु, i.e. 1000 dhanush from Vighneśvara (temple) and उन्मत्ताच्च धनुशतम्, i.e. 100 dhanush from Unmatta area.

Dhanush has been defined by ‘ Śabda-Kalpadruma’ and ‘V.S. Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary’.

“It is equal to 4 hastas and 2,000 dhanus is one Krosa, i.e. 2 miles and 1,000 dhanus will be 1 mile, i.e. 1.6km.”

The four historians in their ‘Report to the Nation’ have taken 500 dhanush as 910 metres whereas it should be 800 metre only. Whereas Hans Bakker identifies Lomaśa with Ram Gulela (mutt opposite Amawa Mandir) and states: “Nowadays a matha named Rāmagulelā is believed to represent Lomaśa”; these historians presume thus on their own:

“According to local Hindu belief Laumash or the place of Lomash is identical with the Rinamochan Ghat. On this basis the Rama Janma-bhumi should be located somewhere west in the vicinity of the Brahmakunda close to the bed of the Sarayù.”

When I enquired from the Dharmāchāryas of Ayodhyā, they told me that Lomaśa Āśrama is identical with the Rāma Gulela temple where marker no. 4 was fixed by the British District Magistrate in 1902. It reads: ‘4 लोमश’

When the identification of Lomaśa hermitage with Rinamochana Ghat is without even local belief, how can a judgment be passed? Bakker, who devoted considerable time at Ayodhyā, has reported that it is now identified with the Rāma Gulela Math. Thus, the identification of Lomaśa hermitage with Rinamochana Ghat becomes dubious and passing a judgment on dubious presumption becomes preposterous. Hans Bakker, after making many presumptions on the identification of the places mentioned in the A.M., came to the following conclusion:

“Notwithstanding all the difficulties discussed above the original location of the Janma-sthana temple is comparatively certain since it seems to be attested by the location of the mosque built by Babur, in the building of which materials of a previous Hindu temple were used and are still visible. The mosque is believed by general consensus to occupy the site of the Janma-sthana.”

It will not out of context to mention that after a detailed scrutiny Hans Bakker has concluded his probe in the following words:

“In conclusion we may say that there is evidence for the existence of five Vishnu temples in Ayodhya in the twelfth century. Harismriti (Guptahari) at the Gopratara ghat, (2) Vishnu-hari at the Chakratírtha ghat, (3) Chandrahari on the west side of the Svargadvãra ghats, (4) Dharmahari on east side of the Svargadvãra ghats, (5) a Visnu temple on the janmabhùmi. Three of these temples have been replaced by mosques and one was swept away by the Sarayù. The fate of the fifth is unknown but the site is occupied today by a new Guptahari Chakrahari temple.” (p. 54)

Though we do not agree with the identification of these temples, yet we are of the view that at Ayodhyā at least three temples existed till 1660 A.D. Fuhrer had found an inscription in the debris of Tretā Kā Thākura mosque which had been built by the order of Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple built earlier by Jayachandra in the V.S. 1241, i.e. 1184 A.D. The magnificent Svargadvāra temple, too, was demolished and an impressive mosque was built there by the order of Aurangzeb. There are many sources to confirm this fact. If any group of Muslim marauders had demolished the temple at the Janma-sthāna in Ram Kot in 1528 A.D., there was no reason to leave the magnificent Svargadvāra or Tretānātha temple intact till 1660 A.D. There is every reason to believe that the temple at Janmasthāna, too, remained intact. The thesis of Hans Bakker that the Chandrahari temple was built by Gahadavāla king Chandra Deva on the eve or immediately after his visit to Ayodhyā in 1092 A.D. is not borne by either the Chandrāvatī copper inscription or any other evidence. The tone and tenor of the inscription about his visit to Ayodhyā and worship of Vāsudeva is similar to his other inscriptions, nay, to any other inscription of any Gahadavāla King. The pattern of worship is similar. In view of the discovery of the Vishnu-hari inscription from the debris on 6th December 1992, it is now established that the Vishnu-hari temple was built by a Sāmanta of Govindachandra at the birthplace of Rāma.

(3) Ayodhyā-māhātmya preserved in Bodleian Library, Oxford

Two manuscripts of Ayodhyā-māhātmaya are available in the Bodleian Library, Oxford vide Codex Chandra Shum Shere collection NO. C 150. It was ably edited and published by the versatile Sanskrit scholar Ramanarayandas of Ayodhyā in 1898 from Lucknow. Hans Bakker has combined them together and named OA recension. This Ayodhyā-māhātmaya gives exact location of the birth-site of Rāma. Prof. Ram Narayan of Barelī College rendered the same version into English in 1875 and it was published in Journal of Asiatic Society, Bengal. Ram Narayan's translation on the location and religious significance of Rāma-janmabhūmi is produced below:

“Then Pãrvati said, “I shall now be glad to hear the advantages of the Kitchen of Jãnaki.” Mahãdeva answered, “O Goddess, listen to its sin-destroying story. Her kitchen is always filled with articles of food; its mere sight accomplishes our wants. Its pilgrimage is performed at all times: no one can fully describe its benefits, but I will do so in a brief manner. The house of one who daily visits it, remains filled with victuals. On seeing it, Parasurãma was released from the crime of destroying the Kshatriyas. A mere visit to it removes sins committed knowingly or unknowingly. It freed Balarãma from the sin of killing Sùt. What more shall I say about it? It is the bestower of all sorts of joy. It is situated north-west of the Birthplace. Forty yards north of the Birthplace lies the house of Kaikeyi, where Bharata was born. Sixty yards south of it is the dwelling of Sumitrã, where Lakshman and Satrughna were born. Their sight releases man from worldly ties, and gives salvation. South-east of the Birthplace is Sìtã Kùpa, which is also called ‘ Jãnakì-kùp.’ Drinking its water renders a man intelligent. Brihaspati, Vasishtha, and Vamadeva drank its water, and attributed to it their dignity and prosperity.” (Chapter X)

Now, the Sanskrit verses from the OA recension arequoted below:

पार्वत्युवाच

महानसस्य वैदेह्याः माहात्म्यं वद मे प्रभो।

यच्छुत्वा देवदेवेश प्रसीदति मनो मम।।

शङकर उवाच

शृणु देवि प्रवक्ष्यामि कथां पातकनाशिनीम्।

सीतायाः पाकसदनं सदा पूर्णं विराजते।।

तस्य दर्शनमात्रेण करस्थाः सर्वसिद्धयः।

तस्मात् सर्वार्थदा देवि यात्रा स्यात् सर्वकालिकी।।

पाकस्थानस्य माहात्म्यं यः श्रोष्यति नरोत्तमः।

आजन्मसञ्चितात् पापात् स मुक्तो भवति क्षणात्।।

पाकस्थानस्य माहात्म्यं मया स्वल्पं निरूपितम्।

सकलं चास्य माहात्म्यं सम्यक् को वेद सुन्दरि।।

प्रत्यहं पश्यतो गेहे अन्नपूर्णा विराजते।

अत्र क्षत्रवधात् पापाज्जामदग्न्यो विमुक्तवान्।।

ज्ञानाज्ञानकृं पापं तक्षणादेव नश्यति।

अत्र सूतवधात 9 पापाद् बलदेवो विमुक्तवान्।।

देवेशि किं बहूक्तेन श्रेयसां साधनं परम्।

जन्मस्थानाद् वायुकोणे पाकस्थानन्तु कथ्यते।।

जन्मस्थानादुत्तरे तु वर्तते भवनं शृणु।

धनुर्विंशप्रमाणञ्च स्थानं वै लोकपावनम्।।

कैकेयाः भवनं दिव्यं यत्र जातो रघूद्वहः।

भरतो नाम धर्मात्मा गुरुदेवार्चने रतः।।

तस्माद् दक्षिणदिग्भागे वर्तते परमं महत्।

सुमित्राभवनं रम्यं धनुस्शांच्च भामिनि।।

यत्र जातौ महाभागौ तथा शत्रुघ्नलक्ष्मणौ।

स्थानानां दर्शनाद् देवि मुच्यते व्याधिबन्धनात्।।

जन्मस्थानात्तु भो देवि अग्निकोणे विराजते।

सीताकूप इति ख्यातो ज्ञानकूपेति विश्रुतः।।

जलपानं कृं येन तस्य कूपस्य पार्वति।

स ज्ञानवान् भवेल्लोके विबुधानां गुरुर्यथा।।

वशिष्ठवामदेवाभ्यां जलपानं कृं शुभे।

महज्ञानबलं प्राप्य तदा लोके प्रकाशितम्।।

Whereas it is very difficult to determine the exact location of Rāma-janmabhūmi on the basis of the markers given in the Skanda Purāna, because the sites of Vighneśvara, Vasistha and Lomaśa cannot be claimed with authenticity at present. However, this description gives exact details of the Rāma-janmabhūmi, Sītā Rasoi, Sītā Kūpa, Kaikeyī Bhavana and Sumitrā Bhavana. All these buildings and markers were seen by all the pilgrims and visitors until many of them were demolished by kar-sevaks or otherwise. This testimony testifies to the fact that Janma-sthāna was to the south-east of the Sītā Rasoi and there was a Sītā Kūpa to the south-east of Janma-sthāna. Fortunately, the Sītā Kūpa still exists. The location and the distance of the Kaikeyī and Sumitrā palaces were indicated with almost perfect accuracy. The location of other places narrated in this māhātmya also tally with the actual sites.

This manuscript preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford was copied in the Vikram year 1895, i.e. 1838 A.D. For getting any manuscript in circulation it takes at least 50 years. Thus, it is clear that this recension was prevalent in the 18th century. Here it is important to note that the dispute on the Rāma-janmabhūmi-Baburi mosque began in 1855 and till then there was harmonious co-existence in the sense that both Hindus and Muslims used to perform their rituals in the same shrine. Therefore, any document before 1855 A.D. will be quite relevant and strong evidence.

(4) Satyopākhyāna

Satyopākhyāna is an ancient text which highlights the importance of Ayodhyā. Fr. Camil Bulcke has included it in the authentic series of Rāmāyana stories in his famous book ‘Rāmakathā: Utpatti aur Vikāsa’. He has assigned its date after the composition of the Adhyātma Rāmāyana.

Satya or Satyā was one of the synonyms of Ayodhyā in ancient times. In Vālmīki Rāmāyana it is mentioned:

तां सत्यनामां दृढतोरणार्गलां

गृहैर्विचित्रैरुपशोभितां शिवाम्।

पुरीमयोध्यां नृसहस्रंकुलां

शशास वै शक्रसमो महीपतिः।।

(Bālakānda, VI. 28)

In that Ayodhyā, which was known by the name of Satya and which was ruled by King Daśaratha like Indra.

Even in the verse 26 the name Satyā for Ayodhyā exists:

सा योजने द्वे च भूयः सत्यनामा प्रकाशते।

यस्यां दशरथो राजा वसञ्जगदपालयत्।।

(Bala. 6. 26)

The unnamed author of the Satyopākhyāna has explained that Satyā was the name of Sītā also.

Therefore, it is named Satyopākhyāna, i.e. the upākhyāna (history) of Satyā or Satya i.e. Ayodhyā or Sītā or Rāma. In this text Rāma-janma-bhūmi has been mentioned several times; e.g.

जन्मस्थानं हि पश्यन्ति स्नात्वा श्रीशरयूजले।

भवद्भिः क्रियतां यात्रा पापनिर्वृत्तिहेतवे।।33.41।।
i.e. They visit Janmasthāna after having taken bath in the water of Sarayū. You, too, should make a pilgrimage for the termination of all sins.

After having taken bath in the Sarayū river and having darśana of Janma-sthāna; devotees of Rāmachandra are liberated from sins:

स्नात्वा च शरयूं दिव्यां जन्मस्थानं ततो गताः।

व्रतिनो रामचद्रस्य जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।।34.18।।

पापमुक्ताश्च ते सर्वे बभूवु पञ्चपापिनः।

In the following two ślokas there is a mention of Janma-bhūmi as well as the idol of Lord Rāma.

नवमी चैत्रमासस्य शुक्ला चाद्य प्रवर्तते।

तस्या व्रतप्रभावेन शरयूस्नानतः पुनः।।

दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्य जन्मभूमेर्विलोकनात्।

नाम्ना सान्तानको लोको विमानैस्तत्र ते गताः।।35.6-7।।

All went to the Sāntānaka Loka in a plane by virtue of visit to Janma-bhūmi, the darśana of the idol of Lord Rāma, bathing in the Sarayū river and the impact of the festival of the Rāmanavamī.

Similarly, in the following verses also the Janma-bhūmi is mentioned:

दर्शनं जन्मभूमेस्तु देवै सार्द्धं कृं मया।।35.22।।

जन्मभूमेरयोध्यायाः नवम्याश्च मुनीश्वर।।35.48।।

Even Brahmā is not competent to describe the importance of the Janma-bhūmi. On the bright ninth day of the Chaitra month, by the darśana of Janma-bhūmi, one gets liberated from millions (crores) of sins and goes to the supreme ‘loka’ (world) where he is never in distress:

जन्मभूमेस्तु माहात्म्यं वक्तुं शक्तो न पद्मजः।

पापकोटिसमायुक्तं चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ।। 35.15।।

पापकोटिं नरस्त्यक्त्वा जन्मभूमे प्रदर्शनात्।

प्राप्नोति परमं लोकं यत्र गत्वा न शोचति।। 35.16।।

Thus, the Satyopākhyāna highlights the merits of the visit to Rāma-janma-bhūmi in many verses and in one śloka it specifically mentions the idol of Rāma. Thus, this is a clear proof of the existence of a Rāma temple with the deity inside it at the Rāma-janma-bhūmi.

Satyopākhyāna gives a very good interpretation of Ayodhyā:

पापैर्न योध्यते यस्याः तेनायोध्येति कथ्यते।। (पूर्वार्द्ध 34.7।।)

That which cannot be attacked by sinful acts is Ayodhyā.

(5) Vishnu-hari inscription

It is an important evidence which establishes that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was a massive temple built by Anayachandra, the Sāmanta of Gahadavāla King Govindachandra in the 12th century. In addition, Āyushyachandra built many temples, inns, ponds etc. at Ayodhyā. The following three verses from the Vishnu-hari inscription, recovered from the debris of the disputed shrine on the day of the demolition, are quoted here with English translation:

वंश्यन्तदेव कुलमाकुलतानिवृत्तिनिर्व्यूढमप्रतिम[विक्रम]जन्मभूमिः।

यत्रातिसाहससहस्रसमिद्धधामा मा नो जनिष्ट जगदिष्टतमोत्तमश्री ।। Verse 5.

It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxieties (over Bhārgava’s war) and is the birthplace of a man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Herein resides the person who is illuminated with the power of thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for most exciting wealth hankered after by the world.

टंकोत्खातविशालशैलशिखरश्रेणीशिलासंहति-

व्यूहैर्विष्णुहरेर्हिरण्यकलशश्रीसुन्दरं मन्दिरम्।

पूर्व्वैरप्यकृं नृपतिभिर्येनेदमित्यद्भुं

संसारार्णवशीघंघनलघूपायान्धिया ध्यायता।। Verse 21.

He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple, adorned with a gold Kalaśa, on a scale never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with the blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks.

उद्दामसौधविबुधालयनीमयोध्यामध्यास्य तेन नयनिन्हुत वैशसेन।

साकेतमण्डलमखण्डमकारि कूपवापीप्रतिश्रय तडागसहस्रमिश्रम्।। Verse 24.

By residing at Ayodhyā which was full of towering abodes and temples he, who was the embodiment of righteous conduct, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, rest-houses and ponds throughout the Sāketa-mandala.

(6) Avadha-vilāsa of Lal Das

There is another evidence of the Rāma-janma site and temples at Ayodhyā. Lal Das, the author of Avadha-vilāsa, also called ‘Lal Das Rāmāyana’ has given a detailed discription of the birthplace of Rāma at Ayodhyā. Lal Das composed this epic at Ayodhyā during the period from 1668 to 1675 A.D. This epic is published from Chandā Dāsa Sāhitya Shodha Sansthāna, Bāndā and was edited by Dr. Chandrika Prasad Dikshita ‘Lalit’.The excerpt from the 11th chapter (Viśrāma) is given below:

अब सुन राम जन्म अस्थाना। जन्म भयो जेहि ठौर ठिकाना।।

जाको दरस करै नर कोई। माता गरभ बास नहिं होई।।

देव सिद्ध रिषि मुनि जन जेते। बंदत हैं ता ठौरहिं तेते।।

विघ्नेश्वर के पूरब ओरा। आठ हजार धनुष वह ठौरा।।

लोमस्थल के पश्चिम देसा। धनुष पचास और कछु ऐसा।।

है उन्मत्त की दक्षिण घाहीं। धनुष एक सय अधिक नाहीं।।

मुनि बशिष्ठ के उत्तरभागा। राम जन्म जहुँ मध्य विभागा।।

नोमी चैत मास उजियारी। व्रत्त करै दरसन नर नारी।।

जो बालक परसै जन्मासन। रोग दोष गृह व्याधि बिनासन।।

जन्म स्थान के उत्तर सुंदर। धनुष बीस पर कैकेई मंदिर।।

भरत जन्म रघुंश उजागर। भक्ति ज्ञान गुण शील के सागर।।

महल सुमित्रा कहौ वषानी। तीस धनुष दक्षिण कौं जानी।।

जहां जनत भई दोइ सुमित्रा। लक्षिमन और शत्रुघन पुत्रा।।

धनुष प्रमान कहत सब कोई। साढ़े तीनि हाथ कर होई।।

It is very remarkable that Lal Das, who was at Ayodhyā from 1668 to 1675 A.D., wrote this Avadha-vilāsa at Ayodhyā and therefore his testimony is an eyewitness account. He himself claims to have written this book in 1675 A.D. He appeared so authentic to Bakker that he writes,

“Whether the Tirtha described in O.A. was subsequently claimed by Lal das or conversely, whether the Mãhãtmya describes the spot after its ‘discovery’ by Laldas; is difficult to determine.”

But there could be a third situation, i.e. Lal Das’s account could be quite independent of the Ayodhyā Māhātmya. He was a native of Ayodhyā and composed his work in Hindi. Therefore, what he saw on the spot, he described. Thus, his description carries far more evidentiary value.

(7) Testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler

The lucid testimony of Joseph Tieffenthaler is the unimpeachable evidence that there existed a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma and it was converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb or, according to some, by Babur. Joseph Tieffenthaler is the first person who mentions the so-called Baburi mosque in his Latin book ‘Descriptio Indiae’, i.e. Description of India. Since he knew Persian and Sanskrit and wrote the aforesaid book after staying for more than two decades in this country, his accounts obviate the need for any other evidence. But there is no cure, if some persons choose to remain deliberately obtuse forever. Tieffenthaler visited Fyzabad and travelled the whole of Oudh during 1766-71.

Tieffenthaler’s account of Ayodhyā has been quoted earlier in Chapter VIII from the book ‘Modern Travellers’ published in English from London in 1828 A.D. The English translation of Tieffenthaler’s account produced by the Goverment of India before the Allahabad High Court after considering the suggestions made by Mohammad Hashim and Ved Prakash is now produced below:

“Avad, called as Adjudea, by the educated Hindus, is a city of very olden times. Its houses are (mostly) made up of mud only; covered with straw or tiles. Many (however) are made of bricks. The main street goes from South to North and it has a length of about a mile long. The width (of the city) is a little lesser. Its western and that of North as well, are situated on a mud hill. The North-East is situated on knolls. Towards Bangla it is united.

Today, this city has been hardly populated since the foundation of Bangla or Fesabad- a new city where the Governor established his residence and in which a great number (of inhabitants of Oude) settled in.

On the South bank (of Deva) are found various buildings constructed by the nobles in memory of Ram, extending from East to West.

The most remarkable place is the one which is called Sorgadaori, which means: the celestial temple. Because they say that Rama took away all the inhabitants of the city from there to heaven: This has some resemblance/similarity to the Ascent of the Lord. The city, thus deserted, was repopulated and was brought back to its earlier status by Bikarmadjit- the famous king of Oudjen.

There was a temple in this place constructed on the elevated bank of the river. But Aurengzeb, always keen to propagate the creed of Mohammed and abhorring the noble people, got it demolished and replaced with a mosque and two obelisks with a view to obliterate even the very memory of the Hindu superstition. Another mosque built by the Moors is adjacent to the one towards the East.

Close to Sorgadoari is a building constructed lengthways by Nabalray- a Hindu, a formerly lieutenant of the Governor (propraetor) of this region.

But a place especially famous is the one called Sitha Rassoi, i.e. the table of Sita, wife of Rama, adjoining to the city in the South, situated on a mud hill.

Emperor Aurengzeb got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by ‘Babor’. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these 12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two others are part of the tomb of some ‘Moor’. It is narrated that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or Selendip (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, King of Monkeys.

On the left is seen a square box, raised five inches from the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4. The Hindus call it Bedi, i.e. ‘the cradle’. The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his three brothers too were born here. Aurengzeb or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny them the noble people, opportunity of practising their superstitions. However, there still exists some superstitious cult in some place or other. For example, in the place where native house of Rama existed, they go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor. The two spots are surrounded by a low wall constructed with battlements. One enters the front hall through a low semi-circular door.

Not far from there is a place where one digs out grains of black rice, turned into small stones, which are said to have been hidden under the earth since the time of Ram.

On the 24th of the Tschet month, a big gathering of people is taken here to celebrate the birthday of Rama, so famous in entire India.” (pp. 252-54)

Thus, it is evident that Aurangzeb demolished the Svargadvāri temple situated on the elevated bank of the Sarayū river and constructed a mosque on the same site. He demolished the Ram Kot and built a mosque in the same place. Since Ram Kot is a vast area, the constructed mosque could not cover the whole area. Therefore, the expression that it was built in the same place means that it was erected in the same Ram Kot area. Inside this Ram Kot lay the Rāma-janma-bhumi temple which was converted into a mosque, commonly called Baburi Masjid. Tieffenthaler gives details of the mosque wherein he saw fourteen blackstone pillars, twelve of which were standing in support of the interior arcades of the mosque and two of them were placed at entrance of the cloister.

A map of Ram Kot prepared by P. Carnegy, who was Settlement Officer and Divisional Commissioner at Faizabad, is placed below from his book ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Faizabad...’:

Map of Ram Kot as shown in Carnegy’s
book published in 1870 A.D.

Tieffenthaler is a very impartial witness. He was a Jesuit Austrian priest. His account is a clinching evidence to prove that the mosque was built on the ‘Janma-sthāna’ of Rāma after demolishing the entire Ram Kot and Rāmālaya. However, some persons doubted the veracity of his finding which was originally written in the Latin language and later translated into the German and French. The fact that Johann Bernoulli translated Tieffenthaler’s Latin work into German also is known to few scholars only. The German caption of the book is ‘Historisch-geographische Beschreibung von Hindustan’, i.e. Historical and Geographical Description of India (3 vols., quarto, Berlin-Gotha, 1785–87). However, Tieffenthaler’s work could not be translated into English. The present writer is perhaps the first person to discover the English version of Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhyā which had been published in the 4th volume of the book ‘The Modern Traveller: A Popular Description, Geographical, Historical, and Topographical, of the Globe’ by Josiah Conder published in 1828. It is shocking to see that not a single historian did ever refer to it in any book on Ayodhyā written earlier.

(8) Exact birthplace of Rāma

Tieffenthaler informs that Aurangzeb (according to some, Babur) demolished the Ram Kot and built a Muslim temple with triple domes. He further informs that Aurangzeb or Babur, according to others, razed the house, wherein Rāma was born, to the ground. But he does not state that here, too, he built a mosque. Thus, there was only one mosque in the Ram Kot area. As stated earlier, Aurangzeb could not construct a shrine on the entire Ram Kot area because it was too vast. Therefore, the question arises as to which was the exact location where the mosque was constructed in the Ram Kot area. The answer is that it was the natal home of Rāma, for the French translation of Tieffenthaler’s original Latin account is ‘maison natale de Ram’, which means ‘the natal home of Ram’ in English. Tieffenthaler has called it Bedi and made its meaning crystal clear by explaining that the reason for calling it Bedi is that once upon a time here was a house where Rāma was born. Now, the further question arises as to where this Bedi was located. He talks of black stone columns and then depicts the location by stating that ‘on the left is seen a square box’, i.e. the Bedi and ‘one enters the front hall through a low semi-circular door’. And in between he narrates how devotees circumambulate the birthplace of Rāma and prostrate before it. The birthplace of Rāma was marked and indicated by the ‘Bedi’ which was raised 5 inches above the ground measuring 5 ell in length and 4 ell in width. Ell is a measurement unit equal to 45 inches. Thus, the length of the Bedi was 18ft. 9 inches and the width 15ft. Tieffenthaler writes that despite Aurangzeb’s attempt to deny the Hindus their right to practise their rituals, devotees circumambulate the birthplace of Rāma three times and, in addition, they prostrate before it as a ritual. Many persons mix up the Chabutra with the Bedi, despite the fact that the Bedi was in existence since time immemorial; whereas Chabutrara was constructed after the Britishers arbitrarily deprived the Hindus of prostrating before and making pradakshina of the Bedi in 1858 A.D. The Bedi was located between the low wall and the liwan (prayer-hall); whereas the chabutara came up between outer wall and the low wall. When I gave the description of the Bedi to Satyendra Das, Chief Priest of the Rāma janma bhūmi temple, he informed me that there existed a Bedi-like site near the southern portion of the mosque.

A map, prepared on the basis of the writings of Tieffenthaler, Lal Das and Ayodhyā-māhātmya preserved in Bodleian Library, Oxford, is placed below:

A sketch of the disputed shrine showing
the exactbirthplace of Rāma.

A mere view of the disputed shrine shows that the Bedi which was the birthplace of Rāma was inside the inner portion of the mosque. There was a low wall with battlements between the liwan (prayer-hall) and the outer wall. The existence of a low wall with battlements is corroborated by the observation of District Judge Chamier who wrote in his judgment of 1885 A.D. that ‘a wall pierced here and there with railings divides the platform of the Masjid from the enclosure’. It was seen by everyone until the demolition of the mosque in 1992.

Tieffenthaler’s account is further corroborated by the testimony of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya which states that Sita Rasoi was in the Vāyukona, i.e. north-west of the birthplace of Rāma.

जन्मस्थानाद् वायुकोणे पाकस्थानं तु कथ्यते।। (Xth canto)

It means that the Sītā Rasoi was situated north-west of Rāma’s birthplace. It was in existence on the exact spot until the demolition in 1992. However, the Sītā-kūpa, which is stated to be south-east of the birthplace of Rāma in the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, still exists there in the same direction:

जन्मस्थात्तु भो देवि अग्निकोणे विराजते।

सीताकूप इति ख्यातो ज्ञानकूपेति विश्रुतः।। (Xth canto)

Similarly, the Kaikeyī Bhawan, which was reported to be north of the birthplace and Sumitrā Bhawan south of Janma-bhūmi were situated in the same directions. The Avadha Vilāsa of Lal Das, composed in 1675 A.D., furnishes the same information about the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi. Therefore, there should be no doubt about the location of the birth-site of Rāma which was the same place whereupon the disputed shrine stood and it has been marked in the above Figure 11.2.

Our assertion that the Bedi which was the birthplace of Rāma was inside the mosque may shock many readers because they have been seeing the chabutara outside the mosque. But very few people know that this chabutara was constructed outside the mosque after the British takeover of the disputed shrine when they ousted the Hindus from the mosque to maintain peace in the area. P. Carnegy made this startling revelation in 1870 in his book in the following words:

“It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahemodans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahemodans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”

What Carnegy wrote in his book is corroborated by many affidavits of the mutawallis of the disputed shrine. Besides, many Gazetteers and subsequent writers mention this fact that before the British takeover of the disputed shrine the Hindus and the Muslims used to perform their rituals inside the mosque.

Mir Rajab Ali, Khatib, Masjid Baburi filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner in a case against Nihang Sikh on 5th November, 1860. This Nihang Sikh was the person who had come from Punjab and occupied the mosque for a considerable period. He was ousted from the mosque by police forcibly with a Court order. When he was ousted from the inner portion of the mosque, he made the chabutara outside the disputed shrine. In his petition Mir Rajab Ali complained that the size of the chabutara was increasing day by day and Akali Singh was in no mood to stop it, despite opposition from the Muslim side. The following is the relevant excerpt from his petition:

घनकल दरख्वास्त मीर रज्जब अली मोरखा ५ नवम्बर १८६० ई० मोकद्दमा नं० २२३ साकिन मोहल्ला कोट रामचन्दर परगना हवेली अवध जिला फैजाबाद इजलासी जनाब डिप्टी कमीश्नर साहब बहादुर फैजाबाद मुनफसला १८ मार्च १८६१ मीर रज्जब अली बनाम अकाली सिंह

मीर रज्जब अली खतीब मस्जिद बाबरी साकिन अवध

गरीब परवरसलामत,

हाल खुद हाकिमी नशूह नेहन होगी मुद्दाअलेह का होगा हुजूर मै क्या गुजारिश करूं अरसा करीब ३० रोज का होता है कि मुद्दाअलेह ने एक चबूतरा अजराह जबरदस्ती वो खिलाफ अमल दरामद कबरिस्तान मुलाहिका मसजिद बाबरी में पास कबर काजी किदवा मरहूम के बना लिया है वो हर रोज चबूतरा बढ़ता जाता है हालांकि उसको मना किया जाता है मगर किसी तरह बाज नहीं आता बल्कि आमादा हंगामान को तकरार होता है वो फिदवी बखाफ सरकार तरह देता है।च

It is further corroborrated by the counter-affidavit of Mohammad Asghar in the case of Raghubar Das wherein Mohammad Asghar claimed in para 3 that upto 1856 A.D. there was no chabutara and it was constructed in 1857 A.D. The following is the para 3 from his counter-affidavit filed on 22nd December, 1885

घदफा-३. जाहिर है कि वक्त तामीर मस्जिद से ता १८५६ ई० इस मुकाम पर चबूतरा नहीं था। १८५७ ई० में बना और जब इस्तिगासा मुसलमानान हुकुम खोदने चबूतरे का सादर हुआ पस जाहिर है कि बिना इस चबूतरे की १८५७ ई० से हुई है ।च

Thus, the chabutara which was seen outside the mosque was built after the British takeover of the Oudh province and particularly after the ousting of the Nihang Sikh and his companions from the disputed shrine.

Thus, it is clear that when Tieffenthaler visited the shrine in 1767, there was no chabutara outside the mosque and the spot where the Hindus circumambulated the Bedi and prostrated in its front was inside the mosque. P. Carnegy, who was Settlement Officer at Faizabad since 1865 at least, confirms it. Apart from Carnegy’s book and several Gazetteers, the foreign travellers, who visited India in the second half of the 19th century, also confirm this harmonious existence of the two sects in performing rituals. For example, Edward B. Eastwick in his book ‘Handbook of the Bengal Presidency’ published in the year 1888 reports that before 1858 both Hindus and Muslims used to perform puja and namaz inside the disputed shrine.

SimilarlyA.F. Millett in his report of the Settlement of the Land Revenue Officer of the Faizabad District, which was published in 1880, writes:

“Several of the King’s regiment were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mahomedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule, a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (p. 236)

In our great country where there has been a long tradition of such harmonious practices it should not surprize readers. Ibrahim Shah, the King of Bijapur, who was called Jagat Guru by his subjects reverentially, had built such a shrine where both puja and namaz were held in the same building.

Now the question arises as to how this unusual phenomenon took place in this shrine. It is an irony that even in the books on the mediaeval history of Oudh names of two Hindu Governors Chhabile Ram and Girdhar Bahadur are hardly mentioned. Chhabile Ram was the Governor of Oudh at Ayodhya from mid-1714 to October 1715 and Girdhar Bahadur was very powerful Governor at Ayodhya from 1720 to 1722. He came to Ayodhyā after getting all his terms and coditions accepted by the Mughal authority. All the three posts of Subedari, Faujdari and Diwani were combined in his authority. He was instrumental in getting the jaziya abolished by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah. It may be surmised that when Aurangzeb was the Emperor of the country, no Hindu could have dared to perform rituals inside the mosque built at his initiative. But when a powerful Hindu Governor was at Ayodhyā and a liberal Emperor Muhammad Shah, who had granted many villages to the Śanakara Matha at Bodh Gaya and renewed the land grant on the request of Ramaite Sadhu Abhayarāma at Ayodhyā, was the Emperor the Hindus were probably given this liberty of circumambulating the Bedi at the birthplace of Rāma inside the mosque and prostrating in its front. This practice was stopped by the Britishers in the name of maintaning peace in the locality.

The fact that Tieffenthaler saw only Hindu devotees circumambulating the Rāma’s cradle along with prostrating in its front, and not finding a single namazi in the vicinity also proves that the disputed shrine was predominantly occupied by the Hindus.

Fourteen black-stone pillars were in the building; 12 pillars supported the interior arcade and 2 were at the entrance of the cloister. These pillars were reportedly brought by Hanuman from Lanakā.

Tieffenthaler saw a big mela on the Rāma Navamī festival to celebrate the birthday of Rāma which was reported to be famous in the whole of India.

Since Tieffenthaler’s account is a clinching evidence to prove the exact location of Lord Rāma’s birth and demolition of temples, established historians have tried to belittle its evidentiary value. In an article ‘A Historical Overview’ published in ‘Anatomy of Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India’ K.N. Panikkar has written:

“Joseph Tieffenthaler who toured Ayodhya between 1766 and 1771 has stated that the Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the fortress called the Ramakot, and built at the same place a mohammedan temple with three domes. Others say that it has been built by Babur. Tieffenthaler has obviously confused the mosque built by Aurangzeb at the east of the Svargadvara with the Babri mosque. In this context it is necessary to make a distinction between the janmasthan and janmabhumi (location of birth and place of birth).” (note 53, p. 37)

Panikkar’s comment is not correct as Tieffenthaler has separately described the Svargadvāra temple and its demolition by Aurangzeb. Besides, he adds that ‘another mosque by the Moors is adjacent to the one towards the east’. Thereafter, he writes that after demolishing the Ram Kot Aurangzeb built another mosque with three domes. Therefore, he had no confusion over the Baburi Mosque as well as the mosque which was located to the east of Svargadvārī mosque. Similarly, Panikkar’s assertion that there is a distinction between ‘janmasthan’ and ‘janma-bhūmi’ is nullified by frequent promiscuous uses of the two terms in ‘Ayodhyā māhātmya’, Satyopākhyāna and other Sanskrit texts. The scholarly Professor Panikkar should go through the text thoroughly before making such comments or stop misleading readers deliberately.

Four historians, who wrote one-sided report to the nation, made the following biased observation on Tieffenthaler’s account:-

“The account shows that the tradition of treating the site of the mosque and its surroundings as sacred was now in its initial phase of creation, marked by the construction of a small rectangular mud platform of no more than 5 feet × 5 feet × 4 feet, and its identification as Rama’s crib. No tradition even remotely existed as yet of there having been a temple here; the entire place was thought to be a part of Rama’s ‘fortress’ or ‘palace’.”

In Tieffenthaler’s account there is a clear mention of the place where Rāma was born. The Austrian priest informs that there was a natal house (प्रसूति-गृह). In Sanskrit the house of god is called Devālaya. It is more frequently used than Mandir in Sanskrit. When some Hindu religious leaders founded a trust to construct a temple at the disputed site while P.V. Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, they named it Rāmālaya Trust. Like Mahatma Gandhi’s birthplace in Kīrti-mandir at Porbandar in Gujarat, which is earmarked, Rāma’s birthplace at Ayodhyā was marked by a ‘Bedi’, i.e. ‘the cradle’. Is any more proof required for the birthplace of Rāma? Therefore, the established historians’ assertion that ‘no tradition even remotely existed as yet of there having been a temple here’ is devoid of merit.

Besides, these historians have erroneously equated ells with feet. If they had consulted Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, they would have known the meaning which is given below:

“ell (el) noun, a unit used in the past for measuring cloth, equal to about 45 inches or 115 centimeters.”

(9) William Finch (1608-11 A.D.)

William Finch visited India during the reign of Jahangir from 1608-1611 A.D. His brief biography has been brought on record in the fourth chapter. He writes that there are ruins of Rāmachandra’s castle and houses, and the Indians acknowledge then for the great god, saying that “he took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world.” He further writes that the castle was built four hundred years ago and in the ruins remain Brahmans who keep the account of the pilgrims. The following is the travel account of William Finch on Ayodhyā:
“To Oude (Ajodhya) from thence are 50 c.: a citie of ancient note, and of a Potan king, now much ruined, the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are also the ruines of Ramchand(s) castle and houses, which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God, saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world. In these ruines remayne certain Bramenes, who record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby: which custome, they say, hath continued foure lackes of yeeres (which is three hundred ninetie foure thousand and five hundred yeeres before the world’s creation). Some two miles on the further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well loose himselfe there, if he take not better heed, where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from hence in remembrance certaine grains of rice as blacke as gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold tryed. Here is great trade, and such abundance of Indian asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts of drinking cups. There are of these hornes, all the Indians affirime, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable, some esteeming them the right unicorns horne.”

Finch informs that Ayodhyā is a city of ancient note. The castle of Rāmachandra may refer to the temple of Rāma which was reportedly built 400 years ago. Finch’s date comes to circa 1200 A.D. and hence it may be referring to Hari-vishnu temple built during the reign of Govindachandra in the middle of the 12th century. While writing about an incident of distant past, a small gap of time may occur. However, some historians have tried to co-relate it with some fortification of the Delhi Sultanate period. But that is not correct because Tieffenthaler has clearly mentioned that this mediaeval fort was on the bank of the river Sarayū. He writes:

“On the high bank of the river is a quadrangular fortress with low round towers. The walls are out of repair and it is unfinished with inhabitants. Formally the Governor of the province resided here.”

During the Delhi Sultanate period temples at Ayodhyā were not demolished. As they were not allowed to be repaired and renovated; they were in ruins. However, the presence of Brāhmanas in the midst of the ruins confirms that it was a temple and the entire campus of Ram Kot was under the control of the Hindus.

Thus, from the travel account of William Finch also, it would appear that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma who “took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world.” The implied meaning is that he was born here. It clearly indicates that this site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was no mosque at the site till 1610 A.D.

(10) Joannes De Laet’s book (published in 1631)

Joannes De Laet is another author, who in his book ‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’, has given account of Ayodhyā. He was a Flemish geographer, philologist and naturalist. He was born in 1581 A.D. and died in 1649. His public life began around 1625 A.D. when he occupied the position of the Director of the Company of the West Indies. Later on, he became one of the Directors of the Dutch East India Company. He was a voracious reader and as a Director he was in touch with East Indian affairs. This enabled him to gain knowledge of the East, especially of India, which he supplemented by a patient perusal of existing itineraries and geographies. He made the account of his findings available to the public through a publication in 1631 titled De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius, i.e. The Empire of the Great Mogol.

This book was translated from Latin into English by John S. Hoyland and was published in 1927 at Patiala with an introduction and annotation by S.N. Banerjee. The brief biography of De Laet has been produced on the basis of the Introduction written by Banerjee. He informs on the authority of Sir Roper Lethbridge that this book on Mughal history was regarded both by De Laet himself and by the public of his time as his most important and valuable work. It is a small duodecimo published by the famous Elsevier’s of Leyden. Banerjee informs that the book was so popular that it had to be printed twice in 1631 itself. Banerjee estimates De Laet as an author in the following words:

Title page of De Laet’s book.

“De Laet is pre-emptly a compiler and his compilations are learned and laborious. No better illustration can be given than the first part of this book and above all, its first chapter (which includes Ayodhya’s description). How assiduously he pieces together facts dug out of a host of writings and how closely reproduced they are! Ptolemy and Texeira, Roe and Pelsaert, Terry and Finch, Withington and Hawkins, Steele and Crowther, Benedict and Garcia are all largely drawn upon, making the De Imperio Magni Mogolis a monument of painstaking industry and a storehouse of varied information.”

With this introduction of the author and the book, the following excerpt on Ayodhyā from this book is placed below:

“…thence (from Lucknow) to Oudee (an ancient city, once the seat of Pathan Kings, but now almost deserted), 50 cos. Not far from this city may be seen the ruins of the fort and palace of Ramchand, whom the Indians regard as God Most High: they say that he took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world. Amongst these ruins live certain Bramenes who carefully note down the name of all such pilgrims as duly perform their ceremonial ablutions in the neighboring river. They say that this custom has been kept up for many centuries. About two miles from these rivers (sic.) is a cave with a narrow mouth but so spacious within and with so many ramifications that it is difficult to find one’s way out again. They believe that the ashes of the god are hidden here. Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshiping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit. This rice they believe to have been kept here for many centuries.”(emphasis added)

From the above account the following facts are found:

(i) Indians regarded Lord Rāmachand as their Highest God in the beginning of the 17th century.

(ii) There were ruins of the fort Ram Kot.

(iii) There was a palace of Ram Chandra in Ram Kot.

(iv) Lord Rāma took incarnation to see the tamasha of the world.

(v) Amongst the ruins of the Ram Kot lived certain Brahmans.

(vi) They used to record names of pilgrims who had bath in the river (Sarayū).

(vii) This custom was in practice for centuries.

(viii) From two miles from the river there was a cave within which there were hidden ashes of god (Rāma).

(ix) Pilgrims used to take away grains of charred rice as proof of their visit to Ayodhyā.

(x) They used to take away the charred rice after worshipping the idol.

(xi) There was no mosque there.

Now the question arises as to where this cave and the idol which was worshipped by pilgrims before taking away charred rice were located. Joseph Tieffenthaler informs that not far from the Janma-sthāna this cave containing charred rice was situated and it has been within Ram Kot from all sources. Since De Laet states that the cave contained the ashes of Lord Rāma, there could be no idol inside the cave because an idol cannot be kept at the place of ashes.

Therefore, the idol referred to by De Laet was the same which was placed in the Janma-sthāna Mandir and which was worshipped by pilgrims first. After worshipping the idol in the temple, they used to collect charred rice as a proof of their visit to Ayodhyā. From the account of De Laet there was a palace of Rāmachandra inside the Ram Kot. It contained an idol. Amongst the ruins of Ram Kot lived the Brahmans. All these facts are clear proofs that by the first half of the 17th century there existed no mosque inside the Ram Kot and the area was under the possession of the Hindus. Thus, the impression that an imposing mosque was built in the year 1528, in the Ram Kot area of Ayodhyā is not supported by historical facts.

(11) Accounts of Thomas Herbert (first published in 1634)

He was a celebrated traveller. The author of ‘Indian Antiquities’ Thomas Mourice in the ‘History of Hindostan’ has described him as a “traveller possessed of great learning and fidelity.” He was born at York around 1600 A.D., and commenced his collegiate studies at Jesus College, Oxford. But before he took his degree, he shifted to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he remained for a brief period. Immediately after he left the university, he applied to his relative William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, for going abroad as a traveller. The Earl was very much pleased with him for this proposal and sent him in 1626 for journey to Africa and Asia where he spent major part in Persia and India.
After four years of travel he returned to his country in 1630. He published the book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ in 1634. He got it again printed, after revision, in 1638 A.D. These travel accounts enjoyed a great reputation at the time of their publication and have since been considered the best that appeared in England prior to the close of the seventeenth century. After the Restoration, following the civil war, Herbert was awarded with a baronetcy. Subsequently, he devoted much of his time to literary pursuits. He died at York on the 1st March, 1682. This brief biography of Herbert is based on the book “The Literature and the literary men of Great Britain and Ireland” by Abraham Mills, New York, 1851.

The following is his account of Ayodhyā from the aforesaid book ‘Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique’ published under revised and enlarged edition by the Author in 1638.

The following is Herbert’s account of Ayodhyā published in the year 1632 A.D.:

“At this Oudee or Oujea (a citty in Bengala & felicitated by Ganges) are many Antick Monuments, especially memorable is the pretty old castle Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name about 994500 yeares ago after their accompt, from which to this the Bannyans have repayred to offer here and to wash away their sinnes in Ganges, each of which is recorded by name by the laborious Bramyns who acquaintes this Pagod with their good progressions and charitable offerings.” (p. 92) (emphasis added)

From the above accounts the following facts emerge:

(i) There were many antique monuments at Ayodhyā in c. 1630 A.D.

(ii) The most memorable was that pretty old castle built by Ranichand (Rāmachandra) 9,94,500 years ago.

(iii) From time immemorial to the visit of Herbert, i.e. 1630 A.D. merchants repaired to this place to wash away their sins in the river. Here ‘repaired to’ may mean either renovation or visit.

(iv) Each of such acts of virtue is recorded by sincere Brāhmanas.

(v) They took every pilgrim to this shrine and by their good professional skill got charitable offerings.

(vi) The Ganges has been used in the general form of a river which is Sarayū here and Bangla denotes the cantonment area as in case of Tieffenthaler’s accounts.

Thus, from Thomas Herbert’s account it is clear that there was a castle temple of Rāmachandra in the year 1630 A.D. There was no trace of any mosque at Ayodhyā till 1630 A.D.

The image of the title page of this book is reproduced here:

Title page of Thomas Herbert’s book.

Herbert further provides the following information which is the proof of Rāma’s popularity in this country:

Ducerat, who begat Ram, a king so famous for piety and high attempts, that to this day his name is exceedingly honoured, so that when they say Ram Rame, ’tis as if they should say, “all good betide you”. (p. 47)

That is, all good will fall on you. From addressing ‘Ram Ram’ it was expected that all good would fall on the caller and listener.

Herbert was not alone who mentions this way of saluting each other in this country. In the book ‘The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot’ the celebrated French traveller Thevenot, too, who was in India in around 1666 A.D., also confirms this practice of mutual salute,

“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 whom they call Desser (Dasharath), and a Mother named Gaoucella (Kausalya); 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 elsewhere; 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.” (Part III, p. 65)

The English version of the book was published in London in the year 1687 A.D.

Besides, John Fryer in his book “A New Account of East India and Persia, in Eight Letters Being Nine Years Crabels, Begun 1672, And Finished 1681” and J. Ovington in his book “A Voyage To Suratt, In the year, 1689.” have mentioned that the Hindus incessantly chant ‘Rāma Rāma’ during their funeral. The custom still prevails and the mourners in the funeral procession chant राम नाम सत्य है, i.e. Rāma’s name is the ultimate reality.

(12) French scholar C. Mentelle’s account of Ayodhyā

French scholar C. Mentelle’s book Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History was published in 1801. About Ayodhyā he writes:

“Avad, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indians name it Adjudea (अयोध्या) is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the banks of the river Ghaghra (घाघरा) and we consider that the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramji, whose father was the King of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage.

In those days at Ayodhyâ there was an edifice called the Celestial Temple, from where it is said that Ram or Ramji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of the city. This temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Augang-zeb, as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).”

Mentelle confirms that Rāma was incartation of Vishnu and Ayodhyā was his birthplace. It was Aurangzeb who demolished the Svargadvāra and other temples. Though he does not name the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple, yet he states that several other temples were demolished by Aurangzeb. During the reign of Aurangzeb there were three important temples at Ayodhyā-Svargadvara, Treta ka Thākur and Rāma-janma-bhūmi. Therefore, ‘other temples’ here include Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple also.

The texts cited above are adequate to prove that the existence of Rāma’s Janma-sthāna and a temple thereon is based on unimpeachable evidences. However, some more texts are scrutinized below to strengthen the conclusion.

(13) Buchanan’s report

During Buchanan’s visit to Ayodhyā the general perception of the people was that Aurangzeb demolished the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā. He writes:

“...and the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”

Nevertheless, Buchanan fell in trap of some nobles and clergymen who were advocates of the theory that Babur built the mosque. It has been discussed at length earlier. But the following observation of Buchanan in the same paragraph has gone almost un-noticed:

“...from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to support that it was a part of the building actually erected by Rama.”

Accordingly, one can reasonably preserve Buchanan believed in the tradition that the Ram Kot was constructed by Rāma. The established historians who fire the gun on Buchanan’s shoulder should not overtook this remark of his report.

(14) Archaeological evidence

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court took a very correct decision that archaeological excavation was necessary in order to arrive at truth. Therefore, it was ordered that the Archaeological Survey of India would first get the disputed site surveyed by Ground Penetrating Radar and Geo-Radiology. Accordingly, an order was placed to Tojo-Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. for Ground Penetrating Radar Survey. The company conducted GPR survey and submitted report along with annexures on 17th February, 2003. On the basis of this report the High Court made the following conclusion in its order dated 5 March, 2003.

“In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 metres in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological trenching.”

Thus, it was clear from this GPR survey that the land near the disputed shrine was not a virgin land, as it was being claimed by many established historians.

Therefore, the High Court asked the Archaeological Survey of India to start excavation within one week from the order. The litigant parties were asked to appoint their nominees including Archaeologists to watch the excavation work. The A.S.I. excavated the area near the presence of the Ram Lalla as per the High Court’s directive earnestly and submitted its report promptly in 2003 itself. The following is the final finding of the ASI report:

“Chapter-X

Summary of Results

Excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhùmi-Babri Masjid was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003. During this period, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow 82 trenches were excavated to verify the anomalies mentioned in the report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking up the excavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with some of their baulks were checked for anomalies and anomaly alignments. The anomalies were confirmed in the trenches in the form of pillar bases, structures, floors and foundation though no such remains were noticed in some of them at the stipulated depths and sports. Besides the 82 trenches, a few more making a total of 90 finally were also excavated keeping in view the objective fixed by the Hon’ble High Court to confirm the structures.”

* * *

Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short-lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bass exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structure, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level-twelfth to sixteenth century A.D.). It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 × 30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the present excavation wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at present). The centre of the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly 15×15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this central point a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify the place where some important object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.

* * *

“The Hon’ble High Court in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site as stated on page 1 and further on p. 5 of their order dated 5 March 2003 and given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

The A.S.I. report has been discussed in details in the second volume of this book. But here it would be sufficient to say that in the light of the archaeological excavation, the existence of a temple in the vicinity of the disputed site is proved.

(15) Janam Sakhi evidences of Guru Nanak Deva

In many Janam Sākhis of Guru Nanak Deva there are allusions of his visit to Ayodhyā which confirms that Ayodhyā was a pilgrim place. Janama Sākhī Bhāī Bālā was composed in 1715 V.S., i.e. 1658 A.D. In this book it is mentioned घभाई बाला! यह भी नगरी श्री रामचद्र जी की है। ऐघे श्री रामचद्र जी ने अवतार धार के चरित्र कीते हन सो देख के ही चलीए।च When Nanak Deva was on way to Ayodhyā, he told Mardānā that this Ayodhyā city belongs to Rāma and they should make a visit to it.” The latter asked him as to when Rāmachandrajī had taken every resident to the heaven, how could Ayodhyā be a living city. Guru Nanak Deva replied that he had taken the residents of Ayodhyā and nothing else with him. Then went to visit Ayodhyā and reaffirmed that Ayodhyā was the city of Rāma.

घतब बाबा जी अयुधिया को जात भए अर कहा कि मरदानिया! यह अजुधिया नगरी श्री रामचद्रजी की है। सो चल इसका दरसन करीए।च

This corroborates the assertation of the Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana that Ayodhyā was the city of Rāma. However, in this book there is no mention of Guru Nank Deva’s visit to the Rāma-janmabhūmi.

According to ‘Ādi Sakhian’ which was composed in 1758 V.S., i.e. 1701 A.D. Guru Nanak Deva visited 68 pilgrim places which included Ayodhyā, Prayāga, Dvārakā, Jagannāthapurī. He saw all the land and got fruits (फलु) of the virtues:

घफेरि बाबा अगलिया तीरथा नू चलिआ। गंगा, गुदावरी गइआ, पिरागु, गोमती, अजुधिआ, दुआरका, जगननाथि, उड़ीसा, अठसठ तीरथ कीए। सभना का फलु लीआ। इसनानु-कीआ, सभु धरती देखी।च

From the ‘Janam-Sākhī’ it is clear that Ayodhyā was a pilgrim place and Nanak Deva visited it but it is not known whether he visited the birthplace of Rāma.

Some persons have tried to see the existence of a Rāma temple at the Janma-sthāna from the following passage of ‘Guru Nānaka Bansa Prakāśa’ which was composed in 1886 V.S. (1829 A.D.) by Bābā Sukhbāsī Rāma Bedī who was the 8th descendent in the line of Lakshmī Chand, the youngest son of Guru Nanak Deva:

चले तहां ते सतिगुरु मरदाना ले संगि।

आए अउध पुरी बिखे सरजू नदि जिह संगि।।

सरजू जल मंजन कीआ दरसन राम निहार।

आतम रूप अनंत प्रभ चले मगन हितु धार।।

From the expression ‘Kīyā darsana Rāma nīhara’ it is clear that he had a ‘darśana’ of some idol in a temple at Ayodhyā. It might have been the temple at birthplace of Rāma but the passage does not necessarily carry the exact location.

From the ‘’Sach-Khanda Pothi Janam-sākhī Sri Guru Nanak Deva Ji” which was written by Sodhi Manohardas Meherban in around 1610 A.D. it is gathered that Guru Nanak Deva had done penance and ‘nāma-sumirana’ in a mutt at Ayodhyā. This book was published by Prof. Kirpal Singh and published by Khalsa College, Amritsar in 1962.

Besides, 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 and is available in the British Library.

Moreover, a witness Rajendra Singh by name from Faridabad, Haryana, while deposing before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High court has cited two more references; the first from ‘Śrī Guru Tīratha San¢grahī’ which was written by Tarasingh Narottama in 1884 A.D. and published by Sri Nirmal Panchayati Akhara, Kankhal. While referring to Guru Tegh Bahadur’s visit to Ayodhyā, it says that “(गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह) इहां आपणी कुल के ब्रिधपुरख राम के जनम थान में आए।च i.e. Guru Gobind Singh came to the birthplace of his old ancestor Rāma. It is well known that Guru Gobind Singh has claimed in his autobiography ‘Vachitra Nātaka’ that Guru Nanak Deva was born in the Bedi clan which was in the line of Rāma’s younger son Lava and he himself was born in the Sodhi clan which was in the line of Rāma’s elder son Kuśa:

लवी राज दै बन गए बेदियन कीनो राज।

भाति भाति तिनि भोगियं भूअ का सकल समाज।।8।।

(‘Vachitra Natak’ : Adhyāya 4)

तिन बेदियन के कुल बिखे प्रगटे नानक राइ।

सब सिखन को सुख दए जह तह भए सहाइ।।

(‘Vachitra Natak’ : Adhyāya 5)

In the “Tawarikh Guru Khalsa: Vol. I” written by Gyani Gyan Singh and published by Guru Gobind Singh Press, Sialkot in 1891 A.D. it is mentioned that Guru Gobind Singh, after making ‘pradakshinā of Kāśī and Rāmanagar, went to Mirzapur and then halted at Ayodhyā at Vasishtha Kunda. Thereafter, he visited Sūraj Kunda, Hanumān-gadhī, Rāmachandra de mandar, Sītā di rasoi; etc. and took bath in the Sarayū river at Svargadvārī and Guptar Ghat and gave gifts.

घशहर काशी रामनगर दा सैल प्रदक्खणा कीती। एथों चल मिरजापुर आदिक नगरा नूं देख दे होए अजुधया जी वसिष्ठ कुण्ड, जो वसिष्ठ जी दा घर ते होम करण दी जगा है, जा ठहिरे। फिर सूरजकुण्ड, हनुमान गढ़ी, रामचद्र दे मन्दर, सीता दी रसोई आदिक अस्थान देखे ते स्वरगद्वारी गुप्तारघाट सरजू दे इशनान दान कीते।च

Here रामचन्द्र दे मन्दर and सीता दी रसोई indicate that it was the same Janmabhumi temple.

The very fact that Sardar Nihang Singh forcibly occupied the Janma-sthāna mosque on 15th December, 1858 A.D. and wrote राम,राम on its walls shows that the Sikhs had been associated with the Janma-sthāna shrine for long.

(16) Hafizullah’s report to the Faizabad’s law-court in 1822

Prof. Harbansh Mukhia writes in his article: “The Ramajanmabhumi-Babari Masjid Dispute: Evidence from Medieval India”:

“The first written evidence bearing on this dispute and stating unambiguously that the Babari mosque had been built at the place of Rama’s birth comes from a legal document submitted to the Faizabad law-court in 1822 by one Hafizullah, the court’s superintendent. The document has been reproduced in its original Persian language by Kamalud-din Haider in his Qaisar ut-Tawarikh. I give the translation: The mosque founded by emperor Babur is situated at the Janmasthana, i.e. at the site of the birth of Rama, son of Raja Dasrath, (and is) adjacent to the kitchen of Sita, wife of Rama.” (Reference : Qaisar ut-Tawarikh, Vol. II, Lucknow 1896, p. 117)

Although Joseph Tieffenthaler was the first person to mention the birthplace of Rāma, the existence of a temple and its demolition, the testimony of Hafizullah is a very strong evidence in favour of the existence of the Janma-sthāna of Lord Rāma at the site of the disputed structure. But he, too, was under the influence of the new campaign to attribute its demolition to Babur.

Despite the fact that Hadiqah-i-Shuhada of Mirza Jan and many other books of this category assert since 1855-1856 A.D. onwards that the mosque was built on Lord Rāma’s Janma-sthāna after demolishing a temple, they have not been taken as supportive evidences here; because the demolition has been attributed to Babur, and the date of demolition shown in these books is 923 A.H. i.e. 1516 A.D., which is a decade before the Babur’s conquest of Hindustan.

(17) Forcible occupation of the mosque by the Nihang Sikhs in November 1858

After the Proclamation of Queen Victoria on 2nd August, 1858 the British Government directly took over the governance of the territories under the East India Company. Ayodhyā came under the direct rule of the British Government. In view of the communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims in 1855 the British Government took an arbitrary decision and deprived the Hindus of the worship in the disputed shrine and made an arrangement for the worship outside the mosque. It generated widespread resentment and a Nihang Sikh with 25 followers from the same sect from Punjab came to Ayodhyā and forcibly occupied the mosque. They did puja and homa inside it and placed an idol therein. Thereafter, they prayed to Guru Govind Singh and pitched a nishan outside the shrine. They wrote राम राम throughout the mosque with coal. After a lot of persuasion, legal process and use of force by the police they were ultimately evacuated from the mosque. But they made their camp in the mosque premises for quite some time.

The forcible occupation of the disputed shrine by the Nihang Sikhs, who wrote राम राम throughout the mosque, is a forceful proof that it was a sacred centre associated with Rāma’s saga which the Hindus had not forgotten even then. It is attested by the following complaint of Syyed Muhammad.

(18) Complaint of Syyed Muhammad

On 30th November, 1858 A.D. Syyed Muhammad, the Khatib and Muazzin (the person who rouses Muslims for prayer by loudly reciting the Azan) of the Masjid Janma-sthāna in the Mohalla Ram Kot submitted a complaint to the S.H.O. of the local Police Station that a Nihang Sikh of Punjab had established a platform of clay between the Mehrab (arch) and the Mimber (pulpit) inside the mosque. The following is the content of his complaint:

Complaint of Syyed Muhammad
Khatib dated 30 Nov., 1858.

घनक़ल दरख़वास्त मोहम्मद ख़तीब मोअज्ज़िन मस्जिद बाबरी वाक़ै अवध मोर्रख़ा ३० नवम्बर १८५८ ई० मुकदमा नं० ८८४ मुतालिक़ा अरज़ी थानेदार अवध दोबारा खड़ा करने निशान दर मस्जिद जन्म स्थान महन्त निहंग सिंह फ़क़ीर ख़ालसा के मोहल्ला राम कोट (कोट राम चन्द्र) परगना हवेली अवध तहसील व ज़िला फ़ैज़ाबाद मुन्फसले १५ दिसम्बर १८५८ ई० ग़रीब परवर आदिले ज़हां सलामत जनाब आली सानेहा जदीद सरज़द हुआ है कि मुसम्मी निहंग सिंह सकनी पंजाब सिक्खान मुलाज़िम सरकार (दौलतमदार बअवामी बैरागियन जनम स्थान पर बानी-ए-फ़साद हैं। बीच मस्जिद बाबरी वाक़ै अवध करीब मेहराब व मेम्बर के एक चबूतरा मिट्टी का ब बुलन्दी चहार अन्गुश्त बना कर कंकरों से मामूर करके की जाय अक़ीदत बवजेह रौशनी आतिश के क़रार दिया है व चबूतरा मस्जिद अन्दर कटेहरा के ऊपर चबूतरा मस्जिद के चबूतरा जदीद है के मौकूफ़ हुआ है यह बुलन्दी तख़मीनन सवा गज़ की तय्यार करके निशान तसवीर बुत पर इस्तफादा किया है व बराबर उसी के एक गढ़ा खोदकर मुंडेर पुख़्ता कर व उसको तय्यार करके आतिश रौशन की है व पूजा व होम में मसरुफ़ हैं व जा बजा मस्जिद में कोयला से राम राम लिखा है आदिले ज़माना यह मुक़ाम इन्साफ़ का है कि सरीह जुल्म व ज़ियादती अहले हुनूद अहले इसलाम पर करते हैं व हुज़ूर मालिक फ़रीक़ैन के हैं। व मज़मून इम्तियाज़ वादशाही से साफ मुतर्रश्शह है कि वहीं पर कोई फ़रीक बग़रज़ करने बना देगा (अपठनीय) अगर असबाबन बहादुरी करेगा तो सरकार से सज़ायाब होगा जनाब आली मुक़ाम ग़ौर का है मस्जिद मुक़ाम इबादत मुसलमानान है न कि बख़ेलाफ़ उस के बवजेह हुनूद की व साबिक़ में क़ब्ल में अमलदारी सरकार मुक़ाम जनम स्थान का सदहा बरस के निशान पड़ा रहता था व अहले हुनूद पूजा करते थे। चबूतरा बसाजिश शिव गुलाम थानेदार अवध के बैरागियों ने शबाशब में ता सुदूरे हुक्म सरकार के वास्ते मुमानियत के नाफिज़ हुआ था बबुलन्दी एक वालिश्त तय्यार करा लिया। उस वक़्त साहेब डिप्टी कमिश्नर बहादुर ने बमोजिब हुक्म जनाब साहब कमिशनर बहादुर के थानेदार को मौकूफ़ किया व बैरागी पर जुर्माना मुतअय्यन हुआ अब फि़लहाल इस चबूतरे की भी तरवमीनन सवा गज़ तय्यार करा लिया है इस सूरत सरीह जियादती साबित है लेहाज़ा उम्मीदवार हूँ कि बनाम मुरतजा खां कोतवाल शहर सुदूर हुक्म होवे कि कोतवाल बचश्म खुद मोआईना करके उमुरात जदीद खुदवा डालें व मरदुमान हुनूद को बाहर मस्जिद करें व निशान बुत उलटवा दें व नाम हाय लिखें को धुलवा डालें व आयन्दा को हुक्म होवे (फटा हुआ है) करें।

वाज़िब जानकर अज़र् किया।

सैय्यद मोहम्मद ख़तीब

मोअज्ज़िन मस्जिद बाबरी वाक़ै अवध

३० नवम्बर १८५८ ई०च

Its English translation is as follows:

“Copy of the application of Mohammad Khatib Moazzin of the Masjid, dated Novermber 30, 1858, case no. 884 regarding application of Thanedar, Oudh, for reconstructing the symbol within the Masjid Janam Sthāna Mahant Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa Mohalla Ram Kot, (Kot Ram Chander) Pargana Haweli, Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad decided on December 15, 1858.

Gharib Parwar Aadil-e-Zaman Salamat!

Sir! Of late, one Nihang Sikh, who is a resident of Punjab, a Government employee and a Bairagi, is on rampage at the Janmasthan. In the middle of Baburi mosque near the mehrab and mimber he has constructed a chabutara made of clay which measures about four fingers in height by filling it with lime-stones. Following his faith he has unnecessarily made illumination and after having raised the platform in the mosque to the height of one and a quarter yards he has placed a flag, picture and idol there. After digging a pit equal to that measurement he has constructed a concrete parapet. Thereafter, he has made aatish and illumination. He is fully occupied with worship and homa. He has written ‘Rama’, ‘Rama’ with coal everywhere in the mosque. Now it is time for justice, as the Hindus are committing acts of high-handedness and tyranny on the Muslims. You are the master of both the parties, and if any person constructs forcibly, he would be punished by your honour. Kindly consider the fact that a mosque is a place of worship for the Muslims only and not for the Hindus. Earlier the flag (nishan) of Janmasthana was lying there for hundreds of years and Hindus used to do puja. Because of conspiracy of Shiv Ghulam Thandedar, Oudh Government, the Bairagis constructed overnight a Chabutra up to the height of one ‘Balisht’ until the orders of injunction were issued. At that time the Deputy Commissioner suspended the Thanedar and fine was imposed on Bairagis. Now the Chabootra has been raised to about 1¼ yards. Thus, high-handedness has been proved.

It is requested that Murtaza Khan of Kotwal City be ordered that he himself should visit the spot, inspect the new construction, get it demolished and oust the Hindus from there. He should get the flag and the idol removed and the writing on the walls washed. Orders may be issued for the future (paper torn). Having deemed it necessary, it has been urged so.

Syyed Mohammad Khatib

Moazzim Masjid Babri sites in Oudh

Dated November 30, 1858.”

Thus, the worship inside the mosque in the year 1858 A.D. is confirmed by this petition of Syyad Muhammad. It appears that sometime during the reign of early Awadh Nawabs or during the Governorship of Girdhar Bahadur (1720-1722) Bairagi Sadhus captured this mosque also and posted a flag and started performing pujā. When Tieffenthaler visited it in circa 1770 A.D., he found the similar situation. The puja inside the mosque was stopped only after Oudh was taken over by the British Government. It was a great injustice to the Hindus.

(19) Reports of the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey

In his report dated 28th November, 1858 A.D. Sheetal Dubey, the S.H.O. of Ayodhyā, reported that in the middle of the Masjid Janma Asthan Sant Nihang Singh, Faqir Khalsa of Punjab, performed homa, worshipped Guru Govind Singh, “erected the flag post of Bhagavān (god) which was being protected by 25 Sikhs. The following is the complete report of Dube in Devanāgarī transliteration which is the exhibit no. 19 in Suit no. 1:

Report of Sheetal Dubey dated 28th
November, 1858 A.D. (Hindi).

The following is the English translation:

Copy of the application of Sheetal Dubey Thanedar Oudh, dated November 28, 1858, along with the application of Thanedar Oudh for re-erecting flag within the Masjid Janam Asthana resident of Mohalla Ram Kot (Kot Ramchandra Pargana, Haweli, Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad.

Dated December 15, 1858.

Gareeb Parwar salamat Khuda wand,

Today Mr. Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Punjab, organised Hawan and Puja of Guru Govind Singh and erected a flag of Sri Bhagwan, within the premises of the Masjid. At the time of pitching the flag, 25 Sikhs were posted there for security. Deemed necessary, so requested. May your regime progress. Pleasure.

Applicant.

Your obedient servant

Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar Oudh

Dated November 28, 1858.

Here निशान has been translated as ‘flag’ instead of ‘symbol’.

This report is exhibit no. 19 in the suit no. 4 also and duly verified.

(ii) Another Report of the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey dated 1st December, 1858 A.D. informs us that the Nihang Sikh was still in command of the Janmasthan mosque. The Nihang Sikh was called by S.H.O. Dube on 30th November, 1858 and asked to vacate the mosque. But he replied that the place belonged to the Nirankara and the Saheb Bahadur should dispense justice. He was not in a mood to leave the Masjid premises. The Nihang Sikh neither gave any information about his movement nor did he really move. This report is as follows:

खुदाबन्दे परवाना हजूर वास्ते तलवी नहंग सिख फक़ीर जो कि मस्जिद जन्म अस्थान में मुवक्ताद्धम है तारीख ३० नवम्बर १८५८ ई० को सादिर हुआ चुनांचे (अपठनीय) परवाना (अपठनीय) यह ताबेदार मय मोहर्रिर थाना नजदीक फवक्ताद्धर मजकूर के गया और मजमून परवाना से बखुशी इत्तिला किया व जबानी भी हर चन्द हर फहमाईश कर के कहा लेकिन फक़ीर मजकूर सिर्फ यह बात कहा हर जगह निरंकार की है व साहब बहादुर मालिक मुल्क इन्साफ करना चाहे और अपने जाने के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा व ना जाता है। आइन्दा जो हुकुम होवे मुताबिक उसके तामील करूँ मैं (अपठनीय) वाजिब जान कर गुजारिश किया मारुज्+ा यकुम दिसम्बर १८५८ ई०।

अलअबद

सीतल दूबे थाने दार अवध

द० सीतल दूबे बखत हिन्दी

This report is exhibit no. 21 in the case and the Hindi copy is duly certified by Advocate Z. Jilani

Exhibit no. 21.

The English translation of this report is as follows:

“Copy of the report of Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar Oudh dated December 1, 1858 in the case no. 884, application of Thanedar Oudh regarding erecting a flag within masjid Janam Sthan. Sant Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Mohalla Ram Kot (Kot Ramchandra) Pargana Haweli Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad, decided on December 15, 1858.

Khudawand-e-Parwaz Huzoor for summoning Nihang Singh Faqir who is residing within the Masjid. Order passed on November 30, 1858. So the parwana was taken to the said Faqir by this obedient servant who is posted there and the subject/content thereof was explained to him. He was explained its text orally also. He was admonished (for his act) but the said Faqir continued to insist that every place belonged to Nirankar and justice should be done to him. Neither he said a word about leaving the place he was illegally occupying nor did he leave.

Therefore, I am here to carry out any further orders given in the matter. Deemed necessary, so requested.

Dated Dec. 1, 1858

Sd/- Sheetal Dubey Thanedar Oudh”

(iii) Another report of the S.H.O. Dube is the exhibit no. 22 in suit no. 1 and confirms the possession of the mosque by Nihang Sikh on 6th December, 1858 A.D. A portion of this brief report is quoted here: घखुदावन्दा परवाना वकारुल तलब निहंग सिंह फकीर साकिन मस्जिद जन्म अस्थान के वारिज हुआ चुनाँचे हस्बुल हुक्म हजूरे वाला के वजरिये रिपोर्ट हजा फकीर व खिदमत वन्दगान वाला है हाजिर होता है। वाजिब जानकार गुजारिश किया फकत मोरखा ६ दिसम्बर, सन् १८५८ ईस्वीच

The arrival of a Nihang Sikh from Punjab along with 25 fellow Sikhs and forcible occupation of the mosque and performance of the rituals inside the mosque with writing of ‘Rāma Rāma’ on every corner of the walls of the mosque testify to the undisputable fact that a very large section of the society regarded it as a sacred site of Lord Rāma and there existed a temple thereon; otherwise there was no occasion for a Nihang Sikh to travel from Punjab to Ayodhyā and occupy the mosque forcibly. It appears from the reports of the Thanedar dated 10th December, 1858 that the Nihang Sikh residing in the mosque was ousted and the flag was uprooted by a Court Order. But he did not stop his activities.

From an application from Mir Rajab Ali dated 15.11.1860 it appears that the Nihang Sikh made chabutara adjacent to the mosque and was expanding it day by day. He again pitched a flag in front of the mosque which was removed by the commissioner. Thus, the protest against British Government’s one-sided decision of depriving the Hindus of worshipping inside the structure continued.

(20) Complaint of Mir Rajjab Ali

On 5.11.1860 Mir Rajjab Ali, the then Khatib of Baburi Masjid, made a complaint requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad for the removal of the recently constructed chabutara by the Nihang Sikh. He wrote,

“Garib Parwar Salamat,

The bullying behaviour of the Nihang respondent is reported to the Court here. About 30 days ago he forcibly made a small chabutara adjacent to the Baburi mosque in the graveyard. He is extending it day by day. Although he is told not to do so, yet he does not refrain from it. Rather he becomes violent at times.” Mir Rajjab Ali further complained that whenever the Moazzin called Azaan, the Respondent Nihang blew conch. Therefore, he prayed for the removal of the chabutara and for taking a bond from the Respondent for good behaviour.

The Nihang, who had earlier occupied the inner shrine, now built the chabutara outside it but within the outer boundary wall after he was ousted from the main shrine by the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey. Earlier both Hindus and Muslims were performing puja and namaz inside the mosque. Nevertheless, when the Hindus were asked to do it outside the shrine, they started creating trouble like blowing the conch at the same time when there was Azaan.

(21) Petitions of Mohmmad Asghar

A petition by Mohammad Asghar, s/o Syyed Rajab Ali, Khatib and Mutawalli, Baburi Mosque, Janma Asthan, Awadh before the Commissioner, Faizabad on 13th December, 1877 against the Mahants of Janma Asthan and Nirmohi Akhara, Awadh was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad for the redressal of several grievances which included the non-execution of the order dated 7th November, 1873 for the removal of the idol in the form of the charana-pādukā. In this petition he wrote:

घइन्साफ का मुकाम है कि दीवार दरवाजा मुतालिक मस्जिद पर मूर्तियों का बनना किस कदर अमूर खिलाफ मजहब अहले इस्लाम बल्कि जुल्म बुत परस्तान ऊपर अहले मुसलमान के हैं।च i.e. Justice demanded that since the placement of idols on the wall and door was against the tenets of Islam, they were liable for removal.

However, he admitted in his petition that the sole evidence in support of his claim was one word ‘Allah’ super-imposed on the entrance of the mosque. The following is his admission in the fourth paragraph of his petition:

घयह कि सुबूत तहरीरी जो हाकिम मातेहत ने मुनदरिज हुकुम फरमाया है कैफियत उस की यह है कि एक उम्दा सुबूत यह है कि दीवार अहाता बेरूने मस्जिद के दरवाजे पर नाम अल्लाह का कुन्दा व तहरीर है। चूँकि यह सुबूत तहरीरी बेहिस वहरकत है लायक मुलाहेजा मौका के है पस क्योंकि अदालत मातहेत में पेश हो सकता था अन्दरीन सूरत अपीलांट उम्मीदवार है कि बनजर इन्साफ मुलाहेजा मौका फरमाया जाये ताकि सुबूत बवजेह (अपठनीय) बहक अपीलांट जाहिर हो जाये।च

[It is Exhibit 30 in Suit-1]

In another petition which was the counter affidavit in the case Raghubar Das vs. Sarkar Bahadur, Kaisar-i- Hind and Mohammad Asghar the second defendant (Mohammad Asghar) informed the Court that when Babur shah built the mosque he got ‘Allah’ engraved on the mosque. The following is the relevant portion from his counter-affidavit:

घअव्वल यह कि जब बाबरशाह मालिके मुल्क व बादशाहे वक्त ने यह मस्जिद तामीर किया व अहाता मस्जिद के दरवाजे के उपर संगी पर लफ्ज अल्लाह कुन्दा कराके नसब किया।च (para 1)

From his two admissions it is clear that there was no inscription attributing the construction of the mosque to Babur till 1885. Therefore, the inscriptions ascribing the construction of the disputed shrine to Babur were false and factitious. Since inscriptions were the main basis of the claim that Babur built the disputed shrine and they are now proved spurious, their claim is naturally disproved.

(22) Muraqqa-i-Khusarawi of Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi Nami

Shaikh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorabi wrote Muraqqa-i-Khusarawi in 1869 A.D. In this book he admitted:

घफिर मस्जिद बाबरी में जहाँ सीता की रसोई थी शिर्कत की ऐलानिया पूजा होनेलगी।च

Again, in the Baburi mosque, where there was Sita Rasoi, started the worship openly.

It appears that this worship in the Baburi mosque started in 1720 A.D. when Girdhar Bahadur was the all-powerful Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. Thus, the worship of the Hindus in the disputed shrine started 13 years after the death of Aurangzeb and sixty years after the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque and both the puja and Namaz continued until the proclamation of the British rule in August 1858. The take-over of the shrine by the Sikhs from the Punjab in November 1858 was the expression of the prevailing Hindu resentment.

(23) Apriori Evidence

Another type of evidence, which Prof. Harsh Narayan calls, is an apriori evidence. He explains thus:

“It is usual for temples to be built on mounds and mounts overlooking a town. On the other hand, it is a rule with mosques to be erected within easy reach for the members of the locality, for the simple reason that they are supposed to visit it at least five times a day for offering prayer. Even Jami mosques are sited near markets and other such places for facility of congregational prayer. And the Babarí mosque occupies the Ramkot mound and that, too, despite the fact that its neighbourhood is said to have all along been devoid of Muslims by and large. Indeed, in his judgment in Civil Appeal no. 27 of 1885, Mahant Raghuvir Das versus Secretary of state for India, Col. F.E. Chambier, District Judge mentions that there are no dwelling houses in the vicinity of the mosque.”

Harsh Narayan’s observations are correct to a great extent. But it appears to be a case of aposterior evidence because, from the existence of a mosque at mound, it is inferred that a temple was demolished. It is clear from the following photograph of the Baburi mosque shown in Carnegy’s book:

‘Babar’s mosque and Rāma’s birthplace’ in P. Carnegy’s book.

The postulation of established historians that a sizeable Muslim population had come up in the Ram Kot area and there was a need for construction of the mosque is not correct because the Muslims had not established their dwelling houses in the vicinity of the Rāma-Janma-bhūmi till 1885 A.D. It is evident from the observation of the District Judge F.E.A. Chamier that they had established their colonies such as Shah Madar and Svargadwari on the bank of Sarayū river. The testimony of William Finch who saw only Brahmins residing in the Ram Kot area further testifies to this fact. According to Butter’s ‘Topography of Oudh’ the population of Ayodhyā in 1854 A.D. was 8000 which included 500 Muslims only. (p. 116) Daniell’s painting shown in the next chapter also testifies to the fact that climbing such an enormous height for offering namaz in the mosque would not have been an easy task. Thus, the location of Baburi Mosque, too, confirms that the disputed mosque was built on the site of a demolished temple.

(24) 1902 Markers

Prince of Wales was to visit Faizabad in 1902 A.D. Sizeable money was collected for the reception of the Prince. After the cancellation of the Prince’s visit to Faizabad, the District Magistrate decided to utilize this amount for marking important religious places of Ayodhyā. For this purpose a local committee headed by Mahant Ramamanohar Prasad of the Badā Sthāna was constituted. The committee after scrutinising the details given in Ayodhyāmāhātymya of Skanda-Purāna and other texts made recommendations. Accordingly, the district administration placed markers for all important religious places at Ayodhyā. The first stone-marker was placed in front of the eastern entrance of the disputed Baburi mosque and it was christened “No. 1, Rāma Janma-bhūmi.” It was claimed that according to the Ayodhyā-māhātmya, it was the birthplace of Rāma. At some distance another marker was placed as “No. 5, Janma-sthana”, although the Ayodhyā-māhātmya did not know any distinction between the Janma-bhūmi and Janma-sthāna.

Thus, the place of Lord Rāma’s birth (Rāma-janma-bhūmi) was officially settled and markers were placed accordingly.

For more than two decades there has been a misleading propaganda going on that there is not a single evidence to show that it was the birthplace of Lord Rāma. However, the fact is that there are evidences of all sorts- indigenous literary source like Ayodhyā-māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa and foreign travellers’ account in the shape of Tieffanthaler’s book. In addition, there was Vishnu-hari inscription in the temple and the A.S.I. report supports the existence of Rāma temple on the birthplace. Normally a place, and not exact site, associated with the birthplace of a revered person is decribed as the birthplace; for example, Lord Krishna was born at Mathurā and Lord Buddha at Lumbini. Lord Krishna’s birthplace is known from the temples which stood at the site and Lord Buddha’s site is known from the stūpa Asoka erected there. In the context of Rāma-janma-bhūmi, we have at least two texts Ayodhyā Māhātmya and Avadha-vilāsa which suggest exact location based on measurements from various places. Even then, many established historians are not satisfied. I have been telling jokingly for long that even if Lord Rāma were to come and say that he was born at this site, they will find some lacuna in his statement and reject it outright!

It is said that Jawahar Lal Nehru was born at 77, Mirganj, Allahabad around 120 years ago. Despite this concrete address, his exact birthplace is, today, lost because his father sold the old house where he stayed for more than a decade. Many people even dispute this address. Since Moti Lal Nehru susequently purchased Mehmood Manjil in a better locality, viz. Colonelganj and shifted there, the contact with the old house was lost in the plethora of new high-rise buildings.

(25) Maratha Records

Marathas made many endeavours to gain control over Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayag. In 1751, after the victory over the Ruhellas in the Doab with the succour from the Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, the second Nawab of the Awadh dynasty Mansur Ali (Safdar Jung) was requested by Holker to handover Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayāga to the Peshwa. Again in 1756, when Shuja-ud-daula wanted to take military help from the Marathas against the impending Afghan attack, they demanded the transfer of Ayodhyā and other two pilgrim centres. Negotiations continued for one year on this subject and ultimately in July 1757 Shuja-ud-daula agreed to transfer Ayodhyā and Kāśī to the Maratha Sardar Raghoba. It could not be implemented because of many factors including the pre-occupation of the Maratha’s army in Punjab and the very fact that Ayodhyā was the capital of Awadh. However, the Marathas kept pressure on him and in a letter dated 23rd February, 1759 to the Maratha General in the North, Dattaji Sindhia, the Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao asked the Sindhia to talk to Shuja-ud-daula and take over Ayodhyā, Kāśī and Prayag. The Peshwa wrote to the Sindhia:

“Mansur Ali’s son (i.e. Shuja-ud-daula) had promised to Dada (i.e. Raghoba) to cede Benares and Ayodhya, but the case of Allahabad is still under discussion. If a settlement on the last point can be easily reached, make it.”

(Sarkar’s History of Aurangzeb., Vol. II. p. 161)

Although Shuja-ud-daula was always reluctant to cede Ayodhyā, yet he honoured the Hindu sentiment by shifting his capital from Ayodhyā to Faizabad. Consequently, a large number of Muslims migrated from Ayodhyā to Faizabad.

(26) Jaipur Kapad Dwar records

During the Ayodhyā controversy the Catalogue of Documents in Kapad Dwar, Jaipur surfaced. Its serial no. 179 is a map of Ayodhyā. Sawai Jai Singh had been granted 983 acres of land at Ayodhyā in June 1717 A.D. Prof. R. Nath meticulously examined the records and wrote extensively on the subject. The matter got complicated because of a temple map with three spire-like śikharas. It was hotly discussed between the pro-temple and anti-temple scholars. But to me, the temple map was not that of an existing temple, rather for a temple to be built in future on 983 acres of plot. Therefore, it is not a strong evidence in support of the temple.

(27) Philip Baldaeus’s account

Ayodhyā has remained famous for pilgrimage all over India. It is further corroborated from a very little known source which is “A true and exact Description of the most Celebrated East-India Coast of Malabar and Coromandel, and of the Island of Ceylon, with all the adjacent Countries”. It was written by Philip Baldaeus in Dutch language and published in Dutch in 1671 and the English translation was published in 1704 A.D. Baldaeus returned to the Dutch Republic in 1664 and died in 1671 at a very young age of 39 only. During his stay in Ceylon and South India he actively participated in proselytizing people.

Even in distant Malabar, where he got information for writing travel account, pilgrimage to Ayodhyā by devotees was portrayed under the title “The idolatry of the East India Pagons.” Philip Baldaeus writes:

“Another meritorious Act of the Pagans is the visiting their celebrated Pagodes and other holy Places (like the Pilgrimages of the Romanists) as the famous Pagode Rammanakojel, the Adams Mountain in Ceylon, and divers other Places Suratte, Davarca, Mottera, Casi, Bengale, and Ayotia, 12 Leagues from Casi; for which reason it is, that the rich erect Pagodes, Jans (call’d Ammalams) and Cisterns for the Convenience of the travelling Men and Beasts. (p. 896)

Here one finds that pilgrims from the extreme South such as Malabar and Coromandel visited Ayodhyā which had many Pagodas in the first half of the seventeenth century. It is pleasing to note that the author Philip Baldaeus has appreciated this meritorious act of the Hindus.

(28) Some other foreign accounts

(i) Thomas Pennant - (14 June 1726 - 16 December 1798) was a Welsh native who wrote the book entitled ‘The View of Hindoostan’ in two volumes which were incorporated in his longer work ‘Outlines of the Globe’. It was published from London and printed by Henery Hughs in 1798 A.D. Pennant writes about Ayodhyā in the 2nd volume of this book as follows:

“The city of Oide stands directly opposite. The author of the City of Oude Ayeen Akberry, ii. 41, says, that it was in his time the largest city in Hindoostan; he mentions it as a place of peculiar sanctity. Feristhta boasts of its existing two thousand two years before the Christian era.” (Volume 2, Page 219)

(ii) Thomas Maurice (born in 1755) was a noted oriental scholar and historian, and assistant-keeper of MSS at the British Museum (1798-24). He wrote many books on Indian history.

His description of Ayodhyā in the second volume of his book ‘History of Hindustan’ is as follows:

“In fact, Ram, or Rãma, was the sovereign of Ayodhya, or Audh, a city in the most ancient times of wonderful extent and magnificence, as may be inferred from the present Lucnow’s having been, according to the Brahmin accounts, only a lodge for one of its gates; that he is celebrated as a conqueror of the highest renown, and the deliverer of nations from tyrants, as well as of his consort Sita, from the giant Ravan, king of Lanca; that he was commander-in-chief of a numerous and intrepid race of those large monkeys, which some of our naturalists have denominated Indian satyrs; that the name of his general was Hanumat, the prince of satyrs; and that, by the wonderful activity of such an army, a bridge of rocks was raised over the sea, a part of which the Hindoos suppose still to remain; and he thinks it is probably that series of rocks, which, by Mussulmen and Portuguese, is mistakenly called Adam’s, for it should be Rama’s, bridge. “Might not,” subjoins Sir William, “this army of satyrs have been only a race of mountaineers, whom Rama, if such a monarch ever existed, had civilized.”

(iii) William Wakefield was a doctor who came to India with a troop of army in January 1874. In India he stayed for many years and visited several places. He wrote two books during his stay in India: ‘Our Life and Travels in India’ and ‘The Happy Valley: Sketches of Kashmir and Kashmiris’. The first book was published from London in 1878.

In this book ‘Our Life and Travels in India’ he writes about Ayodhyā in these words:

“The only remains that appear to be of any great antiquity are three large earthen mounds, supposed to have been formed by the legion of monkeys when assisting Rama, and two large tombs made of brick, the occupants of which are unknown. With these exceptions there is nothing very notable in the place; the numerous temples filled with Brahmans and fakirs are, as already stated, of modern erection; and Ajudhya only interests us now from the fact that in the dark period of India’s history, it was the scene of most important political and social events.”
(v) St. Bartholomew, also known as St. Paulinus von Bartholomäus or Paulinus Paulinus von Heilig Bartholomäus or Sancto Bartholomaeo, was born in Austria on 25 April 1748 and died on, 7 January 1806. He was a missionary, Orientalist and historian. He was well versed in several languages. He spoke German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, English, Sanskrit and some dialects of India. He taught oriental languages for seven years at the College of Propaganda Fide in Rome and in 1776 he was sent to Malabar, in India, where, among others, he studied the Sanskrit language. He was one of the first to detect similarities between Sanskrit and Indo-European languages. He returned to Italy in 1789. He also wrote an extensive essay in Italian on India (Journey to the East Indies) which was translated into English by William Jonston with notes and illustrations given by John Reinhold Forstor and published fron London in 1800.

In this book his writing on Ayodhyâ is as follows:

“Ayodhya, an ancient Indian city, where the first Indian monarchs on the Ganges resided, was situated on the river Deva, in the latitude of 250, exactly in the spot where Faizabad now stands. It was the birthplace of Shirama, or Rama, an Indian hero, or the younger Bacchus, whose heroic achievements were celebrated in songs before the times of the Pagan Indians.”

(v) Major General Sir W.H. Sleeman (born in 1788). He came to India as an infantry cadet in the Bengal army in 1809 and finally became Major General in 1854. He is remembered for his outstanding work for the suppression of the thugs. His famous line on the crime situation in Rohtas district (where men are shot like birds and jail is the best alibi) was quoted by the present author, while he was the Superintendent of Police there, in his various reports. Sleeman was posted as British resident at Lucknow during the reign of Wajid Ali Shah. His travel account was published in two volumes of the book titled ‘A Journey Through The Kingdom Of Oudh (1849-1850)’ from Richard Bently Press, London in 1858. In this book Sleeman describes Ayodhya on 23rd January, 1850 in the following words:

“The old city of Ajoodhea is a ruin, with the exception of a few buildings along the bank of the river raised by wealthy Hindoos in honour of Ram, who once lived and reigned there, and is believed by all Hindoos to have been an incarnation of Vishnoo.” (Vol. 2, p. 27)

Baburi mosque did not attact this dynamic officer.

(29) Testimony of early Gazetteers

(i) Brookes General Gazetteer (Abridged, London. 1796 A.D.) confirms the sanctity of Ayodhyā:

“OUDE, an ancient city of Hindoostan Proper, in the province of Oude, the remains of which are seated on the Ganges, nearly adjoining Fyzabad. It is said to have been the first imperial city of Hindoostan; but whatever may have been its former magnificence; no traces of it are left. It is considered as a place of sanctity; and the Hindoos frequently come hither, in pilgrimage, from all parts of India.”

(ii) The Universal Gazetteer, by John Walker, 2nd edition, 1798

This Gazetteer also testifies to the fact that Ayodhyā was the first imperial city and the pilgrim place of the highest importance-

“But whatever may have been its former magnificence, scarcely any traces of it are left. It is considered as a place of sanctity; and the Hindoos frequently come hither in pilgrimage, from all quarters of India.”

Here one is reminded of the poignant poem “The Ruins of Rome” written by John Dyer in 1740:

Fallen, fallen, a silent heap; their heroes all

Sunk in their urns:—Behold the pride of pomp,

The throne of nations fallen; obscured in dust

Even yet majestical.—The solemn scene

Elates the soul!

(iii) Walter Hamilton’s Gazetteer (1828 A.D.)

Walter Hamilton’s East India Gazetteer was first published in 1815 A.D. and the second edition followed in 1828 A.D. Very few people know that in between he published a book ‘A Geographical, Statistical, and Historical Description of Hindostan’ in 1820. The extract on the holy city of Ayodhyā from his book, which was exactly reproduced in his gazetteer’s second edition, is quoted below:

“Oude—The ancient capital of the province of Oude, situated on the south side of the Goggra, seventy-nine miles east from Lucknow; Lat. 26° 48’ N., Lon. 82° 4’ E. By Abul Fazel in 1582 it is described as follows. “Oude is one of the largest cities of Hindostan. In ancient times this city is said to have measured 148 coss in length and thirty-six coss in breadth. Upon sifting the earth which is round this city small grains of gold are sometimes found in it. This town is esteemed one of the most sacred places of antiquity.
Pilgrims resort to this vicinity, where the remains of the ancient city of Oude, the capital of the great Rama, are still to be seen; but whatever may have been its former magnificence it now exhibits nothing but a shapeless mass of ruins. The modern town extends a considerable way along the banks of the Goggra, adjoining Fyzabad, and is tolerably well peopled; but inland it is a mass of rubbish and jungle, among which are the reputed sites of temples dedicated to Rama, Seeta, his wife, Lakshman, his general, and Hunimaun (a large monkey), his prime minister. The religious mendicants who perform the pilgrimage to Oude are chiefly of the Ramata sect, who walk round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools, and perform the customary ceremonies.” (pp. 4596-97)

From its perusual it is crystal clear that Ayodhyā was a holy city of the Hindus. It also indicates the existence of the temples of Rāma, Sītā, Lakshmana and Hanuman. It confirms the preponderance of Rāmānandī Bairāgīs at Ayodhyā.

(iv) A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of East India Company – by Edward Thornton, 1854

Sir Edward Thornton (1817-1906 A.D.) was a prominent British diplomat who held many posts in Latin America, Russia, and Turkey, and served as Minister to the United States. He wrote several books which include ‘The History of British Empire in India’. It narrates the history from the appointment of Lord Hardinge to the political end of East India Company.

He describes Oude as a town in the Kingdom of the same name, situated on the right bank of the river Ghogra. He then informs that at a distance of one km. from the river is “an extensive establishments, called Hanumangarh, or Fort of Hanuman, in honour of the fabled monkey-god, the auxiliary of Rāma”. According to him, it has an annual revenue of 50,000 rupees, settled on it by Shuja-ud-daulah, formerly Nawaub Vizier and it is managed by a Malik or abbot, the spiritual superior. He further informs that the revenues are dispensed to 500 bairagis or religious ascetics, and other Hindoo mendicants of various descriptions.

Thereafter Thornton makes the following revelation:

“No Mussulman being allowed within the walls.” From this Gazetteer of 1854 A.D. it is known that till 1854 A.D. the Muslims were not allowed to enter within the walls of Hanuman-garhi, and probably most of the Ram Kot area. Neither during the visit of William Finch nor during the scrutiny of the disputed mosque in 1770 A.D. by Joseph Tieffenthaler any semblance of the Muslim presence was found in the entire Ram Kot area.

Then Thornton informs that “Close to the town on the east, and on the right bank of the Ghoghra, are extensive ruins, said to be those of the fort of Rāma, King of Oude, hero of the Rāmāyana, and otherwise highly celebrated in the mythological and romantic legends of India.” After quoting Buchanan profusely he follows the latter’s conclusions:

(a) The ruins still bear the name of Ramgurh, or Fort of Rāma.

(b) The most remarkable spot in the Ramgurh was a place from where, according to the legend, Rāma took his flight to heaven, carrying with him the people of the city.

(c) Consequently, Ayodhyā remained desolate until rebuilt by Vikramaditya, king of Oojein, who built 360 temples.

Then he writes in the fashion of Francis Buchanan: “Not the smallest traces of these temples, however, now remain; and according to the native tradition, they were demolished by Aurungzebe who built a mosque on part of the site”.

Thus, he also re-iterates the perception of the people that Aurangzeb had demolished all those temples, but does not accept it on the basis of a fake inscription on which Buchanan had relied.

Thornton further writes,

“A quadrangular coffer of stone, white washed five ells long, four broad, and protruding five or six inches above ground, is pointed out as the cradle in which Rama was born, as the seventh avatar of Vishnu; and is accordingly abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of the Hindoos.”

Thus, Thornton’s testimony, too, testifies to the tradition that Ayodhyā has been a revered pilgrim place for the Hindus of all corners of India since time immemorial. However, he makes a startling reference. While mentioning Rāma as the seventh avatar of Vishnu he refers to Shakespeare by writing thus: “Shakespeare, v. col. 169.” Again in the beginning of the article “Oude’, he writes thus at the footnote: “Oude is Ayodhyā of Shakespeare, and Awadh of the same”. We tried to trace Ayodhyā or Rāma in the works of Shakespeare but could not succeed. Since the two references to Shakespeare were quite incorrect, they were deleted in the 1858 edition.

Thornton further adds, “Ayodhyā or Oude is considered by the best authorities to be the most ancient city in Hindostan; and Prinsep mentions that some of its coins in the cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal are of such extreme antiquity that the characters in which their legends are graven are totally unknown. According to Elphinstone, “from thence the princes of all Indian countries are sprung.”

(30) P. Carnegy’s writings

P. Carnegy, who was the Settlement Officer and Officiating Commissioner of Faizabad, wrote a book ‘‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’’ published in 1870 A.D. On page 21 of the book he wrote the following:

“Hindu and Musalman differences – The Janmasthana is within a few hundred paces of the Hanuman Garhi. In 1855 when a great rupture took place between the Hindus and Mahomedans the former occupied the Hanuman Garhi in force, while the Musalmans took possession of the Janmasthana. The Mahomedans on that occasion actually charged up the steps of the Hanuman Garhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus then followed up this success, and at the third attempt, took the Janmasthana, at the gate of which 75 Mahomedans are buried in the ‘Martyrs’ grave’ (Ganj-Shahid). Several of the King’s Regiments were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahemodans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahemodans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”

From this report the following facts emerge:

(i) The Hindus and the Muslims used to worship alike in the disputed shrine till the Nawabi rule which ended in January, 1856 by the avaricious design of Lord Dalhousie.

(ii) Since the proclamation of the British rule in 1858 A.D. a gross injustice was done to the Hindus that they were not allowed to worship inside the disputed shrine, whereas the Muslims were allowed to do so.

(iii) It was done to prevent disputes and not to adjudicate any dispute in a court of law.

(iv) The railing was erected to force the Hindus to worship on a platform outside the fence. The Hindus apparently could not do anything against the dictate of a mighty empire.

(v) It negates the notion that after the British rule the Hindus were shown favours by the Government. In fact, nothing more mischievous and arbitrary could have been done against the Hindus by depriving them of their customary right to worship inside the disputed shrine. This was the main reason of the Hindus losing the case in 188586 A.D.

The arbitrary order of the British authority was in contrast to the neutral stand of the Wajid Ali Shah’s Government.

Carnegy’s book was published in 1870 A.D. He was Settlement Officer of Faizabad since 1865 at least. His account of offering prayers by both Hindus and Muslims is, therefore, quite reliable. It has been reiterated in subsequent Gazetteers:

(i) “It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Muhammadans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which, in the mosque, the Muhammadans pray; while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (W.C. Bennet’s Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, Vol 1, Lucknow, 1877 A.D.)

(ii) “It is said that up to this time both Hindus and Musalmans used to worship in the same building; but since the mutiny an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform which they have raised in the outer one.) (“Fyzabad A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4), Chapter V)

(31) Puja and Namaz in the same shrine of Bijapur built by Ibrahim Shah

One should not get amazed to find the performance of puja and namaz in the same shrine. There was a temple in Bijapur State built by the King Ibrahim Shah who was called Jagat Guru because of his liberal religious policy. From ‘ A Handbook for India’ which is an account of the then three Presidencies and the Overland Route intended as Guide for travellers, officers, and civilians the following details of this temple are produced:

“There is a curious hybrid temple here, built by Ibrahim Shah, Jagat Guru, of Bijapur. This place of worship is frequented both by Muslims and by Hindus. The Hindus worship in the inner temple in the centre of the court, while the Muslims perform their rites in the court itself. A little shrine in front of the gateway contains the lingam, and is surmounted by the crescent. Ibrahim Shah was warned, so the people of this town affirm, to destroy no more Hindu temples, and this edifice was one of the first fruits of his tolerant spirit. His policy was evidently to conciliate the Hindus, from among whom the Maratha chiefs were then rising into power; and his name is still held in affectionate remembrance by the Hindus around Bijapur. The Hindu temple in the centre of the court has a dome like a Muhammadan tomb. The temple is, in fact, an embodiment of the principle of toleration.”(Part II – Bombay, pp. 419-20)

This book was published from London by John Murray, Albemarle Street in 1859 A.D. It is clear from this account that in this temple built by Ibrahim Shah both pūjā and namāz were performed without any hindrance.

Even today this amicable coexistence of the pūjā and namaz is not unknown. In the Bhojshala at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh the Hindus perform pūjā and Muslims offer namaz since April, 2003. The Hindus are allowed to have darśana every day and perform pūjā on Tuesdays with flowers, whereas the Muslims are allowed to offer namaz on Fridays between 01:00 and 03:00 P.M. Likewise, the Hindus were allowed to perform pūjā, particularly prostrating in front of the marked birth-site of Lord Rāma and circumambulating it thrice in the disputed shrine at Ayodhyā before 1858 A.D.

(32) Edward B. Eastwick’s ‘Handbook of the Bengal Presidency’ (1882)

The author has given vivid account of many important places including the Calcutta city under the Bengal Presidency. The book was published in 1882 by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London. On the Janma-sthāna of Rāma the author writes:

“The Janma Sthãn or place where Rãm Chandra was born, is 1/3 of a m. to the W. of the Hanumãn Garh. Close to the door, and outside it, is a Muhammadan cemetery, in which 165 persons, according to the ‘Gazetteer’ 75 persons, are buried, all Muslims, who were killed in a fight between the Muslims and Hindus for the possession of the temple in 1855. The Muslims on that occasion charged up the steps of the Hanumãn Garh, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus followed up their success, and at the 3rd attempt took the Janam Sthãn, at the gates of which the Muslims who were killed were buried, the place being called Ganj i Shahidan, or “Grave of the Martyrs.” Eleven Hindus were killed, and were thrown into the river. Several of the King of Awadh’s regiments were looking on, but their orders were not to interfere. Up to that time both Hindus and Muhammadans used to worship in the temple. Since British rule a railing has been put up, within which the Muslims pray. Outside, the Hindus make their offerings. The actual Janam Sthãn is a plain masonry platform, just outside the mosque or temple, but within the enclosure, on the left-hand side. The primeval temple perished, but was rebuilt by Vikram, and it was his temple that the Muslims converted into a mosque. Europeans are expected to take off their shoes if they enter the building, which is quite plain, with the exception of 12 black pillars taken from the old temple. On the pillar on the left of the door as you enter, may be seen the remains of a figure which appears to be either Krishna or an Apsara. There are 2 alcoves, one on either side of the main arch, and a stone pulpit, on the steps of which is an inscription now illegible. The building is about 38 ft. by 18 ft.” (Section II, Route 24 – Jawanpùr to Ayodhya, pp. 23031)
Eastwick confirms that up to the advent of the British rule in 1858 both Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the ‘temple’. He mentions the existence of 12 black pillars which were parts of the old temple. He gives a vivid account of a pillar on the left of the door where “may be seen the remains of a figure which appears to be either Krishna or an Apsarā.” Since it might have been in a dancing pose and not very visible, this uncertainty was in his mind. But in any case no such figure could be created on a pillar of a mosque because it is against the basic concept of Islam.
The author further gives a very valuable information that on the steps of a stone pulpit there was an inscription which was illegible at the time of the visit of the author. This inscription might have been taken away from the demolished temple and might have contained some Sanskrit hymns along with the picture of some deity. It was the fashion of many Muslim marauders to keep such pious pictures of Hindu gods on the steps of stairs so that the pictures or idols were trampled under the feet of the persons using the stairs. Because of prolonged trampling the inscription had become illegible. It was different from Persian inscriptions which were to the left and right of the pulpit.

Another vital information from the author Edward B. Eastwick’s account is that the Rāmanavamī fair was attended by five lakh devotees in 1880 A.D. when the population of the country was not very high. (p. 228)

(33) Hans Bakker’s conclusions

Hans Bakker wrote his book ‘Ayodhyā’ before the Ayodhyā controversy erupted. On Rāma-Janma-bhūmi temple his observations are as follows:

“The oldest pieces of archaeological evidence are the black columns which remain from the old (Visnu) temple that was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended to earth (Janma-bhumi). This temple was destroyed by the first Mogul prince Babur in AD 1528 and replaced by a mosque which still exists. The following specimens of these pillars are known to exist: fourteen pillars were utilized by the builder Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque and are still partly visible within it; two pillars were placed besides the grave of the Muslim saint Fazl Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan, who, according to oral tradition, incited Babur to demolish the Hindu temple. The grave and these two pillars (driven upside-down into the ground) are still shown in Ayodhya, a little south of the Kubertila. A seventeenth specimen is found in the new Janmasthana temple of the north of the Babur mosque. It is rather a door-jamb than a column.”

Now some of such evidences are presented to show that Ayodhyā has been a pilgrim place on account of being Rāma’s birthplace and has been attracting devotees from all parts of the country since time immemorial.

It is remarkable to note that Hans Bakker has stuck to his thesis that Baburi mosque was built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Rāma even in the article ‘Ayodhyā: A Hindu Jerusalem’ published in Numen wherein he writes:

“Now until the end of Great Moghul rule, that is to say till the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ayodhya was the capital of one of the provinces of the Muslim empire in North India. In consequence, Hindu sects had few rights to defend in the city. Pilgrimage was tolerated, but the cream of the profits from it was taken by the Muslim rulers in the form of a tax on pilgrims. It was forbidden to build temples or monasteries of more than a certain dimension in the city, and the existing temples fell into decay and disappeared or were replaced by mosques. The latter took place with the temple on the supposed spot of Rama’s birth, dating from the early eleventh century. This small temple was replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid, in AD 1528, during the reign of the first Moghul emperor, Babur, a deed which was to have far-reaching consequences.” (Vol. 38, Fasc.1,pp. 80-109 published by Brill Publishers in Leiden, The Netherlands in the year 1991, p. 91)

Hans Bakker rightly suggests that the Hindus have been considering the disputed spot as the birthplace of Rāma from the early eleventh century. Thus, this tradition has a history of one thousand years at least. But he did not probe the authenticity of inscriptions and analyse the correctness of the historical evidences. Therefore, he could not go beyond the trodden path ofAyodhyā’s history.

(34) Visit of Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar to Ayodhyā (1859 A.D.)

Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar was a Chitapavan Brahman who left his native place Versai near Pune for the northern parts of India for better earning. During his journey the great Indian Revolt of 1857 started. He was, in fact, caught in the imbroglio on the way. He, however, succeeded in moving forward and reached Ayodhyā on April 10, 1859, a Sunday, on the eve of the Rāmanavamī festival. He has given a detailed description of the events and the place in his book titled Majha Pravas (My Travels), i.e. ‘1858 The Real Story of the Great Uprising’. He starts the narration of Ayodhyā in the following words:

“By evening, we had arrived at Shri Kshetra Ayodhya and stopped at the Kale Rama temple. The festival of Ramnavami (the day Lord Rama was born) was only a few days away and so the city of Ayodhya was milling with some seven to eight lakh pilgrims and holy men. I had never seen so many sadhus and bairagis together. There were also many pilgrims from the south.” (p. 177)

Then he gives a detailed description of the Kale Rāma Temple, Hanuman Garhi, the Sarayū River and monkeys of the holy city. Thereafter, he narrates his own experience of Ayodhyā on the Rāmanavamī day in the following words:

“According to the ancient scriptures, Ramnavami at Ayodhya has always been a special celebration. It is believed that bathing in the Sarayù river on this day and then paying homage to the Lord’s birthplace washes away all kinds of sins and one is never reborn as a mortal. We participated in the festivities with everyone else. First, we all went to the river to bathe. The crowds and the noise were unbelievable. People were blowing conch shells, shouting praises to the Lord, singing devotional songs and playing various musical instruments, including drums and cymbals. Most devotees were visitors from other places and spoke different languages. But a strong bond of love and devotion for the Lord of Ayodhya tied them together.
After the bath, the crowds left for the temple with Tulasi leaves, areca nuts and coins clutched in their hands as offerings. Offering Tulasi leaves to the Lord at this spot is said to be especially beneficial. I too arrived, like the others, with my offerings at the birthspot of Lord Rama. The fabled spot is merely a large waist-high platform in an open area. It is made of limestone and surrounded by a wall about three or four feet high. Grasses and weeds grow all over, and in the distance one can see the remains of what must have been the walls of an old fort. The place where Lord Rama’s mother Kaushalya’s palace is said to have stood is just a flat piece of land now. Several thousand excited pilgrims in an open space such as this can cause stampedes, so one has to be on one’s guard all through. The administration also posts special pickets on this occasion to ward off unpleasant happenings. Despite that, each year, five to six pilgrims lose their lives in the melee. Anyway, we finally viewed the sacred spot and came back.” (pp. 18384)

Then he gives the description of Svargadvāra and narrates some tales about Ayodhyā. At the end he makes the following departing description of Ayodhyā:

“Ayodhya has a spot to be the location for the Putrakameshti yagna (a special fire sacrifice) that the childless king Dasharatha had performed to beget a son and heir. It is said that if one digs just a little, one can still find remnants of burnt rice offerings made during this yagna. When I visited the spot, I found hundreds of men digging for the holy grains. I also took a fistful and added to it the yellow soil from the bank of the Sarayù river to take home as a holy offering. We spent some twenty-two days in Ayodhya and spent all our money in charity and sightseeing. Some young friends of mine, who were also from the south, now started saying that before we went home we must indulge in some revelry. Let us go visit the city of Lucknow, they said.” (p. 186)

After visiting certain important places like Varanasi, he returned to his native place where he recieved a rousing reception from his villagers. Thereafter, he narrated his experiences during the Indian revolt in Gwaliar, Kanpur, Lucknow, Jhansi, Kalpi and Bundelkhand areas.

Chintamani Vinayak Vaidya advised him to write it down for the coming generations. Thus, on his advice Vishnu Bhatt wrote his experiences in a book form which he named ‘Maajha pravas-1857 chya Bandachi Hakikat’ in 1881 A.D. As per Vishnu Bhatt’s wish the book was published in 1907 after his death in 1903. The book was translated from Marathi into Hindi by noted writer Amrit Lal Nagar. It has been now lucidly translated into English by eminent writer Mrinal Pande from the original Marathi manuscript and published by Harper Perennial in 2011. The description of Ayodhyā visited by Vishnu Bhatt in April 1859 is a great testimony to the holy town as it existed then.

From the analysis of these passages from a detailed description of Ayodhyā by an eye witness in 1859 A.D. the following situation emerges:

(i) During the Rāma-navamī festival some seven to eight lakh pilgrims and devotees assembled at Ayodhyā.

(ii) Pilgrims had come from all parts of the country and though they spoke different languages, yet “strong bond of love and devotion for the Lord of Ayodhyā tied them together.”

(iii) There was general perception that by visiting the birthplace of Lord Rāma after taking bath in the Sarayū River one “washes away all kinds of sins and is not reborn as a mortal.”

(iv) Pilgrims used to visit the birthplace of Lord Rāma described as ‘The Temple’ “with Tulasi leaves, areca nuts and coins clutched in their hands as offerings.”

(v) The birthplace was a large waist high platform in an open area, made of limestone and surrounded by a wall about three or four feet high.

(vi) There were remains of, what the author Vishnu Bhatta calls, “the walls of an old fort.”

(vii) Several thousand ‘excited pilgrims’, gathered in an open space, could cause stampedes. Despite administrative arrangements five to six pilgrims used to lose lives in the melee every year.

(viii) Thousands of pilgrims were found digging for the holy grains which every pilgrim used to carry home as a holy offering.

(ix) It is clear from this testimony that during the Rāmanavamī or other festival days the offering of namaz was impossible in the disputed shrine; as thousands of pilgrims thronged the site.

After spending twenty-two days at Ayodhyā Vishnu Bhatt left for Lucknow.

From the perusal and critical analysis of all the evidences cited above it is clear that the existence of the Janma-sthāna of Lord Rāma and a temple there is based on incontrovertible evidences and not mere faith.

(35) Two Mughal Sanads on Ayodhyâ highlighted for the first time

Mahant Gyan Das, the chief Abbot of the Nirvānī Akhāra of Hanumangarhi, is in proud possession of two Mughal sanads which are produced and discussed below:

The first Sanad granting six bighas of land for the construction of Hanuman Tila had been issued on the 13th Ramzan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 28th March, 1600. This date falls under the reign of Akbar. Therefore, Akbar was the Emperor, by whose order this Sanad granting six bighas of land for the construction (तामीर) of Hanuman Tila, was issued. Akbar’s association with Ayodhyā is shown for the first time through this Sanad.

This Sanad was renewed on 8th July, 1723 to Abhayarama by Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khan Khanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan who was Sadar-us-Sadur, i.e. Superintendent of Endowments since 21st October, 1719.

A very significant feature of this Sanad is that the writer of this deed claims that he is writing it at the holy place which is the birthsite of Rāma. He uses the Persian word ‘maulud’ which means जन्मभूमि.

Thus, the word जन्मभूमि of Rāma was used in the Persian text as early as 1723, i.e. almost 300 years ago.

The following is the true copy of the Persian Sanad:

The first Mughal sanad for Hanumangarhi.

The Roman transliteration made by Persian scholars of Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna is produced below:

1. Sharh aamdah ast waqi batarikh roz yak shanbah Panjum Shawwal julus mualla muwafiq 1135 A.H. mutabiq wala Shahr ma‘ahu barisalah Naqabatuddin Muayid Hashmat wa Shaukat Munis umdah umrai Rafiusshan zinda Khawanin buland makan Laaiqurrahmat wala shan Hazrat.

2. Aan Hazrat Mustanadul Mamalik Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khan Khanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan awisht waqi’ nigar kamtarin khanazad ast dargah shahrist Maulud Ram Qalmi mi kunad hukmmwala Sadir shud ki shash bigha zamin dar subah Awadh tamir Hanuman Tila banam Abhay Ram Faqir bakhshidam waqi yak hazar wa hashtum.

3. 13 Shahr Ramazan 5 julus bamujib tasdiq aawurdah ast qalmi shud. Sharh badastkhat siyadat wa najabat Rafiqe amarat wa ahalat mihrast taban madarij dar ain wa Shahrin samai maratib mamlikat darin farazindah liwai shaukat wa hashmat bar aarindah basalat muzamat itimad khalafat muqarriban rawabit.

4. itimad saltanat korish wa sujud asrar wa muqarriban waqif umur khas khalifah Sultan ba azm qadrah Suhbati muqarriban maarikah Adam Zafar Sarai mamalik shan shud aish zar mahafil kashi maadar bar saib tadabbur musir raushan zamir zubdah daulat khahan ba farhang shuda madad hai khas.

5. hukme wasiqul iradah wal ikhlas surudam zubdat umara wal ikhlas murshide mumid yak nasib shiaar jumatul mamalik madarul maham Nizamul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jang Sipahsalar aanki naqli waqi numayad. Sharh dastkhat siyadat wa naqabat martabat wa ahalat manzilat.

6. wa hashmat shaukat maratib umdatul umarai Rafiusshan Zubdah Khawanin buland makan laiqul amr hashmat wala Shan Hazrat Aan Hazrat wala khaqam mutamidul mulk Mir Jumla Muazzam Khan Khanikhanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan aan ki naql waqi numayad. Sharh dastkhat waqi nigaran.

7. Sharh dastkhat Jumatulmulk madarul maham Nizamul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jung Sipahsalar aanki baarzi mukarrar rusanad. Sharh dastkhat Sharfuddaula Iradatmand Khan Sadiq Bahadur Tahawwur Jang aanki hafdahum zilhijjah san.

8. julusi Mualla mukarrar ba arz manqush rasid. Ba sharh dastkhat umdatul mulk madarul maham Nizamulmulk Bahadur Fatah Jang Sipahsalar aanki farman wala Shan Qalmi numayad – faqat.

And the following is its English translation:

Be it declared that in the exalted reign on the 5th day of the Shawwal (month) of 1135 A.H. i.e. on 8th July, 1723 this sanad was issued by Naqbatuddin Muaaid Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khankhana Bahadur Jung Turkhan, who is a man of high pomp and grandeur, who aims high, who is spoken very high of and who is revered like a Hazrat in each country.

This insignificant writer, who is native of the holy place which is the maulud (जन्मभूमि) of Rāma, is reducing it in writing with pen. By order, it is certified that six bighas of land in the province of Oudh which was granted for the construction of Hanuman Tila, is given to Abhayarama in the fifth exalted reign after comparing it with the deed issued on the 13th Ramjan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 28th March, 1600.

It is signed by Malik Adam Jafar Sarai, who comes from a noble family, who is a pious leader, who stays in high palaces and who is of high rank and post, whose flag is high and who is relied upon by people. He makes endeavour for the Sultanate, bows his head before it and is dedicated. His intention is solid and he respects all. He is the master of the north direction.

It was copied from the deed in the possession of Nizamul Bahadur Fateh Jung who is living a luxurious life, whose meetings are attended by good persons, whose Vazirs are scholars and good counsellors, who is amongst a select few, whose upbringing is good, whose assistance is vital, whose orders are solid and far from filth. People’s expectation is from him. Mir Jumla Muazzam Khankhana Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan got it copied.

Jamatul Mulk Bahadur Fatah Jung Sipah Salar and Sharfuddaulah Iradatmand Khan Sadik Bahadur Tahavvur Jung signed it after consulting each other on 17th Zilhijjah of the exalted reign. Besides, it carries the signature of Umdatul mulk Madarul maham Nizamul mulk Baharud Fatah Jang Sipah Salar from whose Sanad it was copied.

The small portion of this Sanad in margin reads as follows:

1. Az ruye Sayah bahr Samsamuddaulah Amiruddaulah Bahadur ki bailtimas Abhay Ram Faqir az rahi Fazlokaram

2. dar bab atai Shash bigha zamin andarun Subah Awadh Hanuman Tila hukm Shud ki barai imarat farman wala shan

3. yaftah haqir basabab kas faqr aan namud dadogasht kharch yaumiah baguzarand ummidwar ast

4. ki sayae marhamat shawad ki zamine mazkur didah wa danista bayad wa muye ilaih dar nazar guzashta … arraqam

5. itmam marhamat shud ma’a dastkhat Bakhshiul Malikul Muluk badihad naql aqdas zasirr mastur hukm.

The following is its English translation:

1. Under the shadow (protection) of Samsamuddaulah Amiruddaulah Bahadur, at the request of Abhayarāma faqir, as a gesture of kindness and generosity;

2. In connection with six bighas of land inside the Subah of Awadh at Hanuman Tila (for which) construction order was granted;

3. The exalted farman was received. The faqir (humble one), due to his need, is thankful for the graciousness and is (further) hopeful of (grant of) daily expenses;

4. That the shadow of mercy is extended as the mentioned (grant of) land is seen (by) and known (to) me and has passed before my eyes… arraqam (as written)(?)

5. Graciously concluded with the signature of Bakhshiul Malikul Muluk; given the renewed copy of the order written above.

From this Sanad it is known that on 28th March, 1600 the Mughal Emperor Akbar granted 6 bighas of land for the construction of the Hanuman Tila. Sadhu Abhayarāma Das filed a petition for the renewal of this grant in perpetuity and it was renewed on 8th July, 1723.

A photo-copy of the second Sanad is produced below:

The second Mughal sanad for Hanumangarhi.

Its Roman transliteration is produced below:

Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah

Darin waqt-i-maimãnat Anzman faramãn wãlã shãn wajib-al-idghan sãdir shud. Ki shash bigha zamin mausuma Hanuman tila andrun-i- suba Awadh bil istiqlãl banãma Abhayarãm faqìr bakhshidem wa mu’ãf faramu dem. Fakìr mazakur rã lazim ke barãi istiqamãt ki ayan-i-zel khud tãmìr-i-ãn tilã sakhta badiljamãi-i- tamãm o’qãt-i-khud rã wa du’ã-i baqai-i aj adyãda-i- jãho hashamat wa ikawãla mashghul wa masaruf sãzad. hukkãma wa ummal hãla wa istiqbal rã bayad az zamìnaisultãnì wa takãlìf-i-dìwãnì mazãhim na shawanda wa har sãla sanada-i-mujaddad na talband. Pãnjadahum Rabi-al-awwal sãl panjum julus-i-iqawãla mãnus taharìr yãft.

Its English translation is as follows:

Be it known that this sanad was issued specially for Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarama in perpetuity, with an order of exemption from taxes. It is imperative for the Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarāma to build residential houses for his fellow Faqirs (Bairagis) on the mound and remain engaged in praying for the perpetual glory, grandeur and good fortune of the King. The present officers and employees and the future ones should not claim royal dues or civil claims from the mentioned land and should not demand the sanad for renewal every year.

The sanad was issued under the seal of Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah and dated 15th Rabi-ul-Awwal of the fifth regnal year, i.e. on 13th December, 1723.

From the perusal of this Sanad it is clear that Sadhu Abhayarāma of Ayodhyā was further granted 6 bighas of land in perpetuity at Hanuman Tila for the construction of the residential houses of the fellow bairagi sadhus. In lieu of this land grant they were expected to pray for the glory and grandeur of the Mughal Empire. Though these grants relate to the Hanuman Tila, yet it signifies the importance of Ayodhyā during the days of Akbar who granted 6 bighas of land for the construction of Hanuman Tila. During the time of Muhammad Shah also, who gave 6 bighas of land to Abhayarāma for the construction of residential houses of the fellow sadhus, its importance was not diminished. The use of the word maulud = जन्मभूमि in the first Sanad is significant, for it shows that it has not been coined in the recent past but was in use even in the Persian language almost 300 years ago.

(36) Maulvi M. Shuaib’s Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1906-07

Maulvi M. Shuaib was an Archaeological Surveyor who submitted his detailed Annual Report for the financial year 1906-07. In his survey report he had mentioned the three inscriptions which he had seen in the disputed shrine (Fig. 5.8).

About the eleventh inscription which was on a stone slab on the inside of the central arches of the Emperor Babar’s mosque he writes that the edict contains sacred words (Kalmah). It was dated A.H. 935, A.D. 1528. Similarly, on a stone slab below the pulpit of the mosque of Babar his remarks are: ‘The date of its erection is given in a chronogram.’ This inscription is dated A.H. 923, A.D. 1523.

However, about the 10th inscription which was on a stone slab on the outside of the central arch of Emperor Babur’s mosque he gives the following remarks:

“Records the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where the old temple of Janam Asthanam of Ram Chandra was.” This edict is dated A.H. 935, A.D. 1528.

From the remarks of Shuaib It appears that the inscription, which he saw, recorded the construction of the mosque on the same spot which was the Janmasthan of Rāma and where the old temple of Rāma existed. It confirms two basic facts of the existence of Rāma-janmabhūmi on the same site where the mosque was built and the demolition of the old temple of Rāma. Since the contents of inscriptions varied from inscription to inscription from the time of Buchanan to Ashraf/Desai there may be a possibility of the existence of such an inscription seen by Shuaib. Since Shuaib was himself an Archaeological Surveyor the chance of misreading or misinterpreting an edict is bound to the minimum. Even it is accepted that the remarks of Shuaib were not contained in the edict, it is beyond doubt that an expert archaeological surveyor Shuaib, who was not a member of any organization agitating for the temple, was of the considered view in 1906 that the mosque was built on the Rāma-janmabhūmi after demolishing a temple dedicated to Rāma.

(37) Sea of humanity at Ayodhyā on the Rāmanavamī day

Rāmanavamī is the day of incarnation of Lord Rāma and lakhs of pilgrims have been visiting the birthplace of Rāma on this day for centuries.

In all versions of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya the religious significance of the visit to Rāma-janmabhūmi has been highlighted:

नवमीदिवसे प्राप्ते व्रतधारिण मानवाः।

स्नानदानप्रभावेण मुच्यते जन्मबन्धनात्।।14।।

If people fast on the Rāmanavamī day, bathe in the Sarayū and make donation, they are liberated from the bond of birth.

Similarly, the Satyopākhyāna furnishes the following information on the subject:

नवमी चैत्रमासस्य शुक्ला चाद्य प्रवर्तते।

तस्या व्रतप्रभावेन शरयूस्नानतः पुनः।।

दर्शनाद् रामदेवस्य जन्मभूमेर्विलोकनात्।

नाम्ना सान्तानको लोको विमानैस्तत्र ते गताः।।35.6-7।।

All went to the Sāntānaka Loka in a plane by virtue of visit to Janma-bhūmi, the darśana of the idol of Lord Rāma, bathing in the Sarayū river and the impact of the festival of the Rāmanavamī.

In c. 1592 A.D. when Ain-i-Akbari was written, Abul Fazl did not fail to mention that ‘on the ninth of the light half of the month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held’.

In 1767 A.D. when Tieffenthaler visited Ayodhyā he saw a big gathering of pilgrims and wrote thus in his book, “On the 24th of the Tschet month, a big gathering of people is taken here to celebrate the birthday of Rama, so famous in entire India”.

Though Tieffenthaler has not mentioned the number of pilgrims, he calls it a big gathering and adds that this Rāmanavamī fair is famous throughout the country.

In 1631 Joannes De Laet wrote that ‘Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshipping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit.’

From Butter’s“Topography of Oudh” it is known that the population of Oudh in 1858 was 8000 which included 500 Muslims. When Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar visited the Rāma-janmabhūmi on 10th April, 1859, he saw some seven to eight lakhs milling pilgrims and holy men in the city.

Thus, the Hindus were in the overwhelming majority of 94 percent in Ayodhyā. Against this population of 8,000 at Ayodhyā the number of pilgrims during the Rāmanavamī and some other festivals varied from 4 lakhs to 1 million. ‘The Imperial Gazetteer of India’ edited in 1881 by W.W. Hunter C.I.E., L.L.D., the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India informs, “Little local trade is carried on; but the great fair of Rāmnavamī held here every year is attended by about 5,00,000 people.” (Vol. I, p. 106)

In 1879 the National Repository, vol. 5-6 furnished the following information:

“The great fair of Ramnammi, which is held annually at Ayodhya, has recently closed. It attracted this year nearly a million of pilgrims. The name of the place means “The unconquerable city of God.”

This is an authentic statement issued by the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India and the assemblage of five lakh pilgrims on the single Rāmnavamī day is an indicator of the unprecedented popularity of Rāma in the country.

In the book ‘Picturesque India: a handbook for European travellers’ published by George Routledge and Sons Limited, London in 1891, it is written, “There are a great number of temples and shrines, to which some 400,000 pilgrims repair at the time of the great Rāmnavamī Mela.” (p. 299)

Likewise The Imperial Gazetteer of India published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council from Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1908 states, “There is little or no trade; but three great fairs take place annually in March-April (i.e. Rāmnavamī), July-August (i.e. Jhulan in Sawan) and October-November (i.e. Kārtika parikramā) which are sometimes attended by 4,00,000 persons. At special fairs, the attendance has been estimated at as many as a million.

Thus, on the Rāmanavamī Ayodhyā has been attracting a large number of pilgrims ranging from four lakhs to one million for centuries and they have been performing pūjā at the Rāma-janmabhūmi site and even then, self-proclaimed impartial historians postulate that there is no evidence. It is ridiculous.

Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”



Chapter Twelve

The thesis discussed above has found an echo in the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court andwill now put quietus to the
disquieting dispute

[(1) Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan (2) Judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal (3) Unsubstantiated claim of 76 battles (4) Baba Ram Charan Das and Amir Ali (5) Girl’s Pagoda at Ayodhyã(6) William Hodges’s painting of Ayodhyã (7) Daniells’ paintings of Ayodhyã(8) Rãma’s popularity in the country is since time immemorial]

(1) Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan

It is very gratifying to see that a radical thesis which uproots well-established but erroneous conclusions is accepted by a High Court before it is published in a book form and for this the credit goes to an outstanding Advocate P.N. Mishra who argued some of its contents brilliantly before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in the Rāma-janma-bhūmi – Baburi Masjid dispute. Justice S.U. Khan, the Presiding Judge of the Ayodhyā Bench, who is a Judge of exceptional honesty, integrity and impartiality, accepted the dubiety and lack of authenticity of the three inscriptions which were fixed in the disputed shrine subsequently and replaced repeatedly. The following is the relevant excerpt from the Judgment of Justice S.U. Khan:

“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 by 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. 204-06)

The excerpts from the judgments have been taken from the net exactly as they are and hence if there are any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, they are lapses of typescripts. They have not been corrected for the sake of authenticity.

(2) Judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal

Very few Judges in the country are so well-read, probing and appreciative in the Court as Justice Sudhir Agarwal. When the lawyer of the Nirmohi Akhara failed to place relevant replies to his probing questions, he got such a hostile treatment by Justice Agarwal that the latter was perceived as an anti-temple Judge with the consequence that all lawyers of the defending Hindu side did not appear for some time on some pretext or the other. It paved the way for P.N. Mishra to argue the case continuously for 23 days. The relevant paragraphs from Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment are quoted below.

“1636. Thus, the very basis of forming the view that the disputed building was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or at his command by his agents founded solely on inscriptions whose authenticity itself is not creditworthy.

1637. Unlike the historians who without any further probe, proceeded on the observations of Dr. Buchanan as published by Martin in 1838, we do not find it possible to record a finding that the building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or any of his agents.

1638. If we summarize our reasons, we find firstly that Babar in his chronological detail (to the extent it is available) in ‘Baburnama’ has mentioned various buildings which he got constructed mainly at Agra where he stayed and made his headquarter and in the nearby areas or else. Obviously, if some construction or alteration in an existing building was made by any of his army officers or non-army officers who accompanied him from Farghana, there could not have any occasion for him to mention about the same in a work in which he recorded his daily affairs. His period of rule in the then Hindustan is very short, i.e., slightly more than four years. He being the founder of the dynasty, later known as Mughal dynasty, obviously was more interested in expansion of his reigning territory and not to indulge in avoidable confrontation which strategically may have added to his agony. A careful study of Baburnama show that wherever possible he made friends among non-muslims also so as to lessen rebels. Of course this was subject to the acceptance of those non-muslim Rulers about his supremacy. Besides the fact that no army commander of the name of ‘Mir Baqi’, as such is mentioned in Baburnama, we find that Baqi Shaghawal who was made incharge of Oudh (Ayodhya) territory did not have any rest at Ayodhya. From 28. 03.1528 and onwards, for a sufficiently long time, he remaed on his toes chasing Bãyazìd and others. He was granted leave in June 1529 AD by Babar. It is the admitted case of the muslim parties that in a legendary work of Gosvami Tulasidas on Lord Rama, i.e. ‘Ramcharitmanas’ which came into existence in a very short time after Babar, there is no mention of construction of a huge mosque at Ayodhya by Babar or anyone else. We are using the term “huge mosque” in the context of the place where the disputed building was constructed.
1639. Then in two traveller’s account of Finch and Tieffenthaler also, this conspicuous miss cannot be overlooked. The first reference of Ayodhya and in particular the fort of Lord Rama at Ayodhya in the travellers account just after about 75 years and more, i.e., of “William Finch” who visited India between 1608 to 1611 AD. It is nobody’s case that besides the area which is known today as Mauja Ramkot there was any other place where it was ever believed or seen by anybody the alleged house or fort of Lord Rama. On the contrary, what has been pointed out that in the first settlement of 1861 the site in dispute was part of plot no. 161 which had a total area of more than 9 Bighas. William Finch did not mention about any recently constructed Islamic building or mosque in this area and instead has referred to a house or fort which according to him was constructed about 400 years ago and belief of Hindus as birthplace of Ramchandar (Lord Rama). The period he mentions may be approximate, i.e., may or may not be very accurate but it carries the period of the then existing building to 11th or 12th century when Ayodhya was under the rule of Gaharwals. He also mentions about Pooja and worship being performed by Hindus (Brahmans) in the said area but there is no mention about the existence of muslims or their religious place of a recent construction in the said area. It is difficult to believe if such a huge construction was existing at that time, the same would have gone unnoticed by a person who has given so much details of the area he visited at Ayodhya.
1640. Then comes the next available version of Nicolo Minouchi who travelled India during the reign of Aurangzeb. On the one hand it cannot be disputed that he has mentioned about demolition of a temple at Ayodhya during the aforesaid period but further particulars have not been given. It gives an occasion to the learned counsels for the plaintiff (Suit-4) to contend that the travellers account of Minouchi does not throw any light that the alleged destruction of temple mention in his travellers account relates to the alleged Janambhùmi temple and none else. This argument is unexceptionable since Minouchi’s travellers account does not pin point any building or the area but then there are some further materials.
1641. Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, an Austrian traveller visited India and remain here for more than two decades. In fact he stayed in India till his death. His credentials which have been made available to us through an internet printout of Wikipedia site shows that he was a linguist and well conversant with the languages like Persian and Sanskrit. It is this account which for the first time mentions about the alleged temple at the birthplace as well as its demolition by a muslim Ruler, in particular Mughal Ruler and construction of a mosque thereat. Tieffenthaler, however, say when he visited, the people in locality said that the demolition caused by Emperor Aurangzeb though some people said that it was Babar. Had the inscriptions alleged to be fixed on the building in dispute at the time of its construction would have existed thereat when Tieffenthaler visited the site, it is difficult to conceive that he could have written in his work whether it was Aurangzeb or Babar since he himself could have noticed the correct facts by reading the inscriptions for which he did not require any external help. Tieffenthaler’s work which though written like a traveller’s guide between 1740-1760 and onwards but could not be seen by subsequent historians or those who prepared historical data perhaps for the reason that it remain unpublished in English. It might have been published in the Latin itself, the language in which Tieffenthaler wrote his diary but the publically known work is the “French translation” which is said to have been published in 1786. To us it appears that the building in dispute by the time Tieffenthaler came to Ayodhya had already been constructed but the inscriptions were not there. Besides, even at that time, inside the building in dispute, the Hindu religious structure in the form of a ‘Vedi’ existed which was being worshipped by Hindus. Here also it is remarkable that Tieffenthaler though has noticed worship by Hindus but is conspicuously silent about worship by muslims in the disputed building.
1642. We tried to enquire from learned counsel for the plaintiffs (Suit-4) as to how it could happen that a mosque was constructed but inside the premises a Hindu religious structure was allowed to remain as to be worshipped by Hindu public. In the absence of any source material on this aspect no reply obviously was forthcoming but to us it appears that though the building in dispute was constructed but immediately thereafter or after sometime it stood deserted by muslims. Hindus made their entry and raised a religious structure in order to continue with the sanctity of their belief that the place in dispute was the birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how their worship continued. It is inconceivable that at the time when the disputed building was constructed the people who did so would have allowed a Hindu religious structure inside the premises particularly when the building which they constructed was an Islamic religious place, i.e., mosque. We also find that Islamic religious scriptures clearly prohibit same place fit for worship by the persons of different faith and religion. We make it clear our use of the word mosque herein these issues be not treated as our finding since it being a separate issue shall be dealt with later.

1643. Though it amounts to delving into some kind of conjectures but since here is a case which necessarily goes in history and particularly when for sufficiently long time the things are in dark, in the absence of anything contrary, we do not find it impermissible to think in this manner. It would come within the domain of preponderance of probability.

1644. The position appears to be that when the building in dispute was constructed, obviously the Islamic people, were in power who constructed the building in dispute. They did not allow or could not have allowed any Hindu religious structure to exist within the premises of the disputed building. If it was done after demolition of a Hindu religious structure, it is inconceivable while demolishing such structure, some part thereof would have been allowed to remain so as to be worshipped continuously by Hindu people after entering the premises of the mosque. Thus, initially when it was constructed no such structure could have existed but as soon as the local Hindu people got opportunity, they created or made a symbolic structure to continue with the worship according to their belief with regard to the birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how structure in the form of Vedi was there and noticed by Tieffenthaler in his work which relates to the period of 1740-1760 AD.
1645. The building in dispute, therefore, not constructed in 1528 AD or during the reign of Babar, the preponderance of probability lie in favour of the period when Aurangzeb was the Emperor since it is again nobody’s case that such an action could have been taken during the reign of Humaun, Akbar or Shah Jahan. Without entering into the wild goose chase on this aspect suffice it to say that the building in dispute must have come into existence before 1707 AD when the reign of Aurangzeb ended on his death. Tieffenthaler’s visit to Ayodhya is 35-55 years thereafter and this gave sufficient time in which the things as we have indicated above could have happened. The inscription on the disputed building either inside or outside was not there otherwise there was no occasion that the same could not have been noticed and seen by Tieffenthaler who himself was quite conversant with the language in which these inscriptions were written and found subsequently.
1646. Then comes the person who for the first time noticed the above inscription, i.e., Dr. F. C. Buchanan. He was a medicine man and, as his autobiography says, worked as personal physician of Lord Wellesley at the end of 18th century. He was entrusted with the work of survey of the territory within the hold of East India Company in North-West provinces at the commencement of 19th century. Obviously this was not his field of expertise and, therefore, it can well be conceived that he actually functioned as an overall Observer or Supervisor but in effect must have been assisted/attended by a team of the persons knowing the work of survey and also quite conversant with the local tradition, languages etc. The survey continued for about 7 years, i.e., 1807-1814. The survey report said to have been submitted in more than one set. It appears that the record of the said survey sent to Calcutta office of East India Company as also to its main office in London. At the time he conducted survey, the area of Oudh as such was not within the reining territory of East India Company but was part of the reining territory of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow with whom East India company had a kind of agreement entered in 1801. The area towards Gorakhpur, Varanasi etc. was in the territory of East India Company and the demarcating land appears to be the bank of river Saryu near Ayodhya as is evident from the observations of Buchanan where he said that he did not undertook the exercise of measurement etc. at Ayodhya as it would have offended Nawab Wazir of Lucknow who was the reigning authority of that area. It is Buchanan who for the first time referred to an inscription wherefrom he could notice that the disputed building was erected in 1528 AD at the command of Babar though local people still at that time believed and said that the same was constructed at the time of Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a Hindu temple. When Buchanan visited Ayodhya, i.e. between 18071814, the period of Aurangzeb was about 100 years back while the period of Babar was about 275 years and more. It is difficult to conceive that the local people were not conversant as to who was responsible for construction or during whose reign the construction was made particularly when the matter was comparably recent. The people’s memory is not so short and fade away with such a pace that they cannot recollect the events of just 50-60 years back. During the period of Buchanan it was a matter of just 100 years or more. Comparatively period of Aurangzeb was quite recent. Therefore, Buchanan’s approach to ignore local belief that the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzeb, in the absence of any concrete material, and not to make any further probe cannot be appreciated. However, some margin has to be given to him since he was not an expert historian. It may happen that on plain reading of text, the period mentioned therein found 923 AH or 930 AH but he, knowing the period of Babar took upon himself to correct it.
1647. Moreover, Buchanan also cannot be said at fault since he had a reason to contradict this local belief based on an inscribed document which he found fixed on the building in dispute. To us it appears that this inscription must have been fixed in the building in dispute sometimes between the visit of Tieffenthaler and survey of Dr. Buchanan. In order to give importance and antiquity to the building so as to avoid local hatred and conflict the inscript writer or the person responsible for it tried to co-relate it with the reign of Babar but due to lack of information or mistake, the period got written wrongly, i.e., 923 A.H. or 930 A.H. and he also mentions a name i.e. Mir Baki or Mir Khan which did not find mention in Babar’s “Tuzuk-i-Babri”.
1648. Whether Buchanan actually noticed 923 A.H. or 935 A.H., we find difficult to record any concrete finding in the absence of any authenticated text of such inscription as was available to Buchanan. To us it appears when he noticed the name of Babar mentioned in the inscription even if the period in the inscription would have written as 923 A.H. he might have got it corrected in the light of the known period of visit of Babar at Ayodhya. This part of our observation as to what Buchanan might have done at that time is obviously in the realm of conjecture and we are conscious about it, but for us it is suffice to mention that in the absence of an authenticated text of the inscription as noticed by Buchanan, the only thing relevant for us is that the inscription was noticed for the first time by Buchanan and at that time he tried to contact the local people with respect to the period and person who constructed the disputed building. He was told about Aurangzeb but he discarded it on the basis of inscription and said that it is Babar and not Aurangzeb as locally believed. It is again nobody’s case that the inscription of the period of Buchanan was replaced or changed at any later point of time at least when it was so noticed and read by A. Fuhrer.
1649. In the meantime, we find that this text has been referred to in certain books written by muslim writers after 1855 AD. Without entering into the question whether those writers were well known Historians or merely story writers or whatever the case may be, for us suffice it to mention that in all these books they have mentioned the period of construction contained in the inscription as 923 A.H. Obviously it cannot be said that those writers who have written their books in Persian and Arabic were not capable of correctly reading the inscription and they committed a mistake in reading.

1650. In brief, we summarize the things and the position boils down as under:

i. Dr. Fransis C. Buchanan said to be first person who read and collect the transcription but this text duly proved in accordance with law is not available to us. However, this found the basis of contradicting the local belief as it prevail till then i.e. around 1810 AD that the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzebe after demolition of a temple was wrong and it was actually Babar, as borne out from the inscription.

ii. Next is A. Fuhrer. He was the first archaeologist who read and translated in 1889/1891 and got published three inscriptions alleged to be fixed on Babari Masjid which was alleged to be built under command of Emperor Babur at the site of Sri Rãma-Janmasthãna.

A. Fuhrer’s translations and introductory notes thereto read as follows:

“Babar’s Masjid at Ayodhya was built in A.H. 930, or A. D. 1523, by Mir Khan, on the very spot where the old temple Janamasthanam of Ramchandra was standing. The following inscriptions are of interest. Inscription No.XL written in Arabic character over the mihrab of the masjid it gives twice the Kalimah:

“There is no God but’ Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet”

Inscription no. XLI is written in Persian poetry, the meter being Ramal, in six lines on the mimber, righthand side of the masjid.

1. By order of Babar, the king of the world,

2. This firmament-like, lofty,

3. Strong building was erected.

4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.

5. May ever remain such a foundation,

6. And such a king of the world.”

Inscription No.XLII is written in Persian poetry, the metre being Ramal, in ten lines, above the entrance door of the masjid. A few characters of the second and whole third lines are completely defaced.

1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.

2. In the name of him who…; may God perpetually keep him in the world.

3. ........................................................................

4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in person of delight for the world.

5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another king of Turkey and China.

6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra 930.

7. O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and life with the king.

8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness; may remain successful.

9. His counselor and minister who is the founder of this fort masjid.

10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghori, composer.”

The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthan must have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark- coloured or black stone, called by the natives Kasauti, “touch-stone slate,” and carved with different devices. They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base,centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.

(The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by A. Fuhrer Ph.D. p. 6768)

ii. Third is Annette Susannah Beveridge was the second british scholar who in 1921 published texts of two Inscriptions purported to be of alleged Baburi Mosque which were supplied by the Deputy- Commissioner of Fyzabad alongwith English Translation and Transliteration thereof done by a Muslim. In her said book A.S. Beveridge before giving Text and Translation of the alleged two Inscriptions writes as follows:

“Thanks to the kind response made by the Deputy-Commissioner of Fyzabad to my husband’s enquiry about two inscriptions mentioned by several

Gazetteers as still existing on ‘Babur’s Mosque” in Oudh, I am able to quote copies of both.”

After giving text and transliteration of an Inscription she gives Translation with her exaggerating value thereof as follows:

“The translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a Musalman and as such having special value, are as follows:”

“The inscription inside the Mosque is as follows:”

After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates the alleged First Inscription as follows:

1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to very height of the heavens,

2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting-placeof angels;

3.Bavad khair Baqi ! (May this goodness last for ever!) The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said Buvad khair Baqi (=935).”

“The inscription outside the Mosque is as follows:”

After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates the alleged Second Inscription as follows:

“The explanation of the above is as follows:”

“In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muhammad, in the third Babur - there is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word lamakani in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although he has no fixed abiding-place. In the first hemistich of the 3rd couplet the poet gives Babur the appellation of qalandar, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to all worldly pleasures.In the second hemistich he gives as the reason for his being so, that Babur became and was known all the world over as a qalandar, because having become Emperor of India and having thus reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for on this earth.”

The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be made to read further meaning into them but the language would not warrant it.”

1651. The text and translation of these above two authorities are evidently distinct and different. Beveridge’s claim that the inscriptions were well existing on Babur’s mosque in terms as to be understood about the existence of inscriptions and not for the text since admittedly she had not seen the inscriptions and its text but has collected the same as a secondary evidence.

1652. Then next comes the Civil Judge, Faizabad who has mentioned the text of the two inscriptions in his judgment dated 30.03.1946 in R.S. No. 29 of 1945. He has also discussed the same as under:

“Lastly there are the two Inscriptions in the mosque which have been reproduced in my inspection notes. These are also referred to in the Gazettes and according to the date in the inscription on the pulpit it was built in 923 Hijri, while according to other it was in 935 A.H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. These inscriptions were the sheet-anchor of the plff’s case but I am of the opinion that they are inconclusive.”

The 1st inscription contains three couplets in Persian and when translated runs as follows:

“By the order of Shah Babar, whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well known), Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeour, built this resting place of angels in 923 Hijri.”

The 2nd inscription is more elaborate and contains usual high flown language on eulogy of Babar & describe Mir Baqi of Isphahan as his adviser and the builder of the mosque. This inscription, no doubt, is the plff.’s case, because it does not say that it was by the order of Babar shah & it only refers to the reign of Babar but the 1st couplet in the 1st inscription near the pulpit, clearly supports the theory that Babar had ordered the building of the mosque as stated in the Gazettes and the settlement report.”1653. By this time, damage of inscription in 1934 and its restoration is admitted to the parties. Whether the restoration was accurate and if so on what basis is not known.

1654. Then next come Dr. Z.A. Desai’s edited work in “Epigraphic Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964-65” which gives another story with much difference. Paras 17, 18 and 19 of written argument:

17. Dr. Z.A. Desai informs that Fuhrer’s reading does not appear to be free from mistakes. But he does not specify the mistakes committed by Fuhrer in his reading of the texts and translations thereof. From the scrutiny of Dr Desai’s translation it appears that Dr. Desai in 4th line has added “and” between ‘Mir’ and ‘Khan’ and ‘Baqi’ after ‘Khan’. So he has converted ‘Mir Khan’ into ‘Mir Khan Baqi’. And in the 3rd line he has added “of God” after ‘this lasting house’ to make it a mosque. He has neither given any rational explanation for his said conversion of ‘Mir Khan’ into ‘Mir Baqi’ nor he has exhibited as to how the Fuhrer’s translation is different from the original text.

18. Dr. Z.A. Desai in his detailed discussion on all inscriptions of Babur’s regime writes an introduction that a rough draft of an article of his predecessor Maulivi M.Asuraf Husain who retired in 1953 was found amongst sundry papers in his office with a note that it might be published after revision by his successor. Consequently, he claims, that he has published these inscriptions with translation after extensive revision and editing,but nowhere has he mentioned that which portions of the reading of these inscriptions are his own revision and editing and on what ground these revisions have been made. About inscriptions at Ayodhya he writes that there are three inscriptions in the Babari Mosque out of which the two were completely destroyed by the Hindu rioters in 1934 A.D. However, he managed to secure an inkstampage of one of them from Sayyid Badru’l - Hasan of Fyzabad. He writes that the present inscription restored by the Muslims Community “is also slightly different from the original owing perhaps to the incompetence of restorers in deciphering it properly.” When Dr. Desai himself admits that the restored inscription is slightly different from the original, then his claim that the restored inscription fixed on Baburi mosque in or after 1934 is the dextrously rebuilt of the original one alleged to be fixed on since the days of Babur becomes meaningless and untrustworthy. In fact, none of the Inscriptions was fixed on the Disputed Structure which has all along been sacred place of the Hindus known as Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple.
19. Dr. Desai informs that he has based his translation on the inscription of Fuhrer, although he says that Fuhrer must have been misinformed to affirm that; “few corrections of the second and the whole third line completely defaced”. Even if it is supposed that some words in the 2nd line and the whole third line are defaced, there is not much impact in the meaning of the text of the inscription. But here we do find that Dr. Desai has extensively changed the meaning of the translated passage. It is quite different from what Fuhrer had translated. Fuhrer had written that it is in ten lines, above the entrance door of the Masjid. He has made its translation in ten separate lines. Dr. Desai has considerably changed the meaning of the text without pinpointing how Fuhrer’s translation was wrong. Since beginning and the end of the text are the same and the inscription is said to be the same and there is no major variance in Fuhrer’s English translation from the Persian text, Dr. Desai’s translation appears to be arbitrary. He has changed the date of the inscription 930 A.H. (1523 A.D.) to 935A.H. Without assigning any reason. In Dr. Desai’s translation the name of Mir Baqi the second Asfaq appears where as in the original Persian text Mir Baqi’s name does not appear at all. Then Babar is called a Qalandar in this inscription which is not found in Fuhrer’s translation. After 4th line Dr. Desai does not follow the line system and at the end he mentions Fathu’llah Muhammad Ghori as the humble writer of this inscription. His name figures in the Fuhrer’s translation too. He goes on expanding how Babar was called Qalandar but he does not explain how the changes have taken place in the inscription which was not in the text read by Fuhrer.

1655. Sri P.N. Mishra has also requested this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that almost in all the inscriptions, which have been recovered by ASI said to be of the period of Babar mentions his name with much honour and deference. This he has demonstrated from various inscriptions referred to in “Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964-65” (Supra). He has summarized this part of argument in para 20 of written argument as under:

“In the above mentioned Inscriptions the Emperor’s name Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi which has been recorded almost in all other available Inscriptions of his period, is missing from which it appears that the forgers of later days were not familiar with the correct name of the said Emperor.

In the Inscription, dated A.H. 933 i.e. 1526-27 A.D. found on the wall of a well from Fatehpur Sikri being Plate No. XV(a) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi”

(Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965 at page-51)

In the Inscription of A.H. 934 i.e. 1527-28 A.D. found on a mosque from Panipat being Plate No. XVI(b) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 55)

In the Inscription dated A.H. 934 i.e. 1527-28 A.D. found on a mosque from Rohatak being Plate No. XVI(a) in its 2nd line his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 567)

In the Inscription dated A.H. 934 i.e. 1528 A.D. found on a mosque from Rohtak being Plate No. XVII(a) in its 1st line his name has been recorded as follows:

“His Majesty Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid.p. 57)

In the Inscription of A.H. 935 i.e. 1528-29 A.D. found on a mosque from Palam(Delhi) being Plate No. XVIII(a) in its 1st and 2nd lines his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 62)

In the Inscription of A.H. 935 i.e. 1528-29 A.D. found on a mosque from Pilakhna being Plate No. XVIII(c) in its 3rd line his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 64)

In the Inscription dated A.H. 936 i.e. 1529 A.D. found on a mosque from Maham being Plate No. XIX(a) in its 1st and 2nd lines his name has been recorded as follows:

“Zahiru’d-Din Muhammad Badshah Ghazi” (Ibid. p. 65)

1656. Regarding transportation of inscription from one place to another and affixing the same to raise the claim with respect to building on the basis of certain facts, which actually did not exist, he pointed out that this kind of practice has been noticed on various occasions. He sought to fortify it by referring to certain incidents mentioned in para 21 and 22 of his written argument:

21. It is not uncommon for ruffians to fix old Inscriptions on newly built and/or converted mosques. ‘Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965’ at its pages 55 and 56 records that two Inscriptions dated 1934 fixed on two mosques at Rohtak did not belong to those mosques but have been fixed thereon. relevant extracts from said book read as follows:

“Among the historical buildings, two mosques, viz., Masjid-i-Khurd in the Fort 2 and Rajputon-ki-Masjid, a new mosque in the city area, bear inscriptions of the time of Babar. The one on the Masjid-i-Khurd consists of three lines inscribed on a tablet measuring 53 by 23cm. Which is fixed over the central archway outside 3. The slab is badly damaged and considerable portion of the text has peeled off. It is, therefore, not possible to decipher it completely, but this much is certain that it refers to the construction of a mosque in the reign of ahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur by one Qadi Hammad. If the Tughluq inscription occurring on the outer archway is in situ, this epigraph may not belong to this mosque.” (Ibid. p. 56)
“The other epigraph of Babur in Rohtak is from the Rajputon-ki-Masjid. Fixed over its central arch, the tablet, measuring 1.1 m. By 21 cm., does not belong to the mosque, but it was rather intended as the tombstone of Masnad-i-‘Ali Firuz Khan. It is inscribed with two lines of Persian which are slightly affected by the weathering of the stone. The text records A.H. 934 (1528 A.D.) as the date of the construction of the tomb of Masnad-i-Ali Firuz Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Ahmed Khan and grandson of Masnad- i-Ali Jamal Khan and refers itself to the reign of Babur. The style of writing is ordinary Naskh. I have read it as follows:

TEXT

Plate XVII(a)

...............................

TRANSLATION

(1) Completed was in the reign of His Majesty Babur Badshah Ghazi, may Allah perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignity, this noble edifice, (viz.) the tomb of His Excellency Masnad-i-Ali Firuz Khan, son of Masnadi-Ali Ahmad Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Jamal Khan, the deceased, all of them, on the 10th of the month of Rabiu’l-Akhar, year (A.H.) four and thirty and nine hundred (10th Rabi’II A.H. 934 = 3rd January 1528 A.D.). (Ibid. P. 57)

22. In ‘Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965’ at its pages 19 and 20 S.A. Rahim reports that at Fathabad near Chanderi in Guna district of Madhya Pradesh, stands the partially ruined palace known as Kushk-Mahal and Inscription fixed thereon are not dated back to its construction but have been affixed thereon from time to time either by the visitors or by the Governors thereof. Relevant extracts from his said report read as follows:

“It would not be, however, wholly correct to say that the Kushk-Mahal does not bear any inscription. There are about a score of places on the walls enclosing the staircases, referred to above, which bear short inscriptions. The rubbings of some of these were found in the bundles of old estampages which were transferred to our office, from the Office of the Government Epigraphist for India, Ootacamund, South India, who in his turn seems to have received them quite some time back from the Archaeological Department of the erstwhile Gwalior state. I prepared fresh rubbings of these records when I toured some places in Madhya Pradesh, including Chanderi, in November 1962. Of these, some are mere repetitions of the same text and as such have been excluded from this purview. The remaining four inscriptions are edited here for the first time.
These inscriptions raise an important question, as to whether they are contemporary with the building or not. They do not appear to be so, because they are not inscribed on tablets set up on the walls, nor are they found incised on prominent places on the monument. A building of such magnificence would have had, if at all it was so planned, an inscription of proportionate prominence. This does not rule out the possibility, however, of the existence of an epigraph on the monument, for it is possible that it had one and may have disappeared since. Moreover, the texts of the inscriptions under study are also vague on this point, for they do not make any explicit reference to the palacebuilding or its construction. In view of these facts, it appears more likely that these records are either visitors’ etchings or some sort of mementos which the governors, the palace-guards or some other officials might have desired to leave on the stone.

Fortunately, one of these four records is dated, and since the same penmanship is employed in the other three records, they can also be safely taken as having been inscribed at about the same time or at short intervals. Their language is Persian and style of writing cursive Naskh. The wear and tear of time has affected the stone, resulting into partial obliteration of some of the letters, particularly in the first inscription.

The contents of these four epigraphs classify them into two groups: one, of the first inscription, and the other of the remaining three. The first refers itself to the governorship (amal) of Khan-i-A’zam Sharaf Khan Sultani and the superintendence (shahnagi) of one person whose name is not very legible; it seems to be Raja, (son of) Shams, (son of) Fath. The name of the writer which is also not clear appears to be Shiv Sing(?) Gulhar. This inscription is dated 1489-90. The three records of the other group refer, between themselves, to the governorship of Malik Mallu Sultani and superintendence of Sarkhail Shariqi Mulki and quote Gulhar Jit(?) Dev, as the scribe. They are undated and hence, it is difficult to state positively if they are earlier than the above dated inscription or not.” (Ibid. P. 19-20).
1657. We may place on record that on this aspect of the matter the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Muslim parties in their rejoinder arguments could not give any substantial reply. They said that the matter involves historical facts. The inscriptions, their text, have been noticed in various history books. They have no other material to support the plea that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD or at his command by his commander or his agent Mir Baki. They also submit that since this historical event has not been doubted for the last more than one and a half century, this Court may not be justified in recording a finding disturbing the historically admitted and believed fact as the Court is not expert in the matter of history and therefore, there should not be any venture on the part of the Court on this aspect.
1658. The later part of the argument that for the last more than one and a half century, the documents, which are available to us, does not show that the Historians doubted about the building in dispute was constructed during the reign of Babar. But simultaneously this is also proved that all have proceeded mechanically and without properly scrutinizing the texts of the inscriptions, as reported from time to time. The things have been taken as granted. It is also true that the incident of destruction of the temple and construction of a mosque at the disputed place was first noticed by Tieffenthaler in the second half of 18th Century. By that time Aurungzebe’s rule was much nearer than Babar’s reign. The local belief in respect to recent event normally is more reliable then much older one. This belief was so strong that it continued thereafter for the last 50 years and around 1810 AD, when Dr. Buchanan visited Ayodhya he also found the same. It is he, who for the fist time sought to controvert the local belief by bringing into picture Babar as the person responsible for the demolition of the temple and construction of mosque at that site. Subsequent writers were mostly petty employees of East India Company i.e. Robert Montgommery Martin or the British Government i.e. H.H. Wilson etc.

1659. During the reign of British Government, names of Aurangzebe and Babar, both were taken for Ayodhya, but tried to be a justified in respect to different buildings. The Indian Historians basically have followed what was written as per the observations of Buchanan. Nobody made any detailed investigation whatsoever. At least none tried to find out the actual events which took place and the correct historical facts.

1660. Normally, this Court would be justified in following the opinion of Expert Historians particularly when it covers a sufficiently long time, but when directly a historical issue is raised before it and this Court, as a matter of necessity, has no option but to find out the correct historical events to the extent of accuracy as much as possible, we cannot proceed blindly to follow what has been written by earlier Historians ignoring all other aspects, some of which we have already discussed. In fact, it is for this reason that the biographical details of some of the alleged history writers, we have mentioned in the early part of this judgment. Had there been two views possible we would not have hesitated in following the view which has prevailed for such a long time but where we find, considering all the relevant material, that the view, which has prevailed for such a long time apparently unbelievable and unsubstantiable, followed by the concerned authors and Historians without a minute scientific investigation, we cannot shut our eyes to such glaring errors and record a finding for which we ourselves are not satisfied at all.

1661. In fact the doubts created otherwise are so strong and duly fortified with relevant material that we have no hesitation in observing that they surpass the required test to become cogent evidence to prove a fact otherwise.

Thus, Justice Agarwal has graciously accepted our interpretation of Ayodhyā history based on incontrovertible facts.

(3) Unsubstantiated claim of 76 battles

The propaganda of some Hindu organisations that there were 76 battles for the recovery of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi and 3,50,000 devotees sacrificed their lives in such battles is far from truth. They give the following details of 76 battlesÑ

The fact of the matter is that most of these imagined battles are unsubstantiated events and there is no reference to many of these personalities in relation to any attempt to retrieve the Rāma-janma-bhūmi. Some of them are fictitious persons. The list shown above is rather misleading. Details of all important events of Ayodhyā, having religious connotations in the last thousand years, have been given in the beginning of this book.

However, an accomplished writer like William R. Pinch gives publicity to such unfounded propaganda by including it in his article ‘Soldier Monks and Militant Sadhus’ published in the book ‘Contesting the Nations: Religion Community and the Politics of Democracy in India’ edited by Devid Ludden. Pinch quotes the claim of Baba Ramlakhansharan from his pamphlet circulated in 1976 in the following words:

“Series of sixty-five battles during Mughal rule between Muslims and Hindu soldier monks over the site—beginning with five in Babar’s reign, ten in Humayun’s, twenty in Akbar’s, and peaking with thirty in Aurangzeb’s.”

Pinch further states:

“This pro-longed warfare is said to have climaxed with a confrontation between Aurangzeb’s forces and Hindu soldier monks, wielding chimtas, large, iron pincers with sharpened ends.”

He further quotes from the pamphlet:

“When Aurangzeb became the emperor of India after Shah Jahan, his attention fell first on the janmabhùmi and he immediately dispatched a formidable army there under the generalship of Jambaj Khan. At this time there resided at Janaki Ghat in Ayodhya one Mahatma Shishya Vaishnava Das, a disciple of Shivaji’s venerable and capable Guru Shri Ram Das. With him was allied a powerful group of 10,000 chimta-wielding sadhus, fully versed in the martial sciences. When this group of sadhus learned that Aurangzeb’s army was rapidly approaching Ayodhya to destroy the janambhumi, they immediately took it as a question of honor and spread the news like electricity throughout the surrounding countryside. Consequently, thousands of Hindus prepared to take up arms to defend their integrity and formed a fierce force comprised of sadhus and grihastas [householders] and faced the Mughal army at Urvashi pond. In a vicious, seven-day battle, the Mughals were forced to retreat in desperation from the deadly chimtas. (Ramlakhansharan 1976, n-12)”

Pinch then adds without a pinch of salt:

“Aurangzeb learned of this defeat and amassed a much larger force of fifty thousand troops under Saiyyid Hasan Ali Khan to raze the Ram janmabhoomi. Hearing this, Vaishnava Das is said to have approached Guru Govind Singh, the tenth guru of the Sikhs, for assistance in opposing the Mughal army.” “Together”, the pamphlet concludes, “Sikhs, Hindus, and sadhus completely routed the Mughal force in a dreadful battle that left no Muslim survivors.”

Though Pinch admits that he has “come across no records of the conflicts described by Baba Ramlakhansharan”, yet he writes:

“From the strictly topographical perspective, it is not at all surprising that the Ram janmabhoomi should be linked with armed sadhus in the minds of Vaishnavas familiar with Ayodhya as a pilgrimage center. The site is located very near to north India’s main headquarters of Vaishnava soldier monks, the Hanuman Garhi, and any pilgrim visiting Ayodhya would encounter and perform puja (ritual offerings) at or near both in quick succession (Lal 1869, 19-22). And, indeed, there is even a historical record of conflict between armed sadhus and Muslims involving the Babri Masjid, though it comes to us not from the Mughal period but the middle of the nineteenth century.”
Pinch should have discarded it outright. It is surprising to learn that during the reign of Akbar as many as 20 conflicts are claimed to have taken place. Had Baba Ramlakhansharan known the content of the sanad available with the Hanumangarhi, he could have learnt that Akbar had granted six bighas of land for the construction of the Hanuman Tila shortly after the Rāmanavamī in 1600 A.D. Since there was no damage to the Vishnu-hari temple until 1600 there arose no question of providing any relief to the Hindus on the Rāma-janma-bhūmi site. He was such a great, liberal monarch that it is preposterous to think that 20 battles were waged to liberate the Rama-janma-bhūmi during his reign.
Here it will not be out of place to mention that two books in the Hindi language Śrī Rāma Janmabhūmi kā Rakta Ranjit Itihasa by Late Pt. Śrī Ramgopal Pandey ‘Viśārada’ and Śrī Rāma Janmabhūmi: Sachitra Prāmānika Itihāsa written by Dr. Radheshyam Shukla are best sellers at Ayodhyā. But these two books contain materials which are rubbish in nature. Their contents are, by and large, far from historical facts and deserve to be trashed. They create communal tension in the minds of readers. It was agonizing to see that the counsel of the Nirmohi Akhara was placing his arguments on the authority of these baseless books before the Hon’ble High Court. Almost all the references from this book appear to be farce.

(4) Baba Ram Charan Das and Amir Ali

There is a popular story that after the annexation of Awadh there was great resentment amongst both the Muslim and Hindu communities and it was reflected in the intense revolt throughout the territories of Awadh. It is said that there was an agreement between Maulana Amir Ali said to have been a resident of Hasanu Katara, Faizabad (different from the person of the same name who led the agitation against Hanumangarhi) and Baba Ram Charan Das of Ayodhyā that after the overthrow of the British rule, Rāma-janma-bhūmi would be handed over to the Hindus. It is mentioned in many books and articles including the ‘Rama-janma-bhumi Mandir/Babri Masjid: A Historical Perspective’ written by the eminent historian K.S. Lal and published in ‘The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003’ by A.G. Noorani:

“During the uprising of 1857 the Hindus and Muslims worked together against the British. One of the Muslim leaders, Amir Ali, pleaded on behalf of the Hindus for the restoration of Ramajanmabhùmi to them on the ground that it was originally a Hindu shrine. But he along with the Hindu leader Ram Charan Das, was hanged. Later on the Hindus were denied the right of worshipping in the temple.” (vol. 1, p. 27)

For its authenticity he refers to the Sultanpur Gazetteer (p. 36). But it is unfortunately not available in the Sultanpur Gazetteer published in 1878 and 1903 by A.F. Millett and H.R. Nevill respectively. The story and introduction of Baba Ram Charan Das and Maulana Amir Ali have been written by Amrit Lal Nagar in his popular Hindi book ‘Gadar ke Phool’. But it is based on some unsubstantiated information given by Ram Gopal Pandey ‘Visharad’ who has written ‘अयोध्या का रक्तरंजित इतिहास’ which hardly contains any historical fact. Therefore, this story appears to have no substance. Nevertheless, Nagarji has made it quite popular. I tried my best to locate the story in any book of history or article related to the rebellion of 1857 but could not get success. Therefore, it appears that this story has got no historical substance.

(5) Girl’s Pagoda at Ayodhyā

Meenakshi Jain in her well-documented book ‘The India They Saw’ has shown the Ram-Marion idol mentioned in Jean Baptiste Tavernier’s book ‘Travels in India’ at Ayodhyā. But it is not correct. Tavernier’s original book in the French was translated by Valentine Ball and published by Cambridge University in 1689. For better appreciation of the idol and its location Tavernier’s account is produced below:

“In this country there is another pagoda, well-built and very ancient, and ornamented within and without with many figures, which are representations of girls and women only. Men never go there to worship, and on that account it is called the girls’ pagoda. It has an alter in the middle like the other pagodas, and upon this altar there is an idol of massive gold about 4 feet high, which represents a girl, standing, whom they call Ram-Marion. She has on her right an image of a child, standing, made of massive silver, and nearly 2 feet in height, and it is said that this girl living a holy life, the infant was taken to her by the Brahmans to learn her creed and how to live well; but at the end of three or four years, during which the child had dwelt with the girl, it became so clever and accomplished that all the Rajas and Princes of the county wished for it, and, at last, one of them carried it off one night and it has not since. This idol has on her left, at the base of the altar, another idol representing an old man, whom they say had been the servant of Ram-Marion and the child, and the Brahmans pay great reverence to this idol. They come to it only once a year for worship, and it is necessary for them to arrive on a prescribed day, which is the first day of the moon in November, because the pagoda is only opened at full moon. During the fifteen days which intervene all the pilgrims, both men and women, must fast at times, and bathe three times everyday, without leaving a single hair on their bodies, all being easily removed by the use of a certain earth with which they rub themselves [use of lime and arsenic and depilatories. (Vol. II, pp. 238-39)

In the translation of Tavernier’s book Ram-Marion has been identified as Goddess Kāli (Ram-Maran), whereas Meenakshi Jain has taken it to be Ram-Narayan. The account of Tavernier is very vague here. But this much is clear that he is referring to a Girl’s idol. It appears that this idol was not located at Ayodhyā because Tavernier has travelled from Benaras and gone northward after eight days’ journey. The following is the account of the location of the idol narrated by Tavernier:

“At eight days’ journey from Benaras, due northward, a Mountainous Country is entered, which in the intervals has beautiful plains sometimes 2 to 3 leagues wide.”

This description of the place where the pagoda existed does not tally with that of Ayodhyā because Ayodhyā is not at eight days’ journey from Benaras. It is neither a mountainous country nor is Northward from Varanasi. Thus, this pagoda was not located at Ayodhyā but at a place in the mountainous terrain.

(6) William Hodges’ painting of Ayodhyā

It is remarkable to note that William Hodges, R.A., who visited Fyzabad and Ayodhyā in 1783, made the well known painting of the Sarayū bank with Svargadvārī mosque.

He, however, wrote wrongly that Ayodhyā was established by Krishna and it is mentioned in the Mahābhārata. On account of this wrong reporting of the painter Hodges, many subsequent writers before Brooks were misled and they observed erroneously that Ayodhyā was built by Krishna and it is frequently mentioned in the Mahābhārata. The following account of the painter William Hodges created all the confusion:

“Nearly adjoining Fyzabad are the remains of the very ancient city of Oud, which is said to have been the first imperial city of Hindostan, and to have been built by their hero Krishen. In Colonel Dowe’s translation of Feritsha’s history, it is mentioned as the capital of a great kingdom, one thousand two hundred and nine years previous to the Christian Era; and it is frequently mentioned in the famous Hindoo work in Shanscrite, (the learned language of the Bramins) the Mahaberet, under the name of Adjudea.”( Travels in India,: during the years 1780, 1781, 1782, & 1783, By William Hodges, pp. 105-106, London, 1793)

A view of a part of the City of
Oud painted by William Hodges.

Confusion created by Hodges is worse confounded by the following incongruous observation of the British Library:

“This is plate 1 from William Hodges’ book ‘Select Views of India’. Hodges visited the ancient city of Ayodhya, then known as “Oudh”, at the end of 1783. This view shows the Lakshmana Ghat on the banks of the Ghaghara river. The mosque at the top of the hill is the Babri Masjid, constructed by Babur, the first Mughal king of India, who ruled between 1526 and 1530. The mosque was infamously destroyed by militant Hindus on 6 December 1992.”

Here, the Svargadvārī mosque built by Aurangzeb has been astonishingly identified as Baburi mosque by the renowned British Library. It is on their website at least since 2009. Tomorrow, if one declares Svargadvārī mosque to be the Baburi mosque on the authority of the British Library, many will tend to believe it.

Now, readers should be ready for a series of shocking observations shoddily made by Daniells.

(7) Daniells’ Drawings of Ayodhyâ

While this book was on the verge of completion, the author did have an occasion to see per chance a painting of Thomas Daniell for auction on the website of ‘Christie’s The Art People’. The painting is captioned ‘Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar, Oud’. But no mosque or temple is visible in the painting. A big mound with trees and a deep trench are prominently seen here. Thomas Daniell along with his nephew William Daniell came to India in 1786 and visited many parts of the country. He made drawings and paintings of a number of historical monuments with the assistance of William, who was in his teens on his arrival in India. They left India in 1794 and never returned.

Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar, Oud.

The website gives the following description of the painting:

‘Lot Description

Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)

Near the Musjid of Sultan Babar, Oudh
inscribed and numbered ‘N.123 Near the Musjid built by Sultan Babar Oud’ and with a further inscription ‘Near the Musjid built by Babar Oud’ (on the reverse)

pencil, grey and brown wash on paper, watermarked ‘J. WHATMAN’

15 × 21¼ in. (38.1 × 54 cm.)

The website for auction further advertises in a caption Lot Notes: ‘The Daniells set out for Oudh on 11th July, 1789. William mentions in his journal that ‘From the Gauts we went to a Mosque built by Baba on the site of a Minar which the Bramins told us reached to heaven. Made drawings of the Mosque....’ Since William’s Journal could not be traced by me on the website or in any important library of the country in early stage, its veracity could not be confirmed. However, some portion of the Journal was seen on Google books in snippet view. I had read somewhere that the book ‘The Indian Journals of William Deniell’ by J.P. Losty was to be published in 2008 by the British Library. I tried my best to trace the book. But when I did not succeed I wrote to the British Library and I got the following reply on Feburary 17, 2014:

‘Dear Sir

The book on ‘The Indian Journals of William Daniell’ by J P Losty that we announced for publication in 2008 has not actually been published.

You will receive a separate email in answer to your other request.

David Way

Publisher

The British Library’

Losty could not be contacted because his email is not available on the net and thus the ‘Lot Descrption’ made by Christie’s The Art People’ remained unconfirmed.

However, as the adage goes ‘where there is a will, there is a way’. After the world-wide search I succeeded in getting a used copy of the journal ‘Walker's Quarterly’ Nos. 35-36 which published the Journal of William Daniell in 1932 under the caption “Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840), William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837), by Martin Hardie, R.I., R.E. and Muriel Clayton, M.A.” After going through the Journal it is learnt that William’s Diary published in the Walker’s Quarterly is not the exact account of William Daniell. It is rather an abridged version of Daniell’s writings which have been reduced and edited by Hardie and Clayton. The Editors have made their job clear by clarifying their method of producing William’s Journal in the following words:
“The following extracts necessarily give the diaries of William Daniell in a condensed form. The more interesting and spectacular parts, such as his interview with Sindia and his visit to Srinagar, have been printed almost in full. Other extracts have been selected to show roughly the course pursued by the two artists on their journeys and the nature of their daily life. Nothing is lost by the omission of entries which are merely repetitions of the same type of occurrence or work; and we have been careful to see that nothing of importance in their lives or in the tasks which they set themselves has been omitted.”(p. 35)

Thus, the published Journal is not the original travel account of William but a condensed, reduced version of the original and therefore it cannot enjoy the status of an original document. For the search of the original Journal written by William Daniell one will have to make more endeavor to trace it.

However, from the condensed version of William’s Journal it appears that Daniells had visited Ayodhyā on 11 July, 1789 for a day.

His brief account of Ayodhyā is as follows:

“Set out very early for Oud ( the birth place of Ram one of the principal Hindoo Deities) & spent the day there. Could not find the Veiw of one of the Gauts which Hodges has made an Aquatinta print of, there not being one of them like what he has represented. From the Gauts we went to a Mosque, built by Baba on the site of a Minar which the Brahmins told us reached to heaven. Made drawgs of the Mosque, from thence went to see a very long tomb 17 Guz which they tell us was built over the Wood of part of Noahs Ark that rested there.” (p. 64)

In his narrative he furnishes the following informations:

(i) According to William, the Ghat represented by Hodges in his Aquatinta print was not seen by him during his visit.

(ii) He visited a mosque which was built by Baba (sic) on the site of a Minar.

(iii) He saw a very long tomb which was 17 Guz, i.e. 51 ft. in length.

All the three observations of William contain enormous errors.

First, he says that he could not find the ghat painted by Hodges. William, or rather his uncle Thomas, too, has made a painting of a part of Ayodhyā situated on the bank of the Sarayū river. In both paintings of Hodges and Daniell, the tall minarets of the Svargadvārī mosque are prominently visible. A similar ghat is also seen but with two differences.

An engraving of ‘A part of Ayodhyā’ by William Daniell.

When Hodges visited Ayodhyā in 1783 it was at the end of the year and the water in the river had receded considerably; whereas Daniells visited Ayodhyā on 11th July, 1789 when the Sarayū may have been in full flow because of the rainy season. Since the river was away from the bank, the ghat appeared very lengthy to Hodges with a number of steps. However, when Daniells went for making an aquatinta-print, the ghat was flooded with water and no steps were in sight and it gave a different look. It is very vivid by observing their coloured paintings.

Moreover, some huge structure seems to have come, left to the ghat between 1783 and 1789. That also changed the scene of the ghat. If William would have thought deeply, he would have comprehended it easily that it was the same ghat which was painted by Hodges. Therefore, his observation smacks of immaturity.

Before we examine his second observation, his third description is scrutnized. He writes that after making a drawing of the mosque he along with his uncle Thomas went to see the Noah’s tomb which was 17 Guz in length. He could not give the correct measurement of a structure which was before his eyes and which was only 9 Guz in length. Thus, there is an enormous inaccuracy even in a simple measurement. This Tomb of Noah has been described by Colonel Wilford in the following words:

“According to the account of the venerable Durvesh who watches over the tomb of Nuh, it was built by Alexander, the Great, or Sikandar Rumi. I sent lately (A.D. 1799) a learned Hindu, to make enquiries about this holy place; from the Musalmans he could get no further light.”

However, he could get information from Brahmins that where the Tomb of Noah stands, there was a Ganeśa temple earlier. The further information received by Colonel Wilford in 1799 A.D. was that ‘these tombs are not above 400 years old; and owe their origin to three men called Nuh, Ayub, and Shis, who fell there fighting against the Hindus. These were of course considered as shahids or martyrs; but the priests who officiate there, in order to increase the veneration of the superstitious and unthinking crowd, gave out that these tombs were really those of Noah, Job and Seth of old.” We do not find such details, in Daniell’s account, rather it contains superficial narration. However, we get an exactly correct measurement of the tomb in the report of the National Repository, Volumes 5-6, 1879. It reads, “Ayodhyā contains a tomb of Seth, one of Job, and one of Noah. Noah’s grave is twenty-seven feet long and two feet wide.” Today also, the tomb’s length is twenty-seven feet only and in common parlance it is called नौ गज्+शुद्ध tomb. But Daniells, who claim to have visited it, state that it is 17 Guz, i.e. 51 feet in length. Thus, William’s defective description of the Noah’s grave is enormously erroneous.

The second observation is that from the Gauts they went to a mosque built by Baba (sic) on the site of a minar which the Brahmins told them that it reached to heaven. Even if it is accepted that Baba stands for Babar and by heaven Daniell meant the heavens, i.e. the sky, it is not clear as to which was the location near the Baburi Masjid which has been painted by them.

Having said all this we should now examine the historical knowledge of Daniells. William Daniell has made an engraving which he has called ‘Tomb of Baber Padasah at Sambhal’. Even an ordinary student of history is fully aware of the fact that Babur’s grave is not at Sambhal but at Kabul. After his death in 1530 A.D. Babur was hurriedly buried at Agra in the Garden of Eight Paradises, now called Arambagh, opposite the present Taj Mahal. According to Babur’s will his dead body, after having been taken out from his Agra grave, was interred at Kabul around 1543 A.D. during the reign of Sher Shah. Babur’s son Kamran had visited his grave at Agra in 1539 A.D. (946 A.H.); whereas it is on record that in 1544 A.D. (952 A.H.) his dead body was lying at peace in his selected place of Kabul. The following is the superb piece of art by William Daniell:

‘Tomb of Baber (Padshah) at Sumbul’.

This engraving of William Daniell, which he calls the Tomb of Babur, is not Babur’s tomb at all. Babur’s tomb at Kabul is shown in the following picture:

Babur’s tomb at Kabul.

If history is written on the basis of the accounts of painters like Hodges and Daniells, the Hindus’ icon who lived at Ayodhyā, would be Krishna instead of Rāma and the epic depicting his saga would be Mahābhārata and not Rāmāyana, and the dead body of Babur which is lying at Kabul may be turning in the grave after William has shown it at Sambhal.

Another instance of the lack of general knowledge on the part of Daniells relates to their depiction of the famous Sun temple at Deo in Bihar as the Śiva temple. In the book ‘Oriental Scenery’ which contains ‘One hunderd And Fifty Views of The Architecture, Antiquities, And Landscape Scenery of Hindustan Drawn And Engraved By Thomas And William Daniell’ they depict the Sun temple at Deo in the following words:

“AN HINDOO TEMPLE AT DEO, IN BAHAR

DEO is a small village in the neighbourhood of Gya, in the province of Bahar. The temple is dedicated to Seeva, and reported to be of considerable antiquity, although from the nature of the material of which it is built, (being of hard grey granite) it is but little impaired by time : a coping, however, projecting from above the pilasters, had evidently, at some former period, sheltered the entrance; the ornamental parts in some places have likewise given way. It appears to have had formerly a covering of stucco, the remaining part of which is become of a much darker colour than the stone.”

(Part Fifth, No. V, p. 28)

If Daniell can call the famous, centuries-old, magnificent Sun temple at Deo in Bihar as the Śiva temple, then his depiction of the mosque at Ayodhyā as Baburi mosque on a minar should not shock anyone.

Again Daniells have confounded his fans by making the following factually erroneous caption:

“A PAVILLION, BELONGING TO A HINDOO TEMPLE; AND A MINAR AT GOUR”

“A Pavillion, belonging to a Hindu
temple; and a minar at Gaur.”

From this caption it appears that there is a pavillion of a Hindu temple and there is a minar, which is the above structure situated in front, at Gaur. And the minar is a part of the Hindu temple.

Details of this painting have been given as follows:

‘Lot Description

Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)

A Pavillion, belonging to a Hindoo Temple; and A Minar at Gour (Abbey Travel 420, nos. 72, 74) hand coloured aquatints, published by T. Daniell, London, 1808, S. 21¼ × 16 in. (54 × 40.6 cm.) (2)’

The mix-up shows their casual and careless approach which is further corroborated by William’s writing ‘Baba’ in place of ‘Babar’.

It appears that William Daniell, who was a young man of 20 years only and was not well-acquainted with Indic languages, had problem of properly comprehending the communication made in local languages. Probably, this is the reason that he misconstrued Sūrya as Śiva at Deo in Bihar, as he had heard and seen many Śiva temples earlier but had hardly seen a Sūrya temple. Therefore, he wrote Deo Sun temple as Śiva temple. It can be well presumed that no local man would have ever told him that it was a Śiva temple. Similarly, at Ayodhyā he, after having seen a mosque might have misconstrued ‘mandir’ uttered by Brahmins as minar because no Brahmin would ever appreciatively tell anyone that a minar reached heaven. Sanskrit pandits pronounce हृस्व इ ( ) tenuously different from ¥ and therefore मन्दिर could be easily heard like ‘mandar’ and since Daniells were near a mosque William mistook it for Minar. I am suggesting so because after going through William’s Journal I find that his mode of interaction with the local people was through either British officers who had been in India and well versed with the local languages and who accompanied him in his journey or through a Dubash who interpreted the reply of the local persons. In his Journal for the journey on April 24, 1792 he informs how his Dubash, i.e. the Dubhãshiyã (Indian interpreter) had given them a slip for two days:

“24. As our Dubash had not made his appearance since Yesterday we have reason to believe that he has given us the slip-a circumstance that often occurs when they have money of other servants in their possession as in the present instance”.

Daniells started their journey for Ayodhyã very early in the morning and may have gone without any Dubash or British officer of long standing and this is the reason that Daniells had problem in communicating with and comprehending replies from the local people. Thus, they failed to trace the ghat painted by Hodges and find the exact measurement of the grave of Noah. Similarly, when they directly interacted with the Brahmins, as William writes explicitly that ‘Brahmans told them’, the communication of the word Mandir which could have been otherwise translated as Temple, might have been misconstrued as Minar. Daniells had heard Minar on many occasions during the visits of mosques and have mentioned Minar or Minarot in the Journal several times but the word Mandir has never been used in the Journal. It is always written Temple. Therefore when they heard Mandir, pronounced almost as Mandar, William understood it as Minar.

Even if it is supposed that Daniells heard ‘minar’ from the mouth of Brahmins, it is made clear that minars do not necessarily stand for Muslim structures. Minar from manār in Arabic generally means ‘a tower or turret found especially in India’; whereas minaret is defined as ‘a lofty, often slender, tower or turret attached to a mosque’.

In Hindu and Buddhist structures there are many tall pagodas/columns which are called ‘minars’ such as Chakri minar and Surkh minar at Kabul.

Chakri Minar and Surkh Minar in Afghanistan
before destruction in 1998

In an article “Memoir on the Topes and Sepulchral Monuments of Afghanistan” written by C. Masson, ESQ. published in the book A Descriptive Account Antiquities And Coins Afghanistan, which was edited by H.H. Wilson, the writer equates a ‘minar’ with a ‘pillar/column’ in the following description:

‘Amongst the topes of the Shevaki group, and immediately contiguous to an inferior one, is a column of masonry called Surkh Minar, or the red pillar, from the colour of the materials employed in its construction, which were taken from the rock on which it stands.... On the crest of the range also above the principal tope of Shevaki is another column called Minar Chakri, superior in altitude and in preservation. Of this I annex a sketch, the better to convey an idea of it. The original form of Surkh Minar was probably identical, but its upper parts have fallen beneath the injuries of time.’ (p. 114, 1841 edition)

Unfortunately, the Minar-i-chakri met the total destruction by a rocket launched by Talibanis in March 1998.

In the article “Recent Archaeological Discoveries from Afgha-nistan Destructon of Cultural Heritage” written by Osmund Bopearachchi which is published in the book Bamiyan: Challenge to World Heritage edited by K. Warikoo, the writer furnishes the following information:

“Almost all pre-Islamic archaeological sites have been looted and destroyed by clandastine digs over the last twelve years. The Minar-e-Chakari, the Buddhist pillar, also called the Alexander pillar, dating back to the first century of our era was hit by a rocket and it tumbled to the ground in March 1998. None will see again its eternal beauty.”

Similarly, the historical ‘Chehul Minar’ in Persia was a palace of the Parsi Kings. In India also, the use of Minar is not restricted to the mosques of the Muslims alone but is extended to the tall towers (spires) of Hindu temples also.

In the Samāntara Kośa prepared by Arvind Kumar with the assistance of Kusum Kumar and published by National Book Trust of India, Delhi, the meaning of ‘minar’ in Hindi is given as follows:

मीनार - गगनचुंबी भवन, पहरा मीनार, प्रशस्तिस्भं, भवन, मीनार (द्वितीय, पृ. 871)

इसी शब्दकोष में विमान के पर्याय के रूप में मन्दिर और मीनार को भी लिखा गया है। मन्दिरों में सबसे ऊँचे भाग को विमान कहते हैं। इस प्रकार मीनार शब्द से मन्दिर और इसके शिखर का भी बोध होता है।

There is a Hindu temple called Lanka Minar at Kalpi in Bundelkhand area of Uttar Pradesh. It was built by Mathura Prasad Nigam in 1885 A.D.

Lanka Minar at Kalpi Rāmalīlā ground.

The height of this Hindu Minar is 225 feet which has 80ft. high statue of Rāvana. In north India this is probably the lone temple containing such a large statue of Rāvana. It was built as a part of the popular Rāmalīlā. It was the dream project of Mathura Prasad Nigam who used to play the role of Rāvana very lively. The entire sprawling area was divided into Lan¢kāpurī, As´oka-vātikā, Janaka-vātikā, Avadhapurī, etc. All the important characters of Lan¢kā Kānda have been embossed on the walls of this minar temple.

In India there are a number of Hindu temples whose towers are having close resemblance with minars. Here photographs of two such temples are placed:

The first one is Hangseshwari (ã¢âðEÚè) Temple at Bansheria in Hooghly District of West Bengal. It is a Hindu temple dedicated to goddess Hangseshwari. Its construction was started by Raja Nrisingha Deb Roy Mahasay in c. 1788 A.D. and completed by his widow Rani Sankari.

Wikipedia furnishes the information that ‘the Hangseshwari temple has a distinctive architecture different from the usual pattern in this area, consisting 13 minars or Ratnas’. Thus, this temple has as many as 13 minars and if someone talks about this minar, the structure should not be misconstrued as a mosque.

Hangseshwari Temple in Hooghly District of West Bengal.

Similarly, the following photograph of the tower of Hutheesing Temple at Ahmedabad in Gujarat has striking resemblance with a minar. It is a Jain temple dedicated to Dharmanātha, the fifteenth Jain Tīrthan¢kara. The construction was initiated by Sheth Hutheesing and after his death at a young age of 49 years, it was completed by his widow Shethani Harkunwar in c.1850 A.D. Its tower has almost exact resemblance with a minar. The name of the architect of this minar-shaped temple was Premchand Salat.

Hatheesing Jain Temple

Now, if someone says that its minar touches the heavens, he means a temple and a temple only. Thus, if a Brahmin said that the minar touched the sky, he meant a Mandir only and nothing else. The very fact that Daniells saw Brahmins only and no Muslim in the vicinity confirms the same status seen by Tieffenthaler almost twenty years earlier. The shrine was under the control of the Hindus on both occasions.

It is to remember that when Tieffenthaler visited the disputed shrine in c. 1767 A.D. he was informed by the local people that it was built by Aurangzeb or, according to some, by Babur after demolishing Ram Kot and the natal home of Rāma. The French scholar C. Mentelle (1801 A.D.) repeated that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple. When Buchanan made a survey in 1813-14, he found that the general impression was that Aurangzeb demolished the temple and built the mosque thereon, although Buchanan disbelieved this perception on the basis of a factitious inscription and attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur. All the Muslim writers in the 19th century asserted that the mosque was built after demolishing the temple on the birthplace of Rāma. Thus, there is neither any tradition nor any evidence which even indirectly supports the writing of William Daniell.
Daniells stayed during day time at Ayodhyā, and during this short period he drew paintings of many monuments. Their concentration was on those structures and not on collecting correct history, as was done by Tieffenthaler who wrote the book after staying more than 6 years in Oudh and 22 years in the country. Tieffenthaler wrote his Ayodhyã account in 1768 A.D., Daniells in 1789 A.D. and Colonel Wilford collected his information in 1799 A.D. Tieffenthaler and Wilfred conducted deep probe; whereas William Daniell made a cursory enquiry. There are historical blunders galore in his Journal.

Martin Hardie and Muriel Clayton, who enthusiastically edited William Daniell’s Journal, accurately assessed his personality in the following words:

“William Daniell, it must be accepted, was not an acute observer, and he seldom achieves real vividness of description.”

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, while giving the example of ‘an acute observer’, provides its meaning ‘intelligent and quick to notice and understand things.’ Thus, Hardie and Clayton, after reading William’s Journal written intermittently in India from 29th August, 1788 to 30th January, 1790 and from 10th March 1792 to 3rd July 1792, did not find him intelligent and quick to notice and understand things. This is the reason that William Daniell has committed many blunders, and all his three observations on Ayodhyā do not really stand up the scrutiny of historical facts and deserve to be dismissed forthwith.

(8) Rama’s popularity in the country is since time immemorial

(i) The pamphlet titled ‘The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid – Rāma Janma-bhūmi Dispute’ issued by the historians of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1989 contain many errors which include the fallacious submission that equates the genesis of Rama’s worship and popularity with the establishment of the Rāmānandī sect in the thirteenth century. J.N.U. historians write with an aura of authenticity!

“The cult of Rama seems to have become popular from the thirteenth century. It gains ground with the gradual rise of the Ramanandi sect and the composition of the Rama story in Hindi.”

(ii) The antiquity of Rama’s worship has been discussed comprehensively in the second volume of this book. However, it is very briefly discussed here. Rambakia of Arrian identified with Rambagh by A. Cunningham in his book ‘The Ancient Geography of India’ shows that the cult of Rāma was extended to the west of the Indus at so early a period as the time of Alexander in the fourth century before Christ. Here Cunningham is quoted to drive it home:

“In the bed of this river there are several jets of liquid mud, which, from time immemorial, have been known as Ram-Chandar ki-kup, or “Ram Chandar’s wells.” There are also two natural caves, one dedicated to Kali, and the other to Hingulaj, or Hingula Devi, that is, the ‘Red Goddess’, who is only another form of Kali. But the principal objects of pilgrimage in the Aghor valley are connected with the history of Rama. The pilgrims assemble at the Rãmbãgi, because Rama and Sita are said to have started from this point, and proceed to the Gorakh Tank, where Rama halted; and thence to Tongabhera, and on to the point where Rama was obliged to turn back in his attempt to reach Hingulaj with an army. Rãmbagh I would identify with the Rambakia of Arrian, and Tongabhera with the river Tonberos of Pliny, and the Tomerus of Arrian. At Rambakia, therefore, we must look for the site of the city founded by Alexander, which Leonatus was left behind to complete. It seems probable that this is the city which is described by Stephanus of Byzantium as the “sixteenth Alexandria, near the bay of Mo Nearchus places the western boundary of the Oritse at a place called Malaria, which I take to be the bay of Malan, to the east of Rãs Mãlãn, or Cape Mãlãn of the present day, about twenty miles to the west of the Aghor river. Both Curtius and Diodorus mention the foundation of this city, but they do not give its name. Diodorus, however, adds that it was built on a very favourable site near the sea, but above the reach of the highest tides.
The occurrence of the name of Rambagh at so great a distance to the west of the Indus, and at so early a period as the time of Alexander, is very interesting and important, as it shows not only the wide extension of Hindu influence in ancient times, but also the great antiquity of the story of Rama. It is highly improbable that such a name, with its attendant pilgrimages, could have been imposed on the place after the decay of Hindu influence. During the flourishing period of Buddhism many of the provinces to the west of the Indus adopted the Indian religion, which must have had a powerful influence on the manners and language of the people. But the expedition of Alexander preceded the extension of Buddhism, and I can therefore only attribute the old name of Rambakia to a period anterior to Darius Hystaspes.”

The fact that Rambakia was visited by the great Greek warrior Alexander after his victory over the country of Oreitai and recorded by Arrian (96 A.D. to 180 A.D.) has been quoted by the famous historian R.C. Majumdar in his book ‘The Classical Accounts of India’:

“He then encamped near a small sheet of water, and on being joined by the troops under Hephaistion still continued his progress, and arrived at village called Rambakia, which was the largest in the dominions of Oreitai. He was pleased with the situation, and thought that if he colonized it, it would become a great and prosperous city. He therefore left Hephaistion behind him to carry his scheme into effect.” (pp. 82-83)

(iii) By the second century A.D. the Rāma-kathā had become popular in many parts of India. Kalpanā-mandītikā is an important Buddhist text by the great scholar Kumāralāta and it mentions the regular recitation of the Rāmāyana in Central India. However, it took a new turn, when Edouard Huber published the translation of Aśvaghosha’s Sūtrālan¢kāra from the Chinese into the French in 1908 A.D. Sūtrālan¢kāra had been translated into the Chinese by Kumārajīva in c. 400 A.D. In the French translation Huber claimed that the text known as Kalpanā-mandītikā of Kumāralāta is, by and large, the replication of Aśvaghosha’s Sūtrālan¢kāra composed in the 1st century A.D. This text, too, confirms the regular recitation of the Rāmāyana in Central India. This regular recitation of the Rāmāyana is mentioned in the 24th chapter of the text. A regular recitation of a book is made only when it gets the status of a scripture. Thus, the Rāmāyana had obtained the status of a religious scripture in the second century A.D. Besides, Rāma and the Rāmāyana are mentioned at many places in the text. One such reference is quoted below:

“Rāma fit un pont d’herbe (sic)

Pour pouvoir arriver dans la ville de Lan¢kā (p. 86)”

i.e. Rama made a bridge of grass (sic)

To arrive in the City of Lan¢kā

The confusion of grass in place of stones in the translation appears to have occurred in translating from Sanskrit to Chinese.

(iv) The recent discovery of a Prākrita inscription from Kausambi is another proof that Rāma was synonymous with Nārāyana. This inscription is on a sandstone slab which is in a slightly broken state. It reads as follows:

(i) …duvase 10+2 gahapati.... (...दुवसे १०+२ गहपति...)

(ii) …saha dārakena Iddaghosena... (...सह दारकेन इद्दघोषेन...)

(iii) … bhagavato Rāma-Nārāyana... (...भगवतो राम-नारायन...)

It appears that the house owner, i.e. grihapati Indraghosha along with his son either constructed Lord Rāma Nārāyana’s temple or had the darśana of his pratimā on the pious occasion on the dwādaśī day. Dvādaśī is the pāranā day of the ekādaśī ritual and very sacred for Vaishnavas. The speculation of scholars has been that since the word ‘bhagavato’ is in the genitive form, so probably it was for the construction of some Rāma-Nārāyana temple. But since Indraghosa is with his son; so the natural presumption should be that they came for the ‘darśana’ of Rāma-Nārāyana temple. The year of the inscription is not available because the relevent portion is broken and lost. However, from the palaeographic features, the mode of dating and the nature of Prākrita it is ascertained that the inscription belongs to the second century A.D. Dr. B.C. Shukla of Allahabad presented a note on this inscription at the Indian History Congress Session in Calcutta in 1990. In an article ‘The Earliest Inscription of Rāma Worship’. published in ‘Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India’ B.C. Shukla made this suggestion on its palaeographic features:
“---the use of serif in Brãhmï script was a result of Śaka influence. It came into prevalence in India in the 1st c. B.C. Letters of the present inscription are similar to the letters of Kausãmbi inscription of Bhadramagha. The inscriptions of this ruler are dated in Śaka era 81, 83 and 87 corresponding to 159, 161 and 165 A.D. respectively. On the other hand the medial signs used in the inscriptions of Bhimavarma of Kaušãmbì, dated in Śaka era 122 to 139, i.e. 200 to 217 A.D., show the more developed tendency of ornamentation than the present inscription. Hence, this inscription may be put in the later part of second century A.D.”
(v) Gadhawa inscription, which was discovered by Cunningham in 1875 A.D. is another evidence of an early deification of Rāma. It was issued in the 118th year of the Gupta era, i.e. 467-68 A.D. on the 21st day of Māgha month. It appears to be in the reign of Skandagupta. For his religious benefit some devotee had established a temple of Ananta-svāmī, i.e. Vishnu but in the same inscription it is mentioned Chitrakūtasvāmi-pādiya-koshthe, i.e. in the chamber of Chitrakūtasvāmī, i.e. Rāma. Therefore, in the fifth century either Vishnu and Rāma had become identical or in the same temple complex another sanctum of Chitrakūtasvāmī had been constructed. The devotee had given land grant for the use of dhūpa, ‘gandha’ and ‘srag’ (garland) in the temple which had a śikhara also. Thus, it is clear that Rāma’s temple was built along with Vishnu’s in the fifth century A.D.

(vi) An idol of Rāma pertaining to the fifth century A.D. was recovered from Nacharkherha, Haryana. It is now preserved in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, U.S.A. with the following details:

“S107. The God Rama Haryana, Nacharkherha (?); fifth century Brown terra-cotta; 18.1/2 in (47.0 cm) Gift of Marilyn Walter Grounds; M. 83.221.6

The Gupta-period Brahmi inscription near the figure’s left thigh identifies him as the god Rama. Hero of the Sanskrit epic the Ramayana, Rama had come to be regarded by the Gupta period as a god and avatar of Vishnu. He has remained the ideal Hindu king, and Gupta emperors very likely modeled their popular archer-portrait con types after the image of Rama.

As was quite common in the art of the Gupta period, Rama is dressed as a warrior in a tunic like that worn by Gupta monarchs (C28a-c) and possibly wearing pajamas. In addition, he wears across his chest a cross-belt (channavira), characteristic of a hero. His principal attributes are the bow, half of which remains attached to his left hand, and arrows, placed in a quiver behind his right shoulder. His raised right hand displays the gesture of reassurance; very likely he was addressing of confronting another person in the complete composition.” (Indian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, ed. by Pratapaditya Pal, University of California Press, 1986)

Rāma’s idol of Gupta period at Los Angeles
County Museum of Art.

This idol contains the name Rāma on its left portion and is in the abhaya mudrā (the posture granting fearlessness). These two factors are conclusive proofs that Rāma had aquired divinity and the status of an incarnation in the fifth century A.D.

(vii) Varāhamihira is a well known astrologer who wrote his ‘Pañchasiddhāntikā’ in 427 Śaka sam¢vat, i.e. 505 A.D. His Brihat-sam¢hitā is a very celebrated book. In the chapter ‘Pratimā-Lakshana’ he writes that the image of Rāma, the son of Daśaratha and Bali, the son of Virochana should be of 120 an¢gulis ’ and of others should be 12 an¢gulis less, i.e. 108 an¢gulis. Thus, the size of Rama’s image has been prescribed 120 an¢gulis in the following śloka.

दशरथ-तनयो रामो बलिश्च वैरोचनिः शतं विंशम्।

द्वादशहान्या शेषाः प्रवरसमन्यूनपरिमाणाः।।30।।

(बृहत्-संहिता, प्रतिमालक्षणाध्याय, श्लोक ३०)

It shows that the worship of Rāma was quite prevalent in the beginning of the 6th century in this country. Had his image-worship not been very popular, Varāhamihira would not have dilated on the dimension of the image of Lord Rāma.

(viii) Alberuni was aware of the deification of Rāma, as he gives the measurement of Rama’s icon based on Varāhamihira’s Brihatsam¢hitā. He knew that Rāma was the incarnation of Vishnu who built a setu across the sea and killed Rāvana. He also highlighted the consecration of the Sivalin¢ga by Rāma at Rāmeśvaram. While narrating the incarnations of Vishnu he wrote about Rāma:

“...in Treta-yuga in the shape of Rama alone, for the purpose of spreading fortitude, to conquer the bad, and to preserve the three worlds by force and the prevalence of virtuous action.” (chapter XLVI)

(ix) The claim that Rāma’s temples are of recent origin, too, is not correct. Almost all prominent temples of North India were razed to the ground by the iconoclastic marauders, invaders or rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb.

However, some temples like the Rājīva-lochana temple at Rajim near Raipur in the newly created State of Chhatisgarh which is one of the oldest surviving Rāma temples in the country are wellknown. It is situated near the confluence of Pairi and Mahanandi rivers. There is an inscription in the temple dated 3rd January, 1145 (Kalachuri year 896). Jagpal, a minister of Kalchuri King Prithvīdeva II, had founded this temple for Lord Rāma, the son of Daśaratha.

(x) Here some temples of Rāma from the South are cited to show the popularity of Rama’s worship in the distant part of the Peninsula. Foreign travellers have given details of some temples in their travel accounts. About the famous Rameshwaram temple Francois Martin, the French author of ‘India in the Seventeenth Century’ (Social, Economic and Political) or popularly called Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694) writes:

“This island is very well known to the Hindus. There is a temple here dedicated to the celebrated monkey so famous in their stories, for whom they reserve special veneration. It is a centre of pilgrimage and sometimes as many as 200,000 pilgrims are known to have converged on this island in the course of single year. (p. 1310)

Samuel Purchas (1577–1626) in his voluminous book ‘Purchas: his pilgrimage or Relations of the world and the Religions observed in all ages and places discoursed creation into this present’ which was published in 1614 A.D. has written about a Hanuman temple in the following words:

“They yeelde Divine honours to divers of their deceased Saints, and build Temples unto beasts. One of which (dedicated to an Ape) hath large Porches, and hath (faith e Massaus) seven hundred Marble Pillars not inferior to those of Agrippa in the Raman pantheon. It seemeth that the ground in that palace is not of so quesie watry a stomack but that it can digest deepe foundations.” (The first book, Chapter 10, Asia, P 491) (The old English language)

This Hanuman temple, which is mentioned nowhere in Indian texts, had 700 marble pillars.

Samuel Purchas further narrates a very interesting incident. He writes,

“Heere happened a strange accident, the same day the jesuits departed, the occasion of which was this. There is in this Citie aTemple of Perimal, wherein they worship an Ape called Hanimant, whom they report to have beene a God, and (for I know not what) together with many thousands of other gods, to have remained there, being all transformed into Apes. Now when this principall Ape was forced to passe into the Hand Zeilan, and wanted a ship, he leaped, and at every leape left an Hand or heape of land behind him, so making way for his apish traine to Zeilan. The tooth of this Ape was kept for a great relique in that Iland, with great resort of Pilgrims thereinto: and in the yeare c.1554 was by the Portugals, (who made a roade thither, in hope of great bootie) taken away. The Indian Princes offered the Viceroy three hundred thousand (or as Linsechoten telleth, sevenen hundred thousand) ducats, for the ransome of this Ape’s tooth, but the Arch bishop disswaded the Viceroy; who thereupon burnt the fame before those Indian Ambassador, and threw the ashes into the Sea. Not long after a Baniane of Cambaia perswaded the Indians, that hee by Divine Power had taken away that holy Tooth, being invisibly present, and had left another in the roome which was burnt, Superstition is credulous, and the King of Bisnagar gave him a great summe of gold for that Apes tooth, wherewith he thus apishly had bitten and mocked them, which was after holden in like veneration as the former.” (The first book, Chapter XI, Asia, P 499) (The old English language as spelt in the original)

(xi) It is made clear in the following narrative of “A true and exact Description of the most Celebrated East-India coast of Malabar and Coromandel and of the Island of Ceylon, with all the adjacent Countries” written by Philip Baldaeus, (1631-1671 A.D.), a Dutch Minister. It was translated from the High Dutch and published in 1704 A.D. in ‘A collection of Voyages and Travels’. The relevant excerpt is as follows:

“This Ape has divers celebrated pagodes erected to he him by the Indians. We read in the Portuguese Histories, that in 1554, when they plunder’d the famous Pagode upon the Adams Mount in Ceylon, they found an Ape’s Tooth, (the most sacred Relick of the Pagans of Pegu, Ceylon, Malabar, Bengale, Coromandel and Bisnagar) enclosed in a Box set with precious Stones, which they carried to Goa; some of the Indian Princes offer’d 700000 Ducats to redeem it, but it was not accepted of, by reason the Bishop of Goa apposed it. (Vol. II, p. 839) (The old English language as spelt in the original)

The Portuguese plundered a temple in Ceylon in 1554 and took possession of the tooth of an Ape (Hanumanji). The Hindu Princes were ready to pay 7,00,000 Ducats to redeem it.

Hanuman has been worshipped as a very popular deity in this country for centuries. Since he is perceived to be an ape, it is considered sacrosanct and nobody dares kill it, lest it should bring evils. General Sleeman narrates an anecdote in his book ‘Journey through Oudh’. He writes that he had been told by his informant that “Mumtaz-ud-davula might have been king of Oudh, had his father not shot that monkey.” (II, 133)

The worship of or reverence to Rama has been prevalent in the country from North to South and East to West in a very popular form. Monier Williams (1819-99), the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, wrote about the Rāmāyana in his book ‘Religious Thought and Life in India’ in the following words:

From Kashmir to Cape Comorin the name of Rama is on everyone’s lips. All sects revere it, and show their reverence by employing it on occasions. For example, when friends meet it is common for them to salute each other by uttering Rama’s name twice. Then no name is more commonly given to children, and no name is more commonly invoked in the hour of death. It is a link of union for all classes, castes, and creeds. (Monier Williams 1974: 11).

One may conclude this sub-chapter with the observation of Mauriz Winternitz (1863-1937), an eminent Austrian Orientalist, who accepted the antiquity and universality of the Rāmāyana in the following inspiring words:

“Since more than 2000 years the poem of Rama has remained alive in India, and it continues to live in all strata and classes of folk. High and low, princes and peasants, landlords and artisans, princesses and shepherdesses, are well versed with the characters and stories of the great epic.” (A History of Indian Literature, by Moriz Winternitz, volume 1, p. 455)



Chapter Thirteen

Ayodhyā rarely witnessed demolition of temples
during the Sultanate period

[(1) Hanafi Law in India (2) Salar Masud (3) Bakhtiyar Khalji (4) Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori (5) Malik Kafur (6) Sultan Iltutmish (7) Razia Sultan (8) Nasiruddin Mahmud (9) Balban (10) Amir Khusrau (11) Khalji period (1290-1320) (12) Tughlaq Sultans (13201414) (13) Lodi dynasty (1451-1526) (14) Kamaleshwar’s “Kitane Pakistan” (15) Barani’s observation]

(1) Hanafi Law in India

For the proper appreciation of Muslim rule in India one should remember that in India Hanafi law has been in force since the conquest of Sindh in 712 A.D. Hanafi is one of the four schools of religious jurisprudence (fiqh) within the Sunni Muslim tradition. It is considered the oldest and most liberal school of law.

India during the Sultanate period had become the Darul-Islam State. Had the Hanafi law not been in existence, the Hindus would have faced far more inhuman torture and severer of religious rights with an option of conversion or death. It is true that many Muslim marauders and some monarchs transgressed the Hanafi law at times, yet it was a big sobering effect on them.

Under the Hanafi law, Hindus were given the status of protected people, provided they paid poll tax (jazya). It is true that they were not allowed to build new temples or repair old ones. But they were not to be demolished deliberately either. This is the reason that when William Finch who visited India after four hundred years of Muslim rule found the shrines in utter ruins. The jazya tax itself was not very burdensome but the method of its collection was certainly humiliating and this is the reason that it was opposed toothandnail by the Hindus.
Hanafi School was founded by a great person Imam Abu Hanifa. He was born in Kufa in Iraq in 699 A.D., 67 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad Saheb during the reign of Ummaid Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Harwan. He was so free from greed that when the Abbasid Khalifa-al-Mansur offered him the post of the Qadi-Al-Mansur (Chief Judge of the State), Hanafí politely declined and wrote that he considered himself unfit for this post. The King was aghast and told him that he was lying. A man of wit, Hanafi replied that if he was lying, then his statement was doubly correct, because a liar could not be appointed to the exalted and august post of a Chief Judge. At this frank reply, the King lost temper and got Hanifa arrested and tortured in jail. He was probably poisoned and died in 767 A.D. It is said that his funeral was attended by more than 50,000 people and the funeral service was repeated 6 times for allowing the mourners to have his last glimpse.

By such a great scholar of religious jurisprudence and eminence Imam Abu Hanifa, the Hindus were granted the status of Zimmi after the conquest of Sindh by Arabs. Mahomed Kasim Ferishta, in his famous book ‘History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the year A.D. 1612’ translated by John in English, writes:

“First question. “From what description of Hindoos is it lawful to exact obedience and tribute?”

Answer – It is lawful to exact obedience and tribute from all infields, and they can only be considered as obedient who pay the poll tax and tribute without demur, even should it be obtained by force; for, according to the law of Prophet, it is written, regarding infields “Tax them to the extent that they can pay, or utterly destroy them.’ The learned of the faith have also enjoined the followers of Islam,

“To slay them, or to convert them to faith;’ a maxim conveyed in the words of the Prophet himself. The Imam Huneef, however, subsequently considered as poll tax, or as heavy a tribute imposed upon them as they can bear, may be substituted for death, and he has accordingly forbidden that their blood heedlessly spilt. So that it is commanded that the Juzeea (poll-tax) and Khiraj (tribute) should be exacted to the uttermost farthing from them, in order that the punishment may approximate as nearly as possible to death.” (p. 198)

Under the Hanafi Law there was a mandate for those subjects who were unbelievers but protected (zimmis). For the Parasis who were fire-worshippers and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) Caliph Umar made their safety obligatory, if the zimmis paid Jaziya to them. The Hindus were declared zimmis here and it was a great relief. Protection for non-believers on payment of Jazia is confirmed by an interesting anecdote mentioned in Ibn Battuta’s Rahela. He writes in chapter VII:

“The king of China had sent valuable gifts to the sultan, including a hundred slaves of both sexes, five hundred pieces of velvet and silk cloth, musk, jewelled garments and weapons, with a request that the sultan would permit him to rebuild the idol-temple which is near the mountains called Qarajil [Himalaya]. It is in a place known as Samhal, to which the Chinese go on pilgrimage; the Muslim army in India had captured it, laid it in ruins and sacked it. The sultan, on receiving this gift, wrote to the king saying that the request could not be granted by Islamic law, as permission to build a temple in the territories of the Muslims was granted only to those who paid a poll-tax; to which he added, “If thou wilt pay the jizya we shall empower thee to build it. And peace be on those who follow the True Guidance.” He requited his present with an even richer one-a hundred thoroughbred horses, a hundred white slaves, a hundred Hindu dancing-and singing-girls, twelve hundred pieces of various kinds of cloth, gold and silver candelabra and basins, brocade robes, caps, quivers, swords, gloves embroidered with pearls, and fifteen eunuchs. As my fellow-ambassadors the sultan appointed the amir Zahir ad-Din of Zanjãn, one of the most eminent men of learning, and the eunuch Kafur, the cup-bearer, into whose keeping the present was entrusted. He sent the amir Muhammad of Herat with a thousand horsemen to escort us to the port of embarkation, and we were accompanied by the Chinese ambassadors, fifteen in number, along with their servants, about a hundred men in all.”

After Muhammad bin Quasim, the conqueror of Sind, accorded the Hindus of Sind and Multan the status of zimmis which was the special privilege of Christians and Jews, it was approved by the famous Muslim Jurist, Abu Hanifa.

However, granting the status of Zimmis to Hindus in accordance with Hanafi Law was resented stoutly by many sections of the Muslim clergy. Historian Minhaj records an attack of Carmathians (or Ismailis) led by Nur Turk, which took place during the reign of Razia Sultan. Minhaj writes:

“A Carmathian scholar, Nuruddin Turk, generally known as Nur Turk, gathered together one thousand supporters from Delhi, Gujarat, Sind and the Doab. They began to condemn the Hanafi and Shafii doctrines and called the Sunni ulama ‘Nasibi’ and ‘Murji’. On 6 Rajab 634/5 March 1237, they entered the Jama Masjid from two directions and started killing the people who had assembled there to offer their Friday prayer. When confusion spread, some persons from the city Nasiruddin Aitam Balrami and Amir Nasiri came armed with pears, steel caps and shields. They fought with the ‘Mulahida’ while the people threw stones at them from the roof of the mosque.” (Minhaj, 189-90)

When I was an O.S.D. on Ayodhyā, the then Prime Minister Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao called me once and told me that the instances of shifting mosques in Egypt and other countries were not being accepted by the Muslim leaders here because in India they are governed by the Hanafi law. Then he asked me to find out some historical instance in India, where a converted mosque was reverted to a temple. I told him that I would try my best to trace it.

After a fortnight’s efforts I succeeded in tracing the Farman of Shah Jahan dated 1648 A.D. wherein he had asked the Governor of Gujarat to restore the Chintamani temple built by Jain Banker Shantidas Zaveri and converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb to its original status of a temple. This Jain Chintamani temple had been converted into a mosque by Prince Aurangzeb when he was the Governor of Gujarat in 1645-46. The Emperor Shah Jahan, on the petition of the Chief Kaji of the Empire that under Islamic law no mosque could be built by force on others’ land, had issued this firman which is quoted in chapter “Many Mughal monarchs were magnanimous rulers.” Having seen this Farman the P.M. was very happy.

Since the Hindus were protected people after the payment of the poll tax, their temples were not razed by most of the monarchs and at Ayodhyā it so happened that almost all its temples remained intact till 1660 A.D.

There may be a lingering doubt in minds of many inquisitive readers about the survival of the temples at Ayodhyā by the end of the Sultanate period, even when the country faced the wrath of Muslim marauders like Salar Masud, Bakhtiyar Khalji and Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori. Ayodhyā was under the occupation of Muslim rulers with a Subedar stationed there at least since 1226 A.D. How could known iconoclasts like Malik Kafur, Feroz Shah Tughlaq and Sikandar Lodi allow the temples to exist at Ayodhyā without any demolition? Let it be examined on the basis of the known historical facts.

(2) Salar Masud

Although Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and plundered Mathurā, Kannauj, Somanātha and other religious places, he did not make any such attack on Ayodhyā. However, his sister’s son Salar Masud, a young warrior of 18 years, left Ghazni to conquer North India and establish the empire of Islam there. A detailed account of his life and expeditions is available in Mirat-i-Masudi written by Abdur Rahman Chisti during the days of Jahangir. As per the version of the author, his book is based on an old text written by a contemporary writer Mulla Muhammad Ghaznavi. ‘Mirat-i-Masudi’ has been called a historical romance in which “fact and fiction are freely mingled, and the great actions and exploits of other men are appropriated, without scruple, to the hero of the tale.”

In Salar Masud’s army expeditions two places are said to be identified with Ayodhyā. Ajudhan has been identified with Ayodhyā and Satrakh with Sāketa. But Ajudhan does not appear to be Ayodhyā; rather it is somewhere between Multan and Delhi, whereas Satrakh is a place at some distance from Ayodhyā in Barabanki district. His army expedition to Ajudhan is described thus:

“The rainy season had now set in, so they remained at Multan the next four months. After the rains, Masud led his army against Ajudhan. Although, in those days, that place and its vicinity was thickly populated, it was subdued without struggle. Masud was delighted with the climate of Ajudhan, and as, moreover, it was a good sporting country, he remained there till the end of the following rains, when he set off for Delhi. Rai Mahipal was the king of the city.”

From this description it is clear that this Ajudhan existed between Multan and Delhi. Moreover, it is mentioned in Ibn Battuta’s travels in the following words:

“After two days journey from this place (Abuhar) we reached the town of Ajudahan (Pakpattan), a small town belonging to the pious Shaikh Farid al Din al-Badhawani.” (Gibb’s translation p. 613)

In the footnote 71, H.A.R. Gibb has thus identified this place:

“Ajudahan was the principal ferry across the Sutlaj river, and was remained Pakpattan (holy ferry) by Akber in honor of Saint (Baba) Farid al-Din mentioned below, whose shrine is widely venerated.”

Thus, there is no confusion about the identification of Ajudhan which was faraway from Ayodhyā. Those historians, who have identified Ajudhan with Ayodhyā, have written that Ayodhyā was subdued by Salar without any struggle. But it is not a fact. Ajudhan which Salar Masud captured is different from Ayodhyā, the birthplace of Rāma. After defeating Mahipal Salar Masud went to Kanauj where his favourite king Ajipal met him with gifts. Thereafter, he reached Satrakh. Satrakh is not Sāketa or Ayodhyā. At present, it is a small town in Barabanki district. But in the eleventh century it was an affluent town. Masud captured it and continued to reside there with grandeur. Thereafter what happened is lucidly described in Mirat-i-Masudi in the following words:
“One day ambassadors arrived from the Princes of Karra and Manikpur, bringing two saddles, bridles, and other rare presents, with this message, “This kingdom has belonged to us and our fathers from time immemorial. No Musulman has ever dwelt here. Our annals relate that the Emperor Alexander, Zu-I karnain, made an expedition against this country, and reached Kanauj; but there he made peace with Rai Kaid, and returned without having crossed the Ganges. Sultan Mahmud, also, with your father, came as far as Ajmir, Guzerit, and Kanauj, but spared our country. But you, without any respect for the rights of property, establish yourself in a country that does not belong to you. The action is unworthy of a great mind like yours. It is an infinite sorrow to us that you should be the only child in the house of your father, and that he should have no other descendants. Consider, we pray you, the right Satrakh is a pleasant place; but it is not fitting that you should remain there. We have 90,000 picked soldiers; the princes of the country of Bahraich and other places will come to our help on every side, and you will find yourself in great difficulties. You had better take the prudent course of retiring of your own free will.” (p. 535)
Masud raged at this like a fierce lion, and, compressing his lips, addressed the ambassador thus, “Well is it for thee that thou comest as an ambassador; had any one else addressed such an insolent speech to us, we would have had him torn in pieces. Go, tell thy princes their country belongs to the all-powerful God, who gives it to whom he wills. Think not that we are come only to take a journey. We intend to make our abode here, and, by the command of God, will uproot unbelief and unbelierers from the land.”
So saying, he dismissed the ambassador, who went and told his master all that had passed, adding “This cub, in truth, fears no one. Do you use your best endeavours, for he cares nought for your 90,000 picked men.” The unbelievers were greatly alarmed. At length a barber, who was present, said, he would settle the business if authorized to do so. The Rãi ordered him to make the attempt; to poison Masud, in which he succeeded, but the intended victim recovered. (The History of India, As Told by Its Own Historians, – Elliot and Dowson, vol. II, pp. 535-36)

The bold barber had presented a poisoned nail-cutter to Masud who had become almost dead due to the effect of the poison. The barber was caught subsequently spying along with two Brahmans. Brahmans’ lives were spared but the barber was butchered. From the above passage probably comes the first recorded mention of Alexander’s invasion in the country.

There were many battles between the two sides with heavy casualties. Masud’s mother died of grief and his father Salar Sahu joined him with a big contingent. Thereafter, a rare event of Indian history took place. All the local Princes united against Masud. Their names are given below:

(1) Rai Raib (2) Rai Saib (3) Rai Arjun

(4) Rai Arjun (5) Rai Bhikan (6) Rai Kanak

(7) Rai Kalyan (8) Rai Makru (9) Rai Sakru

10) Rai Karan (11) Rai Birbal (12) Rai Jaipal

(13) Rai Siopal, (14) Rai Harpal (15) Rai Harku

(16) Rai Prabhu (17) Deb Narayan (18) Narsing.

They are said to be present with 20,00,000 cavalry and 30,00,000 infantry.” (p. 539)

Thereafter, Sahar Dev from Shabhun and Har Dev from Baluna joined them with large forces. They were experts in drawing strategy. They addressed other Princes in the following words:

“You do not know the tactics of war. Order the blacksmiths to prepare 5,000 balls each, with five poisoned prongs. Before the battle we will fix them firmly in the ground. When the Musulmans charge with their cavalry, the prongs will enter into the horses’ feet; they will fall, and we will finish their business. Prepare besides plenty of fire-works.” (ibid. p. 542)

In two months all the Princes assembled with innumerable soldiers and encamped on the bank of the river Kaushalya. On the 18th day of the month of Rajab-ul-murajjab in the year 424 AH. 1033 A.D. these soldiers moved against the army of Masud at dawn. The Mirāt-i-Masūdī records this fight between the two forces in the following words:

“The army of the enemy was innumerable, like mountains on every side; so that although numerous forces fought in the army of Islam, they were mown down like so much grass. Many of the greatest nobles met their deaths. In the course of that day, from morning till evening prayer, two-thirds of the army were slain, leaving but one-third to mourn their loss.” (ibid. p. 545)

Mirat-i-Masudi further records:

“Meanwhile, the Rai Sahar Deo and Har Deo, with several other chiefs, who had kept their troops in reserve, seeing that the army of Islam was reduced to nothing, unitedly attacked the body-guard of the Prince. The few forces that remained to that loved one of the Lord of the Universe were ranged round him in the garden. The unbelievers, surrounding them in dense numbers, showered arrows upon them. It was then, on Sunday, the 14th of the month Rajab, in the aforesaid year 424 (14th June, 1033), as the time of evening prayer came on, that a chance arrow pierced the main artery in the arm of the Prince of the Faithful.” (ibid. p. 456)

It further says,

“By the time of evening prayer not one was left. All the servants of Masud lay scattered like stars around that moon.”

This battle was fought at Bahraich where stood a Sun-temple Bālārka. It ended on 14th June 1034 A.D. Masud’s body was captured and beheaded. However, his body was handed over for burial. His mausoleum was built much later by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq who came to Bahraich and on learning that Masud was beheaded he not only built a mausoleum but declared him a saint also. On his Urs (death anniversary) held in May every year a large number of persons, both Muslims and Hindus, go there with a hope to get some thing magically. This was a practice during the time of Tulasi Das also. In Dohāvalī he has written:

लही आँखि कब आँधरे बाँझ पूत कब ल्याइ।

कब कोढी काया लही जग बहराइच जाइ।। (496)

Thus, it is clear that the first Muslim attack in the vicinity of Ayodhyā was a flop.

(3) Bakhtiyar Khalji

Bakhtiyar Khalji is a dreaded and despised name because he is said to have burnt the famous library of Nalanda University and beheaded its hundreds of Buddhist monks. Many scholars have written that since Bakhtiyar Khalji was in-charge of the Oudh province, he could not have spared the temples at Ayodhyā. How could it be possible that an iconoclast like Bakhtiyar did not demolish temples at Ayodhyā? First his career should be examined before coming to a conclusion.

Bakhtiyar Khalji was a native of Garmsir in Northern Afghanistan. He went to Ghazni for employment. There he was offered a paltry salary and therefore he declined the offer. Then he came to Delhi where he was rejected because of his ugly features. Thereafter he went to Badaun where Hizabruddin Hasan Adib, the muqta (governor) of Badaun, took him into service. It was his first employment. There he came in contact with Ali Nagauri, who was the muqta of Nagaur. After his death Bakhtiyar was assigned a small iqta of Kashmandi but it was almost event-less. Thereafter, he went to Awadh where he met Malik Husamuddin Aghul Bek, who was commander of the Awadh and Varanasi divisions. Aghul Bek got impressed with his gallantry and conferred upon him the iqtas of Bhagwat and Bhiuli. Bhiuli is the north-eastern pargana of Chunar tehsil and it touches the pargana of Bhagwat on the west. According to Prof. K.A. Nizami both these parganas are in the south-eastern corner of the modern Mirzapur district.

Thus, it is clear that Bakhtiyar Khalji never held any post at Ayodhyā. During that period Malik Husamuddin Aghul Bek was the commander of both Awadh and Varanasi divisions. Bakhtiyar Khalji had no occasion to serve at Ayodhyā and thus could do no harm there. This must satisfy those writers who apprehend damage at Bakhtiyar Khalji’s hands in the holy city of Ayodhyā.

After massacring Buddhist scholars at Nalanda, Bakhtiyar Khalji captured Nadia and then had the ambitious plan of conquering Tibet. On the way he realized his folly and limited resources for the conquest, so he abandoned the idea and marched towards Assam for conquering the vast territory. But his army had to face the wrath and onslaught of the soldiers and subjects of Kamarupa. On account of the strategic farsightedness of the King of Assam, Bakhtiyar Khalji met a very ignominious end. Since very few persons know this tragic end, it is reproduced verbatim from the Persian book the ‘Riyazu-s-Salatin’ of Ghulam Husain Salim. It is a great irony of history that one of the most energetic iconoclasts of Indian history had to take shelter in a temple to save his own and his soldiers’ lives.

While on mission to Assam, he stayed in the temple of Mahumani in Kamrup district. The description of his stay and shelter in the temple has been lucidly presented by Ghulam Husain Salim in the following words:

“In short, in this straightened condition, they reached the bridge. Since those two commandants quarrelling with each other had deserted their posts at the head of the bridge, the people of that country had destroyed the bridge. At the sight of this destruction, the heart of the high and the low suddenly broke, like the Chinese cup. Muhammad Bakhtiãr engulfed in the sea of confusion and perplexity despaired of every resource. After much striving, he got news that in the neighbourhood there was a very large temple, and that idols of gold and silver were placed there in great pomp. It is said that there was an idol in the temple which weighed a thousand maunds. In short, Muhammad Bakhtiãr with his force took refuge in this temple, and was busy improvising means for crossing the river. The Rãjah of Kãmrûpa had ordered all his troops and subjects of that country to commit depredations. The people of that country, sending out force after force, engaged in besieging the temple, and from all sides posting in the ground bamboo-made lances, and tying one to the other, turned them into the shape of walls. Muhammad Bakhtíãr saw that all chance of escape was slipping out of his hands, and that the knife was reaching the bone, so at once with his force issuing out of the temple and making a sortie, he broke through the stockade of bamboos, and cutting through his way, rescued himself from the hard-pressed siege. The infidels of that country pursued him to the banks of the river, and stretched their hands to plunder and slaughter, so that some by the sharpness of the sword and others by the inundation of water, were engulfed in the sea of destruction. The Musalman soldiers on reaching the river-banks stood perplexed. Suddenly, one of the soldiers plunged with his horse into the river, and went about one arrow-shot, when another soldier seeing this, plunged similarly into the river. As the river had a sandy bed, with a little movement, all were drowned. Only Muhammad Bakhtiãr with one thousand cavalry (and according to another account, with three hundred cavalry) succeeded in crossing over; the rest met with a watery grave. After Muhammad Bakhtiãr had crossed safely over the tumultous river with a small force, from excessive rage and humiliation, in that the females and the children of the slaughtered and the drowned from alleys and terraces abused and cursed him, he got an attack of consumption, and reaching Deokot died. And according to other accounts, ‘Ali Mardãn Khiljî, who was one of his officers, during that illness, slew Bakhtiãr, and raised the standard of sovereignty over the kingdom of Lakhnauti. The period of Malik Ikhtiãr-ud-dîn Muhammad Bakhtiãr’s rule over Bengal was twelve years. When Muhammad Bakhtiãr passed from the rule of this transitory world into the eternal world, Malik Azu-d-dîn Khiljî succeeded to the rule over Bengal. Eight months had not passed, when ‘Alî Mardãn Khiljî slew him.”

This liquidation of the Turkish army under Bakhtiyar Khalji is indicated in the following inscription at some distance from Guwahati.

शाके तुरगजु(यु)ग्मेश मधुमासत्रयोदशे।

कामरूपं समागत्य तुरुष्काः क्षयमाययु।।

On the 13th day of the Chaitra month of the Saka year 1127, i.e. 1205 A.D. the Turks who came to Kamarupa were doomed.

(4) Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori

He was the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori. He invaded Ayodhyā with a large army and destroyed the famous Jain Adinath temple. But it appears that he was killed in the Hindu resistance led by Bartuh, who succeeded in annihilating the vast army of Ghori. His encounter with Bartuh is indicated by the following mention in the ‘Tabakat-i-Nasiri’ which has been hardly highlighted by any historian:

“He overthrew and sent to hell the accursed Bartuh under whose hands and sword more than one hundred and twenty thousand Musulmans had received martyrdom.” (History of India, As Told by its own Historians Vol. 2, p. 329)

This statement is loaded with many events. In an attack on Ayodhyā one lakh and twenty thousand Muslims were killed by Bartuh. Giving margin for exaggeration in the number of the Muslims killed, the casualty on the Muslim side appears to be very huge in the battle.

Now the question arises when this battle might have taken place. Since it has been shown that Bakhtiyar Khalji had no occasion to attack Ayodhyā, it must have happened when Muhammad of Ghore had attacked Ayodhyā along with his younger brother Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori and a large army. This Bartuh might have been a governor of Gahadavāla king at Ayodhyā who defended Ayodhyā valiantly and this is the reason that the Turkish invaders succeeded in demolishing only one temple (Adinātha) at Ayodhyā. The Bartuh’s army succeeded in killing Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori as well as his vast army. Since court historians don’t give details of the reverses of their masters; this heroic achievement of Bartuh has not been recorded by Muslim chroniclers. It has escaped the notice of modern historians too. Malik Nasiruddin was made the Governor of Oudh in 1226 A.D. So it cannot refer to the battle between Salar Masud and Suhar Deva because the latter had not been alive till then. Therefore, it refers to the attack of Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori on Ayodhyā which took place after 1192 A.D.

It is likely that this Bartuh might have been the same Mahāsā manta Barahadeva of a fragmentary stone inscription found in Nagod state. It appears that he was a powerful Sāmanta of Gahadavāla king Jayachandra, and had earlier defeated and annihilated the forces of Makhdum Shah Juran Ghari but was ultimately overthrown by Iltutmish during Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud’s governorship.

Thus, there is a gap of slightly more than three decades between two events in the life of Bartuh. First he vanquished and slaughtered the Turkish army and then was vanquished and killed by Malik Nasiruddin.

At Ayodhyā, there is a grave of Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori in the Adinath temple premise, although some persons claim it to be his descendent’s tomb.

(5) Malik Kafur

Malik Kafur was a ferocious warrior and an impulsive iconoclast. He conquered the territories of Devagiri in 1307, Telingana in 1310, Dwar Samudra in 1311 and Pandya kingdom in 1311. Invariably, he plundered all major temples under these territories, razed most of them to ground and converted many into mosques. But Malik Kafur had no occasion to wage war in Awadh and thus Ayodhyā did not come under his iconoclastic activities.

But mean persons like Malik Kafur never remain loyal even to their masters. Malik Kafur was a eunuch and according to Barani, Alauddin was very much infatuated with him, although it is difficult to digest it. But the fact remains that Alauddin made him the most powerful man after appointing him as malik naib. However, Alauddin had apprehension that his appointee would harm his eldest son Khizr Khan, so he had extracted most fearful oaths from Kafur – “by God, by Prophet and by the shariat, by the Faith, by the Sultan’s salt and by the sword” – that he would not harm the Prince’s life or eyes. But the first act of this ungrateful ‘malik naib’ after the demise of Alauddin Khalji was to grab the ring from the finger of the dead Sultan and dispatch Sumbul with this ring to Gwalior to blind Khizr Khan. On the first day of gaining power he blinded another Prince Shadi Khan, the uterine brother of Khizr Khan by ordering a barber to gouge out his eyes. Thereafter, he deprived Malka-i-Jahan, the senior consort of the Sultan of all her property and jewels and threw her into oblivion. Though he was a eunuch, he had the audacity to marry the daughter of Rai Rāma Deva, Jhatyapali to become the step father of the Sultan Shihabuddin Umar whom he had made a titular head. Kafur was planning to annihilate the whole family of Alauddin Khalji. But some truly devoted bodyguards – paiks – of the late Sultan Alauddin Khalji killed him by cutting off his head. The contemporary poet Amir Khusrau remarks, “Kafur had sworn by the sword and the salt; so the salt became the sword and cut off his head.” All tyrants have such tragic ends.

(6) Sultan Iltutmish

It appears that Ayodhyā was subdued during the reign of Ilutmish under the leadership of Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud. His brief biography is given in Tabakat-i-Nasiri, a book written by Maulana Abu-Umar-I-Usman Minhaj-Ud-Din. The translation of its main portions is available in Elliot and Dowson’s “History of India as told by Its own Historians.” Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud was a favourite son of Iltutmish and different from Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud who became king subsequently. Here is the description of Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud who was a very promising son of Iltutmish and was appointed as a Governor of Awadh:
“Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud was the elder son of Sultan Shamsuddin. He was an intelligent, learned and wise prince, and was possessed of exceeding bravery, courage, generosity and benevolence. The first charge with the Sultan confided to him was that of Hansi. Some time after, in 623 A.H. (1226 A.D), Oudh was entrusted to him. In that country the prince exhibited many estimable qualities. He fought several battles, and by his boldness and bravery he made his name famous in the annals of Hindustan. He overthrew and sent to hell the accursed Bartuh (?) under whose hands and sword more than one hundred and twenty thousand Musulmans had received martyrdom. He overthrew the rebel infidels of Oudh and brought a body of them into submission. (p. 329)”

Many readers are confused between Malik Nasiruddin, the son of Iltutmish and Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud, who was the grandson of Iltutmish and the son of this Malik Nasiruddin. In fact, Malik Nasiruddin was the most favoured son of Iltutmish but he died very young. Thereafter, a posthumous child was born. Iltutmish gave the name of his dead son to this child. Nasiruddin Mahmud’s widow mother married a Turkish officer, Qutlugh Khan.

(7) Razia Sultan

The accession of Sultan Razia to the Delhi throne in 1236 is a water-shed in the annals of mediaeval Indian history. Sultan Ruknuddin Firuz Shah had succeeded Iltutmish in 1236. During his reign Malik Ghiyasuddin Muhammad Shah, a son of Iltutmish, rose in rebellion in Awadh after his brother Qutubuddin was blinded and executed by the order of Firuz and his mother. He plundered the treasure of Lakhnauti on the way to Delhi and many towns. Razia had appointed Malik Nasratuddin Taisi Muizzi the Governor of Awadh. When many nobles refused to recognize Razia as a ruler, she called Taisi to help her with his Awadh army. Taisi immediately marched for Delhi to provide help for Razia. But when he crossed the Ganga, he was suddenly attacked by Saifuddin Kuchi. Taisi was defeated and made a captive and died in captivity.

(8) Nasiruddin Mahmud

After the death of Iltutmish in 1236 A.D. four rulers ascended the throne and were done to death in a decade. Therefore, nothing particular happened at Ayodhyā till the reign of Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud who ascended the throne in 1246 A.D. In February 1255 A.D. a strange event of probably unprecedented nature at least in the Indian sub-continent took place. The mother of the reigning Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud, the Malka-i-Jahan married a noble of the court, Qutlugh Khan who held the iqta of Awadh. After the marriage Malka-i-Jahan, who could have been the chief queen of the kingdom, had her husband Malik Nasiruddin Mahmud been alive, left for Ayodhyā along with her new husband. Prof. K.A. Nizami writes:

“It is difficult to guess the reasons for the lady’s behaviour, for Qutlugh Khan was a man of advanced age. But a court dominated by Ulugh Khan and his daughter may not have been to her liking.”

However, Qutlugh Khan started functioning independently at Ayodhyā and refused to obey any royal order. He defied the central authority because he knew that the royal court’s orders were not those of the Sultan Nasiruddin but of Ulugh Khan (later Balban). He got support from other Turkish officers. The defiance of Qutlugh Khan resulted in his transfer from Awadh to Bahraich. But Qutlugh Khan refused to move from Awadh. A big contingent was sent against Qutlugh Khan under the command of Tajuddin Tabar Khan and Malik Rukani Baktam Awar Khan. A battle was fought between the two parties at Samramau in Badaun district. The commander Malik Rukani Bektam Awar Khan was killed at the spot and Tajuddin Tabar Khan was repulsed. On his return to Delhi Tabar Khan was made Subedar of Awadh. However, Awadh remained under Qutlugh Khan. Ulugh Khan, after making full preparation, reached Awadh but Qutlugh Khan and his officers had left the capital and could not be traced by Ulugh Khan. After Ulugh Khan’s return to Delhi Qutlugh appeared and was granted asylum by Rana Dalpat Hindi in Sirmur.

(9) Balban

During the reign of Balban Amin Khan was the subedar at Awadh. When Tughril Beg, Viceroy of Bangal, rebelled against Balban, Amin Khan was sent to defeat him. But Amin Khan was badly defeated and Balban was so enraged at this defeat that he got Amin Khan hanged at the gate of Ayodhyā in 1279 A.D. Ziauddin Barani writes in Tarikhi-Firuzshahi:

“When Tugaril Beg Viceroy of Lakhnauti and Bengal rebelled against Sultan Balban, Amin Khan, an old slave of Balban, who had held the fief of Oudh was sent against the rebel to crush him. However, Tughril Beg enticed the men of the force to join his army. As a result of this desertion of Amin Khan’s army he was badly defeated by Tughril Beg. This greatly enraged the Sultan. All fear of the anger of god left his bosom and he gave way to needless severity. He ordered Amin Khan to be hanged on the gate of Oudh (1279 A.D.)”

Accordingly, Amin Khan was killed and his body was gibbeted at the gate of Ayodhyā. Barani writes that this execution was resented by people who visualised the doom of Balban’s reign. After Amin Khan, Farhat Khan was the subedar of Oudh. He received 500 lashes as a sentence by Balban for murdering a man under the influence of liquor.

(10) Amir Khusrau

Amir Khusrau was a great Indian patriot and harbinger of Hindu-Muslim unity. He was proud of calling himself a Turkish Indian, speaking Hindavi. In the introduction to his famous book ‘Nuh-sipihr’ he calls India his birthplace and motherland, although by descent he belonged to a Turkish family which had migrated to India during the reign of Sultan Iltutmish (1210-36 A.D.). During the fight against the Mongols Khusrau fought along with his patron Prince Muhammad Sultan who was killed in the battle and Khusrau was captured by Mongols. His several friends were slaughtered by Mongols in the battlefield. On the death of his patron Prince Khusrau wrote such a heart-rending elegy that it is considered one of the best examples of elegy. After the release from the Mongol captivity Khusrau came to Delhi where he was employed by Amir Hatim Khan in his company. Amir Hatim Khan was a noble of Sultan Balban who ordered Hatim to move to Oudh. Thus, Khusrau had to accompany his master to Oudh where he stayed for two years. In a letter to his friend. Tajuddin Zahid Amir Khusrau praises the city of Ayodhyā in the following words:
“The city of Awadh is undoubtedly a lovely country but in your absence I do not like anything. The city is in fact a garden where people live in great peace and tranquility. Its land is an ornament to the world and pleasure abounds in the surrounding country. The river Sarayù flows by it, the sight of which quenches the thirst of beholders. All necessary requisites of happiness are present here in abundance. Flowers and wine are available in profusion. In gardens, the branches of trees abound with fruits. Grapes, sour apples, oranges and scores of varieties of fruit trees bearing Indian names, sweet and tasteful, e.g. bananas and mangoes, are elixir to human mind.

Evergreen flowers blossom in the gardens and the atmosphere is full of the sweet or melancholy sounds of singing birds.”

He further appreciates the manners of the Awadh residents, the majority of whom were the Hindus:

“All the residents of this place are renowned for their hospitality, pleasant manners, good and amicable nature, faithfulness and breadth of vision. The rich and the poor alike are happy and satisfied and remain busy in their occupations.”

Amir Khusrau was so overwhelmed with the personality of Rāma that he wrote the following ‘mukarni’ with reverence for Rāma.

वख्त बेवख्त मोहे वाकी आस

रात-दिन वह रहत मेरे पास

मेरे मन को करत सब काम

ऐ सखि साजन? ना सखि, राम।

In 1288 the Sultan Muizzuddin Kaikubad of Delhi and his father Nasiruddin Bughra Khan who had proclaimed himself the Sultan of Bengal were on the verge of a war near Awadh. But the place had such a sobering effect on the father and the son that they decided to have a meeting and reconciliation. Accordingly, they met and mutually recognized each other’s sovereignty. It is lucidly depicted in Amir Khusrau’s Qiranu’s Sadain.

Amir Khusrau with Nizamuddin Aulia (Painting,
Hydrabad Deccan, circa 1725 A.D.).

Khusrau had himself witnessed the historic meeting of the father and the son. When the son Kaiqubad, who was the Sultan of Delhi, asked Khusrau to commemorate it in verse, he was initially nervous in composing verses, but subsequently he composed a masterpiece ‘Qiranu’s Sadain’ consisting of 3,944 verses.

(11) Khalji period (1290-1320)

During the Khalji period the history of Awadh is one of internecine Muslim strife, violence and cruelty. Alauddin killed his uncle Jalaluddin Khalji by treachery and the severed head of the murdered Sultan Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji was placed on a spear and paraded through Kara, Manikpur and Awadh to create havoc in the empire.

Alauddin’s sister’s son Mangu Khan was made the Governor of Awadh. But while Alauddin was engaged in besieging Ranthambhor, Mangu Khan along with Umar Khan, the Governor of Badaun, revolted. They were soon captured, taken to Ranthambhor and their eyes were gouged in the presence of the Sultan and their family members and followers were done to death.

However, there is an interesting reference to Alauddin Khalji in the ‘Sāhitya-darpana’ of Viśvanātha Mahāpātra who composed his accomplished book on poetics at Varanasi in the 14th century. While elucidating eight types of गुणीभूतव्यंग्य काव्य he has given the example of the sixth type, i.e. अस्फुटव्यंग्य;he has written in the 4th chapter:

सन्धौ सर्वस्वहरणं विग्रहे प्राणनिग्रहः।

अल्लावद्दीननृपतौ न सन्धिर्न च विग्रहः।

अत्राल्लावद्दीननृपतौ दानसामान्यादिमन्तरेण नान्यः प्रशमोपाय इति व्यङगयं व्युत्पन्नानामपि झटित्यस्फुटम्।।If there is an alliance with Alauddin, he will take away everything and if there is a discord, life will be lost. Therefore, with Alauddin, neither alliance nor discord can work.

Here the suggested sense is that there is no way to get rid of Alauddin. ‘There is no means of pacifying the king named Alauddin, except conciliation, presents, etc. It is not quickly perceived even by the erudite’.

(12) Tughlaq Sultans (1320-1414)

During the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325-51) Ayodhyā was a very prosperous and affluent town and the credit for the prosperity and affluence goes to his outstanding Governor Ainul Mulk Mahru, who brilliantly administrated Awadh for a long period. He had earned the confidence and cooperation of both the Hindus and Musalmans. He made a separate Mohammedan quarter between the ghats of Svargdwar and Shah Madar, south of the Rin-mochan ghat. The present-day Shah Madar is one such settlement testifying to the flourishing state of Ayodhyā under the Tughlaqs. Under Ainul Mulk Ayodhyā was so flourishing and prosperous that many nobles, scared of the wrath of the Sultan Muhamad-bin-Tughlaq, left Delhi and settled in Awadh. The province had so many granaries that when famine broke out in A.D. 1337 in the northern part of the empire, Ayodhyā supplied enormous quantity of provisions and money for relief with super efficiency to the distressed people of the Doab. Ain-ul-Mulk, the Governor of Awadh, used to send 50,000 mans (mounds) of wheat and rice daily to the Sultan’s Camp. In addition, he had sent 70-80 lakhs of tankas in cash and commodities to Muhammad bin Tughlaq when he was camping at Sargdwari. This Sargdwari is different from Swargadvāra of Ayodhyā. It was an encampment of thatched houses near the town of Khud by the side of the Ganga. The Sultan stayed there for two and-a-half years to carry out the relief work for famine-stricken people. Ayodhyā under Ainul Mulk was pioneer in sending provisions for relief measures.
Thus, during the tenure of Ain-ul-mulk there was communal harmony and prosperity at Ayodhyā. But on account of the over-suspicious nature of Muhammad bin Tughlaq Ainul Mulk was targeted in many ways. He was asked to send all those nobles, who had taken shelter in Awadh to Delhi in chains. Then his own transfer from Awadh to Daulatabad was in the offing. Therefore Ainul Mulk along with his brothers rebelled but they were defeated. His brothers were killed or drowned. Ainul Mulk after initial humiliation was reinstated and posted somewhere else.
Muhammad bin Tughlaq was the first Sultan of Delhi who appointed several Hindus on important posts. According to the Chunar inscription a Hindu Sai Raj was a wazir of the Sultan. Another Hindu Dhara was a naib wazir of the Deccan. Another Hindu Ratan was the Governor of Sehwan. Bhiran Rai was another Hindu who was appointed Governor of Gulbarga and the iqta of Kohir was assigned to him. In 1340’s Muhammad bin Tughlag appointed a Hindu, Kishan, the Governor of Ayodhyā. According to Barani (p. 505) he was a low-born bazran (hawk-flier) of Indri. Barani calls him the most menial amongst menial classes. Barani was against all such appointments. He has written in his Fatwa-i-Jahangiri:

“Low born people are not to be taught reading and writing, for plenty of disorders arise owing the skill of the low-born in knowledge. The disorders into which the affairs of the state are thrown are due to the acts and wards of the low-born, who have become skilled. (Advice XI)”

Apart from Barani’s accounts, no other details of this Hindu Governor of Ayodhyā are known. These appointments were resented by traditional nobles but Muhammad bin Tughlaq remained firm.

Muhammad-bin Tughlaq was the first Sultan of Delhi who participated in Hindu festivals and there is a contemporary record (Futuh-us Salatin, 515) that he participated in the Hindu festival of Holi. A large number of Jogis used to wander in his territory with many Muslim followers but Tughlaq took no step against those jogies.

When some soldiers damaged the Siva-linga and the temple of Madhukeshwar at Kalyana, Thakkura Mala, a trustee of the temple made a representation to Ahmad Ayaz to reinstate the idol. Ahmad Ayaz issued an order which is recorded in an inscription which reads as follows:

तत्र तस्मिन् प्रस्थाने पुनरपि देवस्थापनपूजनविषये सं ठक्कुरवैणपालसुत ठक्कुरमाल षौजा सं(षंड) दासः उत (षौजे) प्रसादं दत्तम्। युष्माकं कुलधर्मो वर्त्तते तत् करणीयं ठ (च) पृथ्वीसा(शा)धिपतौ महीमदसुरत्राणे महीं शासति...(line 11-14)

While Sultan Muhammad was ruling the world, Thakkura Vainapāla’s son Thakkura Māla was granted pleasure in the matter of the consecretion and worship of the deity on the ground that since it was his कुलधर्म, it had to be followed.” (Epigraphia Indica, vol. XXXII, Part IV, 1957 p. 165).

There is another inscription from Nādāyana near Indraprastha which claims that sin was effaced from Dhilli by the recital of the Vedas during the period of Muhammad bin Tughlaq dated Sa‚vata 1384 (i.e. 1327 A.D.) on the third of the wane in the month of the Bhādra. This edict is a testimony to the achievements of Śrīdhara who had excavated a pond for the gratification of his parents at Nādāyana to the west of Indraprastha. Thus, it is gratifying to learn that in the capital city of the Tughlaq dynasty the recital of the Vedas by Vedic scholars went unabated. The relevant lines of the inscription are quoted below:

तस्मिन्नियं निखिलरत्नचयोपगूढा वेदस्वनै श्रुतिविदां हृतपापपुञ्जा।

ढिल्लीपुरी सुरनदीव विभाति रम्या रम्याङगनाचरणनूपुरहंसशब्दै।।4।।

Muhammad bin Tughlaq visited the Jain Śatruñjaya temple at Palatina and the idol houses at Girnar. In the Shatrunjaya temple he is said to have performed some rituals in accordance with Jain customs. He issued a Farman for the construction of a rest house for monks. According to Batihagarh inscription he announced the construction of a shelter for cows. He was really an eclectic monarch. He patronized Jain Āchārya Jinaprabha Sūri and a number of Jogis. A very interesting anecdote has been narrated by Ibn Battuta in his account of Travels in Asia and Africa (1325-1354) in the following words:
“The sultan sent for me once when I was at Delhi, and on entering I found him in a private apartment with some of his intimates and two of these jugis. One of them squatted on the ground, then rose into the air above our heads, still sitting. I was so astonished and frightened that I fell to the floor in a faint. A potion was administered to me, and I revived and sat up. Meantime this man remained in his sitting posture. His companion then took a sandal from a bag he had with him, and beat it on the ground like one infuriated. The sandal rose in the air until it came above the neck of the sitting man and then began hitting him on the neck while he descended little by little until he set down alongside us. Then the sultan said “If I did not fear for your reason I would have ordered them to do still stranger things than this you have seen.” I took my leave but was affected with palpitation and fell ill, until he ordered me to be given a draught which removed it all.” (p. 226, H.A.R. Gibb’s translation)

It shows that during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq there was, by and large, no religious prejudice against the Hindus. However, since he was having eccentric nature, he used to indulge in cruel and sadistic activities which included ruthless killings of both Hindus and Muslims and wanton destruction of temples at times as well as conversion from Hinduism to Islam. He gave good patronage to converted persons and appointed them to important posts.

However, his nephew and successor Feroz Shah Tughlaq was just the opposite. The son of a Rajput princess of Rai Ranmal Bhatti of Abohar in Hisar district, Haryana he tried to prove that he was more orthodox than a pure Muslim. He was the first Sultan to order the separate collection of jazya from that of the revenue and terminate its exemption granted to the Brāhmanas. He publicly set a Brāhmanā ablaze because he was preaching to both the Hindus and Musalmans. He got all wall-paintings of his palace erased. He tried his best to appease the Muslim theologians by convincing them that the State under him was a truly Islamic state. What the Muslim clergy could not do during the days of Iltutmish, Alauddin and Muhammad bin Tughlaq, they did accomplish during the reign of Feroz Shah Tughlaq. He used to desecrate some ancient temples to gain the applause of Muslim fanatics. He is notoriously remembered for his attack on the Jagannatha temple at Puri and throwing away the idols in the sea. But recent historians of Orissa have claimed that this attack on, and the demolition of, the Jagannatha temple related to one at Cuttack and not at Puri. In ‘Fatuhat’ he himself admits that he induced Hindus to convert and for this he exempted them from jazya and gave land grants, cash, titles, honours and government jobs to the converts. However, there is no evidence that he demolished any temple at Ayodhyā.

During the days of Feroz Shah Tughlaq the capital of Awadh was shifted from Ayodhyā to the newly established city, Jaunpur in 1359. During the Sharqi rulers also Ayodhyā enjoyed comparative non-interference and prosperity because they ruled from Jaunpur.

There is a Sanskrit inscription dated 15th May, 1296 which is now fixed to the Lal Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur. It commemorates the construction of a temple of Padmeśvara (Vishnu), which was to the north of the famous Viśveśvara temple at Varanasi by Padma Sādhu who was the grandson of Sadhe Sādhu of Ayodhyā. This inscription is quoted in the chapter one.

Sufi saint Raushan Charagh (bright lamp), who was born at Ayodhyā, became a famous sufi saint of the country. He was killed by a qalandar in A.D. 1356 and lies buried near Delhi. His mother’s tomb is at Ayodhyā.

(13) Lodi dynasty (1451-1526)

Nothing notable happened at Ayodhyā during the period of uncertainity under the rule of the Saiyyids, but when Bahlol Lodi became the Sultan of Delhi he appointed his nephew Mian Muhammad Farmuli alias Kala Pahar, the Subedar of Ayodhyā in 1489 A.D. which was the last year of Bahlol’s reign. Farmuli was so avaricious that in Tarik-i-Shershahi the author Abbas Khan Sarwani has written thus about him:

“…During all this time he gave his attention to nothing else except the accumulation of wealth. I have heard from persons of veracity that he had assumed three hundred ‘mans’ of red hard gold and he did not purchase any other but golden jewellery. Thus Ayodhya has been a perpetual source of getting gold at each level.”

There is an interesting incident related to Miyan Muhammad Farmuli. It is mentioned in ‘Waqiat-i Mushtaqi’ by Shykh Rizqullah Mushtaqi. After an expedition against Hindu chiefs who were supporting the Sharqi ruler Husain when Muhammad Farmuli returned to Awadh, he was welcomed by Muslim clergymen and singing Hindu women carrying water-pots on their heads. The Muslim clergymen were standing on the one side and the Hindu women on the other. There were many officials with Muhammad Farmuli. When these officials first turned to the Hindu women to take water from pots as a sign of good omen, the Muslim clergymen, who were expecting to be given first priority, got so enraged that they left the place giving curses. The good gesture to the Hindu women shows that the Muslim officials were not only concerned with the Hindu sentiments but were prone to derive some omens from the Hindu customs also. If they had started inculcating such beliefs at Ayodhyā, how could they demolish temples there?
Bahlol Lodi shifted the capital of Awadh from Jaunpur to Ayodhyā. The famous poet Kalyāna Malla, also called as Kalyāna Bhatta, the author of ‘Anan¢ga-ran¢ga’, composed ‘Sulaimach-charitra’ at Ayodhyā in the second quarter of sixteenth century in the court of Lāda Khān, the son of Ahmad Khan. The Sulaimān-charitra is published by Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan in the third volume of ‘Malaya-Maruta’, an anthology of Sanskrit poems edited by Dr. V. Raghavan, in 1973. Its manuscript was found at Goverment Oriental Manuscript Library, Madras as no. D 12175. Thereafter, Dr. C. Minkowski, Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, made a detailed assessment of this work in his Boden lecture in 2006. Penguin U.K. brought out an English translation of the work in 2006.

Sulaimāna-charitra is based on the story of Soloman. For the delectation of Prince Lad Khan Kalyãna Malla composed Anan·ga-ran·ga and Sulaimach-charitra. Ahmad Khan has been called Ayodhyādhipatih अयोध्याधिपतिः in the Sulaimach-charitra in the following verse:

आसीदयोध्याधिपतिर्बलवान् बलभित्समः।

वैभवे विक्रमे तस्य नास्ति तुल्योऽपरः प्रभु।। (1.2)

In the colophon of each patala Kalyāna Malla calls Lad Khan as ‘श्रीमदयोध्यापुराधिनाथ’.The poet mentions his patron king Lad Khan as ‘Ayodhyā-purādhinātha’ in colophon of the first patala of this work.

श्रीमदयोध्यापुराधिनाथ-सकल-कला-सनाथ-विद्वज्जनजेगीयमानगानावधान- दानजितकानीन-लाडखान- प्रमोदाय कुकविहृद्भल्ल-कल्याणमल्ल-कविराज विरचिते सुलैमच्चरिते दावूदुमोहाभिर्भावो नाम प्रथमः पटलः।।

Lād Khān was the king of Ayodhyā, protector of all arts and his fame was sung by scholars. He excelled Karna in attention and donations. For his pleasure poet Kalyāna-malla, who was a spear in the hearts of bad poets, composed the first ‘patala’,‘The Birth of Dāvūdu’ in his epic ‘Sulaimachcharitram’.

We are aware of the historical fact that Muhammad Farmuli alias Kala Pahar was appointed Governor of Ayodhyā in 1489 A.D. by Bahlol Lodi. He was succeeded by his son-in-law Mustafa Farmuli. After Mustafa’s death his younger brother Bāyazīd was made the Governor by Ibrahim Lodi. Bāyazīd fought in favour of Ibrahim Lodi at the battle of Panipat. But after Babur’s victory Bāyazīd met the Mughal warrior who confirmed his continuance at Ayodhyā. Thus, from 1489 to 1528 A.D. the governors at Ayodhyā were Muhammad Farmuli, Mustafa Farmuli and Shaikh Bāyazid. Now the question arises as to how Ahmad Khan and his son Lād Khan were called the Lord of Ayodhyā by Kalyāna Malla. According to the historical workWaqiat-i-Mustaqi of Saikh Rizkuila Mushtaqi one Ahmad Khan, son of Juman Khan Lodi Sarangh-Khani, was appointed Governor of Jaunpur by Sikandar Lodi. Lād Khan was his son who succeeded his father. Lad Khan belonged to Lodi dynasty (लोदी-वंशावतंस) But how and why he is called अयोध्यापुराधिनाथ and अयोध्याधिपति is not clear. Aditya Narayan Dhairyasheela Haskar, the editor of the book Suleiman Charitra published by Penguin (UK), writes in the Introduction to the book:
“Some details of the two chiefs named by Kalyana Malla as his patrons are available in the not much later Persian chronicle Waqi’at-e-Mushtaqui of Rizq Ullah Mushtaqul (1495-1581). Ahmad Khan was the muqta or administrator of the former Sharqi kingdom of Jaunpur in modern Uttar Pradesh, which had earlier been subjugated by the Lodhis. He was appointed to this office, succeeding his father, Jamal Khan, by Sultan Sikandar Lodhi (r. 1489-1517), the second ruler of the dynasty, and was succeeded by his son Lad Khan during the reign of the next and last Lodhi, Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1517-1526). All the three potentates hailed from the Afghan-origin Lodhi clan and held from their sultans the high title of Khan-i-Azam. The title, Lord of Ayodhya, in the prologue and the chapter endings is readily explained by its evocation for Sanskrit readers of that region’s most venerable site in terms of culture and memory.” (Introduction)

But this last observation is not correct because it is based on mere presumption and is against the following assertion of the author in the Sulaimach-charitra:

त्वमस्मदास्थानकविस्सर्वशात्रार्थपारगः ।

पुरा ह्यनङगरङगाख्यं कलाशात्रं कलास्पदम्।। (I.11)

Here, Lad Khan calls Kalyāna Malla his आस्थान कवि, i.e. the poet who lives in his jurisdiction. Lad Khan addresses him as an expert in all scriptures and reminds him that in past (पुरा) the poet had composed the superb work of artistic beauty Ananga-ranga by name. When the poet emphatically and repeatedly calls Lād Khan the king of Ayodhyā, it has to be accepted. Though Ahmad and Lad Khan could not be Governors of Ayodhyā between 1489 and 1528 A.D., yet the possibility that they were Governors at Ayodhyā between 1540 and 1555 A.D. cannot be ruled out because of the following facts gleaned from the internal sources of the two works:

(i) From the Anan¢garan¢ga it is clear that when Kalyāna Malla composed this treatise, Ahmad was the king and Lad Khan was merely his son, and not King or Governor. The fifth verse of this book translated by Sir Richard F. Burton, reads as follows:

“The great princely sage and arch-poet, Kalyana Malla versed in all the arts, after consulting many wise and holy men, and having examined the opinions of many poets, and extracted the essence of their wisdom, composed, with a view of pleasing his sovereign, a work which was called Ananga Ranga. May it ever be appreciated by the discerning, for it hath been dedicated to those who are desirous of studying the art and mystery of man’s highest enjoyment, and to those who are best acquainted with the science and practice of dalliance and lovedelight.”
But when Sulaiman-charitra was composed Lad Khan was the master (अधिपति) of Ayodhyā. Kalyāna Malla calls him अयोध्या-पुराधिनाथ at the end of every patala of this book and hence he has to be believed. It is accepted that even if he was appointed Governor of Jaunpur by Ibrahim Lodi, he might have lost the job during the Mughal conquest of Hindustan. However, during the reign of Sher Shah he might have been appointed the Governor of Ayodhyā. There is a difference of 14 years only between the conquest of Babur in 1526 A.D. and the ascendancy of Afghan hero Sher Shah in 1540 A.D. Lad Khan belonged to Lodi dynasty and Sher Shah had high respect for Ibrahim Lodi and other Lodis. Therefore, there should be no surprise that Lad Khan was made the Governor, the master of Ayodhyā and this is the reason that Kalyāna Malla addresses him in that style.

Nevertheless, the patronage of Kalyāna Malla by a Muslim Governor indicates that the Hindus got favour from Muslim rulers. About the generosity of Lād Khan Kalyāna Malla writes ‘विद्वद्विशेषं विज्ञाय दानमानादिभिश्च तान्’ i.e. he (Lād Khan) used to honour scholars by gifts, etc.

(14) Kamaleshwar’s ‘Kitane Pakistan’

Here it will not be out of place to examine the story narrated in Kamaleshwar’s ‘Kitane Pakistan’. In this book Kamaleshwar has written that the so-called Baburi mosque was built by Ibrahim Lodi in the memory of his grandmother who was a Hindu. It is true that his grandmother, who was the mother of Sikandar Lodi, was a Hindu, goldsmith by caste. It is also true that she had taken active part in the installation of Sikandar Lodi to the throne. But there is not a single evidence to corroborate the story that Ibrahim Lodi had built this mosque in commemoration of his grandmother. On the other hand, Sikandar Lodi, the son of a Hindu mother, became a fanatic.

It is more unfortunate that despite the fact when Sikandar Lodi was still a prince and had the idea of raiding the sacred tank of the Hindus at Thaneshwar, Maulana Abdullah Ajudhani had clearly taught him the lesson that Islam did not permit such interference. Nevertheless, after becoming the King he went on a demolition spree and razed the famous temple at Nagarkot to ground and gave idols to butchers for using them as weights. He is said to have harassed Saint Kabir for long.

However, there is no evidence that he demolished any temple at Ayodhyā.

(15) Barani’s observation

Thus, we have surveyed the religious policy of all important Sultans of the Delhi Sultanate period and found that except the Jain Ādinatha Mandir no other temple at Ayodhyā was demolished or damaged during the Delhi Sultanate period, whereas a large number of temples from Delhi to Benaras and Bengal were demolished. Now the question arises as to why temples at Ayodhyā remained unmolested. It is difficult to answer. One reason may be that some powerful rulers like Iltutmish, Balban, Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq took a very pragmatic approach and they did not allow the clergy to take over the reins of power. On the payment of the poll taxes temples, except in a few cases, were allowed to remain unmolested. Such policy decisions, independent of extreme Muslim clergy men, were highly resented by them. Ziyauddin Barani, the author of Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi and Fatwa-i Jahandari (rather a continuation of the first) has expressed his ire at several places in his book against such kings. In Fatawa-i Jahandari, Barani laments:
“But the desire for overthrowing infidels and knocking down idolators and polytheists does not fill the hearts of the Muslim kings (of India). On the other hand, out of consideration for the fact that infidels and polytheists are payers of tribute and protected persons (Dhimmis), these infidels are honoured, distinguished, favoured and made eminent; the kings bestow drums, banners, ornaments, cloaks of brocade and caparisoned horses upon them, and appoint them to governorships, high posts and offices. “And in their capital (Delhi), owing to the status of which the status of all other Muslim cities is raised, Muslim kings not only allow but are pleased with the fact that infidels, polytheists, idol-worshippers and cow-dung (sargin) worshippers build houses like palaces, wear clothes of brocade and ride Arab horse caparisoned with gold and silver ornaments. They are equipped with a hundred thousand sources of strength. They live in delights and comforts. They take Mussalmans into their service and make them run before their horses. The poor Mussalmans beg of them at their doors, and in the capital of Islam, owing to which the edifice of Islam is elevated, they are called rais (great rulers), ranas (minor rulers), thakurs (warriors). How under these conditions can Faith prevail over false creeds or truth be established at the centre?” (pp. 46-48)

Again Barani bemoans that in the reign of Jalaluddin Khalji, even in the capital and provincial centres, the idols were publicly worshipped and processions were openly taken and he was helpless in stopping them:

“The Hindus pass beneath the wall of the royal palace in processions, singing, dancing and beating drums to immerse the idols in the Yamunã, and I am helpless, he said.”

Barani futher says that any attempt to use force had no effect on the Hindus. He uses a very apt simile. He says that ‘though cowed down, they have plucked Islam from their hearts as a hair is discarded while kneading flour’.



Chapter Fourteen

Many Mughal monarchs were magnanimous rulers

[(1) Introuduction (2) Akbar’s greatness (3) Akbar in the liberal mould of Faizi and Abul Fazl. (4) ‘Infallibility Decree’ (5) Tauhid-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi (6) Bhãnuchandra-gani Charita of Jain ascetic Siddhi Chandra Upãdhyãya (7) Akbar’s patronage of the Hindus (8) Masiri-i-Rahimi of Abdul Baqi Nahavandi (9) Rãma-Siya coins of Akbar (10) Akbar in Sanskrit and Hindi poems (11) Ayodhyã Sanad (12) William Finch’s visit to Akbar’s tomb (13) Jahangir’s generosity (14) Jahangir’s reverence to many Hindu ascetics (15) Farmans patronising Jain monks (16) Derisive remarks on the Jains in his Memoirs (17) Persecution of Sikh Guru Arjan Deva (18) Khusrau’s rebellion (19) Jahangir’s ten commandments (20) Jahangir’s Chain of Justice (21) Harideva Mis´ra’s Jahãngìra-virudãvali (22) Kes´ava Dãsa’s Jahãngìr-Jasa-Chandrikã (23) Magnificent monarchy of Shah Jahan (24) Construction of the Taj Mahal (25) Shah Jahan’s liberal policy (26) Abolition of pilgrimage tax on Kavìndrãchãrya’s representation (27)Patronage of Panditarãja Jagannãtha (28) Raghudeva Mis´ra’s S´ãhijahãñ-virudãvalì (29) Jaipur Inscription prohibiting the low-caste people from drawing water (30) Shah Jahan’s Farman in response to a complaint made by the Mahajans of the Lumpaka sect (31) Shah Jahan’s Farman to restore a temple]

(1) Introuduction

Mughal emperors except Aurangzeb were, by and large, liberal rulers. Babur’s non-fanatic attitude has been shown in the third chapter. Humayun’s image of a liberal ruler is best reflected in the story of the Rānī Karnāvatī of Chittore who sought his help by sending him a rakhi. Humayun proceeded; but, being a fickle-minded person, stopped on the way and did not render help to the Rānī. He was engaged in battles against almost all Muslim rulers. Personally, he was a large-hearted man. His successors – Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jhan – all were liberal monarchs. After Aurangzeb imposed Jaziyā on the Hindus, Shivaji, the architect of the nascent Hindu State, wrote a highly spirited letter in eloquent Persian to Aurangzeb in the middle of 1679 A.D. In this letter he praised the policies of Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan in the following words:

“That architect of the fabric of empire, [ Jalaluddin] Akbar Padishah, reigned with full power for 52 [lunar] years. He adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony (sulh-i-kul) in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Dadu’s followers, sky-worshippers (falakia), malakia, materialists (ansaria), atheists (daharia), Brahmans and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So, he became famous under the title of Jagat-Guru, ‘the World’s spiritual guide.”

“Next, the Emperor Nuruddin Jahangir for 22 years spread his gracious shade on the head of the world and its dwellers, gave his heart to his friends and his hand to his work, and gained his desires. The Emperor Shah Jahan for 32 years cast his blessed shade on the head of the world and gathered the fruit of eternal life, — which is only a synonym for goodness and fair fame, — as the result of his happy time on earth.” (Verses)

He who lives with a good name gains everlasting wealth,

Because after his death, the recital of his good deeds keeps his name alive.

(“Shivaji and His Times” by Jadunath Sarkar, pp. 251-52)

(2) Akbar’s greatness

Akbar was such a great emperor that very few monarchs in the world history can match him in magnanimity and farsighted statesmanship. His contemporary rulers in the world were Elizabeth of England, Henry IV of France, Sulaiman the Magnificent of Turkey and Shah Abbas the Great of Persia. But Akbar stood head above shoulder among these monarchs. Voltaire had written, ‘Happy the writer who shall tell the history of Catherine II’. And happier will be the historian who narrates the epoch-making events of Akbar’s life. Akbar with his principle of peace for all (Sulh-i-kul) was in advance of his age by centuries.
For a conqueror of the battle at Panipat where he defeated and killed the Hindu King Hemu who had the distinction of ascending the throne of Delhi after an interval of 364 years, following the defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan at the second battle of Terrain in 1192 A.D. and for an emperor who fought an almost incessant war against Maharana Pratap, the idol and icon of Hindu nationalism and for a stout Muslim devout who made annual pilgrimage to the shrine of Muinuddin Chisti at Ajmer on foot for long 18 years from 1662; it was a miracle to achieve the confidence of the Hindus who remained in the forefront and fought for the extension and consolidation of the Mughal empire during his reign.
Every student of history knows that Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax in 1563 at an annual loss of rupees one crore and abolished the hated jaziya in 1564 which had made the Hindus an inferior and humiliated lot. Earlier in 1562 he had abolished the practice of forcibly converting prisoners of war to Islam. He married many Hindu princesses and allowed them to continue their old faith and made elaborate arrangements for the performance of their rituals in the royal harem. He stopped cow slaughter at least in the state of Punjab. He banned the killing of animals on certain days and fishing was prohibited for some time in 1592 A.D. According to Badauni Akbar avoided garlic and onion. He used to drink only Ganga water and attend Hindu festivals like Rakhi, Dipawali and Sivarātri with enthusiasm.

Akbar had given complete freedom to the Hindus to perform all customs except Sati. When Jahangir had questioned his father giving complete liberty to the Hindus for indulging in idolatry Akbar, the Great, had given a reply which was befitting an unusual emperor of an unparalleled vision. In his Memoirs Jahangir writes:

“On this subject I must however acknowledge, that having on one occasion asked my father the reason why he had forbidden anyone to prevent or interfere with the building of these haunts of idolatry, his reply was in the following terms: “My dear child, said he, ‘I find myself a puissant monarch, the shadow of God upon earth. I have seen that he bestows the blessings of his gracious providence upon all his creatures without distinction. Ill should discharge the duties of my exalted station, were I to withhold my compassion and indulgence from any of those entrusted to my charge. With all of the human race, with all of God’s creatures, I am at peace; why then should I permit myself, under any consideration, to be the cause of molestation or aggression to anyone? Besides, are not five parts in six of mankind either Hindus or aliens to the faith; and were I to be governed by motives of the kind suggested in your inquiry, what alternative can I have but to put them all to death! I have thought it there are my wisest plan to let these men alone. Neither is it to be forgotten, that the class of whom we are speaking, in common with the other inhabitants of Agrah, are usefully engaged, either in the pursuits of science or the arts, or of improvements for the benefit of mankind, and have in numerous instances arrived at the highest distinctions in the state, there being, indeed, to be found in this city men of every description, and of every religion on the face of the earth.”

(translated by Major David Price, 1829, London p. 15)

Akbar had assured that with the exception of the prohibition of forcible sati, the Hindus may follow their prescribed custom, and none should be allowed to exercise force or oppression over another. In this regard, Akbar’s policy of Sulh-i- kul (absolute peace with all) and promulgation of Din-i-Ilahi in 1581 was a great relief for his subjects which were at loggerheads at times.

(3) Akbar in the liberal mould of Faizi and Abul Fazl

Shaikh Mubarak and his two sons, Faizi and Abul Fazl had the highest influence on Akbar in formulating his religious views and policies. Faizi joined Akbar’s services in 1567 and Abul Fazl in 1574. These two Sufi brothers were great scholars and champions of liberal religious policies. They established a big library and motivated Akbar, who did not get formal education in traditional manner but was not illiterate, as many have been wrongly believing. After reading the relevant books and their proper appreciation through Faizi’s explanation Akbar came to realize that there was some good element in every religion. In 1575 an Ibadat-Khana or the House of Worship was established at Fatehpur Sikri for discussion on religious matters. Initially, only Muslim theologians were invited with the sole purpose which Akbar explained in these words:

“My sole object, Oh wise Mullahs! is to ascertain truth, to find out and disclose the principles of genuine religion, and to trace it to the divine origin. Take care, therefore, that through the influence of your human passions you are not induced to conceal the truth : and say nothing contrary to the Almighty decrees. If you do, you are responsible before God for the consequences of your impiety.”

Despite Akbar’s exhortation, the Mullahs quarrelled among themselves so ugly that the orthodox historian Badauni had to write such comment, “The learned men used to draw the sword of the tongue on the battlefield of mutual contradiction and opposition and the antagonism of the sects reached such a pitch that they would call one another fools or heretics. The controversies used to pass beyond the differences of Sunni and Shia, of Hanafi and Shafi, of lawyer and divine, and they would attack the very basis of belief.”

Disgusted with such ugly deliberations led by Shaikh Makhdum-ul-Mulk and Shaikh Abdun Nabi, Akbar looked beyond and called Hindu Pandits like Purshottama and Devi, Jain Dharmāchāryas like Hīravijaya Sūri, Vijayasen Sūri, Bhānuchandra Upādhyāya and Jinachandra as well the Zoroastrian religious leader Dastur Meherji Rana to participate in religious discourses.

On Friday, 26th June, 1579 Akbar mounted the pulpit of the mosque at Fatehpur Sikri in the fashion of the Caliphs and his ancestor Timur and recited the following Khutba composed by Faizi in verse:

“In the name of Him who gave us sovereignty,

Who gave us a wise heart and a strong arm,

Who guided us in equity and justice,

Who put away from our heart aught but equity;

His praise is beyond the range of our thoughts

Exalted be His Majesty – Allah-u-Akbar!”

(4) ‘Infallibility Decree’

Then on Sept. 2, 1579 came the so-called ‘Infallibility Decree’ which was presented by Shaikh Mubarak and signed by Makhdum-ul-Mulk, Shaikh Abdun Nabi and others. The document is preserved in the text of Badauni and Nizamuddin.

From the scrutiny of the ‘Infallibility Decree’ it is erroneous to presume that the Decree made Akbar both ‘Pope as well as King’ because it gave Akbar no power until and unless the Ulemas failed to agree and even then he had the power only to interpret the Muslim law and not to make it. However, by this Decree, Akbar was supreme in interpreting Muslim law because he was entitled to choose any of the interpretations which would “benefit to the nation and in the interests of good order.” Hindus and followers of other religions had nothing to do with it. But this Decree displeased Muslim Ulemas and orthodox Muslims.

(5) Tauhid-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi

In early 1582 Akbar promulgated the Din-i-Ilahi or a more appropriate expression Tauhid-i-Ilahi. It literally means ‘Divine Monotheism’ which was an order of the Sufistic type. It had no scriptures, no rituals and practically no religious beliefs. Modern historians have rightly called it an order than a church or religion. Abul Fazl has written a lot on the rituals of Tauhid-i-Ilahi. Prof. Satish Chandra has put it up very succinctly in his book ‘A History of Medieval India’:

“The Tauhid-i-Ilahi was really an order of the Sufistic type. Those who were willing to join, and whom the emperor approved, were allowed to become members. Sunday was fixed as the day for initiation. The novice placed his head at the feet of the emperor who raised him up, and gave him the formula, called shast in the Sufi terminology, which he was to repeat and concentrate upon. This contained Akbar’s favourite motto ‘Allah-o-Akbar’ or God is great. The initiates were to abstain from meat as far as possible, at least in the month of their birth, give a sumptuous feast and alms on their birthday. There were no sacred books or scriptures, no priestly class, no place of worship or rituals and ceremonies, except the initiation.” (p. 256)

But Badauni, who was quite orthodox and jealous of Abul Fazl’s close association with the emperor, has made the following unsubstantiated allegation against Akbar:

“At this time His Majesty promulgated some of his new-fangled decrees. The killing of animals on the first day of the week was strictly prohibited (p. 322) because this day is sacred to the Sun, also during the first eighteen days of the month of Farwardín; the whole of the month of Ábán (the month in which His Majesty was born); and on several other days, to please the Hindús. This order was extended over the whole realm and punishment was inflicted on every one, who acted against the command. Many a family was ruined. During the time of these fasts the Emperor abstained altogether from meat, as a religious penance, gradually extending the several fasts during a year over six months and even more, with a view to eventually discontinuing the use of meat altogether.
A second order was given that the sun should be worshipped four times a day, in the morning and evening, and at noon and midnight. His Majesty had also one thousand and one Sanscrit names for the sun collected, and read them daily, devoutly turning towards the sun; he then used to get hold of both ears, and turning himself quickly round about, used to strike the lower ends of his ears with his fists. He also adopted several other practices connected with sun-worship. He used to wear the Hindú mark on his forehead, and ordered the band to play at midnight and at break of day. Mosques and prayer-rooms were changed into store-rooms and into Hindú guard-rooms. For the word jamá’at, His Majesty used jimá’.and for hayya ‘ala, he said yalalá talalá. The cemetery within the walls was allowed to run waste.” ( The Muntakhabu-’rùkh, vol. II, p. 321)
But Badauni’s allegations are incorrect because Akbar claimed that he was not only a good Muslim but a champion of Islam also in his letter to the Sheriffs of Mecca, ‘written not long before 1582’ and in his two correspondences sent to Abdullah Khan, the ruler of Bukhara. Akbar died a Muslim, as testified to by his son Jahangir and Sir Thomas Roe. According to S.R. Sharma the Din-i-Ilahi was “the crowning expression of the emperor’s national idealism” and it was “nothing more than a tentative expression in the process of fundamental synthesis; it was never forced upon anyone.”

The greatness of Akbar is further reflected in its implementation for which no force was used or no favour was ever offered. Only 18 hardcore disciples and a few thousand followers were members of this Order amongst the population of many millions. No Hindu noble except Raja Birbal ever joined this Order. After his death his son Jahangir continued the ritual for some time but it died a natural death because it lacked missionary zeal.

Mughal Emperor Akbar holds a religious assembly in the
Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) in Fatehpur Sikri
(a miniature painting by Nar Singh, ca. 1605)

Akbar was a great reformer also. He introduced a number of social reforms in the sixteenth century. He stopped the ‘sati’ system which is forcible burning of a widow at her husband’s pyre. It was made clear by the royal order that unless the widow voluntarily and persistently showed her desire, out of self-volition, to follow her dead husband on pyre, she could not be allowed to commit the ‘Sati’. Similarly, widows of tender age, who had no occasion to cohabit with their husbands were not allowed to commit the Sati. He legalised widow remarriage. He was against polygamy unless the first wife was barren. The age of marriage was raised to sixteen for boys and fourteen for girls. In addition, certain restrictions were placed on the sale of wine and gambling. Akbar always sermonized that no worship of God is superior to looking after the weak. Thus, even though he was an unbridled monarch, Akbar had every concern for weak and poor people of his empire.

Since Akbar was a great reformer and he made many innovations in religious and social policy of the Government, he had to bear the brunt of the attack of the disgusted elements. Historian Havell has made an appropriate assessment of Akbar in these words:

“Akbar has shared the fate of all great reformers in having his personal character unjustly assailed, his motives impugned, and his actions distorted, upon evidence which hardly bears judicial examination.”

Though the Din-i-Ilahi died a natural death, yet the policy of Sulh-i-kul (Absolute peace with all) which was the edifice of this Order remained a source of inspiration for many Mughal scions. Prince Khusro and Dara Shikoh were the best representatives of this order; although unfortunately they could not become emperors of India. But the spirit did not die and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi became the greatest votary of this policy of absolute peace with all religions.

Abul Fazl, in the Ain-i-Akbari, has attested to the fact that Akbar was practising “external as well as internal spiritual austerities in the worship (of god) which render silent the slanders (spread) by the ritualists of this age.” By external austerities Abul Fazl means offering namaz which Akbar continued till his end. It is confirmed by none else than his son Jahangir who had raised rebellion against his father. In his Memoirs he confirms that his father was a pious Musalman who used to offer Namaz till his death.

Akbar’s religious approach is best reflected in the following paragraph of Abul Fazl on a temple in Kashmir:

“O God, in every temple I see people that seek Thee, and in every language I hear spoken, people praise Thee!

Polytheism and Islam feel after Thee,

Each religion says, ‘Thou art one, without equal.’

If it be a mosque, people murmur the holy prayer, and if it be a Christian Church, people ring the bell from love to Thee.

Sometimes I frequent the Christian cloister, and sometimes the mosque,

But it is Thou whom I search from temple to temple.

Thy elect have no dealings with either heresy or orthodoxy; for neither of them stands behind the screen of Thy truth.

Heresy to the heretic, and religion to the orthodox,

But the dust of the rose petal belongs to the heart of the perfume-seller.

This temple was erected for the purpose of binding together the hearts of the Unitarians in Hindustan, and especially those of His worshippers that live in the province of Kashmir,

By order of the Lord of the throne and the crown, the lamp of creation, Shah Akbar,

In whom the seven minerals find uniformity, in whom the four elements attain perfect mixture.

He who from insincere motives destroys this temple, should first destroy his own place of worship; for if we follow the dictates of the heart, we must bear up with all men, but if we look to the external, we find everything proper to be destroyed.

O God, Thou art just and judgest an action by the motive;

Thou knowest whether a motive is sublime, and tellest the king what motives a king should have.”

Even an orthodox theologian Abdul Haq admitted this fact that despite all his ‘innovations’, Akbar remained a Muslim king.

(6) Bhānuchandra-gani Charita of Jain ascetic Siddhi Chandra Upādhyāya

Siddhi Chandra, a Jain ascetic and contemporary of Akbar, had frequent interaction with Akbar on religious matters. He was a pupil of Hīravijaya Sūri and wrote Bhānuchandra-charita on his elderly ascetic Bhānuchandra Upādhyāya. In this biography he has compared Akbar to the son of Kauśalyā (i.e. Rāma) and written about the emperor:

“There is not a single art, not a single branch of knowledge, not a single act of boldness and strength which was not attempted by young Akbar.” He has further stated, “Thieves and robbers were conspicuous by their absence in his empire. His glory was as white as the moon because he had defeated all his enemies. His religious fervour never made him intolerant as is shown by his degree of regard for all six systems of philosophy. He took interest in all the arts and all branches of learning.”

In the same book he has cited many Farmans of Mughal emperors (Akbar and Jehangir). Here some Farmans of Akbar are quoted and they confirm the benevolent and liberal policies of Akbar:

A Farman of the Emperor Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar is very important to prove his eclectic approach. It was issued on the 6th of Azar in the Ilahi year 35, i.e. 28th of Muharram Hijri year 999 (1591 A.D.). In this Farman certain directions were issued to Mubariz-ud-din Azam Khan. One such direction related to Hīravijaya Sūri Sevda whose genuineness of the yoga practices and search for God was appreciated. One of the directions reads as follows:

“… it is ordered that no inhabitant of that city should interfere with them, nor should lodge in their temples and upašrayas (resting places) nor insult them. Besides, if any (of their temples or upasrays) has fallen down or become dilapidated, and if anyone among those respecting and liking him or desirous of giving in charity, desired to repair it or rebuild it, there should not be any restraint by any having superfluous knowledge or fanaticism.”

The following features from the Farman emerge:

(i) No one should interfere with their worship; meaning thereby that they had complete freedom of worship.

(ii) No one should stay in their temples and resting places without their consent. It was one of the clauses of the Jizya that Muslims could stay in Hindus’ temples and dharmashalas as a matter of right. Though Akbar had abolished Jizya, the tradition continued; this direction therefore, was issued.

(iii) No one should insult them.

Their right to live with utmost self-respect was recognised and protected.

(iv) If any temple or dharmashala had fallen down or dilapidated, they had every right to renovate it or rebuild it.

This is the most important direction which granted the right to renovate or rebuild the temples and resting places. But even this liberal direction does not indicate that the restoration of temples from mosques was allowed. Therefore, the fancy of some historians that the Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā was first demolished and a mosque was consructed thereat by Babur and it was restored to a temple during the reign of Akbar and thereafter demolished by Aurangzeb’s order is not correct.

Akbar was so great in treating all his citizens equal that he directed Mubarizuddin Azam Khan that “Haji Habibullah, who knows little of our quest for truth and realization of God, has harmed this community, hence our pure mind manages the world, has been afflicted with pain, so you should remain so watchful over riasat that no one can persecute anyone.”

This policy that no one could persecute anyone was the basic belief of Badshah Akbar which is confirmed in another line of this firman that “the strong may not be able to persecute the weak and every man may be pleased and happy.”

Another firman of emperor Akbar, with the Nishan of Prince Salim was issued on the 1st of Shaharyar Ilahi year 46, i.e. the 25th of Safar Hijri year 1010 (August 14, 1601 A.D.). It was a direction to his officers in Gujarat and Saurāshtra prohibiting the slaughter of animals during the prescribed six months in the year and asking them to show respect to Vijayasena Sūri, and other Jains. But the most important part of this Farman is:

“… it was ordered that no one should put up in their temples or upasrayas (resting places) nor insult them, and if these (religious edifices) become too old and in consequence any of their followers, admirers or those doing charity repaired or rebuilt them, no one with superficial knowledge or fanaticism should prevent them (from doing so).”

This Farman is a confirmation of the earlier Farman quoted above. It further states that “strict warning be given that the same be executed in the best manner and none should pass any order contrary to the same. (Everybody) should consider it as his duty and should not excuse it and should not act against it.”

One salient feature of these two Farmans is that those opposing the right of renovations and rebuilding the religious edifices have been called men of superficial knowledge and those opposing the yogic powers of these Jain Dharmāchāryas have been termed as persons having ‘the belief due to foolishness and stupidity.’

Another Farman issued by emperor Akbar in 1604 A.D. states that:

“… it is our eternal desire that all men and animals get happiness, whereby all people living peacefully and free from anxiety continue to devote themselves to the contemplation of God.”

Here the Emperor talks about the welfare of everyone, irrespective of caste or creed.

While extending prohibition of animal-slaughter further during the days from Āshādha Śukla ninth to Pūrnamāsī each year, it states that “no man should harass any being’ and ‘when god has created for a human being things of various kinds, he should not make his stomach the grave of animals.”

It shows Akbar’s concern for men and animals.

Akbar’s reverence to the Sun is recorded in the Ain-i-Akbari. Akbar said that the exalted Sun is of great benefit for rules and so they direct words of praise to it. On Akbar’s practice of Sun-worship Badauni states:

“Everyday he used to put on clothes of that particular colour which accords with that of the regent-planet of the day. He began also, at midnight and at early dawn, to mutter the spells, which the Hindus taught him, for the purpose of subduing the sun to his wishes. He prohibited the slaughter of cows, and the eating of their flesh, because the Hindus devoutly worship them, and esteem their dung as pure.” (The History of India, Elliot & Dowson, vol. V, p. 530)

All these eclectic approaches infuriated religious bigots. Badauni’s condemnation of Akbar’s religions policy is well-known. He wrote with exaggeration that mosques and prayer-rooms were changed into store-rooms or given to Hindu chowkidars. But this is not true because many magnificent mosques in the country were built during Akbar’s reign. The Rajmahal mosque, now in Jarkhand State, was built in 1592 A.D. by Raja Man Singh to please the emperor. The fact that Akbar remained a devoted Muslim till his death is attested to by his son Jahangir in his Memoirs. However, it did not deter many detractors to accuse him of blasphemy. When Azi Koka, a noble of Akbar, reached Mecca, he wrote a letter in 1594 A.D. and accused Akbar of claiming to be a prophet and abolishing the faith of Muhammad. Similarly, Nimatullah wrote in Tarikh-i- Khan Jahani, in the year 1613 during the reign of Jahangir.

“The Prophet’s Law (Shari’at-i Nabawi) which had withered like a red flower by the winter wind, obtained renewal at the accession of the king of Islam and mosques, hospices and madrasas which for thirty years had become the homes of beasts and birds, and from which no calls for prayer were heard by anyone, (became) clean and cleansed, and the Prophetic call to prayer reached the sky; moreover all directions and prohibitions and the Rules of Islam as current among the people are enforced.” (II; p. 666)

(7) Akbar’s patronage of the Hindus

For the first time in the Muslim rule of India a large number of Hindu nobles were appointed at higher posts. Todar Mal was the Finance Minister and he worked as Prime Minister for some time. Bhagwān Das, Mān Singh, Todar Mal and Rai Singh were appointed Governors of various Provinces. Out of 137 Mansabdars 14 were Hindus. They were appointed in large number in army and revenue department. Out of 12 Provincial Diwans or Financial Ministers 8 were Hindus. Earlier, Muslim Qazis used to decide Hindu cases also. Akbar appointed Hindu judges to decide Hindu cases. It was a big relief to the Hindus, as it ended the discrimination amongst subjects. Birbal was his bosom friend. Akbar stopped the practice of converting prisoners of war to Islam. Akbar’s Hindu wives used to sway certain decisions of the Empire. In a case of an execution of a Brāhmana the influence of Akbar’s Hindu wives and the functioning of Islamic jurisprudence came to the force. The case relates to a wealthy Brahmin of Mathurā, who had taken the materials which the Qazi of the town had collected for the construction of a masjid. The Brahman built a temple with those materials. When the Qazi attempted to prevent the Brahmin, the latter ‘opened his foul mouth to curse the Prophet and had shown his contempt for Muslims in various other ways’. When the Brahmin was summoned by the Qazi, he disobeyed the order. Then the King sent Birbal and Abul Fazl to bring him. Though Badauni does not name the Brahmin, yet it appears that he must have been a very influential person for whose summoning Akbar had to send Birbal and Abul Fazl. Then the Brahmin came and even a liberal person like Abul Fazl, after contacting people, reported to the Emperor that his blasphemy was proved and for blasphemy death was the only punishment. But Badauni adds:
“Some of the Ulama were of opinion that he should suffer death, while others were in favour of his being publicly humiliated and fined. The Ulama were thus divided into two parties and the question was agrued at length. How much the Shaikh sought the Emperor’s permission to execute the Brahmin, notwithstanding his importunity, no explicit sanction was given, and the Emperor said in private, “Punishments for offence against the holy law are in the hands of you, the Ulama; what do you require of me?” The Brahmin remained for some time in custody on the charge, and the ladies of the Imperial harem busied themselves in interceding for his release, but the Emperor’s regard for the Shaikh stood in the way. At last, when the Shaikh’s importunity exceeded all bounds, the Emperor said, “Our answer is that which we have already given you. You know of it.” No sooner had the Shaikh now reached his lodging than he issued order for the execution of the Brahmin.” (Episodes in the life of Akbar, p. 65-66)

After the execution of the Brahmin the ladies in harem prompted Akbar who called a meeting of the muftis (jurists) to find out the accuracy of the Shaikh’s decision.

Badauni writes thus:

“When this matter was reported to the Emperor he was greatly agitated. The ladies of his harem complained inside and the Hindu courtiers outside by saying “You have pampered these mullas till their insolence has reached such a pitch that they pay no heed to your wishes, and, merely to display their own power and authority, put men to death without your orders.” They plied His Majesty with such arguments to such an extent that he could endure it no longer, and the heaven of designs which had long been working in his mind at length fermented and overflowed.”

In that meeting Badauni, too, was present. He gives a graphic detail of the meeting:

“The witnesses who have been produced prove that he has committed an offence against the person under cover of the law.” Another said, “The strange thing is that Shaikh ‘Abdu-’n-Nabi should claim to be a descendant of the greatest of the Imams (may God have mercy upon him!) according to whose school of theology the cursing of the prophet by unbelievers who have submitted to the rule of Islam gives no ground for any breach of agreement by Muslims, and in no way absolves Muslims from their obligation to safeguard infidel subjects. This question has been discursively treated in theological works, and it is hard to understand how the Shaikh can have so opposed himself to the principles of his ancestor.” All at once the Emperor’s glance fell on the author of these historical selections, standing afar off, and, turning to me he summoned me to him, saying, “Come forward.” I advanced, and he put to me a question, saying, “Have you heard that, supposing there are ninety-nine traditions awarding the punishment of death for a certain offence, and one tradition in accordance with which the accused person may be set at liberty, mufti-s should give the preference to that one tradition?” I said, “Yes, it is just as your Majesty has said; but this question turns on the maxim “Verily legal punishments and inflictions are set aside by doubts”; and I translated the maxim into Persian. The Emperor said, with evident sorrow, “Perhaps Shaikh ‘Abdu-’n-Nabi was not aware of this ruling, that he put the unfortunate Brahman to death. Yet how could it be so?” I replied, “The Shaikh is, beyond all doubt, a learned man, but he must have had some wise purpose in view, in knowingly giving an order contrary to this tradition.” The Emperor said, “What purpose can he have had in view?” I said, “The closing of sedition and the uprooting of the germs of insolence from the minds of the common people.” (Muntakhabu-’t-tawarikh, pp. 66-67 ibid)

At the end, Badauni concludes that ‘from this time onwards the fortunes of Shaikh Abdu-n-Nabi began to decline. The quintessence of the whole episode is that even in an offence like blasphemy the Islamic jurisprudence did not invariably prescribe death penalty and even an orthodox Badauni could cite an Arabic maxim “Verily legal punishments and inflictions are set aside by doubts,” i.e. where doubt arises, the accused should be exonerated.

There are certain references which are cited in support of the contention that Akbar had taken certain anti-Islamic measures like closing down mosques and prohibiting namaz in congregation. In this connection a Farman of Prince Salim ‘issued’ during his rebellion in 1601 A.D. to local officers is cited from ‘Tazkiratu’l Muluk’ written by Rafiuddin Ibrahim Shirazi. Here the so-called Farman of Prince Salim is quoted first:

“At the instigation of some mischievous persons, my father has abolished the arrangements for the maintenance of khatíb, mu’ azzín and imam in the mosques and has prohibited the performance of namaz in congregation. He has converted many of the mosques into store-houses and stables. It was improper on his part to have acted in this manner. They [recipients of the ‘farman’] should resume the paying of stipends for the maintenance of the mosques, the khatíb, the mu’ azzin and imam and should induce people to offer prayers. Anyone showing slackness in this respect would be duly punished.” (pp. 93-94 Akbar ed. By Irfan Habib)
Prof. Iqtidar Alam has suggested in an article ‘Akbar’s Personality Traits and World Outlook – A Critical Reappraisal’ published in ‘Akbar and His India’ edited by Prof. Irfan Habib that this Farman leaves doubt that towards the turn of the century there was a general impression that in some of mosques namaz in congregation was prohibited by Akbar’s authority. But there is no authenticity attached to the so-called Farman of Prince Salim. It is not mentioned even in any version of Jahanger’s frank memoirs nor is it referred to in any contemporary history. Shirazi, who died in 1626 A.D., wrote this book in Bijapur, which was an enemy country, and therefore Shirazi was justified in scandalizing the emperor Akbar who stood for equal treatment to all religions. Therefore Shirazi’s reference to the non-existent Farman of Prince Salim does not carry any credential.

(8) Masiri-i-Rahimi of Abdul Baqi Nahavandi

Another fanciful story collected in Abdul Baqi Nahavandi’s Masiri-i-Rahimi, which was compiled in 1614 A.D., is that Akbar had directed Prince Danyal, who was appointed to the new province of Deccan and Khandesh in 1601, “to destroy the Jama Masjid at Asirgarh and raise (in its place) a temple on the pattern of Hindus and (other) infidels of Hindustan.” It is total ‘bakwas’ because Akbar himself was present along with Abul Fazl on 6th January, 1601 when the garrison of Asirgarh surrendered. Akbar was, no doubt, accused of bribing officers of Bahadur Shah and even of treachery by Jesuit Fathers. It was said that the ‘gates were opened by golden keys’, or, in other words, Akbar succeeded in getting gates opened by bribing Khandesh officers heavy amounts.” But no one accused him of sending direction to his son Daniel to destroy the Jama Masjid at Asirgarh and construct a temple on the site. Had Akbar any such plan, he could have done it at the time of the capitulation of the fort of Asirgarh. The year 1601 was very turbulent for Akbar. His friend and philosopher Abul Fazl was killed by Bir Singh Dev Bundela and Salim himself had revolted against emperor Akbar. So, where was the occasion for Akbar to write such a silly letter to Danyal who is stated to be ‘wise enough’ not to enforce that order by ignoring it and whiling away time’, so that the demolition of a mosque and building of a temple in its place during the time of Akbar was avoided, Prince Danyal, who married the daughter of Adil Shah of Bijapur, ‘drank himself to death’ in April 1604 at Burhanpur and thus pre-deceased his father Akbar. Had any such direction been issued by Akbar to Prince Danyal to demolish Jama Masjid, the famous historian Ferishta, who wrote his famous book not far from Asirgarh and not at a distant period (he wrote his famous book between 1606 and 1611 A.D.), would have certainly mentioned this totally anti-Islamic order. But even then some historians tend to accept it as reliable history because they are not at peace with Akbar’s policy of universal tolerance. They must find some fault in his personality. However, the following assessment of Akbar by a Pakistani historian Ahmad Bashir, a former Professor and Head of the Department of History, University of Sindh, Karachi, in his book ‘Akbar the Great Mughal: his New Policy and his New Religion’, first published in Pakistan in 1967 and first Indian edition in 2009 by Aakar Books, Delhi, is very accurate:

“All that for which Akbar stands in history – toleration of all religions, equal citizenship for all subjects, recognition of merit, eligibility of one and all for every post, even the highest, in the state service and appreciation of everything appreciable, Muslim or Hindu – was not due to any deviation from Islam on his part. It was the work of a keen-sighted statesman.” (p. 48)

(9) Rāma-Siya coins of Akbar

Bedsides, Akbar had such high regards for Rāma and Sītā that he issued Rāma-Sīya coins in the 50th year of his reign. The silver coin was struck in the month of Amardad, the fifth month of the 50th year. Two of these coins are of gold and one is made of silver. Gold coins are half mohars and the silver coin is half rupee. One gold coin is kept in the British Museum at London and another is in Cabinet de France at Paris. The silver coin is in Bharat Kala Bhavan at Varanasi. These two gold coins depict Rāma and Sītā on the obverse. Ram is wearing a crown on his head and boots in his feet. He is holding a bow in his left hand and an arrow in his right hand. Sītā is shown to his right. She appears to be following him. The gold coin kept in Cabinet de France bears an additional label, slightly above the figures in Devanāgarī script ‘रामसीय’ (Rāmasīya).

Akbar’s Rama-Siya coin.

The obverse of the silver coin shows Rāma and Sītā walking barefoot. Rāma is holding a bow here also but the arrow is missing. Sītā is shown holding a bunch of flowers in each of her hands. The silver coin seems to depict Rāma and Sītā immediately after their marriage in Mithilā; whereas the gold coins appear to depict their departure for the forest to fulfill his promise.

(10) Akbar in Sanskrit and Hindi poems

Many Sanskrit and Hindi poets have composed poems in praise of Akbar. Some of them are quoted below:

The following śloka written by an unknown poet in praise of Akbar is found in the Subhāshita-ratna-bhāndāgāra.

वीर त्वं कार्मुकञ्चेदकबर कलयस्युग्रटङकारघोषं

दूरे सद्यः कलङका इव धरणिभृतो यान्ति कङकालशेषाः।

शङकापन्नश्च किं कारणमिति मनसा भान्ति पङकायितेन

त्यक्त्वाहङकारमङकाद्विसृजति गृहिणीं किं च लङकाधिनाथः।।

Valiant Akbar! When your bow is strung, then your enemy king situated at a distance like a dark blot immediately turns into a skelton. Even Rāvana, the King of Lan¢kā immediately apprehends an impending calamity and gets entangled in the mud of delusion and forgoes his ego. He drops his wife from his lap (out of fear). What to say of others?

In an inscription of Tejahpāla published in Epigraphia Indica, vol. 2, pp. 50-59, a reference has been made to the Emperor Akbar in the following verse wherein abolition of certain taxes by Akbar has been appreciated with a sense of gratitude.

यदुपदेशवशेन मुं दधन्निखिलमण्डलवासिजने निजे।

मृतधनं च करं च सुजीजियाभिधमकब्बरभूपतिरत्यजत्।।

King Akbar abolished the system of the government takeover of assets after the death under the law of escheat and jaziya levied on subjects living in his kingdom after being pleased with whose (Tejahpāla’s) advice.

Śankara Miśra wrote twelve verses in praise of Babur in his book Rasārnava which is mentioned in the Chapter III. Again Śankara from Mithila, the son of M.M. Sudhākara and the grandson of Śuchikara, wrote a treatise on Dharmaśāstra namely Smrtisudhākara in 1581. In the preliminary verses of this book he has praised Akbar in 10 verses. Again at the end of the book he mentions proudly that his book has been completed in the reign of Akbar. (अकबरसुरत्राणराज्ये निबन्धः) A verse in Akbar’s eulogy is quoted here:

रञ्जयति क्षितिमण्डलमकबरनृपतौ पतौ क्षितीज्यानाम्।

धर्म प्रादुरभूदयमतिचिरनष्टोऽतिकष्टेन ।।10।।

Akbar, after having become the King of kings and written his achievements with flying colours paints rescued the Dharma which was destroyed for long.

Hindi (Dingal) poet Prithvī Rāja called Akbar an ocean of chivalry which could not be fathomed

अकबर समद अथाह, सूरापण भरियो सजल।

Poet Holāroy wrote that there was no king like Akbar in the nine khandas, seven dvīpas (islands) and even across the seven oceans:

नवो खण्ड सात दीप सातहु समुद पार

ह्वै है न जलालदीन शाह अकबर ते।।

Akbar’s ideals are lucidly reflected in the following inscription written by Abul Fazl for a temple in Kashmir:

“O GOD in every temple I see people that see thee,
and in every language I hear spoken, people praise thee.

Polytheism and Islam feel after thee.

Each religion says, ‘Thou art one, without equal.’

If it be a mosque people murmur the holy prayer, and if it be a Christian Church, people ring the bell from love to Thee.

Sometimes I frequent the Christian cloister, and sometimes the mosque.

But it is thou whom I search from temple to temple.

Thy elect have no dealings with either heresy or orthodoxy; for neither of them stands behind the screen of thy truth.

Heresy to the heretic, and religion to the orthodox,

But the dust of the rose-petal belongs to the heart of the perfume seller.”

(An inscription by Abul Fazl for a temple in Kashmir)

(11) Ayodhyā Sanad

From a Hanumangarhi Sanad renewed in 1724 A.D. it is known that Akbar had granted 6 bighas of land in 1600 A.D., following the Rāmanavamī day, for the construction of Hanuman Tila. This is the first official record which connects Akbar with his munificence at Ayodhyā. He was so large-hearted that on a day succeeding the birth anniversary of Lord Rāma he granted 6 bighas of land to a sadhu for the construction of the Hanumangarhi. Now the question arises as to who was the sadhu who was awarded this land grant by Akbar in 1600 A.D. Ayodhyā was the centre of Rāmānandī sādhus since the days of Rāmānanda because he is supposed to have visited Ayodhyā and stayed there for some time. From the Ain-i-Akbari names of many learned men of the time are known. Out of them Ram Tirth, Nar Singh, Ram Bhadra and Ram Kishn appear to be the sadhus of the Rāmānandī sect. The first two are kept in the first category which was meant for the Sadhus who perceived the “mysteries of the external and the internal, and in their understanding and the breadth of their views, fully comprehend both realms of thought, and acknowledge to have received their spiritual power from the throne of his Majesty.” The third name Ram Bhadra is kept in the second, the sadhus of which category were said to have paid “less attention to the external world; but in the light of their hearts they acquire vast knowledge.” And the fourth Ram Kishn was in the third category. It may well be presumed that the land was bestowed upon the sadhu of the first category only. Thus, Ram Tirth and Nar Singh appear probable recipients. Nothing is known about Ram Tirth. However, one Nar Sim¢ha is supposed to be the guru of Tulasi Das who started composing the Rāmacharitamānasa at Ayodhyā in 1574 A.D. It is incomprehensible why Tulasi Das is not mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari when so many Hindu Saints/poets of lesser importance are mentioned therein. The only answer could be that the first part of the Ain was prepared before Tulasi became popular in the Hindi heartland. When Tulasi composed the Rāmāyana in the Awadhi dialect, he himself was an elderly person and his guru Nar Sim¢ha might have been very old, if he remained alive until then. In 1600 the chance of his existence appears very bleak because Tulasi writes that in his childhood when his Guru gave him sermons on the Rāmakathā, it was beyond his comprehension:

मैं पुनि निज गुर सन सुनी कथा सो सूकरखेत।

समुझी नहिं तसि बालपन तब अति रहेउँ अचेत।।

श्रोता बकता ग्याननिधि कथा राम कै गूढ।

किमि समुझौं मैं जीव जड़ कलिमल ग्रसित बिमूढ़।।

तदपि कही गुर बारहि बारा। समुझि परी कछु मति अनुसारा।

(Mānasa: Bālakānda: 30)

Therefore, it appears that Ram Tirth might have been the scholarly sādhu at Ayodhyā upon whom 6 bighas of land was conferred for the construction of the Hanuman Tila.

Akbar was so liberal that had the Rāmajanma-bhūmi temple been converted into a mosque during Babur’s reign, he would probably have thought to return it to the Hindus. But the temple was converted into a mosque 54 years after his death.

(12) William Finch’s visit to Akbar’s tomb

When William Finch visited Akbar’s magnificent tomb at Sikandra in 1610, he had a glance of Akbar’s greatness, as both Hindus and Muslims worshipped his tomb, holding him for a great saint. Finch writes reverentially,

“Here, within a faire round coffin of gold, lieth the body of this monarch, who sometimes thought the world too little for him. This tombe is much worshipped both by the Moores and Gentiles, holding him for a great saint.”

(13) Jahangir’s generosity

The full name of Jahangir was Nuruddin Jahangir. He himself has explained in his Memoirs (Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri) why he selected this name:

“It struck me that the work of sovereigns is world-seizing (Jahangiri), I should style myself Jahangir, and since my accession took place at the rising of the (holy) presence of the great Luminary (the Sun) and the illumination of the world (by its rays), I took the title Nuruddin; and since I had also heard in the days of my Princehood from the Indian sages that after ending of the reign of Jalaluddin Akbar Padshah, a person named Nuruddin would become the manager of the affairs of the Empire, this too was in my mind. So I took the style and title of Jahangir.”

This explanation of his name clearly shows his liberal views and respect for indigenous sages. The reverence to the Sun and Indian sages in the explanations of his name is a testimony to his eclectic approach, although his accession to the throne was heralded as a new dawn by the orthodox theologian Nimatullah (1613) in the following words:

“The Prophet’s Law (Shari’ at-i Nabawi) which had withered like a red flower by the winter wind, obtained renewal at the accession of the king of Islam and mosques, hospices and madrasas which of thirty years had become the homes of beasts and birds, and from which no calls for prayer were heard by any one, (became) clean and cleansed, and the Prophetic call to prayer reached the sky; moreover all directions and prohibitions and the Rules of Islam as current among the people are enforced.” (Tarikh-I Khan jahani, II, p. 608)

Yet his Memoirs don’t indicate any deviation from his father’s policy of Sulh-i Kul, i.e. absolute peace with all. In his 10th commandment (edict) he proclaimed:

“Like my esteemed father I ordered that every year beginning with 18 Rabi I, which is my birthday, for a period of days equal to the years of my life, no animals should be slaughtered; and a prohibition of animal slaughter was likewise made for two days in every week: Thursday, the day of my accession and Sunday which is the day of my father’s birth, and he greatly esteemed this day for the further reason that it is dedicated to the holy presence of the Great Luminary (the Sun) and is the first day of the Creation and so auspicious; and of the days that he had prohibited animal slaughter this was one.” (‘Mughal India’, Athar Ali, pp. 185)
He was so insistent on the strict promulgation of the prohibition of animal slaughter that in 1612 A.D. when Id-uz-Zuha (Bakrid) fell on a Thursday, he did not permit the animal slaughter on that day and it could take place only on the next day. Foreign travellers like Pelsaert, too, have confirmed that it was strictly implemented in many parts of Gujarat, although it caused inconvenience to some sections of the society. How he followed his father’s policy of Sulh-i-kul is best reflected in the following extract from his Memoirs:

“They are not to darken and disturb their time by enmity to any of the religious communities (millata), and with all persons of the various creeds, they should pursue the path of Absolute Peace (Sulh-i kul). They should kill no living being with their own hand, nor should they skin anything except in war and chase:

Do not render lifeless a thing of life.

Except in chase or the field of strife.

The luminaries, which are the reflectors of God’s light, must be shown respect according to their ranks. At all times and in all circumstances they must remain aware that God is the real causer and Creator, nay they should so meditate on Him that whether in private or in company their heart should not for a moment be without thought or attention in respect of Him:

The lame, the ignorant, the sleepy-looking, the unmannerly;

You (too) should go on looking at Him and calling for Him.

My father had obtained mastery over these truths, and few were the times when he was free from such thoughts.” (Tuzuk-i-Jahangir, p. 28)

The following was his view on the coexistence of the Hindus and Muslims in his empire:

“I ordered that, with this exception (prohibition of forcible sati), they (the Hindus) may follow whatever is their prescribed custom and none should exercise force or compulsion or oppression over another. Since God the Almighty has made me shadow of God, and just as God’s grace is extended to all creatures, God’s shadow too must also do the same. It is impossible to carry out a general slaughter. Five-sixths of the people of Hindustan are idol-worshipping Hindus. Most of the work of agriculture, cloth-weaving and crafts is in their hands. If we wish to make all of them Muslims, that is not possible except by killing them, which too is impossible. God the Almighty will judge at the Day of Judgment. What have I to do with the religious practices of the world.”

Though this view is found in the first version of Jahangir’s Memoirs translated from a Persian Manuscript, by Major David Price (1829) it was omitted in the Standard version translated by Alexander Rogers and edited by Henry Beveridge (1909). It has been argued that it was omitted with a view to not displeasing his Persian readers who were mostly from the clergy and the nobility. Whatever might have been the reason for its omission from the later version, the fact remains that Jahangir was a tolerant and benevolent monarch.

(14) Jahangir’s reverence to many Hindu ascetics

Jahangir had high respect for many Hindu ascetics. Jadrup Gosain was such a venerated ascetic whom Jahangir first met in 1617 on his way to Gujarat. On his return journey the Emperor met him twice. Next year in 1618 the Emperor met him twice at Mathurā. Hakim Beg, brother-in-law of Nur Jahan, was summarily dismissed from service at Mathurā for misbehaving with Jadrup.

In 1618-19 Jahangir wrote of Jadrup, “

“On Saturday for the second time, my desire for the company of Jadrup increased. After performing the midday devotions… I ran and enjoyed his society in the retirement of his cell. I had many sublime words to religious duties and knowledge of divine things. Without exaggeration, he sets forth clearly the doctrines of wholesome Sufism and one can find delight in his society. He is sixty years age. He was 22 when, forsaking all external attachments, he placed the foot of determination on the high road of asceticism, and for 38 years he had lived in the garment of nakedness… God Almighty has granted him an unusual grace, a lofty understanding, an exalted nature, and keen intellectual powers, etc… On Wednesday I again went and bade him Good-bye. Undoubtedly parting from him weighed upon my mind which desires the truth.”

Other ascetics whom Jahangir had met are Yogī Motī, Gussain Chitrupa and an unnamed Sannyāsī at Ahmadabad. In 1621 he visited Hardwar and distributed gifts in cash and kind to Brahmins and ascetics. He had visited Brindāvana and confirmed many grants issued earlier and gave new grants to some important temples. All these facts confirm complete eclectic character of Jahangir.

Jahangir with Hindu ascetic Jadrup. (Ms. Jahangirnama, c. 1620)

During the regime of Jahangir also Hindus were admitted to the higher public service. Out of 47 mansabdars above the rank of 3,000, six were Hindus. It comes to 12%. He appointed Hindus as Governor and Diwans. During his rule temples and churches, too, were freely built. Hindu pilgrims visited their holy places freely and the number of persons visiting Hardwar was between 4 and 5 lakhs. In 1616 he did not prevent 20 baptisms taking place and he even permitted the baptism of his brother Daniyal’s sons, who, however, reverted back to Islam. He continued the system of appointing a Hindu Judge to decide the cases of the Hindus. The author of the Dabistan-i-Mazahib informs that Śrī Kānta of Kashmir, who was a profound scholar of all branches of Hindu jurisprudence, was appointed to this post. In his words:

“His Majesty Nuruddin Muhammed Jahangir appointed Sri Kant to the office of the Qazi (Judge) of the Hindus so that they might be at ease and be in no need to seek favour from a Muslim.”

(15) Farmans patronising Jain monks

Various Farmans of Jahangir confirm that he followed the footsteps of his great father in religious matters. In one such Farman issued in the 3rd year of his accession, i.e. 1608 A.D. to Paramānanda he ordered his officers to allow repairs to and re-erection of their temples and resting places. Having mentioned that the Jain Dharmāchāryas had ‘temples and dharmashalas in every place and every town’, he ordered:

“No one shall put up in the temples and dharmashalas of that community and no one shall enter into them without permission. And should they wish to rebuild them, no one shall oppose them. And no one shall alight at the horses of their disciples.”

Thereafter, like his father he orders that those who visit the pilgrim place Śatruñjaya in Saurāshtra, will be exempted from toll and other taxes.

In another Farman Jehangir’s universal concern for persons of every caste and creed is reflected. The Farman of emperor Nuruddin Jahangir dated 26th of Farvardin in the 5th year of his accession, i.e. 1610 A.D. is a direction to all his officials throughout the empire not to allow slaughter of animals during 12 days of the Jain Paryushana festival. The second paragraph of this Farman reads as follows:

“And as we have directed our royal merciful attention towards encouraging the objects and actions of every caste and creed, rather towards making every creature happy, we consented and issued our Jahangiri order accepted and acceptable by the world… .”

Farman of the emperor Nuruddin Jahangir dated 17th of the Ilahi month of Asfandarmuz in the 10th year of the accession, i.e. 1615 A.D., is a permanent grant of land in Akbarpur near Cambay to Chandu Sanghavi for the construction of a temple. The relevant portion of the Farman is quoted below:

“Whereas on account of the dispatch made by Sayyad Ahmad Kadu, the mainstay perfection and exellence and a truthful and learned man, on account of the support of Jogi a modern Jalinus (a great physician) and a modern Jesus Christ, on the introduction made by Subaha a benevolent magnate of the present times, and at the recommendation of Isahak an humble disciple and a recorder, Chandu Sanghavi prayed that land measuring ten bighas in the village Akbarpur be granted for the purpose of making thereon a temple of the deceased teacher Vijayasena a grader, a Farman and a memorial in honour of him. Thereupon an order, shining like rays of the sun and worth being obeyed by the world, was passed that Chandu Sanghavi be granted a plot of agricultural land measuring ten bighas at Akbarpur in Chorasi pargana which is near Cambay as a jagir known as madad-i-maash. This is written after ascertaining it in accordance with the order.”

Here the emperor grants 10 bighas of land for the construction of a temple in which the statue of Guru Vijayasena Suri was to be installed. This itself shows how liberal Jehangir was in religious affairs.

One more Farman of the emperor Nuruddin Jahangir, ordering his officials throughout the empire to allow complete freedom to the monks of the Jain community, is cited here. It is dated the 2nd of the Ilahi month of Amardad in the 11th year of the accession (July 1616 A.D.). This Farman is “in favour of the Jain community (jamat), who are virtuous and have no other business except the worship and adoration of God, this Jahangiri (royal) order, which is obeyed by the world and which is necessary to follow” was issued to all his officers that they “should not interfere with or obstruct in any way the practices of this community, and should allow them to attend to their worship and devotion and the adoration of God (yazdan parashti) in perfect peace of mind holy, exalted and auspicious empire.”

This shows that the Jain community had a very cordial relation with the emperor Jahangir who had granted it complete freedom in the sphere of religious practice.

(16) Derisive remarks on the Jains in his Memoirs

But it is surprising that despite all these Farmans issued by Jahangir in favour of the Jain monks, he makes the following observation in his Memoirs, in 1617 A.D. –

“The sect of the Sewras exists in most of the cities of India, but is especially numerous in Gujarat. As the Banyans are the chief traders there, consequently the Sewras also are plentiful. Besides making idol-temples for them, they have built houses for them to dwell in and to worship in. In fact, these houses are the headquarters of sedition. The Banyans send their wives and daughters to the Sewras, who have no shame or modesty. All kinds of strife and audacity are perpetrated by them. I therefore ordered that the Sewras should be expelled, and I circulated Farmans to the effect that wherever there were Sewras in my empire they should be turned out.” ( Memoirs of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Rogers, Preface by Henry Beveridge)
One reason attributed is that Jain Dharmāchārya Man Singh had represented one sect of Jains in the court of Akbar and after the latter’s death, when the former’s patron king Rai Singh Bhurtiya of Bikaner had asked him as to how long Jahangir’s reign would continue, Man Singh had made a prophecy that it would not continue beyond two years. So, when he remembered this episode in Gujarat in 1617, he called Man Singh to the imperial court. But Man Singh committed suicide by consuming poison on the way. It seems that in a fit of anger the Emperor wrote the above passage in his Memoirs. However, it was implemented in default because Jahangir continued to have cordial relation with the Jains and they, too, were praising him in subsequent edicts. A Jain savant Siddhi Chandra Upādhyāya was conferred the title of Khush Fahm (of good understanding) by Jahangir.

(17) Persecution of Sikh Guru Arjan Deva

There was another aberration in the harmonious religious policy of Jahangir which relates to the execution of the fifth Sikh Guru Arjan Deva. In his Memoirs (Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri) Jahangir writes:

“In Gobindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjun, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.
At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger mark in saffron, which the Indians (Hinduwan) call qashqa, and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death.” (Tuzuk-i-jahangiri, Translated by Mr. Rogers, pp. 72-73)

Some historians have tried to defend Jahangir on the ground that the capital punishment of Guru Arjun Dev as mentioned in the Memoirs was to please the Muslim clergy in the beginning of his reign. But it is not convincing because the aforementioned description comes from the pen of an emperor and that is retained in the standard version also.

Prof. Athar Ali defends Jahangir in the following unreasonable manner:

“This account of Guru Arjan’s tragic end is inaccurate both with regard to motive (insofar as the idea of a preconceived object of furthering Islam and suppressing Sikhism is introduced) and to the actual circumstances of the punishment.

As for the first, the motive, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi wrote a letter to Shaikh Farid (Murtaza Khan) immediately after receiving the news of Guru Arjan’s death, in which with much jubilation he says:

“At this time, the killing of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal, has been a very happy event. It is a matter of great defeat of the reprobated Hindus. For whatever reason he has been killed, and for whatever motive he has been put to death, the humiliation of kafirs is the very life of Islam.

Since Murtaza Khan was himself concerned in the enforcement of the punishment (as stated by Jahangir himself), it is inconceivable that Shaikh Ahmad would have suggested that the action was taken on grounds other than religious persecution, had this not been the case.” (p. 189)

There is nothing in the Sirhindi’s letter which goes against the tenet of the text of Jahangir’s Memoirs; rather it confirms Jahangir’s writing. It may be easily accepted that while torturing the Sikh Guru to death, he was guided by both religious prejudice and political consideration because Guru Arjan Deva had blessed Prince Khusrau when he rebelled against Jahangir. But the conclusion of Athar Ali that ‘there was no order for the execution of Guru Arjan from Jahangir himself’ is contrary to the historical facts and the Sikh tradition.

(18) Khusru’s rebellion

Jahangir’s mother was the daughter of Raja Bihari Mall and his wife was the daughter of Raja Bhagwan Das. The marriage had been solemnized in 1584. From this wife was born Khusru, who was as liberal as Akbar and Dara Shukoh and had been offered throne by Nur Jahan, if he could abandon his wife and marry her daughter. But Khusrau preferred love to the throne. Very few people know of this sacrifice. Khusrau was the darling of his grandfather and even father Jahangir but because of his petulant and peevish nature, he lost the race of the throne.

(19) Jahangir’s 10 commandments

Jahangir’s 10 commandments are famous. The following commandments relate to the general welfare of his subjects without any discretion on the line of religion:

“2. On roads where thefts and robberies took place, which roads might be at a little distance from habitations, the jagirdars of the neighbourhood should build sara’is (public rest-houses), mosques, and dig wells, which might stimulate population, and people might settle down in those sara’is.”

“5. They should not make wine or rice-spirit (darbahra) or any kind of intoxicating drug, or sell them.”

“11. In accordance with the regulations of my revered father, I ordered that each year from the 18th of Rabi’u-l-awwal which is my birthday, for a number of days corresponding to the years of my life, they should not slaughter animals (for food). Two days in each week were also forbidden, one of them Thursday, the day of my accession, and the other Sunday, the day of my father’s birth.” (edited by R.C. Majumadar “The Mughal Empire”, Vidya Bhavan)

(20) Jahangir’s Chain of Justice

Jahangir is known for providing justice to his subjects. He had set up a chain of justice between a stone-pillar erected on the banks of Jamuna and Shah Burje in the fort of Agra to enable the aggrieved persons to place their grievances before the Emperor. Jahangir mentions this chain of justice in his Memoirs:

“After my accession, the first order that I gave was for the fastening up of the Chain of Justice, so that if those engaged in the administration of justice should delay or practise hypocrisy in the matter of those seeking justice, the oppressed might come to this chain and shake it so that its noise might attract attention. Its fashion was this: I ordered them to make a chain of pure gold, 30 gaz in length and containing 60 bells. Its weight was 4 Indian maunds, equal to 42 Iraqi maunds. One end of it they made fast to the battlements of the Shah Burj of the fort at Agra and the other to a stone post fixed on the bank of the river.”(The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri; or, Memoirs of Jahangir. Translated by Alexander Rogers, p. 7)

Establishing a chain of justice with 60 bells itself was a symbol of Jahangir’s lack of religious bigotry and sense of social justice.

During the reign of Jahangir new temples and churches were built without any hesitation or hindrance. Hindu pilgrims visited pilgrim-places. Coryot has put the number of Hindu pilgrims visiting Haridwar at 4,00,000 while Roe has put it at 5,00,000.

(21) Harideva Miśra’s Jahāngīra-virudāvali

Harideva Miśra was the nātī (maternal grandson) of Achyuta Thakkura, the son of Maheśa Thakkura, the founder of the Khandavalā dynasty in Mithilā and author of the book ‘Sarva-deśa-vrittānta-sam¢graha’. He was a great Sanskrit scholar. He has composed ‘Jahāngīra-virudāvalī’ in praise of the emperor Jahangir. It consists of 140 ślokas, out of which the following two verses are quoted below:

त्रीषु त्वं कुसुमायुधोऽसि दुरितोद्रिक्तेषु दण्डायुधो

हृन्मत्तेषु हलायुधो बलिविपच्चक्रे तु चक्रायुधः।

क्षोणीभृच्छतपक्षविक्षतिविधौ वज्रायुधो न स्फुर-

त्यादर्शं कमिवारचय्य रचितो धात्रा धरित्र्याः पतिः।।17।।

You are Kāmadeva amongst women, Yamarāja to hoards of people with vices, Balarāma to persons who are crazy at heart, Vishnu to the miseries spread by king Bali and Indra in liquidating the army of the adversary. Therefore, it is not clear to me as to who was the model whom Brahmā followed in creating a king like you.

जहांगीर महावीर ध्रुं सामाजिको गुणः।।

यतो युष्मत्करगता लक्षदानपराः शराः।। 137।।

Jahangir! O great valiant! You certainly possess a set of virtues because in your hands are arrows as well as a tendency to donate lakhs.

Besides, a poet Rudrakavi from South composed Jahangir-charitam, which is available in parts only. In 1616 A.D. Rudrakavi wrote Kirti-Samultasa’, which is a biography of khurram, the son of Jahangir.

(22) Keśava Dāsa’s Jahān¡gīr-Jasa-Chandrikā

Keśava Dāsa, a celebrated poet of mediaeval period has written “Jahāngīr-Jasa-Chandrikā”, an epic in praise of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir. He composed this epic in the Vikram Sam¢vat 1669, i.e. 1612 A.D. One Kavitta is quoted here to show how various aspects of Jahangir’s personality have been compared with different religious representations of the Hindu region.

साहिजू की साहिबी को रच्छक अनंतगति कीनौ एक भगवंत हनवंत बीर सो।

जाको जसु ‘केसौदास’ भूतल के आसपास सोहत छबीलो छीरसागर के छीर सो।

अमित उदार अति पावन बिचार चारु जहाँ तहाँ आदरियै गंगाजू के नीर सो।

खलनि के घालिबे कौँ खलक के पालिबे कौँ खानखाना एक रामचंद्रजू के तीर सौ।।५।।

(23) Magnificent monarchy of Shah Jahan

Shah Jahan is one of the most fascinating emperors of India. His reign is called the Golden period of the mediaeval India. The Taj Mahal, the Peacock Throne, the Pearl Mosque, the Ali Masjid and the fort of Shah Jahanabad and the glitter of gold, jewels and the Kohinoor diamond – all testify to the grandeur of the rule of Shah Jahan. Kafi Khan writes that in the whole line of the Timurides there was no ruler who could equal Shah Jahan in organisation, improving the treasury, settlement of the country and due recognition of the merits of officers and soldiers. He was the most magnificent and munificent ruler of his times.

Shahjhan, like his father Jahangir, was the son of a Rajput Princess variously called Jagat Gossain, Jodh Bai and Manmati whom Salim (later Jahangir) had married in 1586. She was daughter of Uday Singh Rathor, the Rana of Marwar. Thus, she had more Indian blood than Mughal in his veins’.

(24) Construction of the Taj Mahal

Shah Jahan has become immortal with the Taj Mahal which is one of the most magnificent monuments in the world as well as an epitaph of the immortal love, a testimony to his ever-enduring love towards his wife Mumtaz Mahal who died on 7th June 1631. Very few people know that the site which was selected for the construction of the Taj Mahal was originally the residence of Raja Man Singh and belonged to his grandson Raja Jai Singh who wanted to gift it to the Emperor. But the emperor Shah Jahan declined this offer of free gift because it violated the provisions of the shariat because the tomb could not constricted on a gifted land. Therefore, on 6th Ilahi/163334 A.D. he issued a Farman addressed to Raja Jai Singh informing him that in lieu of the plot of the land acquired for the construction of the mausoleum of Mumtaz Mahal the following four havelis were granted to (Jai Singh):

1. Haveli of Raja Bhagwan Das

2. Haveli of Madhav Singh

3. Haveli of Rupsi Bairagi

4. Haveli of Chand Singh, son of Suraj Singh

The zimn on the reverse bears the risala of Afzal Khan and Waqia of Makramat Khan. (MIM, IV, p. 165; DLFMN, p. 55 CHDKD, pp. 176-77)

The Taj Mahal was finished in 1648, nearly 17 years after the death of his queen Mumtaz Mahal. The construction had started in 1632 and it took 16 years in completion. Tavernier, who saw its construction, reports that 20,000 workmen were continuously employed and ultimately ‘a dream in marble, designed by Titans, and finished by jewellers came into existence’. Shah Jahan named this magnificent tomb Rauza-i-munavvara, i.e. The Illumined Tomb. However, in people’s parlance it came to be called Taj Mahal, a shortened form of Mumtaz Mahal.

(25) Shah Jahan’s liberal policy

While some historians have made allegation that Shah Jahan was biased against the Hindus, some have suggested that he was never unfair to, or unmindful of, the interests of his non-Muslim subjects. It is stated that the practice of desecrating and destroying Hindu temples was revived in the reign of Shah Jahan. To support it they cite his order of the sixth regnal year (1633 A.D.) for the demolition of all newly built temples in his whole Empire, especially at Benares, and it was followed by a total prohibition for the erection of new temples or the repairing of old ones. It is alleged that he promoted conversion in the initial phase of his reign. But it is equally true that during this period he not only renewed the grants of Madan Mohan temple at Vrindavan, but also condemned some local official’s obstruction to the ringing of the bell at the temple by an imperial Farman of 24 November, 1634 in the most stringent words. In the firman the worship of the deity was described as ‘divine worship’ (‘ibadat-i-ilahi), which was a great reverence by an emperor of Islam. The grants for the Govind Dev temple at Jaipur were confirmed and the management of the temple was handed over to the Amber kings by the Farman dated 24 July, 1633. He even presented a stone railing to the grand temple built at Mathura by Bir Singh Bundela during the reign of Jahangir.
From the scrutiny of historical fact it appears that Shah Jahan, whose hands were besmirched with the blood of his brothers, at the time of the accession to the throne was initially inclined to please the orthodox clergy to enlist their support in proving the legitimacy of his accession and hence passed such orders to demolish the temples of recent origin or disallow the construction of new temples and repairs of the old temples in the 6th year of his reign. But by impulsion, he was a large-hearted man, so he himself started following the policy of his grandfather and father. When he came under the influence of his eldest son Dara Shukoh, who was as eclectic as Akbar and Abul Fazl, he became the impartial guardian for all his subjects and there was no scope for any prejudice anywhere. Shah Jahan’s liberal governance is reflected in the following superb painting of Rāma-vana-gamana made by an accomplished anonymous artist:

A painting from a manuscript of Ramāyana scribed under
Rana Jagat Singh of Mewar in Rajasthan between 1649 and 1653.

(26) Abolition of pilgrimage tax on Kavīndrāchārya’s representation

Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan had imposed pilgrim tax on Varanasi and other pilgrim centres. It was a burden on poor pilgrims and a cause of immense inconvenience and resentment. A delegation of Brāhmanas led by Kavīndrāchārya left Varanasi for Agra to present a memorandum to the Emperor for the abolition of the pilgrim tax. Shah Jahan and his scholarly son Dara Shikoh were immensely impressed with his profound scholarship and on his request Emperor Shah Jahan abolished the pilgrim tax. It made Kavīndrāchārya one of the most renowned and revered scholars of the country. He was conferred the title of ‘Sarva-vidyā-nidhāna’ i.e. the mine of all learnings by Shah Jahan. Kavindrāchārya was hailed as a hero of the Hindu world and 69 scholars of Kāśī composed pangeric poems and published the book “Kavīndra-chandrodaya” which records the successful mission of Kavīndrāchārya and his team in the royal court of Shah Jahan. Two ślokas from this book on the mission of Kavīndrāchārya are quoted here:

येन श्री साहिजाहाँ-नरपतितिलकः स्वस्य वश्यः कृतोऽभूत्

किं चावश्यं प्रपन्नः पुनरपि विहितः शाहि-दाराशिकोहः।

काशी-तीर्थ-प्रयाग-प्रति- जनित - करग्राह - मोक्षैक - हेतु

सोऽयं श्रीमान् कवीद्रो जयति कविगुरुस्तीर्थराजाधिराजः।।

श्री विश्वेश्वर-काशिका-सुरनदीतीरे सुवर्णं ददौ

श्रीमत् साहिजहाँदिलीपकृपया विद्यानिधानाधिपः।।

Victory to Kavīndrāchārya, who is the leading light amongst poets and who is the king of the best pilgrim place (Kasi). He brought Emperor Shah Jahan under his control and was visited and venerated by Dara Shikoh voluntarily. He was instrumental in getting pilgrim tax exempted in Kāśī and Prayāga.

Victory to Kavīndrāchārya who donated gold on the bank of Gan¢gā at Kaśī of Viśveśvara by the grace of Dilīpa-like Emperor Shah Jahan and who was the master of scholarly persons.

Shah Jahan gave him a pension of Rs. 2000 but the great scholar used to distribute that amount. Bernier writes in his travels that Kavīndrāchārya was “one of the most celebrated Pandits in all the Indies.”

Shah Jahan receiving Dara Shikoh, by Hunhar, c. 1650 A.D.

(27) Patronage of Panditarāja Jagannātha

The Emperor himself was a great patron of art, culture and Sanskrit literature. Panditarāja Jagannātha was the favourite court poet of Emperor Shah Jahan. The title Panditarāja was conferred on him by the Emperor. He praised Shah Jahan eloquently in the following words:

दिल्लीश्वरो व जगदीश्वरो वा मनोरथं पूरयितुं समर्थ।

अन्यैर्नृपालै परिदीयमानं शाकाय वा स्याल्लवणाय वा स्यात्।।

Only the king of Delhi or the Master of the World (God) is capable of fulfilling desires. Whatever is given by other kings is like the mere gift of vegetables and salt.

Jagannath wrote Āsafa-vilāsa on the life of Shah Jahan’s maternal uncle Asaf Khan. In Āsafa-vilāsa he calls Shah Jahan a chakravartī ruler and eulogizes him at many places. In one prose piece he writes,

“अस्ति समस्त-प्रशस्त-भूपाल-मस्तक-मणि-मयूखमाला-लालित-चरण-नख- शरदिन्दु-चद्रिका-चय-चमत्कार-चुलुकित-चराचरान्तरतिमिर-धोरणिः सपुलक- सुरासुर- सुन्दरी-समुद्गीयमान-स्फारपारदपरम्परा-सहोदरयशः-सुधा-पटलसंग-वामांगीक- वामदेव-कलेवर-प्रतिभटीकृत-लोकालोकावनिधरो महस्तरुण-तरणि-किरण- सरणि-समुल्लासित-जगदण्डमण्डल-पुण्डरीकः साहिजनाभिधश्चक्रवर्ती।“

There is a chakravartī emperor Shah Jahan by name. Radiant garlands of मणि of the crowns of all renowned kings kiss his feet. The rays of the nails of his feet, which are like the rays of moon during the autumn, destroy the darkness of the entire world. Delighted damsels of divine and demonic races sing his fame which is as sparkling white as the heap of mercury. Due to this nectar in the form of flawless fame Shah Jahan’s radiant limbs like an elephant with elephantess equal the insurmountable mountain in the form of heaven and earth. The lotus in the form of the entire Brahmānda is opened by the rays of the early Sun in the form of his prowess.

The Emperor gave him profuse wealth and a dancing damsel Lavan¢gī after Jagannātha made this request on seeing her dance in the open court:

न याचे गजालिं न वा वाजिराजिं न वित्तेषु सक्तिर्मदीया कदाचित्।

इयं सुस्तनी मस्तकन्यस्तकुम्भा लवङगी कुरङगीदृगङगीकरोतु।।

I do not ask for the phalanx of elephants nor of hordes of horses nor do I have any interest in wealth. I long for Lavan¢gī, who is of well-shaped breasts and is having a pitcher on her head. Let this damsel with the eyes of a doe may accept me.

Such munificence of the Emperor to some of the greatest poets is a sound testimony to Shah Jahan’s liberal policy.

(28) Raghudeva Miśra’s Śāhijahāñ-virudāvalī

The Sanskrit poet Raghudeva Miśra from Mithilā was the maternal grand son (nātī) of Achyuta Thakkura, who was the son of the founder king of Khandavalā dynasty Maheśa Thakkura whose book ‘Sarva-deśa-vrittānta-san¢graha’ has been discussed above. He went to Shah Jahan’s court for making a representation that since Achyuta Thakkura had no son, the kingdom should devolve on him and his younger brother Harideva Miśra. Though Shah Jahan did not allow the inheritance to these two brothers on the ground that the family had no right to such inheritance, yet both were rewarded amply by the Emperor. Both brothers are said to have met Shah Jahan in the year 1638 and composed verses of Virudāvalī in praise of Shah Jahan and Jahangir. Raghudeva Miśra’s Virudāvalī in praise of Shah Jahan consists of 95 verses. One verse from the ‘Virudāvalī’ is quoted here:

त्वद्दोरुद्यत्प्रतापद्युमणिपरिचयादप्यनापन्नहानो

भिन्दानो वन्दिवृन्दाननकमलवनं दारुणः कैरवाणाम्।

स्वज्योत्स्नावीचिनीचीकृतनिखिलयशःक्षीरको वीर कोऽयं

क्षोणीजाने न जाने विहरति जगति त्वद्यशोऽनुष्णशोचिः।।27।।

O Lord of the earth! O Valiant king! Your fame in the form of the moon is such that it is not harmed by the rising sun which pierces the lotus-forest of the faces of your foes; it is terrible to gamblers, enemies and white lotus and by its waves of renown it can lower even the Kshīra-sāgara.

(29) Jaipur Inscription prohibiting the low-caste people from drawing water

Shah Jahan did never intend to interfere with the social customs of the Hindus. One inscription and one Farman are cited here to prove this point. An interesting example is provided by an inscription of Jaipur (A.D. 1651), in which one Mirza Ali Baig, apparently an officer of Emperor Shah Jahan, prohibits the low-caste people from drawing water from the well (where the inscription was put up) along with the people of higher caste.

“22. Inscriptions of the Mughals, Districts Jaipur, Nagaur and Tonk of the inscriptions of Shah Jahan, the one from Makrana, district Nagaur, records a notice put up on a step-well in A.H. 1061 (A.D. 1651) by Mirza ‘Ali Baig prohibiting the low-caste people from drawing water from the well along with the people of higher caste.” (Indian Archaeology, 1962-63, p. 62)

From this edict it is clear that the emperor Shah Jahan respected the sentiments of the high-caste Hindus and did not interfere in their social practices even contrary to Islamic tenets.

(30) Shah Jahan’s Farman in response to a complaint made by the Mahajans of the Lumpaka sect

Another illustration is a Farman issued by Emperor Shah Jahan in response to a complaint submitted by the Mahajans of the Lumpaka sect to the Emperor that Santidas and others belonging to his sect did not dine with them and enter into alliance with them and therefore they urged the king to force Santidas and his men to do so. Thereupon, the Imperial orders were issued to the officers in Gujarat that according to the holy religious law, inter-dining and matrimonial relations were dependent upon the desire and willingness of both the parties and therefore no one should be forced by the officers to do so.

The following is the full text of the Farman issued on September 19, 1644:

“(Tughra) Farman-i-Abul Muzaffar Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan Sahib Qiran-i-Tsani Badshah-i-Ghazi.

(Seal) Abul Muzaffar Shihab-ud-in Muhammad Sahib Qiran-i-Tsani Shah Jahan Badshah-i-Ghazi. H. 1046.

The excellent governors and the administrators of important affairs, which are efficiently executed, and the present and future officers of the capital town of Gujarat – may it be protected from misfortune, having become hopeful of the royal favour, should know that in these days the Mahajans of the sect of Loomkah (Lumpaka), residing in the above-mentioned town, came to the court, which is the protection of the world, and submitted a complaint with us that the Mahajans of Satidas, Surdas and others did not take their meals with them and did resource persons not form any relationship with them. Thereupon, our order, obeyed by the world, brilliant like the rays of the sun, high like the sky, has been issued to the effect that, since in the excellent religious laws and noble religion, to form matrimonial alliances with one another, and interdining, depends upon the pleasure and desire of the two parties, they (the officers) should settle that, if people are willing and desirous, they may form relationship and connection (by marriage) and take meals with one another; otherwise, no one should trouble another on account of this, and they (the officers) should not find fault with anyone in this respect. If at times, on account of this, some disturbance takes place, such an event should be decided and settled according to the holy religious rules and they should not go against and disobey this order. Written on the 27th of the month of the great Rajab (Rajab-ul-Murajjab) in the year 18th of the auspicious Julus, corresponding to 1054 Hijri (Sep. 19, 1644).”

Most of the Mughal monarchs respected this sentiment and did not interfere with the social and religious customs of the Hindus.

(31) Shah Jahan’s Farman to restore a temple

During the period I was associated with Ayodhyā dispute, the Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked me to find out some instance where an Indian Muslim King restored any converted mosque to the owner of the temple. I worked hard on the topic and one day in the library of the National Archives I found the following firman which was issued by the emperor Shah Jahan who restored the mosque converted from a Jain temple constructed by Shantidas at a cost of 25 lakh rupees to its Jain proprietor. It is published in the “Journal of the University of Bombay,” vol. 9 in the form of an article captioned ‘Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat’, by Khan Bahadur M.S. Commissariat.

This firman is dated July 3, 1648 and the restoration had taken place on the petition of Mulla Abdul Hakim who had represented to the Emperor that this building, by reason of its being the property of another person, could not be considered a mosque according to the inviolable Islamic law. The following is the description and the text of the firman:

“The Farman of Shah Jahan, with the Nishan and Seal of Prince Dara Shukoh, directing Ghairat Khan, the Deputy Viceroy of Gujarat, and other officials of the province, to restore to Shantidas the temple of Chintamani which had been converted into a mosque by Prince Aurangzeb in 1645, and to make complete restitution for the damage done by the faqirs and the Bohras. Dated the 21st of Jumad-as-Sani, H. 1058 (July 3, 1648).

(Tughra) 1. Farman-i-Abul Mazaffar Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Sahib Qiran-i-Tsani Shah Jahan Badshah-i-Ghazi.

2. Nishan-i-Alishan Dara Shukoh ibn Shah Jahan BadshahiGhazi.

(Seal) As in Plate X.

Be it known to the governors, subahdars and mutasaddis, present and future, of the province of Gujarat, especially the one who has been worthy of various favours (here follow several honorific epithets), Ghairat Khan, who has been reliant on and gladdened by royal favours, that formerly, in respect of the temple of the leading person of the time (zubdat-al-akran), Satidas Jawahari, an exalted and blessed order had been issued to Umdat-ul-mulk Shahistah Khan to this effect: ‘Shahzada Sultan Aurangzeb Bahadur having constructed in that place some mihrabs (prayer-arches) had given it the name of a mosque; and, thereafter Mulla Abdul Hakim had represented to His Majesty that this building, by reason of its being the property of another person, could not be considered a mosque according to the inviolable Islamic law; a world-obeyed order, therefore, obtained the honour of being issued that building is the property of Satidas, and that because of the mihrab which the famous Prince had made in that place the above-mentioned person should not be harassed, and that the mihrab should be removed and the aforesaid building should be handed over to him.
Now, at this time, the world-obeyed and illustrious order has been issued that the mihrab which the victorious and exalted Prince has constructed may be retained, and a wall be built near the same as a screen between the temple and the mihrab. Hence, it is ordained that, since his exalted Majesty has, as an act of favour, granted the aforesaid temple to Satidas, he should be in possession of it as before, and he may worship there according to his creed in any way he likes, and no one should obstruct or trouble him; and also that some of the Faqirs (beggars) who have made their abode in that place should be turned out, and Satidas should be relieved from the troubles and quarrels on their account. And since it has been represented to His Majesty that some of the Bohras have removed and carried away the materials of that temple, in the event of this being so, those materials should be got back from them and should be restored to the person referred to above (Satidas), and if the aforesaid materials have been used up, their price should be recovered from them and should be paid to Satidas.

In this matter, this order should be considered extremely urgent, and there should be no deviation from or disobedience to it. Written on the twenty-first of the month of Jumad-us-Sani in the year 1058 H. (July 3, 1648).”

After reading the Farman the Prime Minister Rao was very pleased and informed me that those Muslim leaders, who had been telling him that the instances of restoration of mosques to other forms of shrines or relocation of mosques to other places in Egypt and other countries would not be acceptable to them because Hanafi law was in vogue in India would be confronted them with this Farman at an opportune moment.

It is now proved that all Mughal Emperors from Babur to Shah Jahan were quite liberal and had made indelible imprint even on Sanskrit scholars and India under these Mughal Emperors witnessed one of the finest phases of history in prosperity, munificence and liberalism.

Amongst marvellous magnificent buildings built by Shah Jahan the Diwan-i-Khas is considered, after the, Taj Mahal, the most magnificent and it records the following famous lines:-

Agar firdaus bar ru-yi zamin ast

Hamin ast, u hamin ast u hamin ast!

(If there be a paradise on earth,

It’s this, it’s this, it’s this!)

At the end of this chapter the following lines from the poem ‘Akbar’s Dream’ written by famous English poet Tennyson are quoted to highlight the need of the hour to propagate the pluralistic philosophy in the society.

I hate the rancour of their castes and creeds,

I let men worship as they will, I reap

No revenue from the field of unbelief.

I cull from every faith and race the best

And bravest soul for counsellor and friend.

(Akbar’s Dream by Alfred Lord Tennyson)



Chapter Fifteen

Inferno of Fanaticism during the reign of Aurangzeb

[(1) Introduction (2) Testimony of an article published in 1752 A.D. (3) Demolition of the Vis´vanãtha temple (4) Aurangzeb’s Benares Firman: a forged document (5) The destruction of Jodhpur temples (6) The Religious Issue in the War of Succession (7) Horrendous display of savagery (8) Maasir-i Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan (9) Prof. Satish Chandra’s untenable defence of Aurangzeb’s religious policy (10) Two historic letters to Aurangzeb by two great men of the time (11) Aurangzeb’s life: a total failure as a ruler]

(1) Introduction

Aurangzeb had many sterling qualities which included indefatigable industry, tenacity of purpose, undaunted courage, ceaseless activity and admirable austerity. He deserves profuse plaudits for performing punctiliously and abstaining scrupulously from the common vices of his time. But he was a fierce fanatic who infuriated a vast section of the society through a series of administrative measures based on communal consideration.

The confidence of the people of India which Akbar had so assiduously gained and Jahangir as well as Shah Jahan had admirably retained was miserably lost by Aurangzeb. The demolition of temples was the most momentous mission of his life. It is a historical fact that he got most of the important Hindu temples demolished in the country and mosques were constructed at many of those places instantly.

From 1645 A.D., when Aurangzeb, as Governor of Gujarat, had desecreted the grand Jain temple built by Shanti Lal Jain to 1705 A.D. when the famous temple of Pandharpur was demolished by his order, he had relentlessly pursued this task. But for the spree of demolition of temples during his oppressive regime, it would have been one of the most glorious periods in Indian history. Instead, it tragically became the most harrowing one.

In the light of liberal religious policies of Akbar the Great and his successors, the Hindus had almost forgotten devastating demolition of Hindu temples by Mahmud of Ghazni, and a very harmonious relation had developed in the country between the two communities. However, the religious tyranny of Aurangzeb opened up wounds of the Hindus and it has not completely healed even after three centuries since his death. Established historians have started a consistent campaign to condone his archiconoclastic activities and portray him as a liberal ruler. In this chapter certain documents have been examined with objectivity to assess some aspects of his personality.

(2) Testimony of an article published in 1752 A.D.

The following interesting article published within 45 years of Aurangzeb’s death in ‘The London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer’ in 1752 A.D. is an apt assessment of the monarch, who had been responsible for the psychic schism between the two major communities of India. The title of the article was ‘The Character of the Mogul Emperor Aurenzeb, who died in the Year 1707’ which was included in ‘The History of the Revolutions of the Arabian Empire’ by the Abbé de Marigny (1690-1762), a French historian, who has written the History of the Caliphs from Mahomet to the death of Mostazem.
“Aurenzeb had nothing majestic in his person, his aspect was meagre, but his eyes were quick and sparkling and seemed to penetrate every breast upon which they were turned. His countenance was so seldom influenced by the emotions of his mind, that he appeared to be insensible both of joy and grief and his purpose was as effectually concealed as his passion; for his whole policy was founded on dissimulation in which he was so great a master that he could hide under what external appearance he pleased all that passed in his breast, which was always inaccessible by the keenest penetration and was never disclosed to his wife, his children or his friends. He has been celebrated for the regularity of his manners which were formed upon the strictest principles of morality; for his constant attendance on public worshipe in which his behaviour was an example to the most devout for his abstinence from wine and his contempt of those pleasures which were neither criminal in themselves nor forbidden by any positive institution, and appeared always busied in the discharge of his duty; when he was only viceroy of Deccan, he applied himself to the study of civil and military government with the greatest diligence, and listened to those whom he believed able to instruct him, not only with attention but pleasure. His deportment was solemn he spoke little, and affected great plainness in his furniture, his apparel and his equipage; so that in the whole of his appearance there was an austerity and simplicity that discovered rather the philosopher than the prince.
But ambition was notwithstanding the first motive of all his actions, and urged him to commit the most flagitious enormities. He hesitated at nothing that opened his way to the throne, nor was any duty moral or divine a sufficient barrier against the execution of his designs. He disregarded even the voice of the public, he frequently rendered religion itself subservient to the vilest purposes and his success was generally the effect of cunning and deceit. The merit of others, even of his children gave him pain and every successful event in which he was not interested, he regarded with regret; he was totally destitute of clemency, generosity and gratitude, and wholly possessed by avarice, suspicion, and cruelty. His genius was unbounded, and he could concenter the most important projects in one point of view, so as to see every difficulty with which they were embarrassed and all possible means by which the execution of them might be facilitated. Bribery, treachery and potion, he said, were the most speedy and effectual means to deliver him from his enemies and to preserve the lives of his soldiers: and his ability to practice these detestable maxims was so astonishing that it was almost impossible to elude his cunning or render his stratagems ineffectual. His penetration and presence of mind in pressing exigencies were so much beyond the attainment of others, and his expedients were so numerous and successful, that he was generally believed to be in compact with some powerful and evil spirit.
Upon the whole, he was utterly destitute of virtue as a principle of action he was an hypocrite and impostor, who sported with the laws both God and man. If he was frugal sober modest or devout, it was either the effect of habit constitution, or policy; his constitution made temperance absolutely necessary to the preservation of his life; and this he displayed with ostentation as it gave him occasion to punish intemperance in others who had stronger temptations and weaker motives to resist. When his interest or his jealousy, his revenge his avarice or his ambition were to be gratified at the expense of life, he made the advancement of religion, or the good of the state a pretence to cut off his enemies, and his friends were not always exempted. The terror even of his name was at length sufficient to maintain the tranquillity of his dominions, to preclude the projects of his sons and to keep them in perpetual awe, dependence, and apprehension. He was an unnatural son, a cruel parent, a perfidious friend and a formidable enemy; treacherous perjured, unmerciful, avaricious deceitful, and universally hated.

To finish the portrait of Aurenzeb I shall add only one stroke which, as it is a fact may heighten the general likentis.

He published an edict that on a certain day all the Faquirs in his kingdom should assemble themselves on a large plain that he might do himself the pleasure of dining with them. He ordered a vast number of new cassocks to be got ready and made a presence of one to every Faquir ordering them to drip off the old ones and throw them in a heap. The Faquirs made some difficulty of this, but the emperor would be obeyed and caused them all to be burnt to ashes. This brought a good round sum of money into his coffers. He was no stranger to the tricks of those pretended monks, he knew them to be great collectors of alms, which for safety they quilted in the folds of the cassocks; and this was the motive of his generosity to tile poor Faquirs.”

It is an objective assessment of the Emperor by a person who had no bias or prejudice.

It is interesting to see that John Dryden wrote a drama ‘Aurangzeb: A tragedy’ which was first played in 1675 and published in England in 1676 during the time of Aurangzeb. It is a fictional and quasi-historical account of Aurangzeb’s life. Besides, Samuel Say published a poem written on Aurangzeb on 11 April, 1698. A few lines from the poem are quoted below:

Unhappy Aureng-zebe! who griev’d we find

By Sons Unnatural and a Sire Unkind.

They Zeal for Him, He little did regard,

And long refus’d thy Duty its Reward :

Loyal, Thou sought’st a Father to defend;

But They thy Throne, Rebellious, wou’d ascend.

With more than Eighty toilsome Years opprest,

Thy Age is still deny’d its needful Rest.

UNHAPPY AURBNG-ZEBE! Whom Heaven’s Decree

Ordains from Troubles never to be free.

Yet let thy Sorrows now and constant Grief,

For some few Hours at least, admit Relief:

Heaven to accuse, Great Prince! At length forbear;

All, All is paid by MELESINDA’S Tear.

(pp. 43-44, Poemes on Several Occasions: And Two Critical Essays by Mr. Samuel Say. London, 1745.)

(3) Demolition of the Viśvanātha temple

Now it has become a fashion to defend the demolition spree of Aurangzeb by the established historians. Aurangzeb is being portrayed an ideal ruler by Pakistani historians. In their case it is understandable and it may be even condonable. But the dishonesty of Indian historians in defending Aurangzeb’s attempt to demolish important temples must be condemned. An ex-beaurocrat B.N. Pande, who became a renowned historian overnight by writing an unsubstantiated piece of article in defence of Aurangzeb’s demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple, got many coveted awards. Mr. Pande, who became Governor of Orissa, gave the following account of the demolition of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple ironically in an article titled ‘Distortion of Medieval Indian History’:
“The story regarding demolition of Vishwanath temple is that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made a journey on the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering Puja all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat. The Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. As the crime was heinous, the Rajas demanded exemplary action. Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.”

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his famous book, ‘The Feathers and the Stones’ has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. Dr. P.L. Gupta, former Curator of Patna Museum, has also corroborated this incident. (pp. 44-45)

Now the readers should know what Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya has written in his book ‘The Feathers and the Stones’:

“There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot in religion. This, however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is illustrated by one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the site of the original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like mosque in Mathura is another. The revival of jazia is a third but of a different order. A story is told in extenuation of the first event. In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign king in a country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles. They all set out one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst them was a Ranee of Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the Temple, the Ranee of Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out, East, North, West and South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a more diligent search revealed a Tah Khana or an underground story of the temple which to all appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it was found barred, they broke open the doors and found inside the pale shadow of the Ranee bereft of her jewellery. It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life one did not know. Anyhow in this case, there was no time for mischief as the search was diligent and prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests, Aurangazeb declared that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of God and ordered it to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left there. But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid being built on the ruin and to please her, one was subsequently built. That is how a Musjid has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar temple which is no temple in the real sense of the term but a humble cottage in which the marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the Mathura Temple. This story of the Benares Masjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists.”

Now after reading two stories the following questions arise:

(i) At present, there is no published book or unpublished manuscript anywhere in the world which directly or indirectly corroborates this baseless story.

(ii) No named person in the world had ever seen such ‘a rare manuscript’. What Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya had informed in his book that an unnamed Mulla had read such a rare manuscript and told this story to his friend whom he had promised to give the manuscript but never gave it to him and died. Now the Mulla’s friend, who heard the story but never saw the manuscript, informed whom is not clear. Sitaramayya does not claim that the Mulla’s friend was his friend also. The Mulla’s friend narrated this story to how many persons and it reached Sitaramayya’s ears after how many generations or channels is not known.

(iii) Then it is not a piece of history but a trash to be discarded lock, stock and barrel.

(iv) Now it should be examined historically also. There is no record to show that Aurangzeb ever took any expedition to Varanasi and beyond, when he was the emperor.

(v) There is no record to show that at any stage the Rani or Raja of Kutch was the part of his entourage during his visit to Vārānasī.

(vi) It is clearly mentioned in Masir-i-Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan that this mosque was built after demolishing the famous Viśvanātha temple at Vārānasī which followed the general order of Aurangzeb issued on 9th April, 1669 to demolish all temples in the Empire. Mustaid Khan informs that on 2nd September, 1669 news came to Court that according to Emperor’s command, his officers demolished the temple of Viśvanātha at Benares. From Mustaid Khan’s account it is clear that the news of the demolition of the Viśvanātha temple reached the Emperor’s Court and not his army camp. It nails the lies hidden in this concocted story.

(vii) It was never expected of an orthodox ruler like him to allow anyone to worship idolatry and that, too, after halting any expedition.

(viii) Even if it is accepted that Pandās had robbed or misbehaved with any lady, they should have been killed instantaneously but what was the rationale behind the demolition of the famous Jyotirlinga temple?

(ix) The fanciful story further informs that it was on the insistence of Rani of the Kutch that a mosque was built there to please her!

(x) The fanciful story depicts the Rani of Kutch as a helpless solitary pilgrim woman. It was a time-honoured practice that Ranis were accompanied by a group of court ladies. Morever, every established family has a traditional family pandā, who escorts every member and gets the religious rites performed.

(xi) It appears that Sitaramayya had never visited Kāśī Viśvanātha temple because it was built by Ahalyabai Holker in the Nagara style of architecture and the Sikh King Raja Ranjit Singh mounted the Kalash made of mounds of gold and “it is not humble cottage in which the marble Siva-linga is housed.”

(xii) Very few persons had read Sitaramayya’s book. To B.N. Pande, an ex-bureaucrat, it proved to be a pot of gold. He had no sense of the appreciation of historical evidences, otherwise he would have dismissed it forthwith. But with a desire to become a secular historian, he wrote an article and with his bureaucratic background and secular claim he became a historian overnight.

(xiii) But in order to acquit Aurangzeb of sacrilege he has played havoc with history. He is no more, so he cannot be asked to apologize but a request is made to the prestigious institute Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library to withdraw the book which is a slur on the writing of history.

(4) Aurangzeb’s Benares Firman: a forged document

There has been a sustained campaign by established historians to portray Aurangzeb as a liberal emperor. The basis of the most ‘impressive’ argument placed by them has been a firman supposedly issued by Aurangzeb for the protection of long-standing temples and non-harassment of Brahmanas at Banaras.

In the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal’, New Series Vol. VII of 1911 (pp. 687-691), the following article was published late in the year 1915 A.D. written by Rajani Ranjan Sen, B.L. with a translation of the firman by Lieut-Colonel D.C. Phillot:

“While at Benares last October I happened to come across a document of a unique nature likely to be of much interest to the antiquarian and the historian alike. Messrs. Saeed Brothers, Photographers, of Benares, gave me a photo-copy of a firman in Persian which they alleged to be a true and faithful reproduction of the original, which purported to be an imperial decree addressed to one Abul Hosein by Emperor Aurangzeb and communicated through his son Sultan Muhammad Bahadoor.

All historians have up to time been almost unanimous in giving to Aurangzeb a character directly opposed to what appears from the above document. He has been held to be bitterly opposed to the Hindus as evidenced by his imposition of the Jiziah tax, and has further been reputed to have de- molished numbers of Hindu temples at Benares, and erected the mosque over the Pancha Ganga Ghat in that city with the couple of tall minarets going by the name of Madhoji-ka-deora upon the ruins of the old temple of Beni Madhav which he had destroyed. As it was, I confess, I could not but look upon the document in question without considerable suspicion. I therefore thought it proper to keep silence till I obtained satisfactory and authentic informations regarding the existence of the original. On another flying visit to Benares I was enabled to get a sight of the original firman itself through the courtesy of Khan Bahadur Sheik Muhammad Tyab, City Inspector of Police, Benares.

This gentleman, who sent for the document from its present owner for my inspection, gave the following history in connection with its find:

‘In the Mungla Gauri Muhulla of this city (Benares) lived a Brahmin named Gopi Upadhyaya who died about 15 years ago. This firman was in the custody of Gopi Upadhyaya. This man had no son, but had a daughter. His daughter has a son named Mangal Pandey who also lives at Mungla Gauri now. Mangal Pandey had obtained the document from Gopi Upadhyaya along with his other papers. In April, 1905, I held an enquiry under orders of the Magistrate of Benares in the matter of a complaint by Mangal Pandey. Mangal is a ghatia Brahmin, who sits on the river-bank to ply his business as a ghatia pujari, to whose stall bathers in the river resort for various religious observances, and for purchasing various appurtenances of worship. Some Guzrati Bunniah women, he had complained, used to go to the place where he used to sit, and in accordance with a curious custom would frequently set up a wailing and weeping there. Mangal complained that no one would frequent his ghat to bathe if they were allowed to continue their practice of weeping there in that way. There was thus a dispute between Mangal and the Bunniahs. I asked him to show his documents, if he had any, to prove that he had his alleged right to the portion or space of the ghat that he occupied. He and his servant, one Babu Nandan, produced several papers before me, and I found this firman among them. It has since then been all along in his possession.’
Such being the occasion when this precious deed was found, as narrated by the Khan Bahadur, I felt convinced of its authenticity, and examined the document carefully and noticed that it was a slightly yellowish piece of old paper with a piece of thin linen pasted at the back leaving bare only a small portion, 4.1/2” inches by 4” inches, containing writings and Sultan Muhammad’s seal 1” inche in diameter. It is in an excellent state of preservation and the handwriting is very distinct and legible and the letters bold and large. The whole is written in deep black ink, excepting a small portion at the top 3” inches by 2.1/4” inches written in red in an ornate style enclosed within some lines in the form of an oblong in the middle at the top of the first page and to the left of the seal of Aurangzeb. The document measures 2 feet 10.1/ 2 inches by 1 foot 5.1/2 inches. On the next page appears in smaller letters the note of despatch through Prince Sultan Muhammad Bahadur with his seal on the right. This seal has some numerals looking like some dates, but are not very legible.
From the papers contributed by Prof. Jadunath Sarkar in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. II, No. 6 (New Series, 1906, pp. 223-267, with copies of two other firmans of Emperor Aurangzeb, in respect to certain Revenue Regulations and fiscal measures and certain rules for the guidance of Shaista Khan in connection with the Government of Bengal, it would appear that this monarch was after all not exactly what he had been represented to be, and that he was rather solicitous for insuring peace and security to his subject.

With a view that further researches may be made in respect to this matter by antiquarian experts, I append herewith a copy of the firman (and a translation of it in English, for which I am indebted to Samsul Ulamah Maulvi Kamaluddin Ahmad, and Maulvi Abdul Latif).”

Now let us examine the firman. The following is the Persian content of the firman published in the Asiatic Society of Bengal:

Aurangzeb’s spurious Benares Firman.

“Let Abu’l Hasan worthy of favour and countenance trust to our royal bounty and let him know that, since in accordance with our innate kindness of disposition and natural benevolence the whole of our untiring energy and all our upright intentions are engaged in promoting the public welfare and bettering the condition of all classes high and low, therefore in accordance with our holy law we have decided that the ancient temples shall not be overthrown but that new ones shall not be built. In these days of our justice information has reached our noble and most holy court that certain persons actuated by rancour and spite have harassed the Hindus resident in the town of Benares and a few other places in that neighbourhood, and also certain Brahmins, keepers of the temples, in whose charge those ancient temples are, and that they further desire to remove these Brahmins from their ancient office (and this intention of theirs causes distress to that community), therefore our Royal Command is that after the arrival of our lustrous order you should direct that in future no person shall in unlawful ways interfere or disturb the Brahmins and the other Hindus resident in those places, so that they may as before remain in their occupation and continue with peace of mind to offer up prayers for the continuance of our God-given Empire that is destined to last to all time. Consider this an urgent matter. Dated 15th of Jumãda-‘s-Sãniya A.H. 1064 (=A.D. 1653 or 4).”
In the original translation published in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal the Firman was said to have been issued on the 15th of Jumada-‘s-Saniya A.H. 1064 (= A.D. 1653 or 54). Rajani Ranjan Sen wrote that the paper of the Firman was in an excellent state of preservation. It also creates suspicion because a Firman of 1659 or 1653-54 A.D. kept with a Ghatia Brāhmana in a haphazard way could not be in an excellent state of preservation for almost 250 years. Secondly, Mr. Sen has informed that on the next page of the Firman is written in smaller letters the note of dispatch through Prince Sultan Muhammad Bahadur with his seal on the right. Here even the Prince’s name is not written correctly. Instead of Muhammad Sultan it is Sultan Muhammad Bahadur.

Prof. Jadunath Sarkar, believing the Firman to be genuine corrected the date of its issuance from 1653 to 1659 with the following comments:

“Aurangzib’s “Benaras Farman” addressed to Abul Hassan, dated 28th Feb 1659 A.D. granted through the mediation of Prince Muhammad Sultan is now published in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1911, on page 689 with many mistakes notable about the date, which I have corrected from a photograph of the firman.”

Sir J.N. Sarkar claimed that this date 1064 H. was not a correct reading of the original text. There is slight ambiguity about the date. It is Persian digit. The first, second and the fourth digits are 1, 0, 9 respectively. But the third is not clear, so it can be read either 4 or 6. If it is read 4, the year comes to be 1049, i.e. 1639 A.D. But if it is read 1069, it 1659 A.D. The first date falls in the reign of Shah Jahan and the second date is in the initial year of Aurangzeb’s reign.

It is written as: . Here the figures 1, 0, and 9 are very clear. The doubt exists about the third digit whether is 4 or 6. If it is 4, then the year is 1049 H, i.e. 1639 A.D. In that case it will be completely in the reign of Shah Jahan. But if it is 1069 H. as read by Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar, then it is 1659 and the day calculated by Sarkar falls on 28th Feb. 1659.

Besides, on the right side of this firman is written:

“Sultan Muhammad Bahadur ibn-e Muhammad Aurangzeb Shah Bahadur 1680 Ghazi.”

It is not the usual style to call the emperor Aurangzeb Shah Bahadur. Then what does the figure 1680 indicate here? It cannot be 1680 A.H. because still it is 1433 A.H.; 247 years away in 2011 A.D. Here 1680 is very clear and it exposes the spurious character of the Firman because forgers forget the Hizri date and indicated the Roman calender day of 1680 which fell during Aurangzeb’s reign.

In the article published in the Asiatic Society of Bengal Lieut. Colonel D.C. Phillot translated it with the help of Shamsul Ulamah Maulvi Kamaluddin Ahmad, and Maulvi Abdul Latif. The date given in this translation is 15th of Jamada-s-Saniya A.H. (=1653 or 54) which comes to the reign of Shah Jahan. Even if we accept the date suggested by Sarkar, it does not help us because historical facts make it impossible for a Firman of such tenor issued on that day, when Aurangzeb was in hot pursuit against his arch-enemy Dara Shukoh in Rajasthan and his son was chasing his uncle Shuja in Bengal at a distance of almost 2000 kms.

The fact that Aurangzeb was not liberal towards the Hindus is proved by Aurangzeb’s decision of stopping the pension of the great poet Kavīndrāchārya granted by Shah Jahan and it is confirmed by the following trivial testimony of Francois Bernier who was an admirer of Aurangzeb and wrote thus about him in his memoirs “Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656-1668” in 1665 A.D.:

“During one year he was in the constant habit of visiting my Agah, to whom he paid his court in the hope that he would exercise his influence to obtain the pension of which Aureng-Zebe, anxious to appear a true Musulmann, deprived him on coming to the throne.”

(Travels in the Mogul Empire AD. 1656-1668, p. 341)

But even if this date of 28th February, 1659, is accepted as a true translation, it is shown below that no Firman could have been issued on that date with the seals of Prince Sultan Muhammad and Aurangzeb. Sultan Muhammad was the eldest son of Emperor Aurangzeb. He had actively participated in favour of his father in the battles of Dharmat and Samugarh. Thereafter, he had been dispatched for fight against Prince Shuja. In the Maasir-i-Alamgiri of Saqi Must’ad Khan, a detailed description of the movements of Prince Muhammad Sultan and Emperor Aurangzeb has been given. Moreover, Sir J.N. Sarkar, too, has furnished additional information from other sources.

On 30th December, 1658 when Shuja reached Khajwa from Patna with 25,000 cavalry and artillery boats, he found Sultan Muhammad ‘barring his path’.

On 2nd January, 1659 “the imperial tents were pitched outside the village of Korra, where Prince Muhammad Sultan was staying with the advanced detachment, and four kos from which Shuja was waiting.” On 4th January, 1659, “the third day following the Emperor’s arrival at Korra it was ordered that the artillery should not be carried in front but made to fire opposite the army of Shuja, and the imperial army should engage in battle.” Aurangzeb ‘marched his army in perfect order and reached one mile in front of the enemy’s camp’. In the wee hours of 5th January, 1659, Maharaja Jaswant Singh in the imperial camp revolted and sent a message to Shuja to attack the imperial army from one side. He along with his 14,000 strong Rajput troops “plundered the camp of Muhammad Sultan which was in his way.” Much of the ‘Emperor’s own camp suffered the same fate.’ Tactless Shuja, even after having received Jaswant’s message and heard of the tumult in the vicinity, did not move at night, fearing it to be “a mere ruse contrived between Aurangzeb and Jaswant to lure him on to his destruction!”

Aurangzeb remained unmoved and addressed his officers, “This incident is a mercy vouchsafed to us by God. If the infidel had played the traitor in the midst of the battle, all would have been lost. His flight (now) is good for us.”

Thus, on 5th January, 1659 Aurangzeb had been betrayed by a powerful Hindu chief on the eve of the crucial battle at Khajwa, 3 days’ march from Allahabad. On this fateful day, Shuja lost the battle in a devastating manner. He “galloped away from the field with his sons, his general Sayyied Alam and a small body of troops.” Aurangzeb immediately sent a ‘pursuing column under Muhammad Sultan after Shuja’.

Since then, i.e. 5th January, 1659 Prince Muhammad was in the eastern part of India, particularly in Eastern Bihar and Bengal, chasing and fighting the forces of his uncle Shuja. It continued until 8th June, 1659 when Prince Muhammad Sultan left the imperial post of Dogachi and defected to Shuja side because he had long been chafing under the tutelage of Mir Jumla and aspired to reign independently! Shuja offered him the hands of his daughter Gulrukh Banu and sought Prince’s help in securing the throne. Saqi Mustiad Khan writes in ‘Maasir-i-Alamgiri’:

“At this time the Emperor learnt from the news letter of Bengal that Prince Muhammad Sultan who had been deputed with Muazzam Khan to crush Shuja, had, through the instigation of the latter, gone away on Wednesday the 8th June 1659/27th Ramzan with a few servants by boat with the intention of joining Shuja and was showing hostility to the imperial cause.” (pp. 14-15)

Let us see what was the movement of the Emperor Aurangzeb after the grand victory at Khajwa. Saqi Mustad Khan writes,

“That very day he sent Prince Muhammad Sultan from the place in pursuit of Shuja, and himself stayed there till Tuesday, 11th January/26th Rabi. S. On Wednesday, the 12th he marched from the environs of Khajwa and on Friday the 14th/29th Rabi. S. he came to the river Ganges.” (p. 8)

Thereafter Saki Mustaid Khan writes,

“On Saturday, the 15th January, 1659/1st Jamad. A., while encamped on the bank of the Ganges he learnt from Muhammad Sultan’s dispatches of the capture of Allahabad. As it was necessary to punish Jaswant Singh, who wanted to join Dara, he sent Muhammad Amin Khan, Mir Bakhshi, with 9,000 cavalry from Ghatampur on the 16th January/22nd Jamad A. to destroy him.” (p. 9)

Saqi continues,

“As the Emperor wished to march without delay for the punishment of Jaswant Singh and the suppression of Dara, he did not go to Agra but on Friday, the 4th February/21st Jamad. A., started from the garden of Nur Manzil towards Ajamir. On the 8th/25th Jamad, A. when he marched out of the hunting lodge of Rupbas, Shaikh Mir and Dilir Khan, having returned from the pursuit of Dara, joined the Emperor.” (p. 10)

Saqi further informs, “On Sunday, the 20th February/7th Jamad S., the Emperor encamped near Hinduan; and no halt was made from here to the village of Tuda. On Monday the 28th February/15th Jamad. S. Amir Khan, brother of Shaikh Mir, who had taken Murad Bakhsh from Delhi fort to Gwalior by the order of the Emperor joined him.”

Thus, on 28th February, 1659 when according to Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar Emperor Aurangzeb issued the firman of the religious tolerance through the office of his son Muhammad Sultan, the Emperor was in Rajasthan and the Prince was in Eastern India! How the twain met to consider sympathetically the condition of the Hindus of Benaras and issue a Firman from the imperial seat is beyond comprehension!

Saqi informs us that after defeating Dara Shikoh the Emperor reached Fathpur on 7th April, 1659 and on 19th April he started for Delhi. On 2nd May, the Emperor reached the palace of Khizirabad and after a stay of 11 days there he entered the Delhi Fort on 12th May, 1659. But the Firman was issued on the day when Aurangzeb was engaged in the fight against Dara Shikoh near Ajmer.

After the decisive defeat of his father-in-law Shuja and his flight to Dacca Prince Muhammad Sultan returned to Akbarnagar and joined Istam Khan. The Emperor was informed and Fedai Khan was ordered to bring the Prince to Court. When he reached near the capital, the Prince was arrested and sent in the custody of Muatamad Khan on 26th April, 1660. He remained in the Gwalior state prison from 1660 to 1672 and thereafter to Salimgarh (Delhi) prison until ‘death put an end to his miseries on 3rd December, 1676, when he was to complete his thirty-seventh year’. This was the treatment meted out to his eldest son who had fought valiantly at Samugarh and Dharmat against Dara and at Khajwa against Shuja. One tactless decision cost his career and life.
After conclusively proving that no Firman could have been issued on 28th February, 1659 by Aurangzeb through the mediation or good offices of his son Prince Muhammad Sultan, now it is to be seen how far the process of the discovery of this Firman is convincing. From the content of this Firman it is clear that it had been addressed to one Abul Hassan who was worthy of the Emperor’s favour and trust. Therefore, he must have been some senior officer of the empire posted at Benaras. One Abul Hasan is known during Aurangzeb’s period. He was the cruising admiral who attacked and captured Sondip in Bengal in November, 1665 and a Mughal garrison was put in the island. If he was the same administrator at Benares, it is very intriguing how a Firman issued to a senior army officer of the empire could land in the custody of a ‘ghatia’ Brāhmana of the Mungla Gauri Muhulla of Benares. It is the same locality where the famous Gyāna-Vāpi Viśvanātha temple was converted into a mosque by the order of Aurangzeb. Since it was not a land grant given to Mangal Pandey or his maternal grandfather Gopi Upadhyaya or his ancestor, it is not supposed to have been in their custody.
It is strange to learn that this Firman was shown to the City Inspector of Police Khan Bahadur Shaikh Muhammad Tyab by Mangal Pandey to prove his claim on a small piece of land on the ghat of Ganga at Benares. This Firman could produce no proof in support of his claim. If the city Inspector of Police could have been sincere, he could have booked Mangal Pandey for the theft of this royal Firman in 1905 A.D. It is more intriguing to learn that Messrs. Saeed Brothers, Photographers of Benares had already a photograph of this Firman in their custody. Neither Rajani Ranjan Sen nor Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar thought it proper to ponder over this mysterious discovery.
This Firman contains a State policy formulated by the father and son duo who were at a distance of 2,000 km. on the alleged day of the dispatch of the Firman. In the initial reading the date deciphered was the 15th day of Jumada-s-Saniya A.H. 1064 which fell on 3rd May, 1654 A.D. If it really belonged to 1064 A.H., it was issued by Shah Jahan and in that case both the text and tenor of the edict match his style of Firmans. Then the question will arise as to how the seals of Aurangzeb and Muhammad Sultan are seen on the Firman. Were they super-imposed by the photographers Saeed Brothers at the behest of the City Inspector of Police Khan Bahadur Shaik Muhammad Tyab?

Thus, Aurangzeb, who could even deprive the greatest Pandit of Kāśi (Kavīndrāchārya) of the pension granted to him by Shah Jahan, could never issue such liberal firman.

As an unsuspecting Buchanan had been duped by some maulavi friend by inventing a Mir Baqi inscription in 1813-14, Rajani Ranjan Sen was misled by Saeed Brothers and the city Inspector of Police almost a hundred years later. These are the issues which have not been examined by any historian during a period of the last 100 years. Now it has to be examined in all sincerity. This much can be claimed with utmost certainty that this Firman was not issued by Aurangzeb. A religious bigot like Aurangzeb, who as a Governor of Gujarat demolished the famous Jain Chintamani temple after slaughtering a cow inside the temple and as an Emperor razed almost all important Hindu temples in the country, could never write such a letter with an eclectic spirit. Nevertheless, many myths of this sort have been created around Aurangzeb on the basis of unsubstantiated documents to glorify his character.

(5) The destruction of Jodhpur temples

Prof. M. Athar Ali was a great historian. Very few people could match him in his profound knowledge of Persian historical texts and students of history will remain grateful to him for his innovative writings. But it is a tragedy that even such great historians propound theories and pronounce decisions on the basis of a single source of unsubstantiated information which is in contradiction to other available informations. In the 22nd chapter ‘Cause of the Rathor Rebellion of 1679’ of his book ‘Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture’ he, on the basis of ‘Waqai Ajmer’, i.e. monthly dispatches of the official news writer of Ajmer’ has written the following paragraphs to establish the theory that the destruction of Jodhpur temples was done on the request of the Rani Hadi, the Chief Queen of Jaswant Singh to get his son installed on the Jodhpur throne:
“Already in Rabi I (April 1679), before Indar Singh had received the tika Tahir Khan, qila’adar of Jodhpur, had suggested to the Rathors that they could please the emperor by demolishing all the temples within the state and constructing mosques in their place. The Rajputs, when they heard this, were very indignant. But when the message was carried to Rani Hadi, Jaswant’s chief queen, who was inside the fort as the titular leader of the Rathors, she declared that he (Tahir Khan) could do as he pleased for the good of the Rathors: ‘If Jodhpur was conferred on the sons of the late Raja, the Rajputs undertook to demolish all the temples in the state of Marwar.”(p. 255)

Though it is here reported that only Rani Hadi had agreed to any such proposal, Prof. Athar Ali gives a colour of ambiguity by showing that it was accepted by the Rajputs also:

“They (the Rathors) now proclaimed that if only the tika was given to Ajit Singh, they would be more royal than the king in carrying out Aurangzeb’s pet projects, the collection of the Zijiya and the destructions of temples within Marwar. It may be noted that there is no suggestion anywhere that Indar Singh had given such a pledge to secure the tika.” (p. 256)

There is a historical error even in this version of the Waqai. Two sons of Jaswant Singh from two Ranis (different from Hadi) had been born in February 1679. One son died within a short span after the birth. So, there was only one son of Jaswant Singh alive in April 1679 and this was known to all Rajput sardars and Rani Hadi. Moreover, Rani Hadi was not the mother of the surviving son who was known later as Ajit Singh. Then how could she state that if Jodhpur was conferred on the sons of the late Raja, the Rajputs would undertake to demolish all temples in Marwar? Since the falsehood has no wings, it is caught sooner than later.

Athar Ali further writes:

“Two months later (Jamada 1 = June 1679), when Indar Singh had been appointed raja, two spokesmen of the Rathors, Ram Bhati and Sonak Rathor, went to Qazi Hamid of Jodhpur and represented as follows:

“The zamindari of the country of Marwar was the property of Raja Jaswant Singh and after his death by the law of inheritance the zamindari of the country devolves on his sons. In the presence of the sons of the late Jaswant Singh, Indar Singh had no right to succeed. If the watan and the zamindari was conferred on the sons of the deceased Raja, the Rajputs undertook to demolish all the temples of Jodhpur and construct mosques instead. The Rajputs were also prepared to promulgate the law of the shari’at and do carry out the orders of the Emperor to whatever effect. We want to know the law of the shari‘at in this case. The Qazi gave them no answer and forwarded the case to Qazi Shaikhul-Islam (Chief Qazi at the Court.)”

“Tahir Khan also reported in the same month to the emperor that the Rajputs were prepared to demolish all the temples within the Jodhpur state, to promulgate Islam and to offer a bigger peshkash than that offered by Indar Singh, if the latter’s appointment as the Raja of Jodhpur was cancelled.” (p. 256)

When Athar Ali produced such a radical material, he should have cross-examined it from other sources.

It was already on record before Prof. Ali from Masir-i-Alamgiri that on 24th Rabi.S./25th May, 1679 Khan-i-Jahan Bahadur returned from Jodhpur after demolishing temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols. He had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols should be cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of the Jama mosque to be trodden on. The following is the excerpt from this book:

“On Sunday, the 25th May/24th Rabi, S. Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhanah) of the court and under the steps of Jam’a mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost.” (pp. 108-109)

Thus the demolition of temples and breaking of idols had started in the beginning of March, 1679 and had already completed by 25th May, 1679, i.e. before Indar Singh’s appointment as Raja of Jodhpur and Rajputs’ supposed offer of demolishing temples on their own volition.

According to ‘Maasir-i-Alamgiri’ Indar Singh was appointed Raja of Jodhpur on 25th Rabi, S., i.e. 26th May 1679 the following is the narrative in the Maasir-i-Alamgiri:

“On Monday, the 26th May/25th Rabi, S., Indra Singh, son of Rao Rai Singh, grandson of Amar Singh, was appointed Raja of Jodhpur in succession to his uncle Jasawant Singh, and given the title of Raja, a special robe, a sword [176] with jewelled saz, a horse with gold saz, an elephant , a banner, tugh, and ketteldrums. He presented a tribute of thirty-six lakhs of Rupees which was graciously accepted.” (p. 109).

It is a hisrorical fact that on 25th May, 1679 the cart-loaded broken idols had already reached Delhi from Jodhpur and it must have taken considerable time in demolishing all temples, breaking the idols and carrying them in carts to Delhi. Then how is it possible that in June and July 1679 Rani Hadi and the Rathor nobles were begging Aurangzeb’s officers to show them favour by demolishing temples in lieu of the installation of Jaswant Singh’s son upon the Marwar throne? Indar Singh received the Mughal ‘tika’ on 26th May, 1679, i.e. one day after the cart-loaded broken idols had reached Delhi.
Mr. Athar Ali should have realized that when temples had already been demolished and cart-loads of broken idols were shown to the Emperor on 25th May, 1669 A.D., how could the Rajputs or Tahir Khan plead before the Qazi Hamid of Jodhpur and Aurangzeb that the Rajputs were ready to demolish all the temples of Jodhpur and construct mosques instead? Mr. Athar Ali should have discarded this rubbish piece of information incorporated in the imperial ‘Waqui Ajmer’. In addition, he should have seen the original copy of the Waqai Ajmer. According to his own admission:

“The original copy of the Waqai Ajmer is in the Asifiyah Library, Hydrabad. I have used a transcript from the original in the Research Library, Dept. of History, AMO, Aligarh.”

According to Prof. Athar Ali’s interpretation, the Rathod indignation was on account of the deprivation of Jodhpur where they were collected to mourn the deceased Jaswant Singh. In order to placate the Rajput sardars Aurangzeb passed an order confirming the assignments (pattas) granted by Jaswant Singh. But Jaswant Singh’s sardars declined the offer. Prof. Ali informs, “When pressed by Iftikhar Khan, they declared that though they know they could not resist the imperial army, they had decided to die rather than submit.” When Prof. Ali knows that these valiant Rajputs had sacrificed all these assignments and were ready to die, then such calumny against a valiant race is a gross injustice to them and a daunting distortion of historical facts.

Thus, it is clear that before the appointment of Indar Singh as Raja of Jodhpur the temples had already been demolished and idols were broken. On 9th Jannary, 1679 Aurangzeb had marched for Ajmer. On 10th March Aurangzeb left Ajmer for Delhi where he reached on 2nd April 1679.

‘Ajitodaya Mahākāvya’ of Pandita Jagajjīvana Bhatta is an important biography of Ajit Singh, who ruled from 1707 to 1724 A.D. The poet is supposed to have lived between 1670 and 1750 A.D. Thus, it is almost a contemporary composition of 32 cantos. He informs that Indar Singh had advised the emperor Aurangzeb to detain the queens along with their sons when they had reached Delhi after the death of Jaswant Singh, because they had vast treasures of the late King in their possession. The poet further informs that the willingness of Indar Singh to accept Islam had won him the throne of Marwar. This might have been one of the reasons for Rathors’ intense hatred for Indar Singh.

Another important fact is that on 15th July, 1679 Aurangzeb asked his officers to detain the two queens along with the child. They were to be taken to Jodhpur from the house of Rup Singh Rathore. After the Emperor’s order of detaining them the Rajputs resolved to rescue the Baby Ajit Singh. After a relay of heroic fights against Mughals in which dozens of them sacrificed their lives, the Rajput leaders reached Jodhpur on 23rd July, 1669. The successful arrival of Ajit Singh at Jodhpur signalled the dismissal of Tahir Khan.

Ajitodaya mahākāvya and Muntakhab-ul-Lulab have given detailed description of the heroic flight of Rathors from Delhi to Jodhpur. In addition, the Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs as follows:

“As Raja Jaswant Singh had left no son when he died in (the province of) Kabul, his trusted servants, viz. Sonang, Raghunath Das Bhatti, Ranchhor, Durgadas and others, reported to the Emperor after the Raja’s death that two of his wives who were pregnant had, after their arrival at Lahore, delivered each a son. These servants after reporting the fact of the birth of the sons, begged that mansab and the kingdom might be conferred (on one of them). The Emperor ordered that the sons should be sent to his court, and that when they would come of age, mansab and raj would be granted. These shallow-brained people after reaching Delhi pressed their request with great insistence. At this time one of the sons died. When the Emperor learnt that these wicked men mischievously wished to flee, carry the second son with the two mothers to Jodhpur, and raise a tumult there, he on Tuesday, the 15th July, 1679/16th Jamad. S., ordered both the Ranis and the child, who were living in the mansion of Rup Singh Rathor, to be seized and placed in Nurgarh. Fulad Khan Kotwal, Sayyid Hamid Khan with the men of the khas chauki, Hamid Khan, son of Daud Khan, Kamaluddin Khan son of Dilir Khan, and Khwaja Mir (who had got the title of Salabat Khan) with the servants of the cavalry (risala) of the late Prince Sultan Muhammad, were ordered to make these wicked men abstain from their criminal plan and to prevent them from carrying out their crude design, and if they foolishly engaged in fight, to give them proper chastisement.” (pp. 109-10)
This account also tallies with that of ‘Ajitodaya Mahākāvyam’ composed by Jagajjīvana Bhatta who was a contemporary poet of Ajit Singh. The poet, born at Jodhpur, was employed in the correspondence department of the Maharaja and had been honoured with ‘hāthī saropā’ by the King Ajit Singh. The poet informs that Ajit Singh was born on February 19, 1679 A.D. about 48 minutes earlier than another son of Jaswant Singh named Dalthamban. He confirms that a delegate of Rathod nobles called on Aurangzeb for the restoration of the Kingdom of Marwar to Jaswant Singh’s son Ajit Singh. But the emperor refused and suggested that since Ajit was a minor, he should be brought up in the royal custody until he came of the age. But the Rathods rightly presumed that Ajit would be converted to Islam, as it subsequently happened to the fake child whom Aurangzeb declared to be the genuine son of Jaswant Singh. He was converted to Islam and named Muhammadi Raj. Therefore, the Rathods decided to rescue Ajit from the clutches of the Mughal army after sacrificing their lives. This is one of the most romantic and heroic efforts ever made in the world history under the dynamic leadership of Durga Das Rathor who is still adored as the epitome of the utmost chivalry in the following words:

“Eh Mātā! Pūta esa jin, jessa Durgādāsa!

Band Mūrdrā rakheo, bin thāmā ākāsa!”

i.e. Oh, mother! produce such sons as Durgadas, who first supported the dam of Mūrdrā, and then propped the heavens (without a pillar)!”

Ajit Singh was successfully carried to Jodhpur. One additional information in the epic is that Indra Singh was made king of Jodhpur on his promise of converting to Islam and this was one strong reason that the Rathods’ detested Inder Singh so intensely.

What happened next is best narrated by Khafi Khan in “Muntakhab-ul Lubab” in the following words:

“Meanwhile the Rãjpúts had obtained two boys of the same age as the Rãja’s children. They dressed some of the female attendants in the garments of the rãnís, and taking every precaution that their stratagem should not be discovered, they left these women and the boys under guard in their camp. The (real) rãnís, disguised as men, went off at night in charge of two trusted servants and a party of devoted Rãjpúts, and made their way with all speed to their own country. The brave and active chiefs, who might have stopped or overtaken them, were keeping guard over the tents in which the pretended children of the Rãja were. After two or three watches, when a report of the fact was made, some officials were sent to make inquiries, and it was repeatedly stated that the rãnís and the children were still there. Orders were then given for taking all the Rãja’s followers into the fortress. The Rãjpúts and the disguised women, who were ready to fight like men for the honour of their Rãja, made a determined resistance. Many were killed, but a party escaped.
The flight of the rãnís was not clearly proved. Some men, who wished to show their zeal, and to cover their negligence in the matter, asserted that the boys had escaped, and that the wazír had sent out a force to secure them. The royal forces went in pursuit twenty kos from Dehlí, but they could not overtake the Rãjpúts, and returned unsuccessful. The two (substituted) boys were given into the charge of the women of the royal harem, and were there brought up. The two boys which the Rãjpúts carried off were for a long time rejected by Aurang-zeb, who refused to acknowledge that they were the sons of Jaswant, until all doubt was removed by the Rãnã of Chitor, who married Ajit Singh to a girl of his family.” [pp. 297-98]

Though three authentic contemporary historians have given the detailed account of the events which followed the death of Jaswant Singh, Prof. Athar Ali has not even mentioned them and on the sole testimony of Waqai Ajmer, the original copy of which he did not even see and just on the basis of its transcript, he has propounded a theory which is a slur on the heroic character of the Rathod leaders who stood solidly in support of Ajit Singh.

Prof. S.M. Azizuddin Husain, too, in his book ‘Structure of Politics under Aurangzeb 1658–1707’ has criticized Athar Ali for his partisan presentation of the picture depicted in Waqai:

“But the unfortunate aspect is that he examined Waqai reports from one angle – that is he only saw the problem of succession of Ajit Singh and totally ignored the high-handedness of the Mughal officials in the form of bricking the doors of the temples, demolition of temples, confiscation of the property relating to the trusts of those temples which were demolished during the period 1679-80.” (p. 148)

Here it should be remembered that Ajit Singh was not the son of queen Hadi, so there was no strong reason for her to bargain the demolition of all temples in Jodhpur for his installation on the throne.

Prof. Ali should have remembered that the Rathor Rajputs were led by Durga Das, one of the greatest strategists, who saved infant Ajit and Marwar in the most heroic style. The factitious account given in the Waqai Ajmer is a slur on the chivalry of Rathor Rajputs who sacrificed their lives for the safe passage of Ajit Singh who was otherwise to be kept in the emperor’s custody. They knew the fate of the infant in such custody and therefore preferred fight and death to meek surrender. Their heroic fight has been aptly described by A.K. Majumdar who followed Sir Jadunath’s book which was based on the accounts of Ishwar Das Nagar.
“Then Durga Das’s plan hatched in secret and almost incredible in character, was put into operation and took the Muslims by surprise. Suddenly a gate of the mansion opened and Raghunath Bhattî, with one hundred troopers, rushed out in a wild ‘death-defying’ charge, before which the Muslims quailed. Seizing the opportunity, Durga Das with the rest of his followers and the queens in male attire, slipped out of the mansion and took the road to Jodhpur. For an hour and a half, Raghunath dyed the streets of Delhi with blood, but at last he fell with all his comrades. Then the Mughuls set out in pursuit but in the meantime the fugitives had covered nine miles, when the Mughuls overtook them. Then Ranchhor Das Jodha turned round to check the pursuers with a small band of troopers. And they too resisted the Muslims to the last man. The Mughuls then took up the pursuit again and this time, while the rest continued their journey towards Jodhpur, Durga Das turned round with fifty troopers and fought till all but seven of them died. It was almost evening and at last the tired Mughuls gave up the pursuit and wearily made their way back to Delhi, while Durga Das and his comrades safely carried the royal party to their destination.” (The Mughal Empire, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, pp. 34748)
For the protection of the Varāha temple near Pushkara Lake in Ajmer hundreds of Rathors sacrificed their lives by fighting continuously for three days and not a single soul sought shelter anywhere. During Aurangzeb’s Ajmer visit when Darab Khan attacked Khandel with a strong force on 8th March 15th safars to demolish the great temple of the place, three hundred and odd men made a bold defence and sacrificed their lives to protect the shrine. And now history is being taught in the Universities that Aurangzeb did a favour to the Rani Hadi and Rathors by destroying temples in accepting their proposal. ‘Madhyakālīna Bhārata’, edited by Harischandra Verma for Delhi University contains the following content in defence of Aurangzeb’s Rajput policy: घइसी बीच जोधपुर के किलेदार ताहिर खाँ ने राठौरों को यह सुझाव दिया कि वे पादशाह को खुश करने के लिए जोधपुर के मन्दिरों का विध्वंस करा कर उनके स्थान पर मस्जिद खड़ी करवा दें। राठौरों की प्रमुख रानी हाड़ी ने यह प्रस्ताव इस शर्त पर मानना मंजूर कर लिया कि जोधपुर को मृतक राणा के पुत्र को ही सौंपा जाएगा।
अतहर अली का कहना है कि औरंगजेब के निर्णय के प्रति राठौरों की प्रतिक्रिया का एकमात्र कारण इंदरसिंह को मारवाड़ का शासक बनाया जाना था। इंदरसिंह की तुलना में वे खालिसा और शाही प्रशासन को अधिक श्रेयस्कर समझते थे। उन्होंने घोषणा की कि यदि टीका अजीतसिंह को प्रदान किया जाएगा तो वे औरंगजेब की प्रिय योजनाओं को, जैसे जजिया की वसूली, मारवाड़ में मन्दिरों का विध्वंस, इंदर सिंह की अपेक्षा अधिक निष्ठा से अंजाम देंगे। यहाँ यह तथ्य उल्लेखनीय है कि इंदर सिंह ने टीका प्राप्त करने के लिए ऐसा कोई वचन नहीं दिया थाच (Vol. II. pp. 234-35)

Thus, University students are being taught false history to defend an indefensible policy of a ruler who was a religious bigot in toto. Please have some mercy on glorious history!

(6) ‘The Religious Issue in the War of succession’

In another article ‘The Religious Issue in the War of Succession 1658-59’ in the same book, Prof. Athar Ali has tried to establish that it was not fought on account of religious considerations. He writes:

“Yet, those who made such statements do not seem to have troubled to ask themselves whether Aurangzeb in fact ever raised the slogan of ‘Islam in Danger’ in order to gain the throne. This question, it must be remembered, is quite different from whether Aurangzeb later on tried to build an Islamic state or persecuted Hinduism. What we wish to enquire here is whether a new religious policy was the chief, or at least the declared, object for which the war of succession was fought.” (p. 246)

In support of his arguments, he has given many examples, such as his success in neutralising the Rana of Mewar Raj Singh by offering him some favourable terms and conditions of an alliance, and persuading Raja Jai Singh and Jaswant Singh successfully in sabotaging the military expeditions of Dara Shukoh. Then he presents a picture that almost equal number of Hindu nobles had fought on each side and hence it was not fought on communal line. If Aurangzeb succeeded in getting the support of some Hindu nobles, it shows his opportunistic approach and the avarice of those nobles. But when the war of succession was over and he was triumphant, he wrote many letters to his father Shah Jahan who had been made captive by him. In one of the letters to his father, he wrote thus:
“So long as you held the reins of government I never did anything without your permission, nor did I ever step beyond my jurisdiction. During your illness Dara usurped all power, girt up his loins to promote Hinduism and destroy Islam, and acted as king, totally setting you aside. The government fell into disorder... . My march on Agra was not due to a rebellious spirit, but to a desire to put an end to Dara’s usurpation, his lapse from Islam, and his exaltation of idolatry throughout the empire.... I was compelled, out of regard for the next world, to take up the perilous load of the crown, from sheer necessity and not from free choice, for restoring peace and the rules of Islam in the realm.” (emphasis added)

It is an irony that Aurangzeb, who fought the war of succession and wrote to his father about its motive, claimed that it was for restoring the rules of Islam in the realm but our established historians have been claiming that it was for the secular purpose.

Aurangzeb’s admission to his father, after the war of succession was over, is a testimony to the fact that at least one of the reasons for the war of succession was the religious consideration.

Similarly, on the eve of the war of succession, Aurangzeb wrote to Murad in the same tone and tenour:

“Whereas the design of acquiring the throne has now been set on foot, and all (my) pious image to uproot the bramble of idolatry and infidelity from the realm of Islam and to overwhelm and crush the idolatrous chief with his followers and strongholds, so that the dust of disturbance may be allayed in Hindustan, and whereas my brother, dear as my own heart, has joined me in this holy enterprise, has conformed anew with strong (professions of) faith the terms of cooperation….”

But the great historian Athar Ali does not refer to these letters at all and tries to establish him as a secular warrior. This is good in one sense that if such conclusions are not drawn after suppressing historical facts, history will be a quite boring and monotonous subject!

But Aurangzeb might have been secular in one sense, i.e. torturing his father Shah Jahan. It is said that when Aurangzeb stopped the supply of water from the Yamunā river, the captive king had to quench thirst with brackish water from inside the fort in the dry summer season. The unhappy dethroned Emperor wrote to his son Aurangzeb in a pathetic tone:

“Praised be the Hindus in all cases, as they offer water to their dead. And thou, my son, art a marvellous Mussalman, as thou causes me in life to lament for (lack of) water.”

(quoted in the Advanced History of India, Macmillan, p. 477)

It will not be out of place to mention that Alan M. Guenther, in an article “Hanafi Fiqh in Mughal India: The Fatawa-i-Alamgiri” published in the book ‘India’s Islamic Traditions 711-1750’ edited by Richard M. Eaton and published by Oxford University Press, writes that since Aurangzeb seized power while his father Shah Jahan was still alive, the chief Qazi refused to recite the Khutba in his name after his accession to the throne and thereafter Aurangzeb persuaded another alim Shaikh Abd al-Wahhab to convince the Qazi that his accession was legal. Thus, with a lot of difficulty Aurangzeb Alamgir got the religious approval of his reign.

(7) Horrendous display of savagery

The following painting is placed on the frontispiece of the second volume of Venetian Chronicler Niccolao Manucci’s Italian work Storia Do Mogor which was translated into English with introduction and notes by William Irvine and published by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London for the Government of India in 1907.

This appaling picture was published in “Monuments anciens et modernes de l’Hindoustan” also, which was written by Louis Mathieu Langlès and Barbié Dubocage, and published from Paris in 1821 A.D. The source of this painting is mentioned as ‘Calque sur une miniature du cabinet des Estampes de la bibliotheque du roi’. Thus, the picture of Aurangzeb receiving the head of Dara Shukoh was drawn long before 1821.

Dara’s severed head is being presented
to Aurangzeb on a platter.

Manucci narrates the horrifying sequence of events in the following words:

“When Aurangzeb learnt that the head of Dara had arrived, he ordered it to be brought to him in the garden on a dish, with the face cleaned of the blood on the surface and a turban on the head. He called for lights to be brought so that he might see the mark borne by the prince on his forehead, and might make sure that it was the head of Dara, and not that of another person. After he had satisfied himself, he told them to put it on the ground, and gave it three thrusts in the face with the sword he carried by way of staff, saying, ‘Behold the face of a would-be king and emperor of all the Mogul realms. Take him out of my sight.’1

[1. In Sloane MS., No. 811, fol. 140, it is said that, on Dara’s head being brought to him, Aurangzeb stamped on the face, when ‘ the head laft a long ha, ha, ha! in the hearing of all, I, J. Cambell, present.’ ( -Ed.)]

He gave secret orders to place it in a box, to be sent by runners to the eunuch Atbar can (I‘tibãr Khãn), who had charge of Shahjahan’s prison, with orders to deliver it to him (Shahjahan) when seated at table. It was to be offered in his name as a plat. This was planned by Aurangzeb with great glee, to avenge himself for the love lavished on Dara and the little account made of himself….

On receipt of Aurangzeb’s orders, I‘tibãr Khãn, to comply with them, waited until the hour when Shahjahan had sat down to dinner. When he had begun to eat, I‘tibar Khan entered with the box and laid it before the unhappy father, saying: ‘King Aurangzeb, your son, sends this plat to your majesty, to let him see that he does not forget him.’ The old emperor said : ‘ Blessed be God that my son still remembers me.’ The box having been placed upon the table, he ordered it with great eagerness to be opened. Suddenly, on withdrawing the lid, he discovered the face of Prince Dara. Horrified, he uttered one cry and fell on his hands and face upon the table, and, striking against the golden vessels, broke some of his teeth and lay there apparently lifeless. Begam Sahib(Jahanara) and the other women present began to wail, beat their breasts, tear their hair, break their ornaments, and rend their garments. Then I’tibar Khan removed the head. When the old man recovered consciousness he began to pluck out his beard till it all bleeding, and to beat his face ; then, dissolving into a flood of tears, he raised both hands to heaven and said these words: ‘Coda teri rasa’ (Khuda! teri riza) that is to say, ‘My God, Thy will be done.’(vol. 1)

This is the ‘liberal’ face of the ‘great’ Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir who is the darling of a number of historians in the country and abroad.

Manucci further furnishes the following information on Aurangzeb’s attempt to poison Shah Jahan to death.

“It was for this reason that he sent poison and a letter to Mocorrom can (Mukarram Khan), the physician of Shahjahan, a man who had refused to take the side of Aurangzeb when he arrived at Agrah to make his father a prisoner. In this letter it was written that if the physician desired to live a little longer and be left in peace, he must administer to Shahjahan the potion which would be made over to him by the eunuch Fahim, who had been sent for this purpose. If he did not obey, it would cost him his life. Mukarram Khan received the drug, and answered that he would do better than what his majesty required of him. The eunuch Fahim went back with this answer. Mukarram Khan came to the conclusion that it was not right for him to murder King Shahjahan, seeing how he had been raised by him from a humble station to this greatness, with such wealth and the respect and veneration of everybody. Above all, had not Shahjahan confided his royal person into his hands ? Besides this, he perceived clearly that, should he give the poison to Shahjahan, Aurangzeb would never spare his life—experience had taught him that much. He therefore resolved to die honourably, and, swallowing the poison, was thrown into a lethargy, and in half an hour he died in his sleep. Aurangzeb awaited the hoped-for news of his father’s death; but he learnt that Shahjahan had been more respected by one who had only received some of his favours than by one who had received life from him. Nor, after all, was this lesson sufficient to make an entrance into the heart of Aurangzeb, who perversely sought some other means of procuring his father’s death before his own departure to Kashmir.” (vol. 2, p. 65)

Thus, Shah Jahan survived the vile attempt of parricide by his son.

(8) Maasir-i-Alamgiri of Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan

This book is an authentic history of the reign of Aurangzeb. Its first ten years’ accounts have been taken from “Alamgiri-nama” of Muhammad Kazim in a very abridged form. The history of remaining period of Aurangzeb’s reign till his death in 1707 A.D. has been written by Muhammad Saki Mustaid Khan.

This history book was completed in 1708 A.D., i.e. within one year of Aurangzeb’s death. Saqi Must’ad Khan has given the background of his writing the book:

“This humble servant, who considered it his duty to be true to the salt of the virtuous Emperor, and had been all his life one of the knot of servants standing outside the door of His Majesty’s Court, recorded what he had seen, and what he had learnt on inquiry from the trusty friends who had borne office during that reign. As this book of fortunate victories contains the triumphs of the Emperor ‘Alamgir, I considered “Maasir-i-Alamgiri” as its proper title, that phrase being its title as well as giving its date (year of completion). 1120 A.H./1708 A.D.”(pp. 45-46)

The author was a constant follower of the imperial court for 40 years and an eyewitness of many events which he has recorded. The following is his narrative of Aurangzeb’s general order to demolish all temples and centres of learning:

“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan and especially at Benares, the Brahman misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” (edited by J.N. Sarkar, pp. 51-52)”
From the above account of Saqi Must’aid Khan it is clear that Aurangzeb issued “orders to the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers.” The order was issued to all governors of all the provinces for the demolition of schools and temples of infidels with utmost urgency. This ‘with utmost urgency’ is very important. All governors of all provinces took this order very seriously and demolished temples with utmost urgency. Thus, the important temples of Mathurā, Benares etc. were demolished and mosques were constructed on most of the sites.

Mustaid Khan further adds:

“It was reported that according to the Emperor’s command, his officers had demolished the temple of Viswanath at Kashi.” (P. 55)

This information was received in early September of 1669. Thereafter, Mustaid Khan furnishes the following information on the demolition of the magnificent temple of Lord Krishna at Mathurā built by Bir Singh Bundela at a cost of Rupees Thirty Three Lakh:

“On Thursday, 27th January/(1670 A.D.) 15th Ramzan, 1081 H. the justice-loving Emperor issued order for the ...demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers, the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished, and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum. This temple of folly was built by that gross idiot Bundela. Before his accession to the throne, the Emperor Jahangir was displeased with Shaikh Ãbul Fazl. [96] This infidel became a royal favourite by slaying him, and after Jahangir’s accession was rewarded for this service with the permission to build the temple, which he did at an expense of thirty-three lakhs of rupees.
Praised be the august God of the faith of Islam, that in the auspicious reign of this destroyer of infidelity and turbulence, such a wonderful and seemingly impossible work was successfully accomplished. On seeing this instance of the strength of the Emperor’s faith and the grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud Rajas were stifled, and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall. The idols, large and small, set with costly jewels, which had been set up in the temple, were brought to Agra, and buried under the steps of the mosque of the Begam Sahib, in order to be continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.”(p. 60)
It is clear from this historical account that Aurangzeb had issued a general order on 8th April, 1669 A.D. to all governors of provinces to destroy schools and temples of infidels to put a stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. The demolition of the temples of Vārānasī and Mathurā is mentioned in this book but not that of Ayodhyā. However, it is confirmed by the accounts of Tieffenthaler, Manucci and Mentelle. Some established historians have suggested that since Mustaid Khan’s statement has not been supported by other chroniclers, it should not be relied upon. But those historians have failed to cite any important statement of Mustaid Khan which has been controverted by any historical document of proven nature.

(9) Prof. Satish Chandra’s untenable defence of Aurangzeb’s religious policy

On the basis of a few Farmans in favour of some Brahmins Prof. Satish Chandra, too, has tried to defend Aurangzeb’s religious bigotry in his book ‘Essays on Medieval Indian History’ in the following words:

“It was in pursuance of this policy that Farmans were issued (which are extant) to the Brahmans at Banaras and Vrindavan, assuring them that local officials would not be allowed to interfere in their repairing old temples. In 1665, a number of Hindu temples in Gujarat, including the temple of Somnath, which Auranzeb as a Prince and Viceroy of Gujarat had destroyed or bricked up, but which had been rebuilt in the interval, were to be demolished. There is no reason to believe that subsequently Aurangzeb departed from this policy of limited toleration and ordered a general destruction of temples. No such orders have been found, nor is there any reference to them in Aurangzeb’s letters or the Akhbarat. They are referred to only in Ma’asir-i-Ãlamgiri, written after Aurangzeb’s death. Moreover, not only did many old Hindu temples continue to exist in different parts of the country, there is also documentary evidence of Aurangzeb’s renewal of land grants enjoyed by Hindu temples at Mathura and elsewhere, and of his offering gifts to them (such as to the Sikh gurudwara at Dehra Dun, continuation of madad-i-m ‘aash grants to a math of Nathpanthi yogis in pargana Didwana, sarkar Nagor; to Ganesh Bharti and his successors in pargana Siwana, etc. However, during the period, Aurangzeb adopted a policy of selective destruction or bricking up of a number of Hindu temples, either as a warning to local Hindu rajas, or as a reprisal for rebelliousness. Thus, some of the famous temples at Vrindavan, Mathura, Kashi and Thatta etc., were destroyed as a part of this policy. This reached a climax in 1679 when, following the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh, and resistance on the part of the Rathors as a protest against bringing Marwar under direct Mughal administration pending a decision of the succession dispute, a number of old standing temple in the area were destroyed or bricked up. However, when the Mughals over-ran the Maratha territory and south India up to Jinji after 1687, the temples in the area were, except in a few isolated cases, left undisturbed, many of them being listed by contemporary writers, such as Bhimsen.” (p. 486)

There are many fallacies in the above observation:

His observation that ‘there is no reason to believe that subsequently Aurangzeb departed from this policy of limited toleration and ordered a general destruction of temples’ is not based on historical facts. During the reign of Aurangzeb there was hardly any important temple in the country which was not demolished. His fake Farman to a Brahmin at Benaras is highlighted but his crimes of turning the famous Viśvanātha temple in the sacred city is downplayed. Kāśī never gave any trouble to the Mughal Empire during his time and the Pandās of this temple have never been imparting education to persons outside their clan. B.N. Pande’s article in support of Aurangzeb has been proved to be a figment of imagination in this very chapter only.
Similarly, even if it is accepted that some land at Mathurā and Vrindāvana was granted to a temple or to a Brahmin at Siwana, it will not absolve Aurangzeb of the charge of religious bigotry. The demolition of the temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna, built by Bir Singh Bundela at a cost of Rs. 33 lakh in c. 1610 A.D. cannot be compensated by some land-grants here and there. Even the Banaras firman of Aurangzeb which has been projected as a strong evidence of his liberal religious policy has been proved in this chapter to be a forgery.
Prof. Satish Chandra puts another argument in defence of Aurangzeb by stating, “No such orders have been found, nor is there any such reference to them in Aurangzeb’s letters or the Akhbarat. They are referred to only in ‘Maasir-i Alamgiri’, written after Aurangzeb’s death.” The great historian should have made it clear that it was written in 1708, one year after Aurangzeb’s death. And it was written after all official records were made available to the author Saqi Must’ad Khan. His accounts are found trust-worthy and correct. Besides, Sir Jadunath Sarkar informs in his book ‘History of Aurangzeb’ (vol. III), Ist edition, 1928, Orient Longman (Reprint, 1972), (p. 186) that De Graaf heard of Aurangzeb’s order when Graaf was at Hugli in 1670. Sarkar’s reference is based on Orme’s ‘Historical fragments of the Mogul empire’ wherein Orme writes:

“He (Aurengzebe) determined to enforce the conversion of the Hindoos throughout the empire, by the severest penalties. DE GRAFF, when at Hughly in Bengal, in the year 1670.” (p. 250)

Orme further informs that when De Graaf was at Hughly in Bangal in the year 1670 Graaf recorded the following events:

“Au mois de Janvier tous les Gouverneurs & Officiers Motes recurrent Ordre du, Grand Mogol d’ empecher dexercice de la religion payenne dans le pays, & de saire murer tous les Temples ou Pagodes des Idolatres. On diminua en même temps les taxes des Marchands Mahometans. & on augmenta celles des Idolatres, dans l’ esperance que quelques Payens embrasseroient la Religion Mahomedanne, Et pour mieux faire paroitre fa pieté, I empereur envoya à la Mccque, une tres grosse somme d’ argent à l’ honneur de son grand Prophete Mahomet. II dépecha aussi des ordres pour défendre tous les lieux publics de débauche; mais pour luiiln’obseryoit pas ces ordres dans son Palais.” (“Voyages De Nicolas De Graaf Aux Indes Orientales,” pp. 43-44)

This passage has been translated by Prof. K.M. Tiwary into English in the following words:

“In the month of January the Great Moghul ordered all the Governors and Moorish officers to stop the practice of the Heathens’ religion in the whole country, and to wall up (= close down) all the pagodas and temples of the idolaters. Or to reduce the taxes of Mohammedan merchants, but at the same time, increase the taxes of the idolaters in the hope that some of the heathens would embrace the Mohammedan religion. In order to highlight his piety (= devotion) the emperor sent a very large sum of money to Mecca to honour his great prophet, Mohammad. He also hurriedly dispatched orders to protect all public places from debauchery (= practices of excessive sensual pleasures), but as for himself, he did not observe orders in his palace.”

This passage is from Nicolas De Graaf’s French book “Voyages De Nicolas De Graaf Aux Indes Orientales” which was published at Amsterdam in 1719 A.D. Graaf was a doctor in service of Dutch East India Company. Edward Farley Oaten in his book “European Travellers in India: During the Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” writes thus about the importance of Graaf’s account:

“By far, however, the most interesting and valuable narrative of travel in Bengal, from the pen of one of these less important writers, is that of Graaf.” (p. 243)

He was a widely travelled man and before coming to Bangal in 1668 he had made two voyages from Europe to India.

It is a damning condemnation of the religious policy of Aurangzeb and demolishes the defence of established historians in favour of their favourite Mughal Emperor. Besides, it completely corroborates the writing of Saqi Must’ad Khan that Aurangzeb had issued a general order that Hindus’ places of worship and centres of learning be demolished throughout his empire. Aurangzeb’s general order to demolish all temples in the country is corroborated by two independent contemporary sources. Excerpts from the Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694) are quoted later in this chapter only and “according to French archival sources, B.N., N.A., 62/3(16), the Emperor had ordered all Hindu temples to be destroyed including that of Jagannath at Puri. This had brought about a Hindu rebellion as a result of which the edict was not enforced.” (p. 1234, f.n. 31)

Thus, Prof. Satish Chandra’s defence that Saqi Must’ad Khan’s assertion has got no corroboration is not justified.

Prof. Satish Chandra’s another observation that the order for the demolition of temples in Aurangzeb’s empire is not supported by other sources is not correct because Manucci, an impartial contemporary Italian, says that Aurangzeb demolished a large number of Hindu temples, though it does not mean that all temples were razed to the ground because the number was so large that it could not be accomplished by any tyrant. Another contemporary witness Francois Martin, the Governor of the French East India Company, has written memoirs of events between 1670 and 1694 A.D. and shown how temples after temples were destroyed by Aurangzeb’s orders and even the worship of idols in private homes was not allowed during his reign. According to him, if the Hindus could save some minor temples or continued worship in their homes, it was due to the fact that they used to bribe the officers and commanders of Aurangzeb. One cannot think that a scholar like Prof. Satish Chandra is unaware of the writings of Manucci or Martin but it is the predetermined prejudice on his part which has led to the suppression of such historical facts.

Prof. Satish Chandra accepts that a large number of temples were destroyed or bricked up in Marwar after the Rajputs’ protest against bringing Marwar under Mughal administration. But the fact of the matter is that the temples were demolished by May, 1679 and the war against the Mughals started after the arrival of Durgadas three months later.

Then Prof. Chandra says that when the Mughals over-ran the Maratha territory and South India up to Jinji after 1687, the temples in the area except a few remained undisturbed. But Francois Martin’s account is a testimony to the religious tyranny perpetrated by Aurangzeb.

Francois Martin has described the utter religious suppression of the Hindus by Aurangzeb in his book ‘India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and Political, Memoirs of Francois Martin 1670-1694, translated by Lotika Varadarajan and published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1989). Some of relevant excerpts are quoted below:

“When it had come to the knowledge of the Emperor that many rich Gujarati banias had built temples within their homes to perform their devotions, in his religious fervour, he ordered that the Governors of the province should carry out an inspection. All the temples in the cities and villages had been destroyed. Now these inner sanctums were also to be laid low and the least sign of the practice of the Hindu religion was to be wiped out. The numbers of this community, particularly at Hyderabad and Cambay where they were to be found in large numbers, were greatly alarmed at these instructions. It was said that the banias managed to circumvent the Mughal orders by giving presents to the Governors who thereupon took their inspection tours very lightly.” (ibid p. 914)

It shows that Aurangzeb was not ready to tolerate even small temples inside Hindus’ houses. This is a contemporary account and there is no reason to be biased. But Hindus did resist the demolition of their temples. It is confirmed by the following account of Francois Martin:

“Following the Emperor’s orders with regard to the destruction of temples, the Moors brought one down in the Carnatic. This incited the Hindus to revolt in an attempt to prevent this action. The two communities clashed openly and both sides sustained loss of life. As a result, the Moors were forced to postpone their demolition activities to a later date.” (ibid p. 1249)

It further suggests that communal clash at a large scale took place during the time of Aurangzeb. Because of the demolition of Hindu temples by Aurangzeb’s army, his many capable Hindu generals left the royal service and revolted against him. They established their independent principalities. Yachappa Nayak was such a noble about whom Francois Martin writes:

“Yachappa Nayak, the Hindu noble to whom I have referred earlier in my narrative, on seeing that the Mughal army after repeated orders from the Emperor, was bent on the destruction of the Hindu temples, left Mughal service and entered the territory of Gingee with his men. From there, he wrote to all the Hindu Princes, urging them to unite against the enemy of their community and religion.” (ibid p. 1256)

On the contrary, the conduct of Shivaji, on whom Khafi Khan has placed choicest abuses in his book ‘Muntakhabu-l Lubab’, has been praised by the latter in these words:

“Sivaji had always striven to maintain the honour of the people in his territories. He persevered in a course of rebellion, in plundering caravans, and troubling mankind; but he entirely abstained from other disgraceful acts, and was careful to maintain the honour of the women and children of Muhammadans when they fell into his hands. His injunctions upon this point were very strict, and anyone who disobeyed received punishment.” (“History of India” by Elliot and Dowson Vol. VII, p. 305).

Similarly, Aurangzeb Alamgir was surprised when he learnt from the captive daughter of Prince Akbar that Durga Das had employed a female tutor for her and she had remembered the whole Koran by rote during her captivity with the Rathods.

On the eve of the final assault on Golkonda Fort, Abdur Rahim Khan was appointed to a special post of the Muhtasib with orders to suppress the rites of infidelity and other innovations (bidat), which the ‘irreligious’ Abdul Hasan had made compulsory. As per the direction of Aurangzeb the temples were to be destroyed and mosques to be built in Golkunda. Aurangzeb also instructed the Subahdars not to allow any bidat. But Prof. Chandra adds,

“We have no evidence to show that Aurangzeb took any steps to suppress ‘the rites of infidelity’ or to build mosques in place of temples.” (p. 329)

How the Mughal army did not succeed in Karnataka in demolishing temples is explained by Francois Martin that when the Mughals demolished one temple, the Hindus rebelled unitedly and there was a clash between the two sides. The clash resulted in loss of lives on both sides and the Mughals “were forced to postpone their demolition activities to a later date.” Established historians should be faithful in presenting full facts before their readers.

Thus, it is crystal clear that the arguments of Prof. Satish Chandra in defence of Aurangzeb’s religious policy are not based on an objective study of historical facts.

Sir Jadunath Sarkar has given details of the demolished temples during the reign of Aurangzeb but the list is not exhaustive. However, he has highlighted that early in his reign, he had asked local officers in every town and village from Cuttack to Medinipur to pull down “every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay” without delay and he had not allowed ‘the cursed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples’. Report of the destruction of temples was to be sent to the Court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs. Similarly, by a Farman issued on 20th November 1665, he gave the following direction:

“In Ahmadabad and other parganas of Gujarat, in the days before my accession, temples were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and idol worship has been resumed. Carry out the former orders.”

That Aurangzeb’s reign was an inferno of fanatical fury is reflected by Saqi Mustad Khan in his famous book “Maasir-i-Alamgiri” in the following words:

“Through the auspices of this hearty endeavour, the Hanafi creed (i.e., the Orthodox Sunni faith) has gained such strength and currency in the great country of Hindustan as was never seen in the times of any of the preceding sovereigns. By one stroke of the pen, the Hindu clerks (writers) were dismissed from the public employment. Large numbers of the places of worship of the infidels and great temples of these wicked people have been thrown down and desolated. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. And on the sites of the temples lofty mosques have been built. His Majesty personally taught the credo to many of the infidels who came to him, guided by their good fortune, with a view to being converted to Islam, and he bestowed on them robes of honour and other (529) favours.

About the middle of his reign he decided to levy the Jaziya tax on the Hindus, as ordained by the Shara ‘and it was enforced throughout his empire; and this rare piece of good work (hasnãt-i-gharib) had not been done in Hindustan and the Hindus had not been degraded to such a degree in any other period.” (pp. 314-315)

Aurangzeb’s religious bigotry and mission to convert temples into Masjid seen by Francois Martin from 1670 to 1694 had been seen by M. de Thevenot long back in 1645 when Aurangzeb was Governor of Gujarat. It is well described by him in his travel account which was translated from French into English by Lovell and published in London in 1687.

Thevenot wrote,

“Santidas, Pagod, The Ceremonie of King Auranzev, for converting a Pagod into a mosque.

Amedabad being inhabited also by a great number of Heathens, there are Pageds, or Idol-Temples in it. That which was called the Pagod of Santidas was the chief, before Auranzeb converted it into a Mosque. When he performed the Ceremonie, he caused a Cow to be killed in the place, knowing very well, that after such an Action, the Gentiles according to their Law, could worship no more therein. All round the Temple there is a Cloyster furnished, with lovely Cells, beautified with Figures of Marble in relief, representing naked Women sitting after the Oriental fashion. The inside Roof of the Mosque is pretty enough, and the Walls are full of the Figures of Men and Beasts; but Auranzeb, who hath always made 2 (to) shew of an affected Devotion, which at length raised him to the Throne, caused the Noses of all these Figures which added a great deal of Magnificence to that Mosque, to be beat off.” (Part III, p. 10)

Similarly, when Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā was converted into a mosque, noses of all the figures on kasauti pillars, which had added a lot of beauty and magnificence to the shrine, were cut off. Morning shows the day and the Subedari of the Prince manifested the iconoclastic zeal, mission and might of the future Emperor who had turned the edifice of Santidas into a mosque and called it Quvvat-ul-Islam i.e. the might of Islam.

In 1635 A.D. at the age of seventeen Aurangzeb demolished the temple at Orchha which had been built by Bir Singh and erected a mosque thereon. It was at the command of Shahjahan. And a decade later he himself demolished this Jain temple at Ahmedabad, when he was the Governor of Gujarat.

(10) Two historic letters to Aurangzeb by two great men of the time

We have two contemporary documents indicting the conduct of Aurangzeb by two greatest men who were instrumental in establishing two enduring empires. One was the letter written by Sivaji after the imposition of the Jaziya tax by Aurangzeb on the Hindus and another Zafar-nama by Guru Govind Singh after he sacrificed all his four sons at the altar of independence. In his letter to Aurangzeb Alamgir, Sivaji wrote to him,

(i) Shivaji’s historic letter to Aurangzeb

The reimposition of Jaziya on 12th April, 1679 by Aurangzeb after 115 years since its abolition by Akbar, the Great in 1564 was opposed by the great Maratha leader Shivaji in the following historic letter:

“It has come to my ears that on the ground of the war with me having exhausted your wealth and emptied the imperial treasury, Your Majesty has ordered that money under the name of Jaziya should be collected from the Hindus and the imperial needs supplied with it. May it please Your Majesty. The architect of the fabric of the Empire, Akbar Padshah reigned with full power for fifty-two lunar years. He adopted the admirable policy of perfect harmony in relation to all the various sects…. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish all the people. So he became famous under the title of world’s spiritual guide. Next the Emperor Nuruddin Jehangir for twenty-two years spread his gracious shade on the head of the world and its dwellers, gave his heart to his friends and his hand to his work and gained his desires. The Emperor Shah Jahan for thirty-two years cast his blessed shade.

“Through the auspicious effect of this sublime disposition, wherever he (Akbar) bent the glance of his august wish, victory and success advanced to welcome him on his way… The State and power of these emperors can be easily understood from the fact that Alamgir Padshah has failed and become bewildered in the attempt merely to follow their political system. They too had the power of levying Jaziya; but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men high and low created by God…

“How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the Jaziya to this grievous state of things? The infamy will quickly spread from west to east and become recorded in the books of history that the Emperor of Hindustan coveting the beggar’s bowls takes Jaziya from Brahmins and Jain monks, Yogis, Sanyasis, Bairagis…, etc. that he dashes down (to the ground) the name and honour of the Timurids.”

At the end, he made the following observation:

“If you imagine piety to consist in oppressing the people and terrorising the Hindus, you ought first to levy Jaziya from Rana Raj Singh, who is the head of the Hindus. Then it will not be very difficult to collect it from me, as I am at your service. But to oppress ants and flies is far from displaying valour and spirit.

“I wonder at the strange fidelity of your officers that they neglect to tell you the true state of things but cover a blazing fire with straw.”

(ii) Guru Govind Singh’s Zafar-nama

Guru Govind Singh’s Zafar-nama written in Persian and addressed to the Emperor Aurangzeb is one of the best classics of world literature. Some of its lines are quoted below:

“I have not a particle of confidence in thee. I was forced to engage in the combat and fought to the utmost of my ability. When an affair passeth beyond the region of diplomacy, it is lawful to have recourse to the sword. If thou come to the village of Kangar, we shall have an interview. Thou shalt not run the slightest danger on the way, for the whole tribe of Bairars are under me. I am a slave and servant of the King of kings and ready to obey His order with my life. If thou hast any belief in God delay not in this matter. It is thy duty to know God. He never ordered thee to annoy others. Thou art seated on an Emperor’s throne; yet how strange are thy justice, thine attributes and thy regard for religion! Alas, a hundred times also! for thy sovereignty! Strange, strange, is the decree! Smite not anyone mercilessly with thy sword, or a sword from on high shall smite thyself. O man, be not reckless, fear God. He is the Emperor of earth and heaven. He is the creator of all animals from the feeble to the strong elephant. He is the Protector of the miserable, and destroyer of the reckless. What though my four sons were killed? I remain behind like a coiled snake. What bravery is it to quench a few sparks of life? Thou art merely exciting a raging fire. I will not enter thy presence, nor travel on the same road with thee, but if God so will it, I will proceed against thee. When thou lookest to thine army and wealth. I look to God’s praises. Thou art proud of thine Empire, while I am proud of the Kingdom of the Immortal God, Be not heedless; this caravanserai is only for a few days. People leave it at all time. Even though thou art strong, annoy not the weak. Lay not the axe to the Kingdom.”

Contrary to this same advice, Aurangzeb did exactly to axe to the kingdom with the result that within 60 years of his death the great Mughal empire suffered a severe reverse at Buxar.

(11) Aurangzeb’s life: a total failure as a ruler

When Aurangzeb ascended the throne in 1658 A.D. India was proverbial ‘Sone Ki Chidiya’ (a bird of gold) known for its pelf, pomp and grandeur throughout the world. The wealth of India had ‘dazzled even eyes which were accustomed to the pomp of Versailles’. At the time of royal accession he was an experienced administrator, and intriguing and invincible general. His simplicity, austerity and purity in personal life were such great attributes which could have taken the Mughal monarchy at such an insurmountable height that would have been unprecedented in the annals of the world history. But when he died in 1707 after a rule of 50 years “he left behind him the fields of these provinces (Deccan) devoid of trees and bare of crops, their places being taken by the bones of men and beasts.” (Niccolo Manucci: Storia to Mogor, tr. William Irvine, IV, p. 252). The last reserve of the empire was exhausted and public bankruptcy was staring. Salaries of soldiers and other employees were in arrears and the Emperor in the Deccan was looking up to the loyal Bengal Governor for sending money to pay the arrears and stave off starvation of subordinate staff. The India of gold had turned into India of bones. Bones were scattered here and there in the empire not on account of incessant, obstinate battles only but pestilence and starvation also.

Except success in the war of succession and military victory in some battles which resulted in the annexation of a few kingdoms Aurangzeb’s life was a failure, a total failure. Abraham Eraly in his well-written book ‘The Lives and Times of the Great Moghuls’ states:

“...yet he was a failure and he died a defeated man, a tragic, almost pathetic figure. In every respect the reign of Aurangzeb marks the biginning of the end of Mughal glory.” (p. 413)

But the best comment came from the Persian King Shah Abbas in his letter sent through Aurangzeb’s ambassador Tarbiat Khan. The content in the letter included these lines:

“Yet style yourself as the conqueror of the universe while you have only conquered your father; and having gained composure of mind by the murder of your brothers… You have abandoned the royal practices of doing justice and charity… You have failed in every undertaking that required manliness.”

He had this realization on the eve of his death and in his last letters to his sons Azam and Kam Bakhsh he candidly admitted it. In his last letter to Azam, he wrote thus:

“Peace be on you!

Old age has arrived and weakness has grown strong; strength has left my limbs. I came alone and am going away alone. I know not who I am and what I have been doing. The days that have been spent except in austerities have left only regret behind them. I have not done any (true) government of the realm or cherishing of the peasantry.

Life, so valuable, has gone away for nothing. The Master has been in my house, but my darkened eyes cannot see His splendour. Life lasts not; no trace is left of the days that are not more; and of the future there is no hope....

All the soldiers are feeling helpless, bewildered, and perturbed like me who having chosen to leave my Master, am now in a state of trepidation like quick-silver. They think not that we have, our Lord Father (ever with us). I brought nothing with me (into the world), and am carrying away with me the fruits of my sins. I know not what punishment will fall on me. Though I have strong hopes of His grace and kindness, yet in view of my acts anxiety does not leave me. When I am parting from my own self, who else would remain to me? (Verse)

Whatever the wind may be,

I am launching my boat on the wather,

Thouse the Lord Cherisher will preserve His slaves, yet from the point of views of outer world, it is also the duty of my sons to see that God’s creatures amd Muslims may not unjustly slain.

Convey to my grandson Bahadur (i.e. Bahadur Bakht) my parting blessing. At the time of going away I do not see him; the desire of meeting remains (unsatisfied). Though the Begam is, as can be seen afflicted with grief, yet got is masters of hearts. Shortness of sight bears no other fruit than disappointment.

Farewell! Farewell! Farewell!” (A Short history of Aurangzeb, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, pp. 305-6)

Similarly, in his last letter to Kam Bakhsh he wrote pathetically, “Anxiety about the army and camp-followers has been the cause of (my) depression of mind and fear of final torment.” (India Office MS. 1344 f. 26 a, quoted in the above mentioned book p. 306)

Aurangzeb’s son Akbar, who rebelled, knew him very well and in the reply to his letter, he wrote thus:

“Verily, the guide and teacher of this path (of rebellion against a reigning father) is Your Majesty; others are merely following in your footsteps. How can the path which Your Majesty himself chose to follow be called ‘the path of ill-luck’?”

My father bartered away the garden of Eden for two grains of wheat; I shall be an unworthy son if I do not sell it for a grain of barley!

Thereafter, he gave a graphic picture of the pitiable condition of every section of the society in the following words:

“...In Your Majesty’s reign the ministers have no power, the nobles enjoy no trust, the soldiers are wretchedly poor, the writers are without employment, the traders are without means, the peasantry is downtrodden? So, too, the kingdom of the Deccan – which is a spacious country and a paradise on earth – has become desolate and ruined like a hill or desert; and the city of Burhanpur plundered; the city of Aurangabad, glorified by connection with Your Majesty’s name, is perturbed like quick silver at the shock and injury given by the enemy’s armies. On the Hindu tribes two calamities have descended, (first) the exaction of the Jaziya in the towns and (second) the oppression of the enemy in the country. When such sufferings have come down upon the heads of the people from all sides, why should they not fail to pray or thank their ruler?” (p. 69-70)

Then he gave the following sermon to his father in the letter:

“When I beheld this to be the state of affairs [in the realm] and saw no possibility of Your Majesty’s character being reformed, kingly spirit urged me to cleanse the realm of Hindustan of the brambles and weeds (viz. oppressors and lawless men), to promote men of learning and culture, and to destroy the foundations of tyranny and meanness, so that mankind might, in easy circumstances and peaceful minds, engage in their respective professions, and good name, which is synonymous with ‘next life’ and ‘eternal existence’, might remain [for me] in the pages of [the history of] the age. How happy would it be if Providence so befriends [Your Majesty] that leaving this work in the hands of the humblest of your sons, Your Majesty seeks the blessedness of going on a pilgrimage to the Holy Cities [Mecca and Medina], and thereby induces the whole world to utter praises and prayers for you!

Hitherto Your Majesty has spent all your life in the quest of the things of this world – which are even more false than dreams, and even less constant than shadows. Now is the proper time for you to lay in provisions for the next life, in order to atone for your former deeds, done out of greed for this transitory world against your august father and noble brothers in the days of your youth.

[Verse]

O! Thou art past eighty years and art still asleep!

Thou wilt not get more than these few days.

As for the lecture Your Majesty has read to me in your letter, I am ashamed for your presumption [in writing in that strain].

[Verse]

What good did you do to your father,

That you expect all these [services] from your son?

O thou that art teaching wisdom to mankind,

Administer to thy own self what thou art preaching to others!

Thou art not curing thyself,

Then, for once, give up counselling others!.”

(Sir Jadunath Sarkar’s translation quoted in “Studies in Aurangzib’s Reign” pp. 68-71)

As stated above, Aurangzeb’s life was a total failure. Apart from killing his brothers cruelly and treacherously, and keeping his ailing father in confinement inhumanly, he killed a number of his relatives following the war of succession. He kept his eldest child Zebunnisa (meaning the ornament of womankind) in confinement from January, 1681 to her death on 26th May, 1702. A very talented lady, her only crime was her sympathy with her uterine brother Akbar who rebelled against his father Aurangzeb. In the confinement she wrote very pathetic laments. One such poem translated into English by Mrs. Westbrook is as follows:

“So long these fetters cling to my feet!

My friends have become enemies, my relations are strangers to me.

What more have I to do with being anxious to keep my name undishonoured,

When friends seek to disgrace me?

Seek not relief from the prison of grief, O Makhfi; thy release is not politic.

O Makhfi, no hope of release hast thou until the Day of Judgment come.

[Sarkar’s book “Studies in Aurangzeb’s Reign” p. 96]

She asked her father as to why she fell from her father’s grace, although she was a blessed child. She was ready to beg forgiveness hundred or thousand times, if she committed any offence to her father. She informed him that she had only two desires in life touching her father’s feet and going on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. But the cruel father did not relent and forced her to die in confinement which lasted for more than 21 years.

Aurangzeb had five sons and the Emperor’s behaviour to his sons is explained in brief:

(1) Muhammad Sultan was Aurangzeb’s eldest son from his wife Nawab Bai and was born on 19th December, 1639. He had fought valiantly along with his father in the battles at Dharmat and Samugarh. He was present in the battle at Khajwah near Allahabad where Shuja was defeated and thereafter on run. Muhammad Sultan was asked to chase Shuja in Bihar and Bengal. But Shuja succeeded in getting Sultan lured to his side by marrying his daughter to the Prince in June 1659. However, after a few months he realized his folly in deserting his father. So, he returned to his father’s camp. But Aurangzeb never pardoned him. He was kept in confinement from April, 1660 till his death on 3rd December, 1676. He died at a young age of 37 years.
(2) Prince Muhammad Muazzam alias Shah Alam was the second son of Aurangzeb from his wife Nawab Bai. He was born on 4th October, 1643. Although he succeeded his father Aurangzeb after the latter’s death in 1707 A.D., he, too, had been kept in confinement for long by his father from 21st February, 1687 to 9th May, 1695 A.D. His fault was that he wanted to have peace with Shia Kingdoms of Bijapur and Golkunda. He was accused of intriguing with the besieged kings of Bijapur and Golkunda. After his spirit was subdued substantially, his captivity was relaxed slowly in a very amusing style. He ascended the throne in the name of Bahadur Shah I.

(3) Aurangzeb’s third son was Prince Muhammad Āzam who was born of the emperor’s wife Dilras Banu on 28th June 1653. During Prince Muazzam’s disgrace Azam was almost elevated to the post of the heir apparent. However, after the death of Aurangzeb, he lost the throne in the war of succession and died after bravely fighting in the battle against Bahadur Shah I on 8th June, 1707 A.D.

(4) Prince Akbar was the fourth son of Aurangzeb and was born on 11th September, 1657 from Begum Dilras Banu. He had rebelled against Aurangzeb and declared himself the emperor in 1678 A.D. He was on the verge of victory against his father Aurangzeb. But the sudden death of the Rana of Mewar Raj Singh, the delayed march of Akbar and the successful trick of a letter written by Aurangzeb to the prime but sent to the Rathod Chieftain ruined his almost success against his father. However, he succeeded in reaching the Maratha territory with the chivalrous effort of Durga Das Rathod and then to Iran where he died in exile in November 1704. So long he lived at Farah on the Khurasan frontier, he was a constant menace to the emperor Aurangzeb because the latter always feared an Irani invasion in support of Akbar.
(5) The fifth and youngest son of Aurangzeb was Muhammad Kam Baksh from his wife Bai Udipuri. He was born on 24th February, 1667. Sir Jadunath Sarkar calls him the spoilt child of his father’s old age, worthless, self-willed and foolish. He was first put under restraint for his misconduct during the siege of Jinji and was again kept in captivity for his fatuous attachment to his foster-brother. He unsuccessfully fought the war of succession after Aurangzeb’s death and was killed on 3rd January, 1709 two years after his father’s death. ‘Saqi Must’ad Khan writes,

“He fell fighting like a Rustam or an Ãsfandiyar.”

From the above analysis it appears that out of his five sons, one rebelled against him and died in exile in Persia before Aurangzeb’s death; the eldest one Muhammad Sultan was kept in confinement until his death; one more son Muazzam was kept in captivity for more than 8 years from 1687 to 1695. Aurangzeb’s most favourite and spoilt child Kam Baksh, too, had to be kept under restraint for his misconduct on two occasions. Only Azam was never confined. However, after Aurangzeb’s death he along with Kam Baksh were killed in the war of succession in which Muazzam was victorious and assumed the name of Bahadur Shah I. When Aurangzeb was cruel to his sons and daughter to such an extent that two of them died in captivity and one in exile; then it is unfair to expect from him any sympathy for his subjects, particularly for non-Muslims. Now one can understand easily as to how apt was Manucci’s remark on the emperor:

“Aurangjeb had been born to trouble others and be troubled by them.”

Now his failures in the field of diplomacy and strategy are enumerated in brief. Despite the clear warning by the Darogah of Delhi that Sivaji along with his son would escape through baskets of gifts and therefore this system should be stopped, he did not take any decision and Sivaji exactly escaped on the predicted line. For this one lapse on his part, he had to remain in Deccan for more than 25 years without a single day’s return to his capital Delhi and even then, he could not subdue the Maratha State or spirit. He had to repent throughout his life for this lapse. He wrote it in document which is claimed by many to be his will. In the 11th para of the will he wrote,

“Negligence for a single moment becomes the cause of disgrace for long years. The escape of the wretch Shiva took place through (my) carelessness, and I have to labour hard (against the Marathas) to the end of my life (as the result of it).”

(Ahkam-i-Alamgiri ascribed to Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur and quoted in the Sarkar’s book on Aurangzeb)

The non-recognition of Ajit Singh, the posthmous child of Jaswant Singh as his heir antagonized the entire chivalrous race of Rathods forever. Despite the clear order of the Emperor, his commander could not keep two Ranis of Jaswant Singh and one small child in confinement and the gallant Rajputs under the superb command of Durgadas Rathod and supreme sacrifice of a number of loyal commanders succeeded in taking Ajit Singh safely from Delhi to Jodhpur. The foolish emperor was satisfied with an imposter boy whom he got converted to Islam and brought him up for several years in the hope that he would be accepted as the legitimate heir of Jaswant Singh. The legitimacy of Ajit Singh was established clearly when the Sisodia Rana of Mewar gave the hand of a daughter of his family to Ajit Singh in marriage. The author of the epic ‘Ajitodayam’, however, asserts that she was the daughter of Rana Raj Singh.

When his son Akbar revolted, Aurangzeb succeeded in creating mistrust amongst the opposite camp by resorting to tricks and falsehood. Though he survived himself from meeting the ignominious end of his father Emperor Shah Jahan, yet his vast army and experienced officers failed to capture Akbar in either Marwar, Mewar or Maratha territory. Prince Akbar left for Persia through Bombay, where the royal contingent was present in two small ships. Nevertheless, he could not be prevented from going to Persia, even when his movement was known to the officers of Aurangzeb.

Despite the contrary advice of his many commanders, ministers and Prince Muazzam, Aurangzeb completely annihilated the Shia kingdoms of Golkunda and Bijapur which gave the Marathas such an upper hand that despite the fact that he went on chasing them like mirage for two decades, he could not contain their attacking spirit in the least with the result that on the eve of his death the Maratha armies were plundering Mughal cantonments near his camp and he could not do anything except getting some forts here and there on the payment of a fixed amount of bribery to some Maratha leader by his army commander and that equal amount used to be reimbursed subsequently by the Emperor.

Jadunath Sarkar has quoted the following excerpt from Khafi Khan’s ‘Muntakhab-ul-Lubab’ to show how the bribery played an important role in capturing the Maratha forts by Mughal commanders:

“Most of Aurangzeb’s generals, whether posted in far off provinces or conducting sieges under his eyes, after some fighting used in the end to secure the capitulation of the forts by bribing the qiladar. The Emperor was informed of it by his spies and used to pay to the officer who had thus contrived the surrender the exact amount of the bribe (neither more, nor less), under the name of reward.” (II pp. 411-12)

In 1704 A.D. the Italian traveller Manucci observed and wrote:

“These (Maratha) leaders and their troops move in these days with much confidence, because they have cowed the Mughal commanders and inspired them with fear. At the present time they possess artillery, musketry, bows and arrows, with elephants and camels for all their baggage and tents. In short, they are equipped and move about just like the armies of the Mughal.”

Bhimsen, a contemporary Hindu historian of Aurangzeb’s camp, succinctly places Aurangzeb’s miserable failure against the Marathas in these words:

“I have heard that every week they (Marathas) gave away sweets and money in charity, praying for the long life of the Emperor, who had proved (to them) the feeder of the Universe.”

It is said that both Maratha and Mughal officers, after a cordial meeting or an encounter, used to part with a mocking prayer for the long life of Aurangzeb Alamgir!

Failure stamped every effort of the Emperor who is ironically called one of the most successful rulers of the world! Within 30 years of the demise of Aurangzeb Delhi was plundered and pillaged by Nadir Shah and its inhabitants were barbarously butchered. King Muhammad Shah, the great grandson of Aurangzeb, was not only kept captive for considerable time by Nadir Shah but had to face unprecedented humiliation also. Within 60 years of Aurangzeb’s death his another descendant Shah Alam suffered the decisive defeat at the battle of Buxer ironically by the East India Company which had been granted license by Aurangzeb in 1690 A.D. to trade and establish an English factory. In 1803 when Lord Lake entered Delhi, he had seen ‘a miserable old imbecile’ Mughal Emperor sitting under a tattered canopy. He was the same Shah Alam, king of the world, about whom there was an idiom in circulation:

“The writ of Shah Alam

Runs from Delhi to Palam.”

Lord Lake could not overlook the great historical travesty that this degenerate descendant of the great Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, was the captive of the same mighty Marathas against whom the Emperor Alamgir had deployed all his force and devoted his twenty-five years of life with little success. Khafi Khan made the exactly correct assessment of Aurangzeb’s personality, when he wrote that “in spite of his devotion, austerity, and justice, courage, long-suffering and sound judgment, every plan and project that he formed came to little good, and every enterprise which he undertook was long in execution and failed of its object.” His success in the war of succession was, of course, an exception.

The mighty Mughal Empire had been pitiably reduced to such an ignominious condition on account of his myopic policies that there is no wonder that Aurangzeb’s prophetic proclamation ‘Az ma-st hamah fasad-i-baqi’ , i.e. After me, Chaos” came true. It was not mere chaos but a catastrophe for the country.

Stanley Lane Poole in his work ‘Aurangzib and the Decay of the Mughal Empire’ aptly writes:

“The ludibrium rerum humanarum was never more pathetically played. No curtain ever dropped on a more woeful tragedy”.

The Latin ludibrium rerum humanarum means ‘human event becoming the object of fun’.



Chapter Sixteen

Ayodhyā under Awadh Nawabs

[(1) Hindu Governors, Chhabile Ram (1714-15) and Girdhar Bahadur (1720-22) at Ayodhya, (2)Sa’adat Khan (1722–1739) (3) Safdar Jung (1739-1754 A.D.) (4) Shuja-ud-daula (1754-75) (5) Asaf-ud-daula (177597 A.D.) (6) Wazir Ali Khan (1797–1798) (7) Sa’adat Ali Khan II (1798–1814) (8) Abul-Muzaffar Ghazi-ud-din Haydar Khan (18141827) (9) Nasir-ud-din Haidar Shah Jahan (1827–1837) (10) Muhammad Ali Shah (1837–1842) (11) Amjad Ali Shah (1842–1847) (12) Wajid Ali Shah (1847–1856) (13) Karl Marx’s indictment of the Annexation (14) Consequences of the annexation]

(1) Hindu Governors, Chhabile Ram and Girdhar Bahadur at Ayodhyā

After the death of Aurangzeb on 20th February, 1707 A.D. the Hindus throughout the country heaved a sigh of relief and started asserting their right to perform rituals in public places and renovate temples. The Province of Oudh was no exception. Many local rulers began throwing the yoke of servitude and declaring themselves independent kings. From 1708 to 1719 five Mughal Emperors made their ‘ephemeral appearance’ and disappeared. The Mughal royal court became the centre of conspiracy and Saiyyad Brothers became its past masters.

With the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 the fire of fanatical fury which had engulfed a vast section of society extinguished itself. Within six years of his demise the despised Jaziya was abolished by the Mughal Emperor Farruksiyar in the first year of his reign, i.e. in 1713 and within seven years of Aurangzeb’s death, i.e. in 1714 a Hindu Governor, Chhabile Ram, a close confidant of the Mughal Emperor Farruksiyar, was appointed the Governor of Awadh. Chhabile Ram spurned many lucrative offers of intriguing Saiyyad Brothers and with his military succour and strategy he assisted Farruksiyar in winning many battles and remained loyal to the King until his death. Muzaffar Alam in his book ‘The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India; Awadh to the Punjab 1707-1748’ writes thus on the appointment of Chhabile Ram as the Governor of Awadh:

“For the first time in our period, the governor by having his loyal supporter as diwan of the province tried to be virtually supreme in Awadh.” (p. 66)

He remained the Governor of Awadh until October, 1715. He was later transferred to Allahabad in the same capacity. Chhabile Ram had so much influence on the Mughal Emperor that he got his close relation Anand Ram appointed as the provincial diwan at Lucknow and within a month the faujdari of Lucknow was assigned to Anand Ram. After the deposition and murder of Farruksiyar Chhabile Ram, in a show of his loyalty to the deceased Emperor, revolted against the scheming Saiyyad Brothers. But before he could face the adversaries in battle he died on the way in November 1719.
His nephew Girdhar Bahadur, the son of Late Daya Ram, who had been killed at Lahore in 1712, while fighting in favour of Farruksiyar, took over as the Governor of Allahabad. He adopted a rebellious attitude and rejected all overtures from the imperial side. Girdhar Bahadur even refused to negotiate on the excuse that he was in the state of mourning for a year, following his uncle’s death. Since the subjugation of Girdhar Bahadur was not an easy task and the retention of Allahabad in hostile hands was very detrimental to the interest of the Saiyyad Brothers, services of another powerful Hindu noble Ratan Chand, who was perceived by many nobles “as great a man as was Himu, the shopkeeper”, were utilized and after a brief negotiation between Girdhar Bahadur and Ratan Chand, Girdhar agreed to leave Allahabad, provided he was made subedar, faujdar and diwan of Awadh with the right to appoint all the military and civil subordinate officers. In addition, a gift of thirty lakhs of rupees, payable from the Bengal treasury, was to be handed over to him as reimbursement to his expenditure on the army. Besides, he was to be decorated with a jewelled turban and an elephant was to enhance his elegance. Immediately, Mir Mushrif, the Governor and other officials were removed from Awadh to facilitate him to take up the reins of the governorship. Girdhar Bahadur with such an unprecedented power became the Governor of Awadh in May 1720 and remained there until September 1722.
It is a historical fact that it was the powerful pleading of Girdhar Bahadur and Raja Jai Singh Sawai in favour of the abolition of the Jaziya tax that the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah abolished this tax. He reminded the Emperor how his uncle Chhabile Ram had obtained the same favour of the abolition of Jaziya from the late King Farruksiyar after his triumph over Jalandhar Shah. He convinced the King that the Hindus were equally, if not more, loyal to him than anyone else. Yielding to these arguments, the Emperor abolished it permanently, although it cost four crore rupees annually to the State exchequer.
It appears that during his Governorship, recommendation was made for the renewal of 6 bighas of land granted by Akbar in 1600 on the day following the Rāmanavamī to Abhayarāma Das for the construction of the Hanuman Tila and it was renewed by Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah in 1723 A.D. during the Governorship of Sa’adat Khan. Though there is no direct reference to the fact that during the governorship of Girdhar Bahadur the Hindus started worshipping in the mosque along with the Muslims performing namaz in the same shrine, yet it may be reasonably presumed for the sharing of worship by both communities in the disputed building before the British takeover has been confirmed by Carnegy and gazetteer writers.

From Awadh he was transferred to Malwa where he was killed in 1728 A.D. Before Sa’adat Khan took over the rein of Awadh two Hindu Governors had served there and Girdhar Bahadur was his immediate predecessor from May 1720 to September 1722 A.D.

(2) Sa’adat Khan (1722–1739)

The founder of the Awadh dynasty Burhan ul Mulk Sa’adat Khan had a very interesting career. Born in Nishapur in Khurasan in Iran in 1680 Sa’adat Khan migrated to India in 1708 in search of a better career and to meet his brother and father. However, his father had died before his arrival in India. He got a job in 1710 with the faujdar of Kara-Manikpur and two years thereafter, he became commander of 1,000 horses in Walashahi regiment. Three and a half years later, he landed in the Mughal court where the Saiyyad Brothers were impressed with his talent and appointed him as the faujdar of Hindaun and Bayana in October 1719. Husain Ali Khan, one of the powerful Saiyyad brothers who accompanied the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah on his mission to the Deccan, allowed Sa’adat Khan to escort the emperor. On the way, a conspiracy was hatched against Husain Ali Khan with the consent of the emperor. Although Saiyyad Brothers had patronised Sa’adat Khan, he had no hesitation in ditching them and joined the conspiracy. Husain Ali Khan was murdered on the way at a distance of 75 miles south-west of Agra. The followers of Husain Ali Khan gave a tough fight but Sa’adat Khan soon eliminated most of them. The emperor was pleased with him and raised his rank to 5,000 Zat and 3,000 savars. Thereafter, the emperor returned to Delhi to eliminate another Saiyyad brother Abdullah Khan. Sa’adat Khan accompanied the emperor and on his request the emperor raised his rank to 6,000 Zat and 5,000 savars and appointed him the Subedar of Akbarabad (Agra). In a battle between Abdullah Khan and the Emperor, Sa’adat Khan fought valiantly and defeated the forces of Abdullah Khan who was captured and killed subsequently.
Sa’adat Khan’s tenure as Subedar of Agra was a total failure. He could not completely control the recalcitrant Jats of Agra and Mathurā who had raised the banner of revolt against the Mughal emperor. His deputy Neelkanth Sagar was killed by Jats in a surprise attack. The emperor shifted him from Agra to Awadh on 9th September, 1722 and thus dawned the dynasty of the Awadh Nawabs. Here the credit goes to Sa’adat Khan that he defeated a number of local kings and Zamindars and unified the province of Awadh under one umbrella. The defeated kings and landlords were Mohan Singh, Raja of Tiloi in Rae-Bareli district, Chhatradhārī Singh Somabanśī, Raja of Pratapgarh; Chet Rai Bais of Baiswara, Raja Dutta Singh of Gonda and Raja Narain Singh of Balrampur. He subdued the Shaikhzadas of Lucknow easily and captured their prestigious Panchmehla. Then he left Lucknow and reached Ayodhyā.
Despite Sa’adat Khan being a valiant warrior and a competent ruler, he was a treacherous person. He had betrayed the Syyad Brothers who had initially patronized and promoted him. He stooped so low that he participated in their killings. Besides, his role in Nadir Shah’s plunder of Delhi is completely condemnable. After the destruction of the Safavid dynasty of Iran by the Afghans in 1722 Nadir, a Persian, who had started his career as a robber, suddenly rose to such a pinnacle of power that he chased the Afghans out of the Persian boundaries and crowned himself as the Shah of Iran in 1736. Thereafter, he attacked the Afghans of Qandhar and captured Lahore on 21st January, 1739. Then he advanced towards Delhi. The Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah was alarmed and along with his prominent nobles he marched with an army of 75,000 men and encamped at Karal. Sa’adat Khan was called to join the imperial army. He reached there at the earliest and saught the permission of the Council of War of the Mughal Emperor to attack. The Council decided to start aggression two days later after full preparation. But Sa’adat Khan opened the attack on Nadir Shah’s army on the same day, i.e. 23rd February, 1739. The result was that Sa’adat Khan was captured alive and presented before Nadir Shah who was informed by him that a large contingent of the Mughal army was ready for fight. Thereafter, Nadir Shah agreed to return to his country on receipt of an indemnity of 50,00,000 rupees after having negotiated it with the Nizam. Meanwhile, Sa’adat Khan learnt that after the death of Mir-bakhshi Khan-e-Duaran, who had helped him in his attack on Nadir Shah’s army, this post had been conferred on the Nizam. Sa’adat Khan had cherished this post for long; hence he conveyed it to Nadir Shah that a march to Delhi could get him twenty crore rupees and a lot of jewellery easily. In the light of this information Nadir Shah marched to Delhi and plundered it for several days and snatched the Kohinoor and Takht-e-taus (the Peacock Throne) and other jewelleries. Never in the history of Delhi such a barbarous loot had taken place. More than 20,000 persons were butchered on a single day on 11th March 1739. Despite the plunder for days the cash in loot did not reach the figure of rupees twenty crores. Then he called Sa’adat Khan and asked him as to where the amount of rupees twenty crores was lying and threatened him with corporeal punishment, if he failed to produce the promised sum. Sa’adat Ali could not withstand this humiliation and took a cup of poison during the night of 19th March, 1739 and died. There is another speculation that he commited suicide because of unbearable cancer pain.Thus, ended the life of a brave and intrepid warrior, able administrator but a man without a sense of gratitude. Though he unified the kingdom of Awadh, it was his ambition and a sense of revenge which ruined Delhi and the prestige of the Mughal Empire.

In Awadh many local chiefs had declared themselves independent kings and he had to fight many battles to subdue them. He subjugated them but did not change the rulers. Uday Nath Kavindra, a court-poet of Gurudatta Singh, King of Amethi, has given the description of one such battle:

समर अमेठी के सरोष गुरुदत्तसिंह

सादत की सेना समसेरन ते भानी है।

भनत कविंद काली हुलसी असीसन को

स्सीन को ईस की जमाति सरसानी है।।

तहाँ एक जोगिनी सुभट खोपरी लै तामें

सोनित पियत ताकी उपमा बखानी है।

प्यालो लै चिनी को छकी जोबन तरंग मानो

रंग हेतु पीबति मजीठ मुगलानी है।

(Quoted in Digvijaya-bhushan)

Sa’adat Khan ruled from 1722 to 1739 A.D. He belonged to a celebrated Saiyyad family of Najaf in Persia. Though he fought battles against Hindu chiefs, his relation with Hindu subjects was satisfactory. He employed Hindus in Government departments, particularly the revenue department. He appointed Atmarama, a Khatri as his diwan and with his help he increased the revenues without rack-renting the peasantry and left well-filled treasury to his successors. Muzaffar Alam in his book ‘The crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh to the Punjab 1707-1748’ has named the following Hindu officers who had some important jobs during the time of Sa’adat Khan:

(i) Rai Saroman Das

(ii) Ballabh Ram

(iii) Mehta Ram Singh

(iv) Gulab Rai

(v) Rai Fatheh Chand

(vi) Hari Chand Rai

(vii) Pratap Rai

(viii) Raghunath Singh

(ix) Bhaiya Madan Mohan

In 1724 he defeated the brave king of Tiloi located in Rai Bareli district and Mohan Singh Kanhpuria, who fought valiantly and was killed in the battlefield. Though Sa’adat Khan had conqured Lucknow in 1722, yet he established his capital on the bank of Sarayū (Ghaghra) at a distance of only 2 miles from Ayodhyā. He made his accommodation on a high hill overlooking the banks of the river Ghaghra. He was a simple ruler and so made his house with unbaked bricks and it was called bangla. He was both a brave leader (Sa’adat Khan) and a good administrator (Burhan-ul-Mulk).
It is generally believed that Abul Mansur Khan alias Safdar Jung had given land to Abhayarāma Das for the construction of Hanuman-garhi temple at Ayodhyā. Mahant Gyan Das of Ayodhyā, who is in the proud possession of two sanads and other religious leaders of Ayodhyā were under this impression. I requested Mahant Gyan Das to give the photo-prints of these two sanads, and he graciously obliged me. When I got it deciphered by Persian scholars of Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library, I was told that these two sanads of land grant were issued in favour of faqir (bairagi sadhu) Abhayarāma during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah in 1723 and 1724 when Sa’adat Khan was the Governor of Awadh. These sanads have been discussed at length in the Eleventh Chapter.

These sanads nail the falsehood of the sinister propaganda, which was carried out by mischievous persons led by Ameer Ali, that Hanuman Garhi was built at a site where a mosque had been constructed by Aurangzeb.

(3) Safdar Jung (1739-1754 A.D.)

Abul-Mansur Khan Safdar Jung, also known as Muhammad Muqim, was the son of Sa’adat Khan’s eldest sister. He was invited by his maternal uncle Sa’adat Khan in 1723 to come from Persia and in 1724 he was married to Sadrunnisa Begum, the eldest daughter of Sa’adat Khan at the age of 16. Since Sa’adat Khan had no son, he had declared Mansur Ali as his successor. After the death of Sa’adat Khan Mansur Ali had to pay Rupees two crore to Nadir Shah and thereafter his appointment was confirmed by both Nadir Shah and Mughal Emperor Muhmmad Shah. He was given the title of Safdar Jung. The reign of Sa’adat Khan and Safdar Jung witnessed the establishment of many sects of Bairagis and the beginning of the construction of temples at Ayodhyā.
After the Galata conference in 1718 A.D. the Bairagi Sadhus started renovating and reconstructing temples at Ayodhyā. Abhayarama Das received land grant from the Nawab of Awadh, Sa’adat Khan in 1724 A.D. at a very vantage site where stands the present Hanuman-garhi. Similarly, Govinda Das established Nirmohi Akhada at Ayodhyā. This Nirmohi Akhada has been in the forefront in all the litigation against the protagonists of the mosque and was a party in the suits decided by the Allahabad High Court on 30th September, 2010. It will not be unreasonable to presume that the substitute Janma-sthāna temple, too, was built during his period; although Carnegy in his famous book on Ayodhyā published in 1870 arbitrarily assigned 166 years since its foundation. He named Ramadasji as its founder and informed that 7 generations had expired since then. It is further intimated by Carnegy that Mir Masum-ali mafidar had allotted more than one acre (Ac.1 R. 1 P.1) of land to Ramadasji of Gudar sect for the construction of the temple of Ramachandra. If the period of 166 years is accepted, then this temple was constructed in the year 1704 A.D. when Aurangzeb was the emperor. During his reign no Mir could dare to gift land for the construction of a substitute Rāma temple at Ayodhyā, when the Emperor himself was instrumental in the demolition of three temples there. But if it is calculated on the basis of 20 years for a generation gap, the period for 7 generations will be 140 years and the time of the gift of land to Ramadas will be c. 1730 A.D. which is in the proximity of the period, when the Ramanandi Bairagi sadhus under the dynamic leadership of Bālānanda moved into Ayodhyā and tried their best to take possession of many parts of Ayodhyā. When on the original Janma-sthana they found that there existed a mosque, then on the request of Bairagi Sadhus, the Nawab or some noble Mir Masum-ali might have given the land for the construction of a substitute Janma-sthana temple. But the Hindu devotees never forgot the original site and continued to throng to it even in the most depressing and oppressing conditions.

Abhayarāma’s name is associated with Safdar Jung also. Carnegy writes in his book on Ayodhyā that ‘on a certain occasion the Nawab just named (i.e. Mansur Ali) was seized with a severe illness, which it was thought, was cured by the prayers of Abhi Ram, the chief of the then mendicants of Ajudhia, and this secured for the latter Mansur Ali’s good offices and gratitude.” (p. 18)

Safdar Jung appointed a Hindu Nawal Rai as his Prime Minister and Army-commander. He was a very capable Prime Minister and a brave warrior. In the matter of administration he did not allow even the son of Safdar Jung to intervene. After occupying the Bangash territory near Farrukhabad, Nawal Rai was made the head of the administration there. But because of his overconfidence and treachery by an Afghan soldier he was defeated and killed in a sudden attack by Ahmad Khan Bangash in August 1750, before the Nawab could reach with reinforcements. Rajendra Giri Gosain was another Hindu who sacrificed his life for Safdar Jung. He was a sannyasi who had a jagir and commanded the cavalry contingent. Safdar Jung unhesitatingly solicited the help of the Jats and the Marathas in his fights against the Muslims.

Nawal Rai renovated Nageshvara Nath and Lakshmana Qila temples at Ayodhyā. The ancient Hanuman Garhi was fortified during the time of Safdar Jung.

(4) Shuja-ud-daula (1754-75)

Safdar Jung was succeeded by his only son Shuja-ud-daula on 6th October, 1754. Shuja-ud-daula had to fight two major battles; one in 1761 at Panipat where he sided with Ahmad Shah Abdali and second at Buxar against East India Company. In the first battle at Panipat, although his alliance with Abdali succeeded in defeating Marathas, there was a huge loss to his army; as his army had to withstand the worst of the Maratha attack. Thereafter, his military power was incapacitated and this was the main cause of his defeat at Buxar, where he, along with the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam and Mir Kasim, fought against the East India Company and lost. Thereafter, he remained Nawab but became subservient to the Company. During his tenure the Marathas put pressure on him to hand over control of Ayodhyā, Prayāga and Kāśī right from the beginning. He went on dodging the Maratha Sardars until the Marathas were defeated in the third battle of Panipat in 1761.

Despite these aberrations, Shuja-ud-daula was a liberal ruler and during his reign there was a lot of development at Ayodhyā. He did not prevent Bairagi Sadhus from building temples at Ayodhyā. When there was a question in the British Parliament about his policy towards pilgrim places, then the official reply was:

“That there are two places of bathing and worship in the neighborhood of Faizabad where on the arrival of the pilgrims, guards were stationed to protect them in their religious observations; and Shouja Dowalh constantly made large donations amongst the poorer sort of the pilgrims, for their maintenance during their pilgrimage.”

This statement is a part of the Parliamentary Register of the Great Britain Parliament, 1781 A.D., and is a great compliment to Shuja-ud-daula’s liberal religious policy. The Parliamentary Register further testifies to the liberal policy of Shuja-ud-daula by writing thus:

“...that many of the principal Officers were Hindoos, and amongst them several who held commands; that the Vizier was more attentive to the Hindoo Officers than to those of his own religion, in order to attach his Gentoo subjects more to his person and Government.” (A. 1781, p. 488)

He appointed Ram Narayan, the eldest son of Atmaram his diwan and his younger brother Maha Narayan an advisor. Two more members of Ram Narayan’s family were elevated to high posts. Beni Bahadur was given important military responsibility. In the battle of Buxar he fought from a very important strategic position. However, the Britishers broke through the army lines, where Beni Bahadur was in command. His loyalty was suspected and he was arrested after the battle and died in captivity. Another member Surat Singh was an employee in the revenue section and after his death his son Jaggan Nath was appointed and eventually elevated to the post of the diwan. Thus, the family of Atmaram enjoyed the diwani administration for generations during the early Nawabs.
During the reign of Shuja-ud-daula, particularly after he shifted the capital from Ayodhyā to Faizabad, the Bairagi Sadhus of the Rāmānanda sect built a number of Rāma-Jānakī temples at Ayodhyā. Though he dodged the Marathas all the time in handing over Ayodhyā to them, yet he championed the Hindu cause considerably by transferring the royal seat. On account of the migration of a large Muslim population from Ayodhyā to Faizabad the Bairagis had found vast chunks of vacant lands whereupon they constructed new temples and established new Vaishnava mutts and sects. Dayārām came from Chitrakuta and established the Khaki Akhada at Ayodhyā, Purushottama Das came from Kotabundi and established the Mahanirvani akhada at Ayodhyā. Viramala Das of Kota established Nirālambī sect at Ayodhyā during his reign. The construction and the fortification of the Hanuman temple which had started during the days of Safdar Jung by Abhayarama Das continued unabated during the reign of Shuja-ud-daula.

P. Carnegy informs that Shuja-ud-daula built the Samanburj near his palaces “wherefrom at a considerable distance the river then flowed. He further adds that according to tradition ‘by offering up 125,000 cows and milk in proportion, the Nawab induced the river to change its course, and to flow under his castle.” It is corroborated by the travelogue of William Hodges who writes that Shuja-ud-daula successfully made fervent prayer for bringing the Sarayù river on the bank.

Shuja-ud-daula was the only son and under great influence of his mother, Sardi Jahan Begum who was a strict disciplinarian. From Ghulam Husain Khan’s ‘Seir-ul-Muntakhirin’, (Vol. VI pp 65-66) an interesting incident is known. When Shuja-ud-daula was a young prince, he was caught red-handed one night trying to climb into the room of a young pretty girl. The matter was reported to the kotwal by the guardians of the girl. A nervous kotwal contacted Nawab Safdar Jung who ordered for the arrest of his son and when the son contacted his mother Begum Sadri Jahan, she declined to intervene and the young Prince was kept in captivity for a few days. But the same mother came to his rescue when he was on the throne. After becoming Nawab he once got an 18 year-old Khatri girl of Ayodhyā abducted. There was such an uproar that his throne was in danger. She called Raja Ram Narayan and asked him why such a huge hue and cry was being made over such an insignificant ‘unclean’ Hindu girl. Ram Narayan took the hint and pacified the public protests and nobles’ anger. Shuja-ud-daula was a man of moral laxity and whenever he slept with some other woman in place of his wife, he used to pay Rupees five thousand for his infidelity to his wife.
He developed Faizabad in such a beautiful fashion that it vied with other best towns of the country. He is remembered for the architectural excellence which he exhibited in the construction of buildings, palace and mausoleums there. He was the only Indian ruler who had to participate in two momentous wars, one at Panipat in 1761 and another at Buxar in 1764. Though in the first war his alliance headed by Ahmad Shah Abdali emerged victorious, his army was mauled by the Marathas and it was incapacitated so intensively that it could not withstand the military might of a trading company. But thereafter it was a strong contingent of Dasanami Sannyasi under Umrao Giri that brought victory laurels for the Nawab of Awadh. These Gosain contingents were so outstanding that Col. Champion, the conqueror of Rohilkhand estimated them to be ‘the best cavalry in the Oudh’ (Macpherson, Soldiering in India, 203). They were the biggest bulwark against all onslaughts. Similarly, a large number of Bairagi Sadhus also participated in the military expeditions of Shuja-ud-daulah.

Dean Mahomet has given a very interesting but saddening account of Shuja-ud-daula’s demise. Dean Mahomet’s book ‘The Travels of Dean Mahomet’ contains ‘a series of letters to a friend’. It was published in 1793-94. This was the first book ever written and published by an Indian in English. The following is the account of the background of Shuja-ud-daula’s sad end:

“Some time before Sujah-doulah’s death, he repeatedly sent to Mulnahoffis [Maulana Hafiz Rahmat Khan], Nawab of the Rohellas [Rohillas], for the customary tribute, which the latter, on consulting his Officers, not only refused to pay, but even threatened, vi et armis (i.e. by force and arms), to oppose him. Sujah-doulah, without delay, having acquainted General Champion of his conduct, was reinforced by him, and marched with his brave auxiliaries to the Rohellas, where he met the numerous troops of the enemy on the field of battle, and warmly engaged them, until victory inclining to our side, conferred on us her unfading laurels, as the need of military virtue. Col. William Ann. Bailie, then Major of artillery, distinguished himself by his intrepid zeal and gallantry in this expedition. A great part of the enemy’s army were killed; the rest fled, and some of them were pursued and taken. General Champion returned with his men to head quarters, at Belgram; and Sujah-doulah directed his course to the very palace of Mulnahoffis, who was also in the number of the slain, and compelled his daughter, a beautiful young woman, whom he found in one of the grand apartments to come along with him to Oude. Having placed this unfortunate Lady in his seraglio, where nine hundred pining beauties, with their attendants, were already immured, he forced her to yield to his licentious desires, but purchased his enjoyment at a dear rate, as his life was the forfeit of it. The violated female, with a soul, the shrine of purity, like that of the divine Lucretia, whose chastity will ever adorn the historic page, fired with indignation at such unmanly treatment, grew frantic with rage, and disdaining life after the loss of honour, stabbed her brutal ravisher with a lancet, which she afterwards plunged into her own bosom, and expired. Notwithstanding the dangerous wound he received, by the appointment of Heaven, from the avenging hand of injured innocence, he might have lingered some time longer in life, had he kept within the bounds of moderation, by restraining the impetuosity of his unruly passions. But his career was pleasure, to which he gave such a loose, that his recent wound opened, and bleeding afresh, reduced him to a state of debility that terminated in his death. On account of his elevated rank in human life, his obsequies were conducted with great pomp and ceremony; and his funeral formed a pageant procession, in which his officers and soldiers walked in solemn pace, to the sounds of pensive music. After his interment, the women who composed his seraglio laid aside their jewels and ornaments, to denote, at least, in appearance, their sorrow on this mournful occasion.”

The Nawab died in 1775 A.D.

(5) Asaf-ud-daula (1775-97 A.D.)

After the death of his father Shuja-ud-daula in 1775, Asaf-ud-daula, also known as Muhammad Yahya Mirza Amani, being the eldest son, ascended the throne. He was a very liberal Nawab and known for his munificence and therefore this proverb was prevalent – ‘Jisko na de maulā, usko de Asaf-ud-daula’ , i.e. he, who does not get from Allah, gets something from Asaf-ud-daula. He transferred his capital from Faizabad to Lucknow in the year 1775 and turned it into a town parexcellence in every sphere. In the beginning of his reign the East India Company under Warren Hastings harassed him a lot financially but he overcame it after Hastings was recalled in 1785. Asaf-ud-daula knew well that in the wake of the fast rising power of the East India Company and imposition of harsh treaties on Awadh, he was not going to marvel in military skill. So, he took to measures of relief, art and architecture. In 1784 there was a severe drought in Awadh. The Nawab started the construction of Imambara to provide relief to the hungry and needy people. He is credited to have constructed the Asafi Masjid and the Roomi Darwaza in Lucknow where he shifted his capital from Faizabad in 1775 A.D.
Asaf-ud-daula heralded the composite culture of Awadh known as Ganga-Jamuni tehzib. His court was glittering with the jewels of poetry and learning. The glory of the great Mughal court in Delhi faded before the grand darbar of Asaf-ud-daula. He was the first Nawab who never visited the Mughal court. On the contrary, Prince Jawan Bakt, second son of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam, visited Lucknow in 1784 and was well received by the Nawab who gave him a bride and an annual honorarium of rupees three lakhs. In his court was flourishing the urbane Urdu language and there was a revival of interest in ‘masnavi’, a long narrative poem with its root in Persian but now its branch in Urdu. Though Asaf-ud-daula was a very liberal, large-hearted ruler, yet the Shia clergy were trying their best to have the ascendancy. But he never allowed it to happen during his reign.

During the time of Asaf-ud-daula the construction of temples took place on a large scale. The famous Hanuman temple in Aliganj was constructed during his reign by Lala Jatmal in 1783. Raja Tikait Rai built many temples and tanks at Lucknow. The famous Jagannath temple at Lucknow is said to have been built at his behest. The temple was granted a big chunk of land. It is interesting to note that the spiral of the temple had a crescent which was a testimony to the communal harmony. Many Hindu saints were warmly welcomed by him. Baba Kalyangiri left Hardwar and established Kalyangiri temples at Lucknow. Famous saints Baba Gomti Das and Baba Hazra as well as Sant Waldi Saheb, said to be the eleventh descendent of Sant Kabir, were honoured by this magnanimous monarch. Many Jain temples, too, were built during his rule.
Asaf-ud-daula’s most favourite attendant after his ascendancy on the throne was Bhawani Mahra, a Kahar who was the unofficial treasurer of the Nawab and hence was nicknamed ‘Raja Mahra’. In 1792 he appointed Tikait Rai, a Srivastava Kayastha, as his Vazir. In 1795 Tikait Rai was removed from this post on the insistence of East India Company. In his place Jhao Lal was appointed Vazir. But in 1797 East India Company forced him to remove Jhao Lal also against his will. Surat Singh and Thaparchand, too, held important posts in finance department during his reign. Even the palanquin-bearers, namely Moti Singh, Maiku Singh, Shobha Singh and Bhola Singh enjoyed special status and had the permission to attend the court. However, he did not have cordial relations with his mother and grandmother, known as Bahu Begums who enjoyed enormous wealth. Initially, he was in confrontation with them and later when they were harassed by Warren Hastings, he did not come to their rescue. But the Bahu Begums were very unpopular amongst subjects, particularly Hindus. This popular couplet reflected their image in Faizabad-Ayodhyā:

अवध बसन को मन चहै, पै बसिये केहि ओर।

तीन दुष्ट एहि में रहैं, वानर बेगम चोर।।

Asaf-ud-daula died in September 1797 and with him died the age of the golden communal harmony, which was properly called Gan¢gā-Jamunī Tehzib. From 1722 when Sa’adat Khan became the first Nawab of Awadh to the death of the fourth ruler Asaf-ud-daula in 1797, all the four rulers made no discrimination on the ground of creed and therefore there was a galaxy of great Hindu administrators from Nawal Rai to Tikait Rai. The construction of temples from Ayodhyā to Lucknow continued with the co-operation of Nawabs. Peace and prosperity prevailed during these Nawabs.
In this book we have produced three pictures of Svargadvāra mosque. The first painting of Hodges is of the year 1783 A.D. and that of William Daniell in 1789 A.D. When we compare these two photographs, we find that during this period of six years many temples have been built in front of the Svargadvāra mosque on the bank of the Sarayū river. When it is further scrutinized, it is seen that some top portion of a minar of Svargadvāra mosque is broken. And the third photograph of recent time shows that it is badly damaged.

The present condition of the subsequently damaged mosques is shown below.

Svargadvāra mosque at Ayodhyā in dilapidated condition.

In fact, many Muslim writers lamented after 1855 A.D. that the severe damage to the Svargadvāra mosque and the Treta Ke Thakur mosque was they signed of the bad days of Islam. Now the question arises when these mosques were subjected to extensive attack and partial demolition. It could only happen during the period from the first Nawab Sa’adat Khan to the Nawab Asaf-ud-daula fourth, i.e. from 1722 to 1795. They were very liberal in religious outlook and it appears that they were reconciled to the fact that Ayodhyā was a Hindu city of utmost importance. Therefore, they first changed the capital from Ayodhyā to Faizabad and then to Lucknow. Extensive damage to two mosques built by Aurangzeb was one of the reasons for alarm in the Muslim clergy who were instrumental in preparing factitious inscriptions and handing them over to Buchanan.

(6) Wazir Ali Khan (1797–1798)

After the death of Asaf-ud-daula his son Wazir Ali Khan, also known as Asif Jah Mirza, ascended the throne. Asaf-ud-daula had presented Wazir Ali to various nobles and company officials, including the Resident as his son and heir and invested him with the nominal title of Diwan during his lifetime to give him greater legitimacy. Therefore, the East India Company confirmed Wazir Ali’s accession.

Wazir Ali, though in his late teens, started acting independently. He did not allow much interference of the company and nobles in his administration. Therefore, the nobles started urging the Company to depose Wazir Ali on the ground of illegitimacy. They circulated the rumour that Asaf-ud-daula was impotent and Wajir Ali was not his son. They alleged that either Asaf-ud-daula had purchased the child in infancy or some servant had impregnated Wazir Ali’s mother. But so long as Asaf-ud-daula lived, there was no rumour about Wajir Ali’s illegitimate birth. Even if it is supposed that Wazir Ali was not the legitimate son of Asaf-ud-daula, he was at least his adopted son and entitled to the throne. But the Company forcibly and arbitrarily deposed Wazir Ali in Januay 1798. Wazir Ali was sent to exile in Benaras, where he was offered an annual pension of 1,50,000/- rupees. But he declined the pension offer and rebelled against the Company. He killed several British officials and with an army of 6,000 men marched to retrieve the independence of Awadh. He was defeated and met a tragic end. He was on the Ayodhyā throne for merely six months.

(7) Sa’adat Ali Khan II (1798–1814)

Sa’adat Ali Khan II, also known as Yamin-ud-daula, a half-brother of Asaf-ud-daula, a stooge who enjoyed the Company’s hospitability for more than 20 years, was enthroned on the Awadh gaddi in January 1798 and remained Nawab until his death in July 1814. He had been under the patronage of the Company for more than 20 years. He had been shown such honour as being included in the Governor General’s recommendation for the birthday party of the King of England. Nevertheless, his elevation to the throne was beyond his own expectation. Therefore, he was totally obliged to the Company which took advantage of this situation and forced him to sign a treaty which was, if not the death-warrant, then certainly a brain-haemorrhage that crippled the economy, territory and liberty of the Kingdom of Awadh. Half of the territory of Awadh was ceded to the Company in the name of safeguarding its borders. According to the treaty the Nawab had to pay an enhanced twenty lakh rupees for the annual ‘subsidy’ of company troops in Awadh. The Company collected rupees twelve lakhs as a cost of enthroning him in place of his nephew Wazir Ali. The Company got the right to interfere in the internal administration in the name of good governance and all correspondences between the Nawab and any outside State were to be carried on with the knowledge and concurrence of the Company.
During the rule of Sa’adat Ali Khan the Shia clergy got supremacy under the leadership of Sayyid Dildar Ali Nasirbandi. They adopted a consistent hostility towards the Hindus and at times against the Sunnis. The golden days of the communal harmony during the period of Asaf-ud-daula and his three predecessors were gone now. During the rule of Sa’adat Ali Khan a serious communal riot took place in Lucknow in 1807 A.D. Thereafter, they started exerting their claims on the Hindu shrines and places of worship. In the book ‘Roots of North Indian Shiaism in Iran and Iraq; religion and state in Awadh, 1722-1859’ the author Cole Juan Ricardo has analysed the attitude of the Shia clergy toward the Hindus in the following words:
“A second issue was the attitude of Shi‘i clerics, government officials, and laypersons toward Hindus. The clerical attitude can be easily summarized. Sayyid Dildar ‘Ali Nasirabadi harbored an almost violent animosity toward Hindus, arguing that the Awadh government should take stern measures against them. He divided unbelievers into three kinds, those (harbi) against whom Muslims must make war, those (dhimmi) who have accepted Muslim rule and pay a poll-tax, and those (musta’min) whom their Muslim rulers have temporarily granted security of life. He insisted that Imami Shi‘ism accepted only Jews and Christians as protected minorities (dhimmis), and even they could only achieve this status if they observed the ordinances governing it. He differed with Sunni schools that considered Hindus a protected minority.

He wrote that Muslims could only grant infidels personal security (aman) in a country they ruled for one year, lamenting that the government had long treated as grantees of personal security the Hindus of northern India, who openly followed their idolatrous religion, drinking wine, and sometimes even mating with Sayyid women. He complained that the irreligious Sunni Mughal rulers of India neither made war against the Hindus nor forced them to accept Islam. Legally, nonetheless, the lives and property of Hindus could be licitly taken by Muslims.” (p. 225)

It appears that Buchanan’s survey was made during this Nawab’s genure.

(8) Abul-Muzaffar Ghazi-ud-din Haydar Khan (1814–1827)

Sa’adat Ali Khan died in July 1814 and he was succeeded by his son Gahziuddin Haidar. On his accession the treasury contained 14 crores of rupees. Haidar helped the Company in every war against the Gurkhas, the Pindaris and the Marathas. The Governor General, Lord Hastings was quite pleased with his helping hand and hence encouraged the Nawab Haidar to shake off the titular yoke of the Mughal hegemony. Thus, the Nawab Haidar became a king on 19th October, 1819 by assuming the title of Padshah. For the first time in the history of mediaeval Awadh coin was struck and Khutba read in his name. He spent four crores of rupees and sent gifts to the Khalifa and other dignitaries inside the country and abroad. He appointed an able man Agha Mir as his Prime Minister. He was efficient, tactful and dignified, and enjoyed the confidence of the Mughal King and the British Resident. Haidar took keen interest in the administration of Awadh in the initial eight years but, later on, he depended much on his Prime Minister and the Resident. He kept good relations with the Mughals too. He married his son and heir with a daughter of the Mughal family to keep the Mughals in good humour as well to enhance his prestige. He provided a fairly good administration minus the frequent interference of the Resident. He died on 20th October, 1827. He kept the royal dignity intact and made progress in every sphere including art, culture and architecture. His fiscal policy resulted in reducing the surplus amount in the royal treasury.

(9) Nasir-ud-din Haidar Shah Jahan (1827–1837)

After his death his son Nasir-ud-din Haidar (Abul-Mansur Qutb-ud-din Sulaiman Jah) became Nawab and continued until 1837 when the latter’s uncle Muhammad Ali Shah ascended the throne. Henry Lawrence wrote about him, “Engaged in every species of debauchery, and surrounded by wretches, English, Eurasian and Native of the lowest description, his whole reign was one continued satire upon the subsidiary and protected system.” He was always surrounded by sycophants and parasites, and his favourites of both the sexes used to sway his decisions. European associates of no reckoning enjoyed more clout in his court through Wilayati Mahal Begum than his Prime Minister. Moreover, he was a very communal monarch. In 1829 he forced circumcision on a Hindu boy, even though his family members had changed their idea of converting to Shiaism. When the Resident Ricketts protested, he boasted that he had a divine right to dispose of his subjects in any manner he wished. In protest, provoked Hindus defiled a mosque in Rikabganj, Haider sent troops which plundered Hindu residents including women and destroyed all 47 Hindu temples in that quarter. The entire population of 3,000 was forced to flee from the area. It was on the intervention of the Resident that peace and order was restored in the locality. In 1814 an amount of rupees 14 crore was lying in the royal treasury but now, in 1837, it was reduced to 70 lakh rupees only.

(10) Muhammad Ali Shah (1837–1842)

Nasir-ud-din suddenly died on 7th July, 1837. Since he died issueless, there was confusion in succession after his death. Earlier, he had avowed two sons but they were disowned subsequently. However, the dowager Begum supported one of the pretended sons Muna Jaun and succeeded in enthroning him to the gaddi. But the Britishers wanted a puppet in Awadh. So they selected a 70-year-old, a half-invalid Nasir-ud-daulah, the third son of the grandfather of the deceased monarch Nasiruddin for succession. They enacted a palace coup with their armed men. The Padshah Begum, Muna Jaun and many members in her support were captured after a bloody skirmish in which many lives were lost. Padshah Begum and Muna Jaun were sent out of Lucknow as Company prisoners. Instead, an imbecile, docile and senile person, Nasir-ud-daulah, who had a crippled physique due to chronic rheumatism and who had never dreamt of royalty, was brought from obscurity and enthroned in the new name of Muhammad Ali Shah. But before ascending the throne he had to sign a humiliating treaty which forced him to be guided by the Company in the governance of his Kingdom. Though this treaty was disallowed by the Court of Directors, the decision was kept secret and when it was communicated to the King after the second rejection, it was done in a distorted manner. The treaty always hung over the head of Muhmmad Ali Shah like the sword of Damocles. During his reign also communal tension prevailed and his heir apparent Amjad Ali Mirza played a prominent role in harassing the Hindus. In November 1840 when the Hindus defiled a mosque of a landlord with pig’s blood, Amjad Ali took a very active part in retaliation which resulted in killing a large number of cows, profaning temples and damaging Hindus’ shops.

(11) Amjad Ali Shah (1842–1847)

After Muhammad Ali Shah’s death on 16th May, 1842 at the age of 76; his son Amjad Ali Shah, also known as Najm-ud-Daula Abul-Muzaffar Musleh-ud-din became Nawab of Awadh in 1842. His frivolous and indolent conduct and active involvement in Shia theology was deplored by both Sunni and Hindu sections of the society. Cole J.R. has written about his communal policies in the aforementioned book in the following words:

“Amjad Ali Shah enacted anti-Hindu policies, founding Shii shops to drive Hindu merchants out of business, and rewarding Hindu officials who adopted Imami Shiism. The provision of government welfare monies to only the Shii poor encouraged thousands of Hindus to convert to Shiism in the 1840s, according to clerical sources. Awadh’s fiercely Usuli governments showed little understanding of their Hindu subjects, allowing communal resentments to fester, a policy that culminated in a major battle over a religious edifice in Faizabad.”

The communal cleavage created in early 1850s was the culmination of the sectarian seed-sowings by Amjad Ali Shah and his son had to reap the bitter crop.

Amjad Ali Shah oppressed the people of Ayodhyā. Rupees twenty five lakhs were extracted from Raja Darshan Singh and his brother Bakhtawar Singh and they were banished from the kingdom. But Darshan was subsequently recalled because of the failure of the government in collecting revenue adequately. However, after the sudden death of Darshan Singh, there was no improvement in the situation. Amjad Ali Shah was a total failure as an administrator. During his regime confusion in governance got worse confounded and corruption became rampant. His stature in the eye of the British Resident was so low that the latter refused to attend his coronation ceremony in 1845. However, he remained faithful to the East India Company and gifted Rupees thirty two lakhs from his exchequer to meet the financial exigency that followed the Afghan disaster and for fighting the First Sikh war. On 13th February, 1847 Amjad Ali Shah died of blood poisoning and thus ended an inglorious chapter of Awadh history.

(12) Wajid Ali Shah (1847–1856)

After the death of his father Amjad Ali Shah, Wajid Ali Shah, the second surviving son of his father, ascended the Awadh throne as the fifth and last King of Awadh. Contrary to the general perception Wajid Ali Shah was an able administrator. He was far superior to his two predecessors in talent and far more cultured than many of his contemporary rulers. He had charming appearance, attractive demeanour, and aesthetic sense. His liberal education and literary aptitude had made him a tolerant, cultured and broad-minded ruler. His abstinence from alcoholic drinks was amazing. But the British bureaucrats have painted such a gentleman and competent ruler in such a dark colour that he is perceived as a wreckless ruler, debauch and a drunkard of the highest degree. He had many qualities which could have earned him a very good name in Indian history. But he was the most unlucky potentate. Before his ascendancy to the throne, the Governor Generals had decided to annexe Awadh on some pretext or the other in the tradition of the fable of a wolf and a lamb. Since he was not the eldest son of his father, he did not get training in the art of administration. However, he started the governance unexpectedly well. Because of his many measures aimed at the welfare of his subjects, he emerged as a benevolent king. He helped the British Government against the Sikhs at the cost of the displeasure of many of his nobles. But all this could not satisfy the pre-determined British authorities.

Impressive Silver Royal Emblem of Wajid Ali Shah.

Wajid Ali Shah was a very liberal ruler. He enjoyed Hindu festivals and plays related to Lord Krishna. He made no discrimination against the Hindus who occupied good posts during his regime. But an unfortunate communal incident first caused headache for him and even after its successful solution it became the excuse for Awadh’s annexation by East India Company in the name of law and order. In 1855 a dispute began when a Sunni zealot Shah Ghulam Husayn started a rumour about Hanuman Garhi that it was built on a site where a mosque had existed earlier. A number of Muslim zealots attacked Hanuman Garhi but they were bravely resisted by Bairagis who chased them up to the Janma-sthāna Masjid where, in a sanguinary battle, 68 Muslims and 12 Hindus were killed. In this bloody conflict the royal army of Wajid Ali Shah remained a moot spectator and did not side with anyone. Hindus took complete possession of the Janma-sthāna Masjid but after the arrival of the British troops they had to vacate it. Wajid Ali Shah constituted a committee to enquire into the allegation and submit a report. It comprised of one Muslim, one Hindu and the British Resident. The committee came to the conclusion that there was no mosque beneath the Hanuman Garhi, at least since 25-30 years. But the committee’s findings were not accepted by the Muslims who alleged that the Muslim member had taken bribe and succumbed to the doctored report. Thereafter, one Maulwi Ameer Ali led the jehad and started from Amethi along with a contigent of 700-800 determined warriors. They were confronted by the royal army and most of Amir Ali’s supporters were butchered and the agitation ended in a fiasco. But it exhibits great courage on part of a Muslim ruler to resist a Muslim agitation with force and violence. Wajid Ali Shah mustered that courage. The British Resident sent regular reports to higher authorities of the Company and carried on correspondences with the Nawab. They are available in the library of the National Archives of India in New Delhi. Many of them are quoted in the next chapter.
The situation in Awadh was not as bad as the Resident Sleeman had projected in his reports. He had been asked by Dalhousie to prepare an adverse report against Wajid Ali Shah, so that the reports could be a pretext for the annexation of the Province. Even the accounts of some European contemporaries were testimony to the fact that Awadh was not so badly governed as projected by Sleeman and Outram. The Governor General, the Marquis of Dalhousie, was not getting any occasion to intervene. Wajid Ali Shah had successfully handled the jehad crisis with an iron hand. The Governor General wrote that he was unable to find a pretext for annexation because the king of Awadh won’t offend or quarrel with us and “will take any amount of kicking without being rebellious.” Thereafter, on the basis of the reports of the Residents at Lucknow, Dalhousie denounced the Kingdom as ‘a fortress of corruption and infamous governments’. He sought to effect the extinction of the kingdom of Awadh by interpreting the old treaties of 1807 and 1837. First, he proposed that the status of a sovereign may be retained by the king of Awadh but he must “vest all power, jurisdiction, rights and claims in the hands of the East India Company.” Unfortunately, then there was no Edmund Burke in the British Parliament, who could expose the dishonest diplomacy of Dalhousie with a monarch who was so civilized and cultured!
Though Dalhousie’s tenure as Governor General had expired, he had sought extension just to annex the most faithful ally of the British Government. In the beginning of January, 1856 Dalhousie received two orders from the Court of Directors. One was the extension of his tenure and another was the approval of the annexation of Awadh. General Outram was the Resident at Oudh court. He was directed to persuade the King of Oudh formally “to abdicate his sovereign functions, and to make over, by a solemn treaty, the Government of his territories to the East India Company.”
Probably, never in the annals of Indian history a dignified king was subjected to such a humiliating treatment by a junior officer and never in such a momentous crisis a condemned king showed such royal dignity as Wajid Ali Shah did. On 4th February, 1856 the Resident Outram met the King Wajid Ali Shah and presented him a draft of the proposed treaty along with a letter of the Governor General Dalhousie urging him to accept it. But Wajid Ali Shah declared that “treaties were only between equals; that there was no need for him to sign it.” He further told Outram frankly that “the British had taken his honour and his country and he would not ask them for the means of maintaining his life.” After having said so, King Wajid Ali Shah took off the turban from his head and placed it in the hands of the Resident Outram. Outram was amazed. He could not ask the King to sign the proposed treaty or accept the stipend which was offered. Thereafter, a proclamation was issued claiming the province of Awadh to be a component part of the Empire of the East India Company on 7th February, 1856. Having seen the fate of the Awadh Kingdom one should remember the Latin proverb and be alert: Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, i.e. Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts. The Britishers came to Awadh as the protector of the Nawabs, but they devoured the whole territory. An arrogant despot Dalhousie declared in a derogatory and demeaning manner:

“The wretch at Lucknow, who sent his crown to the Exhibition, would have done his people and us a good service if had sent his head in it, and he never would have missed it.”

(13) Karl Marx’s indictment of the Annexation

In distant Europe the illegal and immoral annexation of Awadh to ever-expanding East India Empire was indicted by the great political philosopher Karl Marx in 1858 in the following indignant words:

“England, by one stroke of the pen, has confiscated not only the estates of a few noblemen, or of a royal family, but the whole length and breadth of a kingdom nearly as large as Ireland, “the inheritance of a whole people,” as Lord Ellenborough himself terms it.”

Marx wrote an article ‘The Annexation of Oudh’ on May 14, 1858 and it was published in the ‘New York Daily Tribune’ No. 5336 on May 28,1858. The article is a testimony to the correct analysis of contemporary events of Oudh and concern of Karl Marx for India. Marx correctly concluded:

“Now, why was Lord Dalhousie so eager to deny the validity of a treaty which all his predecessors, and even his own agents, had acknowledged to be in force in their communications with the King of Oudh? Solely because, by this treaty, whatever pretext the King might give for interference, that interference was limited to an assumption of government by Britisn officers in the name of the King of Oudh, who was to receive the surplus revenue. That was the very opposite of what was wanted. Nothing short of annexation would do. This denying the validity of treaties which had formed the acknowledged base of intercourse for twenty years;this seizing violently upon independent territories in open infraction even of the acknowledged treaties; this final confiscation of every acre of land in the whole country; all these treacherous and brutal modes of proceeding of the British toward the natives of Indian are now beginning to avenge themselves, not only in India, but in England.” (On Colonialism, p. 180)

(14) Consequences of the annexation

After this proclamation all the land in the territory of Awadh became the property of the British Government and no title of an individual or a group or a trust or a waqf was left. All the land including the Ramajanma-bhūmi-Baburi mosque plot became the ‘nazul’ land, i.e. the government land and hence neither the Hindus nor the Muslims did have any title or proprietary right on the disputed site.

How the British rulers were utterly ungrateful to the Kings of Awadh is reflected in the following letter of Lord Amherst written to the King of Avadh Ghaziuddin Hyder on 14th October, 1825; when the latter had advanced a loan of one crore of rupees during the financial crisis of the First Burmese war:

“The benefits and fruits of our amity, which have existed from days of yore, are impressed upon the heart of every Englishman, both here and in Europe as indelibly as if they had been engraved upon adamant (unalterable); nor will lapse of time or change of circumstances efface from the memory of the British nation so irrefragable a proof, so irritable an argument, of the fraternal sentiments of Your Majesty.”

Except Tipu Sultan who knew the true colour of the Britishers and hence never made any compromise with them every native ruler was deceived and betrayed by them. They devoured all those rulers who came to their rescue! The province of Awadh was annexed for the sake of good governance. But it was followed by the plunder of the private property of the royal family and administration of a cruel character which has been properly projected by Kaye in these words:

“It was charged against us that our Officers had turned the stately palaces of Lucknow into stalls and kennels, that delicate women, the daughters or companions of Kings, had been sent adrift, homeless and helpless, that treasure-houses had been violently broken open and despoiled, that the private property of the royal family had been sent to the hammer, and that other vile things had been done, very humiliating to the king’s people but far more disgraceful to our own.”

The new Governor General Canning sent all the charges to the Chief Commissioner of Awadh for enquiry. But despite several reminders and admonitions, the Commissioner did not submit a single report. The non-submission of any enquiry report indirectly confirmed these charges, though they were denied by many class-conscious British historians.

It is a tragic irony that such an impartial ruler was dethroned and Awadh was annexed by the avaricious authorities of the Company. Therefore, there was no surprise that Awadh witnessed such an intense struggle for the liberation from servitude under the British yoke that even Lord Canning had to admit that ‘the rising against our authority in Oude has been general, almost universal’.

(Canning to Secret Committee of Court of Directors, 17th June, 1858).

The disdainful deposition of Wajid Ali Shah resulted in widespread wave of sorrow and grief. Poor and rich, young and old, all were bewailing for the King and dropped tears from their eyes. Wajid Ali Shah left Lucknow on 13th March, 1856 and reached Calcutta on 13th May, where he was kept as a pensioner. After the outbreak of the Revolt he was detained as a prisoner at Matia Buruj near Calcutta where he died on 1st September, 1887. W. Crooke in ‘Songs About the King of Oudh’ has written:

“Noble and peasant all wept together
and all the world wept and wailed

Alas! The chief has bidden adieu
to his country and gone abroad.”

(Indian Antiquary, vol. XL, 1911, p. 62)



Chapter Seventeen

How a rumour resulted in the rupture
of relations between the twocommunities in 1855

[(1) Introduction (2) Storming of Hanumangarhi in July, 1855 (3) Land-grants to Abhayarãma Das (4) Constitution of a Commission of Enquiry headed by the Governor Agha Ali Khan (5) Negotiation between the King and Ameer Ali Amethavi (6) Correspondences between the Resident, the King and the Governor (7) Parcha No. 2 (8) Parcha No. 3 (9) Parcha No. 4, (10) Parcha No. 5 (11) Parcha No. 6 (12) Officiating Resident’s report on the escape of Shah Ghulam Hoosain (13) Officiating Resident J. Outram’s report (14) Encounter with Maulavi Ameer Ali (15) An interesting report of the ‘Friend of India’ of 1855. (16) Travel Account of the Begum Nawab of Bhopal (17) Errors in Neville’s Gazetteer]

(1) Introduction

Rumours ruin societies. They may ruin even a nation. Beware of rumours which are more explosive than time-bombs. If not checked in time, they can enlarge like a Surasã and engulf the whole society and even a nation.

Hanumangarhi is a famous and magnificent temple situated in the heart of Ayodhyā. It is dedicated to Hanumānjī, the chief devotee of Lord Rāma. Though the worship of Hanuman continued at the site since the time immemorial, the construction of the present grand temple started during the reign of Sa’adat Khan. As stated earlier, after the ascendancy obtained in the Galata conference in 1718 A.D., the Rāmanandi sadhus went to important pilgrim centres connected with the life of Rāma. Sadhu Abhayarāma Das came to Ayodhyā and he built the present Hanumangarhi temple. At Ayodhyā it is said that the Nawab Safdar Jung suffered from some severe illness and was cured by the prayer of Abhayarama Das. Thereafter, Nawab granted vast chunk of land and assisted him in the construction of the temple. This tradition may be true to the extent that he might have encouraged and financially helped Abhayarāma Das. But two Mughal Farmans indicate that it was Sa’adat Khan, the first Shia Nawab of Awadh during whose Governorship the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah granted vast chunk of land to Abhayarāma on the tila for the accommodation of Bairagi Sadhus. The constuction of the temple started during Sa’adat Khan’s time and continued during the Governorship of Mansur Ali Khan and Shuja-ud-daulah. It was completed during the days of Asaf-ud-dullah. Thus, the construction of this temple was carried out in the full view of four Nawabs of Awadh namely Sa’adat Khan, Safdar Jung, Shuja-ud-daulah and Asaf-ud-daulah. They would not have allowed the construction of a temple over a mosque. Ayodhyā continued to remain under the rule of the Nawabs and therefore there was no chance of building a temple either after demolishing a mosque or by superimposing the temple. But there is no end to the mischief a rumour monger can create.

(2) Storming of Hanumangarhi in July, 1855

In February 1855 A.D. Shah Ghulam Husayn sowed seeds of dissension by starting a rumour that “the site had originally supported a mosque subsequently supplanted by the Hanumangarhi. He collected a good number of crusaders and in July 1855 they stormed the Hanumangarhi” with a force of 400-600 zealots but they were repulsed and chased up to the Baburi mosque.

In the vicinity of the Rāma Janma-bhūmi temple a fierce battle was fought and about 75 Muslims and 11 Hindus were killed. The Hindus captured the mosque also for some time. During the entire sanguinary skirmish the royal force remained indifferent. It is said that when representations of the Hindus and Muslims were placed before King Wajid Ali Shah for passing an order to maintain peace, he wrote on one representation:

हम इश्क के बन्दे हैं, मजहब से नहीं वाकिफ।

गर काबा हुआ तो क्या, बुतखाना हुआ तो क्या।।

But it does not seem to be a correct version because the Nawab Wajid Ali Shah tried his best to solve this issue. He was a liberal Nawab who used to participate in certain Hindu festivals. In the beginning, the Shia administration might have been indifferent because it was perceived to be a confrontation between the Sunnis and the Hindus. But after the ghastly murder of about 90 persons, the Nawab was furious about the killing of Muslims at the mosque. But at the same time he wanted action against the Sunni troublemakers also. His officers at Faizabad tried to diffuse the tension following the reprehensible crime.

Hanumangarhi at Ayodhyā in 1870 from Carnegy’s book.

Agha Ali Khan, who was the Nãzim of Sultanpur and Faizabad, tried to control the agitated Sunni zealots, and Raja Man Singh pacified the assuaged feelings of the Hindus. However, this incident ignited the communal tension in a great part of North India and engulfed the Awadh State into crisis. The claim that the Begum of Bhopal sent an elephant and sufficient fund for maintaining 300 jehadis does not appear to be correct because the travel account of the Begum does not indicate that at all. Similarly, the financial support to the Hindu zealots by the Maharajas outside Oudh is not proved by official documents.

(3) Land-grants to Abhayarama

How this rumour of the existence of a mosque on the site of Hanumangarhi was false and fabricated is well proved by two farmans of land grant issued in favour of Bairagi Sadhu Abhayarāma Das by Mughal King Abul Fatah Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah in December 1722 and July 1723 during the Governorship of Sa’adat Khan, the Nawab of Oudh. The following is the content of one land grant:

“It was issued specially for Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarama in perpetuity, with an order of exemption from taxes. It is imperative for the Faqir (Bairagi) Abhayarãma to build residential houses for his fellow Faqirs (Bairagis) on the mound and remain engaged in praying for the perpetual glory, grandeur and good fortune of the Sultan. The present officers and employees and the future ones should not claim royal dues or civil claims from the mentioned land and should not demand the sanad for renewal every year.”

Bairagi Sadhus’ residences are in the vicinity of Hanuman-garhi. The Mughal Emperor or rather the Nawab Saadat Khan gave the land to Abhayarama to build residential houses for his fellow Bairagis on the mound. Here the word ‘mound’ (tila) is important. It indicates that this mound was vacant at that time. Had there been any existing or ruined mosque on that site, the Mughal Emperor or the Awadh Nawab would not have given the mound for the construction of residential houses for the Bairagi Sadhus.

(4) Constitution of a commission of Enquiry headed by the Governor Agha Ali Khan

Nawab Wajid Ali Shah took a correct decision by constituting a Commission of Enquiry to probe whether any mosque had existed beneath the Hanumangarhi site. The commission was headed by the Governor Agha Ali Khan. Raja Man Singh and the British officer Captain Alexander Orr, in charge of the Oudh Frontier Force posted there, were made members of the commission. But this did not pacify the Muslims. Sayyíd Ali Deoghatavi, the Imam of Faizabad visited the mosque during the investigation and gave a speech which was not to douse the communal flame. In Lucknow also religious leaders of both Sunni and Shia sects wanted firm action against the infidels. However, the Shia administrative officers were largely concerned with the maintenance of law and order.
After the investigation the Commission gave the finding that there was no existence of any mosque at the site. This finding infuriated both Muslim clergy and the laymen. They accused Aga Ali Khan of accepting bribe from the Hindus for deciding the case in Hindus’ favour. There was uproar everywhere in the Muslim community at Lucknow, and they started forming groups to take action on their own. A militant Maulavi Ameer Ali of Amethi declared holy war against the Hindus and started collecting his jehadi followers. Before the findings of the Commission were received the Nawab, under the pressure of the Muslims, had proposed to disband the Commission and refer the matter to the chief Shia Kazi Sayyid Muhammad Nasirbandi. But it was vetoed by the Resident Outram who called on the Chief Minister Ali Naqi Khan on 30th August, 1855 and suggested that the matter should be decided by the King himself and not by the Chief Qazi.

(5) Negotiation between the King and Ameer Ali Amethavi

The King Wajid Ali Shah had earlier called Ameer Ali Amethavi and tried to pacify him by offering a robe of honour and pledging to send Rs. 15,000 to Mecca on his behalf. But the Maulana curtly replied that he was not a revenue collector who would accept a robe of honour. Ameer Ali left the King’s palace in protest. Wajid Ali Shah took certain decisions to solve the contentious issue. He suggested that a small mosque should be built beside the Hanuman-garhi temple with a door on the other side. It was rejected by the Bairagi Sadhus lock, stock and barrel. Then he tried to involve the clergy by soliciting rulings on certain issues. The government solicited the guidance of the Chief Shia Qazi as to what action should be taken against those who were going to Faizabad to wage jehad against the Hindus. The Chief Kazi replied that without the participation and aid of the customary law ruler, i.e. the King and Islamic-law ruler, i.e. the Imam ‘such actions are in no way permissible’ and, when perssured further, he said, ‘God knows best’. But in a later ruling the Chief Qazi softened his stand and replied:

“Under these circumstances the order for waging the jehad does not apply; but the sovereign has the right to build the mosque and the Hindus should not disobey it.”

The Resident Outram objected to the above ruling of the Chief Qazi S.M. Nasirbandi that the government would build the mosque. In October, 1855 he gave a warning to the King Wajid Ali Shah that the King would be held personally responsible, if any mosque was built or Hindus were attacked by Muslims. He and Dalhousie cautioned the King that he would lose his kingdom if the jehad escalated. They made it clear that he and not the Britishers would have to fight jehadis. Thus, Wajid Ali Shah had no option but to act against the jehadis.
Ameer Ali had given one month to the King to build a mosque. But he and Nasirbandi saw that under the British pressure the King was neither taking action against the Hindus nor was he building the mosque. The Resident’s clear view was that the Hindus had acted under self defence; so they should not be prosecuted. The problem with Ameer Ali was that most of his followers were from lower-middle classes. They had sold all their establishments to join the jehad. They were putting pressure on him to march early. Meanwhile, the King had obtained fatwas that jehad could not be carried out in a state ruled by a Muslim King and it was the duty of everybody to obey a legitimate king. Meanwhile, many Muslim leaders were sent to convince the protesters that their march was totally unwarranted. Bolstered by the support of the Muslim clergy, the King, after making a proclamation, proscribed the jehad and ordered the confiscation of all properties of the jehadis. Maulavi Ameer Ali made an appeal to the King and “sent in his pugree (turban) to the King in token of submission and proferring his readiness to come in on a promise being given that the mosque should hereafter be built.... The King refused to give any such promise.”
Meanwhile, the King had directed all the subordinate zamindars to demonstrate solidarity with him. He was apprehensive that Muslim land-holders would support the jehad, though none came in open support. On the contrary, the Shia Raja of Mahmudabad sent a contingent of a deputy with five hundred men and four cannons to support the royal army. Similarly, another Shia zamindar sent five hundred men to assist the royal army which mainly contained Shia soldiers and Hindu fighters. On 20th October, even a group of Sunni Ulemas, who were supporters of the government, went to convince Ameer Ali about the futility of his exercise. However, many Sunni religious leaders were supporting him for jehad. Thus, there was a clear split in the stand of the Sunni clergy. Moreover, the followers of Ameer Ali were in no mood to reconcile. Therefore, the march was inevitable.

On Nov. 7, 1855 when Ameer Ali’s request was rebuffed by the King and the former’s followers threatened him with death, he made a march toward Faizabad where Awadh troops with cannons were waiting for those jehadis. Practically, all those marchers who came in front were killed and the number of the dead was between three and four hundred. Thus, ended the jehad which was for a non-existent cause.

It exposed the cleavages in the society of Awadh. Cole, J.R.I. has opined that the conflict caused a split within the ruling Shia establishment also. He has written:

“The Usuli ulama and their followers supported Amethavi’s demands even deploring his vigilante tactics. The central officers of the state in Lucknow and Faizabad, on the other hand sought compromise. Barred from that course by British support for the Hindus, they acquiesced in the resident’s demand that they destroy Amethavi’s movements.” (Roots of North Indian Shi’ism in Iran and Iraq: Religion and State in Oudh, 1722-1829)

Michael H. Fisher, too, has given a good account of the events in his book ‘Clash of Cultures Awadh, the British and the Mughals’. However, it is surprising to note that an avid reader of documents like him has been confused and the assault on the Hanuman-garhi has been presented to be that on the Rāma janma-bhūmi site.

(6) Correspondences between the Resident, the King and the Governor

The correspondences between the Resident, the King and the Governor are available in the National Archives of India. I am quoting a few for better understanding of the then prevailing situation. Since these documents are handwritten and photocopies are very faint, reading them correctly has been a tough task. But to the best of our ability and sincerity we have tried to read and produce them correctly. If there are errata in reading somewhere; that is regretted.

Parcha no. 1

“Fort William the …

354 (contd.) Man Singh was unable to attend the meeting of the Committee this morning. Tomorrow at an early hour I trust the depositions of those persons who preferred having seen the masjid and having ever prayed in it; will be verified. These depositions had been taken by Molvees Mohlood… and Hafizollah and submitted by them to the Committee.

(1) On August 10, 1855 Major General Outram, Resident to the King of Oude, wrote a letter to him (the king):

“After compliments

The Resident begs to inform His Majesty that he has this day received information that very many Mahomedans are leaving the capital clandestinely; in twos and threes, and assembling when they have passed out of the City, and are hastening off towards Fyzabad. Tomorrow numerous Pathans from Maleabad Khalifoor and Bhangarempore and from other quarters are also hurrying off to that direction. Maulvee Amer Ali of Amethee and Moulvee Ramzan Ali, who were recently staying in the Karbela or masjid, have been collecting there from Bijnor and Maleabad and from other places and have created the standard of the Prophet and last night they all marched off to Amethee and it is very probable that thence they will move on to Fyzabad.

Inasmuch as it is highly expedient that the outrageous acts of these men should be at once put a stop to, but the result might involve the bloodshed of thousands, the Resident earnestly entreats His Majesty to impose stringent injunctions to His Majesty’s servants to cause in the best way they can the stopping of the Pathans and others who are bent on proceeding to Fyzabad and especially to cause the arrest of two maulvees and their recall to His Majesty’s Capital.

The Resident strongly hopes that no delay might be allowed to take place, otherwise nothing but remorse will be the result as was the case on a former occasion.”

N.B. About the same time that the above was dispatched the following was received from the King:

(7) Parcha No. 2

Parcha from the King of Lucknow to the Resident dated 10th August, 1855:

“After Compliments

The King wishes to inform the Resident with reference to the strife which recently has broken out, between the Hindoos and Musalmans at Ajudhya that it appears from the newswriter’s report that numerous Hindoos and Musalmans are flocking into that place from all sides and that many more are determined to join them. The King is most anxious to put an end to this rupture and therefore entreats the Resident to be good enough to add up the various magistrates of adjacent districts to prevent bodies of armed devotees, whether Hindoos or Mohomedan, from entering Oude and to take steps to forbid their coming.”

N.B. Copies of the above were immediately dispatched to the Magistrates enumerated in the margin, requesting they would adopt precautions to prevent “armed parties crossing their frontier into Oude.”

(8) Parcha No. 3

N.3. Parcha from the King of Oude to the Resident dated 11th August, 1855.

“After compliments, His Majesty begs to inform the Resident that prior to the receipts of his letter dated 10th instant the King has taken all the required steps at the various quarters of the city to prevent the assembly of men and the departure of armed individuals. Orders have been issued all throughout the districts in order warning His Majesty’s subjects from assisting either party, Hindoos or Mahomedans.

Immediately on the receipt of the news from Amethee His Majesty directed the Governor of Hydar and of Gozaigmye(?) to proceed forthwith and remonstrate with the people assembled at Amethee. They have since arrived at Amethee and have succeeded in preventing the people from leaving that place. Legal opinions from Muslims at Lucknow have likewise been sent for their information in order to dissuade them from their design. A copy of their reports has been sent through the Residency Vakil for the Resident’s information. From reports received from Rajah Man Singh, it appears that peace has been restored at Fyzabad and all there are anxious to prevent any further disturbance. Moulana Whasim Ahmad is about to be deputed to pacify the people and to explain to them how they should act. As immense endeavours have been made to put down this disturbance it will speedily cease to exit(?) but the future is in the disposal of God. With reference to what the Resident wrote relating to the arrest of Maulavee Amir Ali and others, the King does not deem such a course prudent as it would inevitably lead to bloodshed and will lead to a collision with the King’s troops, should however the Resident on further consideration deem their capture expedient the King will issue the necessary orders to his Majesty’s troops.”

After the commission of enquiry had been constituted with the consent of the concerned parties the King, under the pressure of the Muslim clergy, added names of certain persons to the commission in excess of the names sent already. The resident objected to it in the following official note to him.

(9) Parcha No. 4

Official note from the Resident at Lucknow to the King of Oude dated August 15, 1855.

“After Compliments

The Resident hastens to transmit for His Majesty’s information copy of an official letter from Capt. Alexander Orr duty at Fyzabad embodying the deliberate opinion of the commission as to their future course of proceeding:

The Resident has been surprised to learn that certain individuals have been nominated to the Commission in excess of those who were agreed upon by His Majesty in the Resident’s presence and that they had by their official conduct thwarted the commission.

The Resident trusts that the King will see the expediency of instantly recalling these individuals and of depriving them of all power and authority of interfering in any manner with the acts of the commission.

The Resident earnestly entreats the King to continue to do all that may lay in His Majesty’s power to allay the bitter feeling of irritation which exists amongst his subjects and to ensure the restoration of peace and he gives his majesty full credit for the energetic measures he has already adopted to prevent the departure of armed bodies from this city of the scene of disturbance as well as to allay the excitement throughout the country which measures he trusts will restore confidence and preserve order.

Inasmuch as His Majesty has not deemed it expedient to cause the arrest of the Moulvees at Amethee and as His Majesty asserts that such a course would inevitably lead to bloodshed and to a collision with His Majesty’s troops, the Resident will leave that matter entirely to the King’s discretion as His Majesty is responsible for the peace of his country but the Resident cannot avoid communicating on a fact so discreditable to His Majesty’s good that any of the King’s subjects should presume to dictate terms to His Majesty and should have the audacity to arm themselves in defiance of the King’s authority and openly to assemble for the redress of their assumed wrongs. Under any circumstances however the Resident feels bound to advise His Majesty and on account whatever to permit the moulvees and their armed followers to proceed from Amethee to Fyzabad.”

(10) Parcha No. 5

Parcha from the King of Oudh to the Resident dated 12th August, 1855.

After Compliments

His Majesty hastens to forward for the Residents several documents in original from Hafeezullah Darogah of Fyzabad and from moulvee Nehaluddin and others together with a statement bearing the seals of the principal inhabitants of Fyzabad relating to the disturbance between the Hindoos and Mohamdens.

The King begs the Resident to be good enough to return to His Majesty the documents five in number after the Resident may have inspected them.

The first paper is from Mohammed Nihaluddin deputed by the King to ascertain whether any masjid exists in Hanoomanghiree:

The second is from Hafeezullah Darogah Fyzabad (?)

The third is from Ali Mohamed, the Imam of Fyzabad.

The fourth is a copy of paper sealed with the seal of the Kajee of Fyzabad dated 1735 AD.

The fifth is statement sealed by the principal inhabitants 40 in number.

The purport of these papers is that a mosque was built by one of the former sovereigns of Delhi, that this fact is notorious, that in the days of Borhanool-moolk, Subedar of Oude there was a quarrel of the same kind but the Hindoos subsequently declared that they had no intention of meddling with the mosque. One witness who declares he is 104 years old asserts that he has repeatedly seen the masjid. One Chuprasee Dhumnee Singh a Hindoo declares that he saw the masjid in the time of Hakim Mehudeen who was minister in the day of Kumuruddin Hyder (1827-1837). One chela a Hindoo declares he has often seen the masjid. The tenor of all these papers casts all the blame on the Hindoos and details their atrocities. Two leaves of the Koran which was found on, and of the same is sent for His Majesty’s inspection, they have been trampled upon, burnt and torn. A fence which was erected in the present King’s reign to separate the masjid from the Hindoo place of worship has been torn down. On the day of the burial of the mohamedans who were put into one point, near the door of the masjid about 69 in number, the Hindoos sacrificed a pig in the masjid and blew their shells. They also destroyed the tomb of a martyr Kujah Aullee which was near the masjid. It is notorious that the Byragees are not and were not numerous but they were largely assisted by the followers of Rajah Man Singh and by those of Rajah Kishen Dutt and by those of other Zamindars some 10 or 12000 in number. Great many families have abandoned Awadh and returned to Fyzabad. The Byragees will not allow any mohamedan to approach the masjid. Unless the Government interfere and gives orders for rebuilding the masjid, the Hindoos will become inflated and elated with their sweep and will proceed to other and greater extremeties, all here are waiting and complaining and hoping for redress.

Nihaluddin states that the Nazimuddin Ali Khan is waiting for orders and without them he is powerless.

The Hindoos first began to interfere and became powerful when the district of Sultanpur fell into the hands of Raja Dunchan Singh Mukhdar and then their encrouchments commenced and have progressed.”

From the inspection of parcha no. 5, it is clear that the Muslims had claimed that the Hanumangarhi temple was built on the site of a mosque and during the reign of the first Nawab of Awadh Burhan-ul-Mulk Sa’adat Khan there was a quarrel on the issue. But it is falsified by the two land-grants which are in the possession of Mahant Gyan Das of Hanumangarhi, Ayodhyā. One sanad is the renewal of the land grant given by Akbar in 1600 for the construction of the Hanuman Tila. The renewal was ordered by Muhammad Shah and the date is 8th July, 1723 which falls under the rule of Sa’adat Khan. The second land grant was made by the same Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah on 24th December, 1722 for the construction of residential houses of Bairagi Sadhus at Hanuman Tila and they were expected to pray for the glory, grandeur and good fortune of the Emperor. Both sanads were issued to the Bairagi Sadhus during the tenure of Sa’adat Khan. From these land-grants it is clear that there was no quarrel during his time; rather he reversed the fanatical policy of Aurangzeb within 15 years of the latter’s demise. The second complaint of the Muslims was that the two leaves of the Koran had been trampled and torn. The third grievance was in relation to the Janma-sthana mosque and not to the Hanuman-garhi because of the following factors:

(i) It relates to an existing mosque and since there was no mosque near Hanumangarhi the complaint related not to Hanumangarhi but to the Janma-sthana mosque.

(ii) The fact that the fence, which was erected to separate the Masjid from the Hindus’ place of worship during Wajid Ali Shah’s reign, was torn by the Hindus indicates that it was the Janma-sthana mosque because there was no need to separate Hindus’ place of worship from any mosque near Hanumangarhi; as no such mosque existed near Hanumangarhi.

(iii) It is further confirmed by the reference to the burial of dead Mohammedans near the door of the mosque because such burial took place in the vicinity of the Rāma-janma-bhūmi mosque.

Another grievance of the Muslims was that “great many Muslim families have left Ayodhyā and returned to Faizabad.” Then the next complaint is loaded with a historical fact of far-reaching consequences:

“The Byragees will not allow any Mohammedans to approach the masjid.”

It is echoed in the Thornton’s Gazetteer of 1854. Here the reference is to the Janma-sthāna mosque and not to the Hanumangarhi.

It thus clearly shows that at least during this period the Muslims were not allowed by the Bairagi Sadhus to approach the Baburi mosque and the Muslims were not in its possession.

(11) Parcha No. 6

Parcha from the Resident to the King of Oude dated August 14th, 1855.

After compliments

The Resident in complying with His Majesty’s wishes begs to return the five documents which have been received from the King relating to the disturbances at Fyzabad and takes this opportunity to warn His Majesty that it is evident that the representations contained in these documents are partial and therefore the Resident sincerely trusts that His Majesty will not allow his mind to be biased by their contents. In the first place, His Majesty must have been aware from the copy of the official letter which was received from Captain Orr and yesterday transmitted to the King that no possible opportunities could have been afforded to Moulvee Nihaluddin to ascertain personally whether any masjid exists in Hanooman Ghuree. Moreover Capt. Orr on behalf of the commission empowered by His Majesty to decide on that very point, declares for reasons stated that the commission do not deem it prudent to investigate that matter for the present.

The Resident regrets to learn for the first time that the King has thought fit to depute other persons independent of the committee to interfere in the matter because there can be little doubt that such interference may render abortive all the endeavours of the committee to avert further ourtrage.

His Majesty must be well aware that it is very easy for interested parties to obtain seals and signatures to any representations they may choose to make in the heat of religious excitement and doubtless the opposite party would easily obtain similar testimony in support of their assertions. Under these circumstances the Resident is of opinion that no weight ought to be attached to such documents until the formal and open investigation of the committee may satisfy His Majesty of the real state of affairs.

The enclosed representations are obviously untrue in one particular inasmuch as they attribute the whole of the blame to the Hindoos whereas it is notorious & …..(?) officially reported by Captain Orr that they were ready to the last moment to obey His Majesty and to submit their grievances to the King’s decision even when notorious they obtained from all violence and from the commission of any excesses and enormities. His Majesty cannot fail to be convinced of the truth of this when His Majesty perused the bond signed by the leaders of the Byragees in which they profess their readiness to submit to terms and which reached the King yesterday. It is well known that the Mohomedans would not listen to reason and that they began the conflict.

The Resident therefore sincerely trusts that the reports which have been submitted to His Majesty relating to the alleged atrocities of the Byragees such as trampling of the Koran and sacrifices on the shrine (in the masjid) may prove equally unfounded and baseless.

Copy of the Bond alluded to above signed by the priest of the Byragees in the 26th zeekandah 10th August 1855.

By Mahant - Bilram Das

By Mahant - Kishun Das

By Mahant - Tulsee Das

By Mahant - Dhaneeram

Whereas Gholam Husain and others have laid a claim to a masjid in Hanuman Gurhee and have caused a collision with us on that account and whereas Jafir Alee and Karim Khan and others of Ayodhya have become aggrieved and angry with us, as they joined with Gholam Husain. Therefore having in view our former friendship and acquaintance we declare we have no enmity towards them, and agreeing to Asgare Alee Khan, Rajah Man Singh and Captain Orr as our arbitrators we solemnly swear by Mahaveer and hereby write that we will not on any account create any disturbance or ……(?) on condition that no one molests us or abuses us. All the Byragees who are of our tribe will not do anything contrary to what we have written and as formerly we treated Jafir Alee and the others so we will now be friendly with them. If we act contrary to what we have written we confess that we are deserving of whatever punishment may decide.

Nevertheless the Muslim side remained adamant.

Now the correspondences between the King and the Resident are concluded with the following excerpt from a letter written by the King’s Chief Minister written to the British Resident:

“What matters if a dozen of their shrines were destroyed and their pollutions adorned with mosques? But the destruction of a mosque was an offence of the deepest hue; from all times it had been punished by mutilation, nay by death (N.A.I. Foreign Department Political, 28 December, 1855 No. 450).”

This mindset of one-sided punishment must be wiped out. Whosoever commits offence, he, irrespective of creed, should be brought to book and exemplary punishment should be inflicted.

(12) Officiating Resident’s report on the escape of Shah Ghulam Hoosain

After the clash Officiating Resident wrote to the King

“Sir,

It is with regret that I have now the honour to inform you that sanguinary engagement took place yesterday 20th instant at Ajoodhea: Awadh between Shah Gholam Hoosain and his followers and the Hindoo Byragees of Hanuman Ghuree situated in Oude the latter assisted by thousand of the district people.

The Shah himself with a few followers escaped abandoning in the height of the conflict his people who had taken a last stand in a masjid and in its vicinity and who were destroyed in a fearful manner.

From the Off. Resident at Lucknow”

It was cowardice on the part of Ghulam Hussain to run away from the sanguinary clash leaving his followers in the height of the conflict.

(13) Officiating Resident J. Outram’s report

No. 360 no 2779

From

Major General J. Outram

Ofl. Resident of Lucknow

……………..

To,

G.B…..

Secy. to the Government of India,

Foreign Department

District Lucknow 8 September, 1855

Sir,

My last report on the subject of the late disturbances near Fyzabad, dated 21st ultimo accompanying paper that the dispute was finally settled on the strength of Capton Alexander Orr’s communication then forwarded, and trusting as I did to the Durbar maintaining the precautions it had adopted to prevent the recurrence of hindrance.

2nd. I regard now to have to state that tranquility has again been jeopardised and the excitement of the Mohomedans renewed owing to the laxity this Government in permitting the fantaic Maulvee Ameer Alee who was denounced by me to the King in a letter date 8th August last (Enclosure no. A to my report dated 21st ultimo) as having then raised the standard of the prophet and collected followers in the neighbourhood with the intention of resuming activities of Fyzabad again to leave this city at the head of a body of armed followers, on the 2nd instant avowedly with the same object.
3rd. It will be observed in my letter the King has referred to I urged the arrest of this Moulvee and his reach to the capital. His Majesty replied on the 11th ultimo (vide no. A enclosure to report of 21st Augsut) that he did not deem such a course prudent as it would inevitably lead to bloodshed and collision with the King’s troops presuming how little the troops were to be depended on, I felt the cogency of His Majesty’s objection, and on the 10th (vide A) answered that inasmuch His Majesty had not deemed it expedient to cause the arrest of the Moulvees at Amethee, and as His Majesty expects that such a course should inevitably lead to bloodshed and to a collision with his troops, the Resident will leave that matter entirely to the King’s discretion as His Majesty is responsible for the peace of the Country +++ but that under any circumstances the Resident feels bound to advise His Majesty on no account whatever to permit the Moulvee and their armed followers to proceed from Amethee to Fyzabad.

4th. The Moulvee was then brought back to Lucknow and I was given to understand that effectual measures had been taken to prevent his causing disturbance in future, by according ample security & eastern (?) guards had been placed at the various places leading out of the city, to prevent armed men departing until the dispute should be fully arranged.

5th. It now appears that the Moulvee on hearing that the committee of investigation had not reported in concurrence with the views of his party, again left the city, two days ago at the head of 200 armed followers (as stated in the official news report of that day) for the purpose of rescuing disturbance, and met with no hindrance in so doing, and his intention must have been well known for it is mentioned in the news report of the 28th inst that he had obtained permission to return to his home, yet no steps were taken to prevent his departure and the circumstance was not made known to me by the minister until two days afterwards, nor was the previous reported intention to leave the city communicated by the news writer, this entered in his report seven days before, which for reasons best known to himself he (the news writer) abstained from submitting until after the man was gone.
6th. On the evening of the 4th instant the Minister came to inform me of the Maulvees proceeding and if the measures he had taken to intercept him on the road to Fyzabad and forcibly to arrest him should he disobey the order to return. Next morning I went to the King (vide enclosure no. 1) expressing my hope that his endeavours to that end might be attended with success; reminding him of the very grave responsibility which would be announced by His Majesty, should the peace of his dominion again be disturbed by the individual, who had been allowed return to the Capital and reside there with impunity after his former attempt of a similar nature, and that, in failure of the endeavour to arrest the advance of the Moulvee’s hostile hands the committee deputed by him to settle the dispute having induced the inhabitants of Awadh to return to that town on the faith of their “pran” (pledge) that it was the duty of His Majesty, if he could not protect them from molestation at the hands of his subjects now proceeding from his capital with the avowed purpose of removing hostilities, to give them timely notice of his inability to maintain the pledge of protection given by His Majesty’s representatives in order that they might take measures to defend themselves, or depart from the scene of …
No. 2 The King replied next day (enclosure no. 2) correctly stating the circumstances under which Ameer Ali had been permitted to return to Lucknow where His Majesty states security had been executed from him that he would not in future cause any disturbance. But nothing is said as to how the Maulvee had broken his security and been permitted to depart. The King also denies to bring to my recollection that our last interview he had observed in reply to my presentation for the formation of a committee to carry on investigation, that no good would come of it, because until some of them learned men in whom people might have confidence should be appointed for that purpose nothing useful would result. Captain Haque unites with me in being positively certain that His Majesty made no presentation to substitute the learned men for the committee purposed. It was explained to him.”

(14) Encounter with Maulavi Ameer Ali

Maulavi Ameer Ali marched with his militia men towards Ayodhyā on 7th Nov. 1855 and became easy cannon-fodders. He along with his three to four hundred followers were annihilated in the failed jehad. Thus ended the conflict for a non-existing cause. But it sowed such strong seeds of strife which are still being nourished by certain sections of society. However, it can be said with certainty that the Britishers were quite unfair to King Wajid Ali Shah, who firmly dealt the defiant march of Ameer Ali. Nevertheless, in the name of the deteriorating law and order situation, for which they were equally responsible in the wake of the Treaty of 1819, the King Wajid Ali Shah was deposed and Awadh was annexed on the recommendation of the Resident Major General Outram. It was a very sad day in the Indian history because Wajid Ali Shah was a great symbol of the ‘Gan¢gā-Jamunī tehzib’ of Awadh which has been the foundation of India’s composite culture.

(15) An interesting report of the ‘Friend of India’ of 1855.

“Allen’s Indian Mail, and Register of Intelligence for British and Foreign India, China and all Parts of the East” published a very interesting report of the “Friend of India” dated 15th November, 1855. Allen’s Indian Mail was published in the same year from London in Vol. XIII (January-December, 1855) by WMH Allen and Co. This report relates to the sanctity of Ayodhyā and endeavour of the Durbar of Wajid Ali Shah to defuse the tense situation on the eve of Ameer Ali’s march. It reads as follows:

“The story which we published last week was wanting in one particular. We offered no explanation of the special sanctity attached to Awadh and the temple of its monkey-god. It is the Holy of Holies to Hindoos, holier even than Benares, Gya, or Hurdwar. It is connected with the earliest legends of Hindooism. It is the ancient Ajodhya, the place whence Rama started when banished by his father, and where he afterwards reigned with a glory which is to Hindoos what the fame of Solomon is to a Hebrew. From that day its shrines have been the Loretto of the Hindoo world, and are as well worn with the kisses and genuflections of devotees as the marble of St. Peter’s foot in the Vatican. For centuries, under every change of masters, Mongol or Pathan, under the dynasties of Ghuznee or Lodi, Gor or Toghluk, Awadh flourished, and Hunooman Ghuree remained secure in the adoration of millions. Abul Fazul, who wrote in 1582, mentions Awadh as the plane of highest sanctity in India; and such in the estimation of all the Hindoos of the north it has remained.
The durbar, we understand, has at length attempted to conciliate both the creeds. It has succeeded in inflaming their animosity; it has endeavoured to bribe the priests; it entreated the head Bramhun to surrender two or three yards of ground, on which a miniature mosque might be erected, as a peace-offering to the faithful. A high title, dresses of honour, and Rs. 60,000 in money were offered as the price of compliance. The priests replied with quiet scorn, that they regretted their inability to consent to the demand. Wealth was valueless to men sworn to poverty; and as for the ground, it was not theirs to give. The shrines belonged to Hindooism, to all Hindoos. They were simply the hereditary priests of the temple, and at the utmost could convey but a life-interest in the soil. They added, that if the king himself ordered the seizure of the shrine, they should abandon it, and retire beyond the Gogra. The menace concealed in this submissive phrase is well understood by the durbar. It means, like the “depart in peace” of an inquisitor, that the culprit is handed over to the civil power. The matter would be left by the Hindoo priests to the Hindoo rajahs, who, when reasoning with Mahomedans, argue with the sword. The durbar, foiled in its last expedient, is idly awaiting the march of Ameen Alee, the fanatic Moulavie of Aimethee.” —Friend of India.

(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 the 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 walls” 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.”

The famous French orientalist, M. Anquetil du Perron thus made an eloquent assessment of Tieffenthaler’s work in the following words:

“Whilst two leading European nations are contending in the Carnatic and elsewhere for the supremacy over India in many bloody encounters, a modest missionary quietly and perseveringly pushes his way through pathless jungles and over arid plains, measuring in all thousands of miles, in order to make purely pacific conquest, and benefit thereby humanity – whilst Bengal, the East Coast, the Deccan and Gujarat are the scenes of bloody strifes which the greed of European nations has, if not originated, at least fostered, it is consoling to see that there are still men of science who are untouched by avarice and free from the thirst of gold. We sincerely desire the examples of intelligent travelers like Tieffenthaler might be imitated by some of the Europeans settled in those vast regions. Of what use are the endless armed squadrons, sent thither to uphold material interests, and bring Asia’s treasures to Europe whilst all means of advancing human knowledge are neglected? Prompted by the love of science, and filled with the zeal for the cause of humanity, I hope my wishes will be realized, and the public—I am sure—anxiously watch the efforts of this savant (Tieffenthaler) in the North of Bengal, and will receive with pleasure the results of his exploration in those hitherto little-known regions of Asia.”

(Noti’s Biography of Tieffenthaler, pp. 411-12)

Tieffenthaler’s account on Ayodhya had the distinction of being quoted in the German article “Die Verkärperungen des Wischnu: Rama oder Shrirāma” (i.e. The Incarnation of Vishnu: Rāma or Śrīrāma) written by Herrn Dr. Fr. Majer. It was published in 1802 in the German magazine ‘Asiatisches Magazin’ from Weimar.

Tieffenthaler’s work ‘Descriptio Indiae’ originally written in Latin but translated by Bernoulli in German between 1785 and 1787 and into French between 1786 and 1791. Bernoulli edited and annotated Tieffenthaler’s work with abundant ability. The German and French versions of Tieffenthaler’s work are still extant.

Justice Agarwal’s description of Tieffenthaler as “an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard” is totally correct. In the brief biography of Tieffenthaler presented in the 4th chapter it has been shown that he wrote books on various subjects like geography, history, linguistics, comparative language, astronomy, astrology, cosmology and on flora and fauna of India. He had very good knowledge of Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Urdu, Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit. He wrote fluently in almost all these languages except one or two. Tieffenthaler knew Persian and Arabic well. He composed a Sanskrit-Persian dictionary and certain treatises in Persian. S.N. Sen suggests that of all these Asian languages he acquired, he had the best knowledge of the Persian in which he composed at least two treatises.

Tieffenthaler was undoubtedly “an intellectual giant and linguistic wizard”. Justice Agarwal was not the first person to describe him so; eminent author E.A.H. Blunt, I.C.S. in his book “List of Inscriptions on Christian Tombs and Tablets of Historical Interest in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” has paid similar tributes to him. If Aligarh Historians are not aware of his academic achievements, Justice Agarwal is not to blame for this lapse.

He was not merely a traveller. He was born in Austria in 1710 A.D. but after he came to India in 1743, he remained in this country till his death on 5th July, 1785 at Lucknow. To the Aligarh Historians he may be ‘a little known traveller’ but he has been rightly regarded by many as the first European who wrote “an exact description of Hindustan.” His accounts on Ayodhyā in English were published in 1828 A.D. in the book ‘The Modern Traveller’.

Justice Agrawal was again correct when he commented that there existed no inscription in the mosque during his visit. When Buchanan was faced with the general public perception that the temples of Banaras, Mathurā and Ayodhyā were demolished by Aurangzeb, he got the Ayodhyā ‘misconception’ removed by getting one (or two) inscription(s) deciphered through a Maulavi, as Buchanan did not know Persian at all. Tieffenthaler had two sets of information. The general perception was that the temple at Ayodhyā was demolished by Aurangzeb but there were some persons who believed that Babur got it razed to the ground. Had any inscription really existed in and around 1770 A.D. when Tieffenthaler visited the mosque, he, being a scholar of Persian, would have studied it and declared like Buchanan later that the mosque was built by Babur and not by Aurangzeb. But since there was no inscription in or around the mosque in 1770 A.D. Tieffenthaler remained uncertain and mentioned both versions. Thus, if Justice Agarwal presumed that there existed no inscription when Tieffenthaler visited the mosque and minutely observed the structure along with its vicinity, he (Justice Agarwal) was totally justified in making such a legal presumption. It has already been shown in Chapter V as to how the two inscriptions were created on the eve of Buchanan’s visit in 181314 and replaced repeatedly with changed contents at different times.
Aligarh Historians claim that Fuhrer, Beveridge, Desai and other historians certified the inscriptions to be genuine. But this fact, too, is not true because the inscriptions read by Fuhrer contained the name of Mir Khan in place of Mir Baqi and 930 H (1523 A.D.) in place of 935 H (1528 A.D.). During the time of Beveridge the inscription on the central entrance of the mosque was still incomplete and contained only three verses. Other verses were interpolated subsequently. Moreover, these inscriptions were not seen by Beveridge herself in the mosque; rather their copies were supplied to her by D.M., Faizabad through her I.C.S. husband.

1.2 Tieffenthaler’s non-mention of inscriptions—a testimony to its non-existence

In para 1.2 Aligarh Historians have shown unprecedented double standard. Day in and day out, they have been arguing that since Tulasi Das did not mention the demolition of any Rāma temple at Ayodhyā by Babur or Mir Baqi, no temple was ever demolished by either of them. Similarly, they have been advocating that since Ayodhyā does not figure (actually it figures) in the “Kritya-kalpa-taru” edited by Lakshmidhara during the reign of Govindachandra, Ayodhyā was not a pilgrim centre till the 12th century, although they deliberately concealed the fact that his grandfather Chandradeva had come to Ayodhyā for performance of certain rituals in 1093 A.D. on the day of a solar eclipse. However, the same set of historians, after having turned upside down, have written thus:

“1.2. As to the significance of Tieffenthaler’s not mentioning the inscriptions, it needs stressing that in history negative inferences of this kind are hardly ever given credence. One famous example is of that other famous “intellectual giant and linguistic wizard”, Marco Polo’s failure to mention the hugely ancient Great Wall of China. If Justice Sudhir Agarwal is ever asked to decide when the Great Wall was built, he should immediately say, after Marco Polo’s travels, i.e. after 1300 AD! This shows the risks involved in Justice Agarwal’s approach to History.”

It is not proper to ridicule a serving High Court Judge who was the darling of secularists until the judgment was delivered, as he was perceived to be an anti-temple judge earlier. Justice Agarwal is a very wellread person and if he has to decide why Marco Polo’s travels did not mention the Great Wall of China, he would reply in the following words of Hugh Murray, F.R.S.E.S. who published “Marco Polo’s travel accounts” in April 1844 from Edinburgh:

“This great barrier had doubtless been erected centuries before, but by no means in the same substantial shape as at present. For several ages after the entrance of the Tartars, being of no political value, it was probably allowed to go to decay, and perhaps even demolished where a thoroughfare was desirable. It was the Yuen dynasty after the expulsion of those conquerors, that it was restored, and brought to its present perfection.”

Moreover, the analogy of Tieffenthaler’s accounts with Marco Polo’s travels is not appropriate because Tieffenthaler was giving a detailed description of the disputed structure from the site. Tieffenthaler’s accounts can be compared with those of Buchanan in 1813-14. Aligarh Historians have further added, “Tieffenthaler merely recorded the tradition that either Aurangzeb or Babur built the mosque; why should he have gone and tested it by trying to decipher the mosque inscriptions? Moreover, the Persian inscriptions were written in ornate tughra-influenced nastaliq and so are hard to read for any non-epigraphic however conversant with Persian.”
It is not a correct observation because Tieffenthaler has not merely described the tradition but has also given a detailed description of the mosque and the vicinity. When he could give the length and width of the ‘Bedi’, there was no reason for him to conceal the inscriptions, if they really existed. He himself was a Persian scholar, whereas the language was completely unknown to Buchanan. When Buchanan, who was in a hurry to leave for his native place, could get it deciphered by a Maulavi, Tieffenthaler, too, could have done it easily, had there been any inscription there. However, the fact of the matter remains that the inscription, which mentioned the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur, was not so difficult to read. Tieffenthaler was a great linguist and Buchanan was a surgeon. Therefore, it was expected more of Tieffenthaler to mention the inscriptions than of Buchanan. Had there been any inscription inside the mosque, Tieffenthaler would have mentioned it with certainty and authenticity that the mosque was built by Babur and those who believed that it was done by Aurangzeb were wrong.

Thus, Tieffenthaler’s non-mention of inscriptions is a strong ground to presume correctly that no inscription existed in the mosque till 1770 A.D.

1.3 Ashraf Husain/Z.A. Desai’s article not in conformity with Maulvi Shuaib’s report 1906-07

Para 1.3 deals with “The Texts of the Masjid Inscriptions” and refers to an article of Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain, titled ‘Inscriptions by Emperor Babur’ which was posthumously published in the ‘Epigraphia India; Arabic and Persian Supplement’, 1965 by Dr. Z.A. Desai, who was the Superintendent, Persian and Arabic Inscriptions, Archaeological Survey of India.

Aligarh Historians have taken strong exception to the following observation of Justice Agarwal in his judgment:

“We are extremely perturbed by the manner in which Ashraf Husain/Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority to the texts of the alleged inscriptions which they claim to have existed on the disputed building though repeatedly said that the original text has disappeared. The fallacy and complete misrepresentation on the part of author in trying to give colour of truth to this text is writ large from a bare reading of the write up. We are really at pains to find that such blatant fallacious kind of material has been allowed to be published in a book published under the authority of ASI, Government of India, without caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness of the subject.” (para 1463).

The article of Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain/Dr. Z.A. Desai not only lacked in accuracy and correctness but also contained distortions and tampering. It is analysed below:

(i) While commenting on A. Fuhrer’s reading of inscriptions, they never claimed that Fuhrer’s reading ‘Mir Khan’ was wrong. They accepted the reading to be Mir Khan but arbitrarily revised it to Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). Aligarh Historians may read the translation of Ashraf/Desai. Nowhere Ashraf and Desai have claimed that in the original reading it was Baqi and Fuhrer wrongly took it to Khan. They have arbitrarily changed the name and this is the reason for Justice Agarwal’s anguish against them. They may have been great Persian scholars but not impartial epigraphists.

(ii) Similarly, the date of the construction of the mosque was shown to be 930 A.H. in Fuhrer’s reading which corresponds to 1523 A.D. This improbable date was not because of Fuhrer’s wrong reading but because of the lack of knowledge of history on the part of the persons who forged the inscriptions. But Husain/Desai, being scholars of history, detected this inaccuracy and arbitrarily changed it to 935 H, i.e. 1528 A.D. They never wrote that Fuhrer had erred in reading the date.

(iii) The two epigraphists have referred to Maulvi Shuaib’s report in assertion of the claim that the inscription near the pulpit indicated the construction of the mosque in 935A.H. It is interesting to learn that Husain/Desai made the following comments in the 4th footnote on page 59 of the article:

“It may be argued that since the epigraph is not quoted in Fuhrer’s SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he wrote. But this is not the case, since the tablet was found there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuaib of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra (Annual Progress Report of the office of the Archaelogical Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra for 1906-07; Appendix D.)

But in the report of Maulvi Shuaib the content is different from their assertion. Aligarh Historians, instead of accepting this fact, have blamed the Hon’ble Judge in the following words:

“Ashraf Husain duly cited the Annual Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-07, which, if Justice Agarwal had any doubts about the matter, the Bench could have called for from the Government of India just as it had directed the Government of India to provide a translation of the extract from Tieffenthaler. In any case, our photographs show that the original inscription actually stood over the entrance before 1992 and the photographed text accords with the plate published by Ashraf Husain. Its mode of Tughra-influenced nasta‘liq also proclaims its early Mughal date.”(pp. 9-10)

If Justice Agarwal did not call for the report, Aligarh Historians should have cited it to buttress their argument.

What was not done by Justice Agarwal or Aligarh Historians has been done by the present author. When Maulavi M. Shuaib submitted the annual report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra for 1906-07, the following gist of the inscription was reported by him.

From an analysis of Maulvi Shuaib’s report it appears that the inscription which was below the pulpit was in complete agreement with the one which was found by A. Fuhrer and it included the date A.H. 930, i.e. 1523 A.D. Thus, their claim in the article is contradicted by Maulvi Shuaib’s report.

1.4 Content of the third inscription is really bizarre

Para 1.4 relates to the text of the third inscription. Aligarh Historians may read minutely the introduction written by Husain/Desai before commenting upon the inscription and its translation. For their convenience it is produced below:

“The third record of Babur in the Ayodhya mosque, comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of medicore quality and a colophon, appears over the central etrance to the prayer-chamber above the chhajja. The four-line text is executed in fairly good Naksh characters in relief amidst floral borders, on a slab measuring about 2m. by 55cm. The text is fairly well preserved, and Fuhrer must have been misinformed to affairm that a few characters of the second and the whole third lines are completely defaced. The purport of the record is the same as that of the previous epigraphs, but here an additional edifice is also mentioned. In verse six, in line three, a fort-wall (hisar) is said to have been built along with the mosque in A.H. 935 (152829 A.D.), by Mir Baqi. who is here called the second Asaf and councillor of the state.”
This was the inscription which, according to the reading of Fuhrer, recorded the date 930 A.H., i.e 1523 A.D. but in the possession of Husain/Desai it turned into 935 A.H., i.e. 1528 A.D. Nevertheless, nowhere Husain/Desai writes that the reading 930 A.H., i.e. 1523 by Fuhrer is wrong. Nevertheless, they arbitrarily changed it to 935 A.H., i.e. 1528 A.D. Even after the translation of the text by Husain/Desai an explanation has been added but no inaccuracy on the part of Fuhrer, so far the year 930 is concerned, has been pointed out by them. Now, when none of the inscriptions is available, Aligarh Historians feel free to read and translate them arbitrarily. However, it cannot be acceptable because they are not greater epigraphists than Husain/Desai who did not find any fault in Fuhrer’s reading on the date. Now they do not have the original inscription with them. So, they are harping on pictures published by Husain/Desai. But when the content is questionable, it may be well presumed that pictures were contrived.
Prof. Sushil Srivastava and his father-in-law S.R. Farooqi have rightly suggested from the palaeographic analysis of the inscription that the third inscription at the central entrance of the mosque belonged to the 19th century. The factual position is that the third inscription in the last seen format was fixed on the central entrance of the mosque in the late 19th century. If the two great epigraphists Husain/Desai misled the country by making arbitrary changes in the text and the translation, Justice Agarwal was totally justified in making his observations in stern words.

Aligarh Historians have heavily relied on the third inscription, which is said to have been at the central entrance of the mosque. Husain/Desai presented a new reading with a new translation. Some relevant lines (3rd and 4th) are discussed here. They are as follows:

“(He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e. conquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner of the sky.

In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir Baqi the second Ãsaf, councillor of his government and administrator of his kingdom, who is the founder to this mosque and fort-wall.

O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune and life and crown and throne.”

The eulogy of Babur that he had conquered the entire world may be justified because that was the usual style in almost all inscriptions. But Mir Baqi has been called:

(a) a magnificent noble

(b) the second Āsaf

(c) councillor of Babur’s government and

(d) administrator of his kingdom

Then a prayer to God has been made there for his immortal life with fortune, crown and throne intact. Baqi Tashkindi was a warrior and commander of a thousand troops. But whether he was a noble or not is not confirmed. Even if it is assumed that he was a noble or a magnificent noble (Mir-i-muazzem), how could he wear a crown and keep the throne? These two are the insignia of a king and not a commander of a small troop. If it is assumed that the crown and throne refer to Babur and not to Baqi, even then the other epithets will appear to be inappropriate. Mir Baqi is not known to have been a councillor of the government, as Babur did not keep any council for governance. Babur himself was the administrator of his kingdom. So, how could Mir Baqi become the administrator of Babur’s government? The epithet, second Āsaf, too, is not justified because Āsaf was the Prime Minister of the celebrated King Soloman. Āsaf was a miracle-performing Prime Minster who could bring the throne of a distant Queen within a twinkle of eyes. His name was considered for prophetship, though it was rejected. Mir Baqi did not enjoy such a high status or reputation. He was merely a Beg, commander of a thousand troops.

Thus, even if there was a third inscription, which has been emphasised in the booklet, it was a fake one and hence no conclusion can be drawn on the basis of this inscription.

In this book it has been conclusively proved that the inscriptions were fake. They were first placed in the mosque around 1813 A.D. when Buchanan visited the mosque and wrote the report. He himself was not sure whether it contained one or two inscriptions or there was none. Had there been any inscription, fixed on the mosque, it must have been seen by Sub-Judge Hari Kishan on 24th December, 1885 and District Judge Col. F.E.A. Chamier on 18th March, 1886, when they formally inspected the shrine to decide the case. When the two Judges wrote that ‘Allah’ was superscribed at the entrance, they would have certainly mentioned the inscriptions and their contents, had they really existed. They were judicial officers and not travellers or surveyors. They carried out enquiries in the presence of both the parties, Hindus and Muslims. Hence, their reports are authentic and reliable ones. Even the plaintiff, Asghar Ali, made no claim in his various petitions that there existed any inscription inside the mosque which could have proved his case. This fact also strengthens the argument that there existed no inscription in the mosque.

1.5 Aligarh Historians take shelter in the Gazetteers of Bennet and Neville

In para 1.5 in support of the existence of two inscriptions, the Aligarh Historians derive strength from the following excerpt of the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh edited by W.C. Bennet in 1877 A.D.:

“In two places in the Babri Mosque, the year in which it was built, 935 H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. is carved in stone along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of this Emperor.” (vol. 1, pp. 6-7)

But Bennett, whose authority has been approvingly quoted as an official publication, has further written on the Ayodhyā shrine in the same Gazetteer:

“The Janamasthan and other temples—It is locally affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a wilderness. These were the ‘Janamasthan’, the ‘Swargaddwar mandir’ also known as ‘Ram Darbar’, ‘Treta-ke-Thakur’.

On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the mosque, which still bears his name, A. D. 1528. On the second, Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a mosque, according to the well known Muhammadan principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they conquered.

The Janamasthan marks the place where Ram Chandar was born. The Swargaddwar is the gate through which he passed into paradise, possibly the spot where his body was burned. The Treta-ke-Thakur was famous as the place where Rama performed a great sacrifice, and which he commemorated by setting up there images of himself and Sita. (vol. 1, p. 6)”

Will the Aligarh Historians, who are taking the shelter of Bennett to prove the existence of two inscriptions in the mosque, accept his another testimony that Babur demolished the temple situated at the birthplace of Rāma and erected a mosque thereon? If not, then the authority which is discarded for one decision cannot be accepted for another conclusion. But here it is necessary to make it clear that in Bennett’s report, there is no specific mention of any inscription at the central entrance of the mosque.

So far, the established historians have been blaming the British authors of the gazetteers for creating a divide between the Hindus and Muslims for perpetuating their rule in the country. But suddenly they have become their heroes. The Aligarh Historians have written further in para 1.5:

“Bennett’s statement is confirmed in H.R. Neville’s Fyzabad District Gazetteer, with preface dated 1905 (volume reprinted, 1920). On page 179 we are told: ‘The Mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit and bear the date 935 Hijri. Of authenticity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt.”

It may be quite disquieting for the established historians if they are confronted with the following information contained in H.R. Neville’s Fyzabad Distict Gazetteer:

“It is locally affirmed that at the time of the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object of attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed, and many of the columns are in good preservation; they are of close-grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and carved with various devices.”

1.6 Aligarh Historians compromised with their earlier stand that Ayodhyā dispute was the creation of British officials to divide and rule the country

Aligarh Historians are so elated with the two British Gazetteers that in para 1.6 they write:

“Thus two official reports clearly say that the inscriptions on the entrance and the pulpit gave the date 935 Hijri (=1528A.D.) and that they belonged to the reign of Babur. One of them goes on to attest their undoubted authenticity.”

It is amazing that Aligarh Historians under the leadership of an erudite scholar Prof. Irfan Habib have compromised with their earlier stand that the dispute was the creation of the British Officials to follow the policy of ‘divide and rule’. Now they require the certificate from the British officials who proclaimed in the same Gazetteers that Babur demolished Rāma’s temple and constructed the mosque on his birthsite. If they accept the authenticity of British Officials’ testimony on the genuineness of the inscription, they will have to accept their verdict that the mosque was built on the birthsite of Rāma after razing a temple to the ground. The option is given to the Aligarh Historians to choose between the two options.

1.7 There were two inscriptions near the pulpit

In para 1.7 Aligarh Historians have vehemently argued that there was only one inscription near the pulpit inside the mosque. But they had never made any such argument before the Allahabad High Court. Justice Agarwal’s judgment is based on our well-documented pleadings. Ashraf Husain/Desai had clearly written:

“On the southern face of the pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the pulpit.”

Thus, Ashraf Husain/Desai had no doubt about the existence of two inscriptions. By the right hand side of the pulpit, they meant northern side because they have already talked about an inscription in the southern side. Aligarh Historians have now tried to find many faults with the reading of Fuhrer; when the inscription does not exist. But when Asraf Husain/Desai read it, they found only one fault in the reading of Fuhrer, which they wrote in the 2nd footnote:

“It is very likely that the correct reading here is meaning, the edifice that is.”

Although they found no fault with the reading ‘Mir Khan’, they arbitrarily translated Mir Khan as Mir (and) Khan (Baqi). When Husain/Desai found no fault with Fuhrer’s reading, it is a futile exercise on the part of Aligarh Historians to find fault with Fuhrer’s text after 120 years of its publication and 45 years of the publication of Husain/Desai’s article. When the judgment has gone against them, these historians are engaged in the reading of a text which does not exist now.

1.8 If Sayyid Badrul Hasan was not a fictitious person, Aligarh Historians should have disclosed his identity

In para 1.8 Aligarh Historians’ ire against Justice Agarwal further soars without any justification. In para 1.8 they have written:

“1.8. Justice Agarwal resorts to the most fantastic reasoning for justifying his censures. Ashraf Husain says that though the pulpit inscription was destroyed in the riot of 1934, he was able to obtain an ‘inked rubbing’ or estampage from Mr Sayyid Badrul Hasan of Fyzabad. Mr Justice Agarwal declares his agreement with the opposing (‘Hindu’) party that no such person existed! No proof of such a claim is offered.”

Justice Agarwal, as a Judge, had to decide a number of issues in the case and he decided many issues in favour of the Muslims and many in favour of the Hindus, and therefore the redicule and derision heaped on him by the Aligarh Historians is unfair and untenable. If Mr. Sayyid Badrul Hasan was not a fictitious person, they should have given his introduction, a short biography and address. In fact, it should have been first done by Ashraf Husain/Desai. If Justice Agarwal’s decision is to be rebutted, Aligarh Historians should have come forward and produced details of Badrul Hasan. Their failure to do so lends credence to the fact that Badarul Hasan was a fictitious person. Here it is important to write that they will be benefitted by the following statement of Mark Twain, quoted in Rudyard Kipling’s “From Sea to Sea”:

“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” (p. 180)

1.9 The change of Isafahani to Asaf-i Sani by Husain/Desai turns Baqi into a miracle-performing Prime Minister

In para 1.9 Aligarh Historians have further shown their engrained bias by making the following comment:

“1.9. It is difficult to understand why Justice Agarwal is willing only to consider as preferable the reports about two inscriptions in the Mosque (one of these must be the faulty one substituted in the pulpit for the original destroyed in 1934, reported by Ashraf Husain), which were obtained by a court in 1946. One of these inscriptions was quoted as saying that “by the order of Shah Babar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angles (sic) in 923 AH, i.e. 1516-17”— i.e. ten years before Babur’s victory at Panipat! The other inscription (presumably the entrance one) was so read as to tell us that “Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 AH, i.e. 1528-29 AD” (sentence left incomplete in the judgment) (para 1481). Justice Agarwal insists on the reading “Isfahani” for the correct reading “Asaf-i sani”, as deciphered in the Epigraphia Indica, A.&P. Supp., 1965, and then by so doing he cannot find ‘Mir Baqi Isfahani’ or ‘Mir Baqi’, exactly with that name in Babur’s Memoirs (Paras 1477 and 1583). And this helps him to consider Mir Baqi as non-existent or unidentifiable (Para 1477) and the inscriptions as forgeries. It may be mentioned in clarification that ‘Mir’ here is a mere abbreviation of amir (noble) and that ‘Isfahani’ is a misreading of Asaf-i Sani, the Second Asaf (Grand Vizier of Soloman).” (pp. 10-11)

The grand Vizier of Solomon was such an accomplished miracle-man that he brought the throne of Queen Bilqis before his King Solomon in a twinkle of an eye.

It is no fault of Justice Agarwal that in a litigation between the Central Shia Waqf Board and Central Sunni Waqf Board (Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945) a learned Judge A. Ahsan after getting the two inscriptions physically inspected wrote:

“By the order of Shah Babur whose justice went up to the skies (i.e. was well-known). Amir (Noble) Mir Baqi, of lofty grandeur, built this resting place for angels in 923 Hijri.”

“The second inscription is more elaborate and contains in the usual high-flown language on the eulogy of Babur and describes Mr. Baqi of Isphahan as his advisor and the builder of the mosque.”

At the end, the learned Judge made the following comment:

“The inscription was read by Sheikh Karamuttolah (D.W.5) who climbed up the arch by a ladder & verses are written in Arabic character”.

Hijri 923 corresponds to 1516-17 A.D. If this date 923 A.H. was found to have been written in the existing inscription during the physical inspection of a competent witness, then neither any court nor Justice Agarwal can help the Aligarh Historians. Similarly, if ‘Isphahani’ in place of ‘Asaf-i Sani’ was read by a Persian scholar deputed by a competent court, then his testimony will carry greater weight than that of Husain/Desai who might have tampered the text to suit their sectarian approach. Our argument right from the beginning has been that since these inscriptions were fake in nature, they were bound to carry inaccuracies. Reading Isphahani is more appropriate than Asaf-i Sani. Mir Baqi, a petty commander, cannot be compared with Asaf, the grand vizier of King Soloman.

1.10 Mir Baqi of inscriptions is different from Baqi of Babur-nama

In para 1.10 another allegation against Justice Sudhir Agarwal is made in the following words:

“1.10. It is strange that Justice Agarwal did not accord due consideration to the following two entries in the Baburnama, which alone are sufficient to show that Baqi was a historical personage and actually Babur’s commandant of Awadh (Ayodhya). Being Babur’s subordinate, Babur naturally does not call him amir or mir, since it was not a part of his name, as in some other cases where the word Mir occurs in personal names referred to by Babur. (page-7)”

But again there is a chink in the armour of the Aligarh Historians.

In chapter VI of this book it has been conclusively shown that Mir Baqi of the inscription is a fictitious person, different from Baqi Tashkindi/Shaghawal of Babur-nama. There were more than 20 subordinates of Babur whose names have been shown in the Personal Index prepared by Beveridge and although all of them were junior to him, Babur added honorific titles such as Mir to their names invariably. Some names such as Mir Ahmad Beg, (p. 145), Mir Ali Beg Turk (p. 386), Mir Azu (p. 292), Mir Muhammadiyusuf (p. 284) are cited here to refute the misleading argument of Aligarh Historians. Many more such Mirs are quoted in chapter VI of this book from the Index Personal of Beveridge’s translation of ‘Baburnama’.
Aligarh Historians further claim that since in the Babur-nama it is mentioned that Baqi called on Babur with Awad army on 13th June, 1529 and leave was granted to him along with the Awad army on 20th June, 1529 it is confirmed that Mir Baqi was the governor of Ayodhyā and hence he built the mosque at Ayodhyā and the inscription is genuine. They have written a separate ‘Note 1.2’ and titled it as ‘Two references of Mir Baqi, Builder of the Baburi Masjid in Babur’s Memoirs’. This heading is misleading because nowhere in Babur-nama Baqi has been referred to as builder of Baburi Masjid. And the two references cited do not help them. In the first reference Baqi Tashkindi and not Mir Baqi is shown to have called on Babur along with the army of the Oudh province and in the second reference Baqi Shaghawal is either dismissed or sent home on leave.

They have identified Awad with Ayodhyā and even quoted Tulasidas’ Awadhpuri for Ayodhyā. But here also their arguments suffer from several insurmountable obstacles. Their assertion that Awad of ‘Babur-nama’ is identical with Ayodhyā is not correct because on page 521 Babur has given the details of revenues from various areas of his kingdom. In the 15th line he shows the revenue from “Aud and Bahraj (Baraich) as 1 crore 17 lakh one thousand and 369 Tankas.”

Here Aud certainly means the province of Aud and not the pilgrim town of Ayodhyā. Again on page 544 Babur writes that Humayun in accordance with his arrangements had placed Shaikh Bāyazīd (Farmuli) in Aude. Here also the meaning is that he was made Subedar of the Awadh province and not Ayodhyā only. It is clarified that he has used Aud in the sense of Ayodhyā town too at some places. But here we have to examine what Babur meant by Awad army.

In the army expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban in 1528 A.D. Chin-timur Sultan was the Commander of the army and Baqi was one of many Begs fighting under Chin-timur’s command. But on 27th May, 1529 we find that Babur received a letter from Baqi, which informed him about the loss of Lucknow to the enemy. Next day, i.e. on May 28, 1529 Babur sent Kuki with his troop for the purpose of reinforcing Baqi. Again on Sunday, i.e. 29th May, 1528 Babur dispatched Sultan Junaid Barlas, Khalifa’s son Hassan, Mulla Apak’s men and the brother of Momin Ataka to extend support to Baqi till Babur’s arrival. Thus, Baqi was the commander of the troops detailed for expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban and the troop under his command had suffered a military reverse at Lucknow and, thereafter, Babur had to send reinforcements. On 9th June 1529 when Babur got the news that though the Sultans and Begs had reached Dalmau, yet they had not crossed over the Ganga, he was naturally angered by the delay and sent detailed instructions to ‘get to grips with the adversary’. Next morning, he marched 11 kos and crossed over the Gomti. Then after two night halts he reached Dalmau. On 13th June, 1529, while Babur was camping there, Baqi Tashkindi arrived with his Awad troops and waited on him. Babur was so angry with Baqi that on 16th June, 1529 he dispatched Baqi Shaghawal, who is perceived as the Subedar of Awadh at Ayodhyā by many historians, with a few men of the interior to get information about the enemy. Baqi had some success against the enemy who had fled to the Pargana of Mahuba, but it did not satisfy Babur and on 20th June, 1529 he gave Baqi Shaghawal and his men leave to go home.

Because of some lapses on the part of Beveridge, the picture is not very clear to those who read only Beveridge’s translation. Though on page 742 of her book in Index I, she has written “leave given him for home 685,” yet on p. 658 in her translation, she has omitted ‘for home’. It is made clear in Erskine’s translation, which reads:

“The same day, about afternoon prayers, I gave Baqi Sheghawel and his party leave to go home.”

Thus, on 20th June, 1529 Baqi was given leave for going home at Tashkend. In the year 935 A.H. when he is credited with the construction of the mosque at Ayodhyā, he is seen chasing Bāyazīd and Biban all along and when he failed in his mission, he was sent home at Tashkend. In “The Babur-nama”; Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor.” Wheeler M. Thackston has thus translated this sentence:

“That afternoon Baqi Shigavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”

Even if it is supposed that Baqi was not dismissed from service, it is significant to note that Baqi was never heard of again or mentioned in either the Babur-nama or Humayu-nama of Gulbadan Begum or any other text.

There is no evidence to show that Baqi had ever visited Ayodhyā and, in fact he, like Babur, had no occasion or reason to visit Ayodhyā because the enemies Bāyazīd and Biban had already left Ayodhyā and were camping at distant places from Ayodhyā. Baqi had come to meet Babur with the Awadh army which had fought and suffered reverses at Lucknow. The Awadh army, which came along with him, was the army of Awadh province engaged in the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban. So Babur, wrote that Baqi came with Awadh army. He did not mean that it was the army stationed at Ayodhyā which was never visited by Baqi at all.

1.11 Babur’s assessment by Justice Agarwal is mis-represented by Aligarh Historians

In para 1.11. Aligarh Historians have distorted the content of Justice Agarwal’s Judgment and imputed unjustified implicit communal bias against him in their following comments:

“It is thus clear from the above that Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s line of reasoning is based on untenable assumptions. If according to him, Babur was not concerned with the construction of Babri Masjid, one wonders why the learned judge should hold forth at such length on his weaknesses of character as a believing Muslim. We are told by the Justice that Babur was “a completely Islamic person and (so?) lacked tolerance to the idol worshippers” (Para 1563);

Now let us read para 1563 of Justice Agarwal’s Judgment:

“1563. But if we consider what has been written in Babarnama by Babar in straight words without twisting or mincing them we find that like any other brave, courageous, tactful but brutal warrior, Babar also possess all these qualities. It is true that he was truly religious but it means that he was a complete Islamic person and lacked tolerance at least to the idol worshippers. He had no hitch in destroying idols worshipped by the inhabitants of India at that time and this we find very visibly from the words which are translated by Mrs. Beveridge from Babar’s manuscript of “Tuzuk-i-babri” as is evident from page 554-555 as under.”
Justice Agarwal has written that like any other brave, courageous, tactful but brutal warrior Babur possessed all these qualities. It is a historical fact and no slur on Babur. His expression that Babur was truly religious but lacked tolerance at least to the idol worshippers is not a totally incorrect statement. Though I do not hold Babur to be a religious bigot, yet he was not an eclectic person like Akbar or Dara Shukoh. But Aligarh Historians’ addition of (so?) in the sentence clearly and sarcastically imputes communal bias to Justice Agarwal. From the Judgment of Justice Agarwal no such bias is discernible.

Aligarh Historians have raised another objection against the following observation of Justice Agarwal:

“However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify or justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or rulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by providing justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for the reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot be clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to give it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large and in particular the students of history. In our view, the historical events must be placed straight without any distortion, without any addition of words and without providing any explanation or justification in the words of the author as the same would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If we claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human heads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted religious man, had no love for violence it would be a blatant lie. This kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work has been placed before us for our consideration shows that these authors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of misdeed which in the present day’s civilized society can never appreciate or swallow.” (para 1570)

This observation is totally correct. The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement.

The following observation in para 1611 of Justice Agarwal’s judgment is also a subject of scathing criticism by Aligarh Historians:

“Another surprising aspect was that the Indian subcontinent was under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand or more years in the past and had been continuously looted by them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the country.” (Para 1611)

Aligarh Historians have reacted to this observation in the following words:

“This sentence suggests a rather one-sided view of the history of medieval India. Was India before the British ever governed from outside of it, from a place to which wealth could be continuously transferred? Whoever looted, whether Sultans or Rajas, lived within India.” (Para 1.11)

It is not correct to decree that whoever looted, whether Sultans or Rajas, lived within India. Mahmud of Ghazni, Nadir Shah of Persia and Ahmad Shah Abdali did not live within India. Every student of Indian history, (except the established historians!) is aware of the plunder of Indian wealth, particularly temple properties by Mahmud of Ghazni. It is well nigh impossible to calculate the colossal loss of Indian wealth caused by Mahmud. But the Indian properties looted by Nadir Shah at Delhi within a period of two months has been calculated by various authorities. Jadunath Sarkar, who edited ‘The Later Mughals’ written by William Irvine and added one chapter ‘The History of Nadir Shah’s Invasion’ has thus presented the total loss:

“The total indemnity secured by Nadir Shah at Dihli was estimated by his Secretary at nearly 15 krores of Rupees in cash, beside a vast treasure in jewels, etc. According to Frazer the author of the book ‘Nadir Shah’ the grand total from these sources amounted to 70 krores. The break-up is as follows:

In addition, Nadir Shah took away 300 elephants, 10,000 horses and 10,000 camels. Anandram, who was attached to the Indian Wazier, estimates cash on a lower side but jewels at 50 crores of rupees. The Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah had to surrender all his crown-jewels, including the famous diamond Kohinur and the Peacock Throne which had cost 2 crores of rupees, but in the inner vaults, which had been shut during many reigns a much larger amount was discovered.” (‘The Later Mughals’ , vol. II, p. 371).

Jadunath Sarkar further informs that while the Emperor and nobles were being squeezed of their wealth, the general public, too, was subjected to cruel treatment. Contribution of half of their property was fixed for all the well-to-do citizens who had escaped the massacre and sack. Ānandarama in his biography ‘Tazkira’ informs that he was assessed five lakhs and an amount of rupees two crores was extorted from the residents of Delhi by this method. Hanway in his book ‘Travels’ states that the amount was to the tune of four crores. He further adds that no barbarities were left unpractised to exact the imposed amount.

Nevertheless, in order to give no communal tinge to the episode, it is made clear that Nadir Shah looted both the Hindus and the Muslims with equal intensity of cruelty. He was not satisfied with the general massacre and plunder only. On 26th March, 1739 he got his younger son Mirza Nasrullah married to a Mughal Princess who was daughter of Dawar Bakhsh who was the grandson of Murad and great grandson of Shah Jahan. Dawar Bakhsh’s mother was a daughter of Aurangzeb.

It appears that these historians have not heard of Mahmud of Ghazni and Nadir Shah. Their plunder of Indian wealth was to the tune of millions and billions of rupees by bleeding the Indian people dry. For these historians they lived within India! Who is distorting history? These historians or Justice Agarwal? The irony is that Justice Agarwal has made no allegation on communal line. He has just written the background that despite the long economic drain, the East India Company had remarkable earnings in the Indian sub-continent. Let us read his judgment in para 1611:
“1611. The East India Company after its initial few steps towards India, brought such a huge revenue to England that the people thereat were simply stunned and shocked to find out as to how this part of the Country could muster such a huge wealth. Another surprising aspect was that the Indian sub-continent was under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand and more years in the past and had continuously been looted by them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the Country, yet when the merchant companies of Britishers in the form of East India Company visited India, in the first one and half decade, i.e. upto 1613, it showed remarkable earning to their shareholders and public at large in England.”

Even such an innocuous statement has been a subject of unwarranted criticism and that too by distorting historical facts! It appears from the comments of these historians that the learned Judge, mandated to decide the case pending for 60 years, should have consulted them before writing each paragraph of the Judgment. Justice Agarwal stands ‘guilty’ for not toeing their line and writing a judgment based on incontrovertible facts! The sardonic approach of established historians is not going to help in writing correct Indian history.

1.12 Baburi mosque built in Sharqi style by later masons.

In para 1.12 Aligarh Historians have suggested that ‘the Babri Masjid is recognizably built in the Sharqi style of architecture (seen noticeably at Jaunpur) with the characteristic form given to the propylon.’ They have further added that ‘the domes though large are very heavy and this style became obsolete soon after; and well before Aurangzeb’s time.’ It is true that Baburi Masjid has been built in the Sharqi style of architecture, as the artisans came from the nearby town Jaunpur. However, it was not made during the Sharqi rule but during the reign of Aurangzeb. In Chapter VIII it has been illustrated how the so-called Baburi mosque resembles the Gyan Vapi mosque at Varanasi and Krishna-janma-sthan mosque at Mathura built at the behest of Aurangzeb after demolishing prominent temples. Therefore, Aligarh Historians’ argument carries little weight.

1.13 to 1.17 Archaeological evidence supports the existence of a building beneath the mosque

Paras 1.13 to 1.17 relate to the archaeological evidences which have been analysed in the second volume of this book. However, in para 1.16 Aligarh Historians, who have doubted the authenticity of A.S.I. report, have taken its help to rebut the argument that the mosque was built during Aurangzeb’s reign. They have quoted the following conclusion of the A.S.I.:

“The C-14 date from the contemporary deposit of the foundation of the disputed structure [Babri Masjid] is 450 ± 110 BP (1500 ± 110 A.D.) which is quite consistent, as determined from the charcoal sample from trance 6 G.”

Thus, from this A.S.I. report the lower limit comes to 1610 A.D. and according to our research this was done in 1660 A.D. There is a gap of 50 years only which can be said to be within reasonable limits of such calculation. A.S.I. had been entrusted with the primary job to find whether any structure stood beneath and in the vicinity of the disputed structure. The author of this book himself saw a large brick structure beneath the mound in the vicinity of the disputed structure which had not been covered for a considerable period and it is a conclusive proof that the mosque was not constructed on a virgin land, as was claimed earlier by the protagonists of the mosquetheory.

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

In para 1.18 Aligarh Historians have made the following comment which is far from truth:

“The attack of the ‘Hindu’ parties on the genuineness of the Babri Masjid inscriptions never doubted until the present litigation, nor by any historian or epigraphists till the current day.”

Here it is important to point out that ‘Hindu’ parties were handingloves with the votaries of the Sunni Waqf Board case (communalizing history is not my nature, so I am avoiding the word ‘Muslim’). Both the parties have been taking the words of fake inscriptions as gospel truth. According to historians of both sides it was Mir Baqi who built the mosque at the command of Babur. The thin difference between them is that one side claims that it was done after demolishing an existing temple, whereas the other party claims that the mosque was built on a vacant land. The demolition of the falsity in the context of the forged inscriptions is not the work of the ‘Hindu’ parties but the result of a thorough research and scrutiny made by a person who has the genuine love for writing correct history. It could have been placed before the Hon’ble High Court long before, had the Hindu parties accepted this line. Therefore, it had to wait until a party opposed to Hindu fundamentalists agreed to do so and an outstanding lawyer P.N. Mishra succinctly presented it before the Court.

Once it has been accepted by the Court these Aligarh Historians are feeling the heat but have no facts to controvert the findings. They are now attacking Justice Agarwal’s judgment and I am sure they will unleash all weapons in their armoury against the present author after the publication of this book. Any rebuttal with relevant documents on these incontrovertible facts will be highly welcome and the author promises to examine them and make appropriate comments in the second volume of this book.

Aligarh Historians have shown their biased interpretation of mediaeval Indian history by citing the example of the Qubbatul’s Islam mosque at Qutb-Delhi where a well known inscription proclaims the demolition of a temple with pride. Then they ask the question—“Why, then, should the builders of the Babri Masjid have been so silent and withdrawing about their act of temple demolition.” In this country a large number of temples were converted into mosques by iconoclast invaders and rulers. In addition, there are infinitesimal instances of proclaiming their demolitions as acts of glory. The whole world knows that a portion of Kāśī Viśvanātha temple was converted into a mosque, although a sizeable section of the original temple structure stands intact until the present day. However, there is not a single word to glorify the act in the form of any inscription inside the mosque.

Note 1.1. Arguments of Aligarh Historians in Note 1.1. of their booklet are after-thoughts.

According to these historians there was only one inscription near the pulpit and the two great epigraphists Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai were confused in declaring that there were two inscriptions near the pulpit. It has been shown above while commenting on Aligarh historians’ views in para 1.7 that there were two inscriptions near the pulpit; one was to the south and another to the north of the pulpit. There is no need for repeating them here.

According to them another point is that Fuhrer’s copyist mixed the letters of the inscription together and therefore Fuhrer incorrectly read ‘Mir Khan’ instead of ‘Mir Baqi’. But now the question arises as to why did the two great epigraphists – Ashraf Husain and Z.A. Desai – who read this inscription, not explain as to how ‘Mir Khan’ was incorrectly read. They rather arbitrarily added (and) and (Baqi). Thus, the inscription before Ashraf/Desai had the reading Mir Khan which was changed to Mir Baqi without any basis. Similarly, why did these established historians not interpret it in such a way in the past as they have done it now in Note 1.1. when it has been conclusively proved that the inscriptions were fake and factitious. Where was their knowledge and wisdom lying all these years? Moreover, for two decades when there was an intense debate on Ayodhyā dispute and dozens of books and hundreds of articles were written, why did these historians keep mum on this point? Some well versed Persian scholars like Shireen Moosvi, whom Aligarh Historians have called ‘an expert witness’ (p. 8), deposed in favour of the mosque before the Lucknow Bench, but she did not make this claim or give such interpretation before the Court. After it was proved conclusively that the inscriptions were fake in nature and the case of the mosque is lost because it was the solitary evidence to prove that the mosque was built by Baqi at the command of Babur, these historians are now exhibiting their knowledge of Persian language. It cannot be accepted by any standard of the principle of the appreciation of evidence.

In para 1.1.2 they write: “It is curious that the E1 (A.P.) 1965’s editor missed the fact that both inscriptions, supposed to be distinct ones, occupied the same position in the mosque: the one read by Fuhrer, is said to be “on the mimbar, right-hand side of the masjid,” while Inscription No. 1 of the E9 (A.P.) 1965 is said to have been “built into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque.” In other words, we have here the same mimbar or pulpit-inscription.”

The fact of the matter is that Husain/Desai had the correct idea about the placement of two inscriptions in the north and south directions from the pulpit. Inscription no.1 translated by Desai was certainly on the southern side of the pulpit in the mosque but the inscription translated by Fuhrer was on the northern side from the pulpit. Fuhrer and other archaeologists indicated the direction from their own positions and therefore the right direction was the northern side. If Aligarh Historians have any doubt they may read the A.S.I. report ‘The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur” edited by its Director General Jas. Burgess. On page 34 it is clearly mentioned in the context of the Atala Masjid, Jaunpur:

“As is universally the case, the mimbar or pulpit stands to the right or north side of the principal mihrab.”

Thus, the universal practice of indicating the direction in relation to the pulpit is that the right side means north and not south as understood erroneously by Aligarh Historians. Thus, there were two inscriptions, one to the south and another to the north of the pulpit. In addition, the third one was above the main entrance. But all these three inscriptions were fixed belatedly and replaced frequently.

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 the 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 दिव्यलक्षणसंयुत, 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।

(Bal. 1.35)

The author of Bhāgavata calls him तीर्थास्पदं शिवविरञ्चिनुं शरण्यम् (11.5.33), i.e. he is embodiment of pilgrimage, and Śiva and Brahmā offer prayers to him. He is the refuge of all.

In the Brihad-dharmottara-purāna the author attributes the following virtue to him:

वनवासगतो रामो यत्र यत्र व्यवस्थितः।

तानि चोक्तानि तीर्थानि शतमष्टोत्तरं क्षितौ।।

(Purva-bhag : 14.34)

During the exile wherever Rāma stayed, all places became pilgrim sites—108 in all on earth.

In the first chapter of this work it has been shown how Ayodhyā has been a perpetual city and in the first chapter of the second volume it has been shown how Rāma’s worship has continued in this country for two thousand years. If Ayodhyā has been considered a holy city and a pilgrim place by Hindus, it is mainly because of its association with Lord Rāma’s birth. Ayodhyā has been accepted as the birthplace of Rāma not only by the Hindus but also by the Muslims. A sanad issued by the Mughal Emperor Akbar on a day following the Rāmanavami in 1600 A.D. and renewed by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah in 1723 reads as follows:

“It is declared that in the exalted reign on the 5th day of the Shawwal (month) of 1135 A.H., i.e. on 8th July, 1723 this sanad was issued by Naqbatuddin Muaaid Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khankhana Bahadur Jung Turkhan who was a man of high pomp and grandeur, of high aim, who is spoken very high of and who is revered like a Hazrat in each country.

This insignificant writer, who is native of the holy place, which is the maulud (जन्मभूमि) of Rāma, is reducing it in writing with pen. By order, it is confirmed that six bighas of land in the province of Oudh granted for the construction of the Hanuman Tila is given to Abhayarāma after comparing it with the deed issued on the 13th Ramjan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 27th March, 1600 (which was a day after the Ramanavami).”

The sacrosant nature of Ayodhyā can be understood from the following verse of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna:

अकारो ब्रह्म च प्रोक्तं यकारो विष्णुरुच्यते।

धकारो रुद्ररूपश्च अयोध्या नाम राजते।। (1.60)

The three letters, viz. ‘A’, ‘yo’ and ‘dh’ of Ayodhyā symbolise Brahmā, Vishnu, and Rudra respectively.

Thus, there should be no dout that Ayodhyā has been universally regarded as a sacrosanct place and the birthplace of Rāma. In para 4070 Justice Agarwal has written that the worship of that place has been continuing for the past several centuries. In para 4071 Issue No. 24 (Suit-5) was raised whether the worship of the deity has been there since time immemorial or not. It has been discussed in para 4072 and decided in para 4073. It has been decided by Justice Agarwal that since the worship of the deity had been noticed by Joseph Tieffenthaler in the middle of the 18th century and thereafter it has been mentioned in several books and Gazetteers, it may be accepted that the worship of the deity was going on for such a long time that it amounts to ‘time immemorial’. In the light of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya described in the Skanda-Purāna and the Rudra-yāmala, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa the existence of the present birthsite and the worship of the deity have got a tradition of almost a thousand years. The word ‘immemorial’ has been described in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (p. 775) in the following words:

“adj. (formal or literary) that has existed for longer than people can remember: an immemorial tradition ¤ My family has lived in this area from time immemorial (= for hundreds of years)”

Where is the historical tampering in the finding? Distortion of facts on the part of Aligarh Historians does not help writing history in right perspective. It is rather creating conundrum.

2.2 Some references to Rāma in inscriptions

In paragraph 2.2 the Aligarh Historians have written that “none of the Sanskrit inscriptions at or relating to Ayodhyā before 1528 contain any reference to Lord Rāma directly by that name or to any sanctity attaching to Ayodhyā on account of its being the place of his birth.” In fact, it is, in their usual style, a mendacious statement. In order to rebut the misleading propaganda of the Aligarh Historians, one inscription of the 7th century from ancient Champa, i.e. modern Vietanam is quoted to prove that Rāma was regarded as the incarnation of Lord Vishnu since time immemorial. There was a temple of poet Vālmīki, the author of Rāma saga, in ancient Champa in the 7th century A.D. There is an inscription of King Prakāśadharman who ruled Champa from 653 to 678 A.D. The legible portion of the inscription reads as follows:

यस्य शोकात् समुत्पन्नं श्लोकं ब्रह्माभिपूजति।

विष्णो पुंसः पुराणस्य मानुषस्यात्मरूपिणः।।

(रामस्य च) रितं कृत्यं कृं येनाभिषेचनम्।

कवेराद्यस्य महर्षेर्व्वाल्मीकेश्रु ++ रिह।।

(पूजास्थानं) पुनस्तस्य कृत ++ य ++।

प्रकाशधर्म्मनृपतिः सर्व्वारिगणसूदनः।।

विद्याशक्तिक्षमालक्ष्मीकीर्तिधैर्य्य-(गुणान्वितः)।

++ त्य एष जगत्कान्तश्शारदेऽन्तरिते नृप।।

This inscription of King Prakāśadharman is unique in the sense that it mentions the temple of the Ādi-kavi Maharshi Vālmīki at Tra-Kieu and describes the hero of the poet’s epic as the human form of Purāna-purusha Vishnu, meaning, thereby, Rāma is the incarnation of primeval Vishnu. Some historians, not well versed with Sanskrit, are slightly at a loss in making the exact ‘anvaya’ and comprehending the right meaning. The correct ‘anvaya’ of the first two lines is: यस्य शोकात् समुत्पन्नं विष्णो पुंसः पुराणस्य मानुषस्यात्मरूपिणः श्लोकं ब्रह्माभिपूजति Brahmā praises his (Vālmīki’s) sorrow-originated śloka (verse) related to the human form of Purāna-purusha (primeval) Vishnu, i.e. Rāma.
After I translated this inscription and read a paper on Ayodhyā in Patna I happened to see a material on web prepared by scholars under the aegis of French School of Asian Studies (École française d’Extrême-Orient, EFEO) under the project Corpus of the Inscriptions of Campā (CIC). I am glad to find that my translation, equating Rāma and not Vālmīki with the incarnation of Lord Vishnu in the inscription, gets support from this article. It is meticulously deciphered and articulately translated. Details of this inscription have been provided in the article from which the following information is furnished below:

Support Low pedestal; sandstone; h. 54 cm × w. 54 × d. 12.

Text The inscription runs over two lines along two of the four vertical faces of the object. The sequence is face A (“left”, two lines), face B (“right”, two lines). Written in Sanskrit.

Date 6th century Śaka (7th CE).

Origin Settlement of Trà Kiêu (Quàng Nam).1

This piece was found by J.Y. Claeys at Trà Kiêu in 1927 (see Claeys 1927). Thereafter, it was entered in the EFEO Museum in Hanoi, before 1937 (IC vol. I, p. 273), and was registered there as B 2, 38. The museum staff subsequently assigned a new number to it and the current inventory number LSb 42277.

Edition(s) First published, with French translation, by Mus 1928; whence, translated into English, Golzio 2004: 11-12.Re-edited from the EFEO estampage, with new translation, in ECIC V: 434-437, whence the present edition.

Facsimile

Estampage of the inscription of King Prakāśadharman.

Estampage : EFEO n. 508.2

The following text was edited by Arlo Griffiths and Dominic Goodall.

Face A.

(1) (siddham)

I. Anus+tubh
yasya śokāt samutpannam¢ ślokam¢ brahmābhipū(jati)

[vi](shnoh) pun¢sah purānasya manu(jasyā)tmarūpinah

II. Anus+tubh

(2) [rāmasya](ca)ritam¢ krts[n]am¢ krtam¢ (yenābhisādhanam¢)

kaver ādyasya mahars+s+er vv(ā)lmīkeś cāvaner iha.

Face B.

III. Anus+tubh

(1) (pūjāsthānam¢) punas tasya krta -----------------------
prakāśadharmmanrpatis sarvvāriganasūdanah

IV. Anus+tubh

(2) vidyāśaktiks+amālaks+(m)īkīrttidhairyya[gunā]n(v)i(tah)

(jaya)ty es+a jagatkāntaś śārade ntarite [v]i[dhau]

Translation

Having restored here the place of worship for the primordial poet and great[est] sage of the earth, Vālmīki, from whose anguish was born the verse that Brahmā praised, (and) who has composed the complete, ... (abhisādhana?) acts of Rāma, the human own/bodily form of the ancient male, Vishnu, this king Prakāśadharman, who subdues all (worldly and internal) foes, who is cherished by the world (or: the goddess Earth), being endowed with the virtues of knowledge, power, forbearance, wealth, fame, and patience, is victorious as the beloved of [all] creatures, the autumnal moon having been eclipsed (by his glory)!

Commentary

The text alludes to, and even directly replicates phrases from, the Bālakānda of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana. रामस्य चरितं कृत्सं¢÷ (I. 2. 30) See the observations of Mus 1928. The new reading of stanza II presented here adds significantly to the extent of our poet’s dependence on Vālmīki, and simultaneously removes the need to presume, as did Pal Mus, that Vālmīki is being identified as Vis+nu. For the significance of the expression arigana, see the commentary on C. 137. Since the word pūjāsthāna in the inscriptions of Prakāśadharman seems to refer each time either to the inscribed pedestal itself or to the place where that pedestal was installed, one cannot follow the reasoning in Trān Ký Phu’o’ng 2000 identifying this ‘place of worship’ as the different and more famous pedestal from Trà Kiêu that is decorated with elaborate sculptural reliefs.”
The suggested reading अभिसाधनम् here is, indeed, better than अभिषेचनम् which was the reading by Paul Mus in his article “Études indiennes et indochinoises. I. L’inscription à Valmiki de Prakaça- dharma (Trà-ki?u),” BEFEO, 28 (1928), 147-152. The reading अभिषेचनम्, is not appropriate because it means annoiting, sprinkling. These scholars write that the reading अभिसाधनम् can be understood either as an adjective with the sense ‘propitiating’ (cf. Monier-Williams s.v. abhisidh) or as a noun, ‘propitiation’, in apposition to charitam. These scholars, therefore, tentatively proposed interpreting this quarter-verse to mean ‘who composed, [as an act of] worship/propitiation, the complete Acts of Rāma’. It is a very good and correct interpretation. Even the reading of Sanskrit verses is very apt. They are reproduced below in the Devanāgarī scirpt!

Besides, there is an inscription of King Yaśovarman who ruled Kambupurī (Cambodia) between 889 and 900 A.D. In an elegant double-intendre the Cambodian King compares himself with Rāma and takes pride in protecting his kingdom, as Rāma had protected Ayodhyā. In the same verse both Ayodhyā and Rāma are mentioned and that, too, in distant Cambodia.

सुमत्रसुहृं सीताभूषणां सुविभीषणाम्।

जुगोप यः कम्बुपुरीमयोध्यामिव राघवः।।

The verse may be translated into English like this:

He (Yashovarman) protected Kambupurī like Rāma protected Ayodhyā. Kambupurī had the wise counsel of the King’s well wishing friends; whereas Ayodhyā had Sumantra, the charioteer. Kambupurī was ornamented with ploughing the land whereas Ayodhyā had the jewel in the form of Sītā. Kambupurī was awe-inspiring to his enemies and Ayodhyā had the presence of Vibhīshana.

This inscription is related to Ayodhyā. Thus, in distant Cambodia Ayodhyā is prominently mentioned in a royal edict in the 9th century.

Again another inscription of another Cambodian King Rajendra Varman (944-968 A.D.) found at Pre Rup. (K806), a monument in the Angkor Area mentions Rāma in the following verse:

मारीच इव रामस्य नामाद्येकाक्षरश्रवात्।

स्यारिराजो वीरोऽपि जगामानन्यजां भियम्।।

Rajendra Varman’s every rival king used to dread facing from him like Māricha who used to panic by hearing the first letter of Rāma’s name.

In another inscription dated 1157 A.D. King Jayahari Varman proclaims that since Rāma’s glory was pervading in all directions the opposite forces ran away.

रामस्य कीर्तिं च पुनर्जिगीर्षुः दिक्षु स्थितेऽनुप्रतिदिक् प्रयाता।

(No. 74 Myson State Inscription)

Nearer home, the Aligarh Historians are advised to read the translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription in the Xth chapter of this book. They may also go through the inscription of King Jaya dated 1213 A.D. It was discovered from a south column of the gopuram of Nāgeśvara temple at Chembrolu village under Vaptala taluk of the Krishna district and published in the Epigraphia Indica, vol. V, pp. 143-48. In this inscription of distant south the valiant Rāma has been remembered with reverence 300 years before 1528 A.D.

तस्मादिक्ष्वाकुरासीत्तदुपरि सगरस्तत्परस्तात्ककुत्स्थ

स्तस्मादूर्ध्वं दिलीपस्तमनु दशरथस्तत्सुतो रामचद्रः।

यद्वीरश्रीविलासा बिससमतुलितोदग्रकैलासजाग्र-

द्दोक्रीडातुङगलङकासुभटविघटनास्ते दिगन्ते प्रथन्ते।

From him (Brahmā) was born Ikshvāku. Thereafter Sagara, Kakutstha, Dilīpa, Daśaratha and Rāmachandra were his direct descendants. The splendour of Rama’s bravery, which eliminated warriors of Lan¢kā, elevated on account of their manual action, which lifted Kailāsa looking like a lotus stalk, may spread (or is spreading) in (all) directions.

Besides, the Rewa inscription of Malayasim·ha dated 1193 A.D. speaks of Rāma temple at Rewa on the bank of the Narmada River. The temple was built by the King Malayasim·ha and it is mentioned in the inscription that by worshiping it, one accesses the feet of God.

तीव्रं तपो दुखकरं प्रकृत्या सिद्धा व्रजन्तो दिवमूर्ध्वमुच्चै।

यद्रामदेवालयवन्दिता ये प्रायेण ते विश्वपदं प्रयाताः।। (lin 27)

Siddhas go to high heaven, having performed fierce painful austerities, (but) those who worship at the shrine of Rāma, built by him (Malayasim¢ha), they mostly obtain the feet of God (without endeavour) (27) (translated by R.D. Banerji, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, vol. 23, p. 139).

Thus, it is proved that there are many Sanskrit inscriptions which contain references to Lord Rāma directly.

2.3 Inscriptions of Dhanadeva and Belgaum

In para 2.3 they have cited the inscription of Dhanadeva which contains only two lines and is in the memory of his father Phalgudeva for building a house or a flag-post. How could Rāma’s saga have been depicted in this brief inscription (1st century B.C.) of a different nature? Here the word is ketanam+ and not niketan. But neither means shrine. Ketanam+ means an abode or a banner.

Similarly, in a brief memorial inscription of Belgaum in Karnataka raised for a Brahmana who hailed from Ayodhyā but settled in the south, Aligarh Historians have vainly tried to trace Rāma’s worship in these words:

“A memorial inscription at Belgaum, Karnataka, of AD 105 (published in Epigraphia Indica, XXXIX, pp.183-188), is inscribed on a memorial pillar raised for a Brahman of the Kashyapa gotra hailing from Saketa (Ayodhya) who is praised for his knowledge of the Yajurveda and performance of sacrifices, but with no reference anywhere to his worship of Lord Rama or even devotion to Vishnu.” (p. 21)

For the better appreciation of the context and non-reference to Lord Rāma’s worship the entire pillar inscription is quoted below with English translation:

स्वस्ति सोमयशसः स्कम्भः [1] मौलबन्धुवर्गेण काठज्ञस्य सोमयशसः स्भों निष्ठापितो गाढं अशीतिवाजपेयकाम्यक्रतुयाजिनः अनेकयज्ञहोमधूमग्राहितदिसाभागस्य अनक्षवेद्यस्य साकेतकस्य बलपार्यसखस्य कास्यपसगोत्रस्य स्वर्गतस्य [1] दिवसे 10000, 802 [11]

This pillar of Late Somayaśā, who belonged to Kāsyapa gotra and was a friend of Balapārya, was firmly established by the Maulibandhu family. 80 wish-fulfilling sacrifices were performed by Somayaśā, a scholar of Katha Śākhā, and smoke arisen out of many sacrifices was spread by him in all directions. Nothing was unknown to him. On the ten thousand eight hundred second day (of the śaka calender).

It is really wonderful to trace Rāma’s worship to a brief pillar inscription erected by the kith and kin of Balapārya to commemorate the death of a scholar from Ayodhyā who had settled in the distant South. Maulah (मौलाः) is mentioned in the Manusmriti (VIII. 62). Kulūka Bhat.t.a has explained it as तद्-देशजाः, i.e. born in that country (territory) and Medhātithi has explained it as जानपदाः तद्-देशाभिजनाः, i.e. inhabitants of that country. Somayaśas has been called the friend of a gentleman (ārya) named Balapa. The apa, i.e. Dravidian appa ending in the name of Balapa shows that he was a Dravidian and probably he might have taken the lead in installing this pillar inscription. The Smritis enjoin the installation of a stone (पाषाण-स्थापन) for the dead person by his son or relative during the first ten days after the death of the person. Our historians’ search for the mention of the name of Rāma in the last rites of a dead scholar of Ayodhyā who had left the holy city long back and settled in Belgaum area of the Karnataka territory is really amusing.

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 composed 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.

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 traveller 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 birth 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.”

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).

Altekar, G.S., Studies On Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Poona, 1987.

Anacker, Stefan, Seven Works of Vasubandhu, the Buddhist Psychological Doctor, Motilal Banarsidass, 1984.

Athar Ali, M., Mughal India, : Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009.

Athar Ali, M., The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, Oxford University Press, 2010.

Azizuddin Husain, S.M., Structure of Politics under Augangzeb 1658-1707, Kanishka Publishers, Distributors, New Delhi, 2002.

Baldaeus, Philip, “A true and exact Description of the most Celebrated East-India Coast of Malabar and Coromandel, and of the Island of Ceylon, with all the adjacent Countries”, published in the IInd part of the book “A Collection of Voyages and Travels” London, printed for A. & J. Churchill, at the Black-swan in Pater Noster Row, 1703.

Baldaeus, Philip, “The Idolatry of the East India Pagans”, op. cit.

Balkhi, Mahmud bin Amir Wali, Bahrul Asrar, Karachi, 1980.

Basham, A.L., The Wonder That Was India, Surjeet Publications, Delhi, 2007.

Basham, A.L., A Cultural History of India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1975.

Behbahani, Ahmad, India in the Early 19th Century An Iranian’s Travel Account, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1996.

Bernier, Francois, Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656-1668, London, William Pickering, Chancery-Lane, 1826.

Beveridge, Annette Susannah, Babur-Nama (Memoirs of Babur), Low Price Publications, Delhi, 1989.

Beveridge, Henry, The Tarikh-I-Mubarakshahi of Yahiya bin Ahmad Bin Abdullah Sirhindi, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 1990.

Blunt, Edward Arthur Henry, I. C.S., List of Inscriptions on Christian Tombs and Tablets of Historical Interest in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Allahabad: Government Press, United Provinces, 1911.

Brooks, R., Brooke’s General Gazetteer (Abridged), London, 1796 A.D.).

Buchanan, Francis, A Journey from Madras through the Counties of Mysore, Canara and Malaber (1807).

Buchanan, Francis, An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal, Edinburgh: Printed for Archibald Constable and Company; Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; and Hurst, Robinson, and Company, 90, Cheaside, London, 1819.

Buchanan, Francis, “The Gorakhpur Report,” vol. 1, Eur. Mss D 91 (unpublished), British Library, London.

Burgess, Jas., The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur with notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and other places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh. Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta,1889.

Butter, Donald, Outlines of the Topography and Statistics of the Southern Districts of Oudh, G.H. Huttmann, Calcutta, 1839

Byron, Lord, Don Juan, R. W. Pomeroy, Philadelphia, United States, 1841.

Carlleyle, A. C. L., Archaeological Survey of India Report of Tours in the Central Doab and Gorakhpur in 1874-75 and 1875-76, Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1879.

Carnegy, P., Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh and Pachhimrath with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad, Oudh Government Press, Lucknow, 1870.

Cole, Juan Ricardo, Roots of North Indian Shiaism in Iran and Iraq; religion and state in Awadh, 1722-1859, University of California Press, 1988.

Conder, Josiah, The Modern Traveller: A Popular Description, Geographical, Historical, and Topographical, of the Globe, London : Printed for James Duncan; 1828.

Cunningham, Alexander, The Ancient Geography of India, Trübner and Company, 1871; Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2006.

Curry, Daniel National Repository, vol. 5-6, (Ed.), Hitchcock and Walden, 1879.

Daniell, William and Hobart Caunter, The Oriental Annual, Or, Scenes in India, Volume 2, E. Bull, 1835.

Daniell, William and Thomas, One Hundred and Fifty Views of the Architectural, Antiquities and Landscapes of Hidoostan, published by the authors, London,1816

Dara Sukoh, Tarjuma-i-Joga-Vashishta, Introduction to the Persian translation of the famous Sanskrit work ‘Yoga-Vāsishtha, quoted in Dr. K.R. Qanungo’s book ‘Dara Shukoh’.

Desai, Z.A., Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, in continuation of the Series Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, (ed.) Delhi, Government of India Press, Calcutta, India 1969.

Desai, Z. A., Mosques of India, Publications Devision, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Delhi 2003 (reprint)

Dryden, John, Aurangzeb: A tragedy, a drama first published in England in 1676.

Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, in 8 vols. London, Trubner and Co., 60, Paternoster Row, 1869.

Engineer, Asghar Ali, Babri-Masjid Ramjanambhoomi controversy, Ajanta Publications (India), Delhi, 1990.

Eraly, Abraham, The Lives and Times of the Great Mughals, Viking, New Delhi, 1997.

Erskine, William, A History of India Under the Two First Sovereigns of the House of Taimur : Bāber and Humāyun, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. 1854.

Erskine, William, Memoirs of Zehir-ed-din Muhammad Babur, Emperor of Hindustan, Longman, London, 1826.

Fausboll, V., The Jātaka together with its Commentary, Vol. 4, London,1887.

Ferishta, Mahomed Kasim, History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the year A.D. 1612, translated by John Briggs in English, Longman Press, Orme, Brown and Green, London, 1829.

Fisher, Michael H., A Clash of Cultures: Awadh, the British and the Mughals, Sangam, 1988 - India.

Foster, William, Early Travels in India 1583-1619, Humphrey Milford, Oxfort University Press, 1921.

Fryer, John, A New Account of East India and Persia, in Eight Letters Being Nine Years Crabels, Begun 1672, and Finished 1681.

Fuhrer, Anton, Ph.D., The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, with notes on Zafarabade, Sahet-Mahet and other Places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India, 1891.

George Routledge and Sons Limited, Picturesque India; A Handbook for European travellers. London, 1891.

Gibb, H.A.R., Ibn Battuta’s Travels in Asisa and Africa, 1325-1354, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2006.

Godbole, Madhav, Unfinished Innings, Orient Blackswan,1996.

Goldman, Robert P., The Rāmāyana of Vālmīki, Volume I, Balakanda, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1984.

Gonda, Jan, Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit, Wiesbaden, 1977.

Gopal, Lallanji, Ayodhya: History, Archaeology, and Tradition,(ed.), All India Kashiraj Trust, 1994.

Gopal, S., Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India, Penguin Books India Ltd. 1991.

Graaf, Nicolas De, “Voyages De Nicolas De Graaf Aux Indes Orientales”,(French) Amsterdam,1719 A.D.

Grierson, George Abraham, The Modern Vernacular Literature of Hindustan, Volume 57, Asiatic Society of Bangal, 1889.

Gul-Badan Begum, Humayun-nama, translated into English by A.S. Beveridge, Printed and Published under the Patronage of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1902.

Haas, Ernst, Catalogue of Sanskrit and Pāli Books in the British Museum,1876, London.

Hamid-ud-din Khan Bahadur, Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, Anecdotes of Aurangzib: Persian text, with an English translation, notes and a Life of Aurangzib, by Jadunath Sarkar, M.C. Sarkar & Sons, 1912.

Hamilton, Walter, The East India Gazetteer, printed for John Murray, Albemarle Street, By Dove, St. Johns Square, Clerlicmcell, London, 1815, 1828 A.D.

Hanif, N., Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufies : South Asia, Sarup & Sons, New Delhi, 2000.

Hans Bakker, Ayodhyā, Egbert Forsten Publishers, Groningen, Netherlands, 1986.

Hanway, An Historical Account of the British Trade Over the Caspian Sea: With a Journal of Travels, Vol. IV, London, 1753.

Hara Prasad Sastri and Professor Cecil Bendall, Catalogue of Palm Leaf and Selected Paper Mss. Belonging to the Durbar Library, Nepal”, Printed at the Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, 1905.

Hara Prasad Sastri, Mahamahopadhyaya and Raja Rajendralala Mitra Notices of Sanskrit manuscripts in 3 volumes.

Hardie, Martin , R.I., R.E. and Muriel Clayton, M.A., Journal of William Daniell, Walker's Quarterly’ Nos. 35-36 , London,1932

Harvey L.P., Ibn Battuta, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2007.

Herbert, Thomas, Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique, London,1638.

Irfan Habib, Akbar And His India (ed.), Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1997.

Irfan Habib, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Political and Economic Maps with Detailed Notes, Bibliography and Index, Oxford University Press, 1986.

Irvine, William, The Later Mughals, Sarkar, Jadunath (ed.), Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2006.

I-Tsing, A Record of The Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and The Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695), Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 2005.

Iqtidar Husain Siddiqi, Mughal relations with the Indian ruling Elite, Munshiram Manoharlal Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1983.

Jahangir, Memoirs of Emperor Jahangir, Translated by Major David Price, J. Murray, Albemarle Street, London,1829.

Jahangir, The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri; or, Memoirs of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Rogers, edited by Henry Beveridge, Royal Asiatic Society in London, 1909.

Jain, Meenakshi, Rāma and Ayodhyā, Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2013.

Jain, Meenakshi, The India They Saw, Foreign Accounts: 16th-17th Centuries, Volume III, Ocean Books Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2011.

Jain, Meenakshi, The India They Saw, Foreign Accounts: 8th-15th Centuries, Volume II, Ocean Books Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2011.

Jain, Sandhya, The India They Saw, Foreign Accounts: 5th Century BC7th Century A.D., Volume I, Ocean Books Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2011.

Jha, D.N., Ancient India in Historical Outline, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi-110002, 2010.

Jha, Krishna and Dhirendra K. Jha, Ayodhyā: The Dark Night, The Secret History of Rama’s Appearance in Babri Masjid, Harper Collins Publishers, New Delhi, 2012.

Joshi, Sanjay, Unveiling Ajitsingh’s Sanskrit Biography, Books Treasure, Jodhpur, 2004.

Kanda, K.C., Allama Iqbal, Selected Poetry, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2006.

K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, Asian Variations in Rāmāyana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 1983.

Kane, P.V. M.M., History of Dharmashshtras, Government Oriental Series, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1958.

Karl Marx, On Colonialism, second impression, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1850.

Khan, A.R., The Ayodhya Syndrome: The Intelligentsia’s Verdict Kitab Bhavan, Delhi, 2000.

Kipling, Rudyard, From Sea to Sea/Letters of Marque, Wildside Press LLC, 2009.

Kincaid, Dennis, The History of Shivaji, Dharika Publications, Delhi, 2004.

Koenraad Elst, Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, Voice of India, 1990.

Krishnamachariar, Madabhushi, History of Classical Sanskrit Literature: Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams Press, 1937.

Kumar, Arvind & Kusum Kumar, Samāntara Kośa, National Book Trust of India, Delhi, 2013.

Laet, John de (Joannes Laetius), De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius i.e. The Empire of the Great Mogol, translated from Latin into English by John S. Hoyland and published in 1927 at Patiala with an introduction and annotation by S.N. Banerjee.

Lane Poole, Stanle, Aurangzib And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896.

Lane-Poole, Stanley, Mediaeval India Under Mohammedan Rule A.D. 7121764, G.P. Putnam, 1912.

Langlès, Louis Mathieu and Barbié Dubocage, Monuments anciens et modernes de l’Hindoustan , Paris,1821

Legge, James, A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, Oxford University Press, Warehouse, Amen Corner, 1886.

Macpherson, Allen & John, Soldiering in India, 1764-1787: Extracts from Journals and Letters left by Lt. Colonel Allan Macpherson, and Lt. Colonel John Macpherson of the East India Company Service, W. Blackwood, 1928.

Mahomet, Sake Dean, The Travels of Dean Mahomet, University of California Press, 1997.

Majumdar, A.K., Concise History of Ancient India, Vol. I Political History, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 1977.

Majumadar, R.C., The Mughal Empire, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1974.

Majumdar, R.C. & K.K. Dasgupta, A Comprehensive History of India, Volume III, Part II (A.D. 300-985), People’s Publishing House, New Delhi,1982.

Majumdar, R.C., The Classical Accounts of India, Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcuta, 1960.

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra & Anant Sadashiv Altekar, The Vakataka-Gupta Age (Circa 200-550 A.D.), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1967.

Majumdar, A.K., Concise History of Ancient India, Vol. III, Hinduism: Society Religon & Philosophy, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 1983.

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, Advanced History of India, Macmillan, 1949.

Malleson Colonel G.B., C.S.I., Akbar and Rise of the Mughal Empire, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2008.

Manucci, Niccolo, Storia-do-Mogor (The Story of the Mughals), Translated with Introduction and Notes by William Irvine, London, John Murray, Albemarle Street, Published for The Government of India, 1907.

Martin, Francois (1670-1694) India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and Political), tr. into English by Lotika Varadarajan, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1989.

Martin, Montgomary, The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India, London, W 11. Allen and Co. Leadenhall-Street, 1838.

Martin, Montgomary, The Indian Empire, The London Printing and Publishing Company, Limited; St. John Street, London; and 55, Dey Street, New York. 1858-61.

Maurice, Thomas, History of Hindostan ...During the Most Ancient Period of the World, Volume 3, London, 1819.

Maurice, Thomas, Indian Antiquities, Volume 6, published by the author, London, 1796.

Mc Crindle, J.W., Ancient India as Described by Ptolemy, Thacker, Spink, & Company, Calcutta,1885.

M’Culloch, J.R., ESQ, A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical Vol. 2, New York, Harper-R & Brothers, Publishers, 329 & 331 Pearl Street, Franklin Square, 1842.

Mentelle, C., Cours De Cosmographie, De Géographie, De Chronologie Et D’Histoire Ancienne Et Moderne (Courses of Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern), Bernard, Paris, 1801.

Mirza Haidar, The Tarikh-I-Rashidi; A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia; An English Version, Dughlat Muhammad Haidar, S. Low, Marston and Company, 1895.

Moosvi, Shireen, Episodes in the Life of Akbar Contemporary Records and Reminiscences, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1994.

Moreland, W.H., From Akbar To Aurangzeb, A Study in Indian Economic History, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2008.

Mukherjee, Rudrangshu, Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858 A Study of Popular Resistance, Ravi Dayal Publisher, New Delhi, 2008.

Murray, Hugh, F.R.S.E.S, the publisher, Marco Polo’s travel accounts, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, Tweeddale Court; and Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., London, 1845.

Muzaffar Alam & Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Mughal State 1526-1750, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009.

Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India; Awadh to the Punjab 1707-1748, Oxford India Perennials Series, OUP India, 2013.

N. Parthasarathy, Sri Ratna Kim Suro (The Legend of Ayodhyā Princess in Korea), National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2013.

Narain, Harsh, The Ayodhya Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, Penman Publishers, Delhi, 1993.

Narasimha Rao, P.V., Ayodhya, 6 December, 1992, Penguin India, 2006.

Nath, R., History of Mughal Architecture, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 2006.

Nath, R., The Baburi Masjid of Ayodhyā, Historical Research Documentation Programme, Jaipur, 1991.

Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., A Comprehensive History Of India, Volume II, The Mauryas and Satavahanas 325 B.C. - A.D.-300, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 1987.

Nizami, Mohammad Habib Khaliq Ahmad, A Comprehensive History of India, Volume V, Part I, “The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526)”, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 2006.

Nizami, Mohammad Habib Khaliq Ahmad, A Comprehensive History of India, Volume V, Part II, The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526), People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 2000.

Noorani, A.G., The Babri Masjid Question, 1528-2003: ‘A Matter of National Honour’, Vols. I & II, Tulika Books, New Delhi, 2003.

Noti, Severin, Joseph Tieffentaller, S.J., a forgotten geographer of India, Nirnaya-sagar Press, Bombay, 1906.

Oaten, Edward Farley, “European Travellers in India: During the Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, London, 1909, Reprint- Asian Educational Services, 1991.

Orme, Robert, Historical Fragments of the Mughal Empire, Of the morattoes, and of the English Concerns in Indostan from the Year 1659, London, 1805.

Ovington, J., A Voyage to Suratt, in the year, 1689, London, Printed for Jcob Tonson, at the Judges Head in fleet-Street, 1696.

Pargiter, F.E., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1997.

Pattabhi Sitaramayya,The Feathers and the Stones: My Study Window’, Padma Publications, 1946.

Pogson, Wrendenhall Robert, A History of the Bundelas, Asiatic Lithographic Company, Calcutta, 1828

Prabhakar Narayan Kawthekar, Bilhana (Makers of Indian Literature Series), Sahitya Academy, first edition, 1995.

Prasad, P.V.R.K., Wheels behind the Veil, Former PM’s media advisor speaks, Emiesco Books, Hyderabad-500029, November, 2012.

Pratapaditya Pal, (ed.) Indian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, University of California Press, 1986.

Purchas, Samuel, Pilgrimage or Relations of the world and the Religions observed in all ages and places, printed by William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, London,1614 A.D.

Qanungo, K.R., Dara Shukoh, Calcutta, 1935.

Qeyamuddin Ahmad, India by Al-Biruni, National Book Trust, Delhi, 1988.

R.D. Banerji, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, Vol. 23, Government of India, Calcutta, 1931.

Radhe Shyam, Babar, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1978.

Richard M. Eaton, (ed.) India’s Islamic Traditions 711-1750, Oxford University Press, 2006.

Routledge, George, (publisher), Picturesque India: a handbook for European travellers , George Routledge and Sons Limited, London in 1891,

Romila Thapar, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sachau, Edward C., Alberuni’s India, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 2007; Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 2004.

Saidbekobich, Khamidbek Khasanov, Prof., ‘(Ph.D. dissertation) ‘Scientific analysis of the treatise by Zakhiriddin Muhammad Babur on Islamic fiqh Mubayyin’ Taskent Islamic University, 2010, p. 170

Saki Mustaid Khan, Muhammad, Maasir-i Alamgiri, translated into English by Jadunath Sarkar, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1947.

Samuel Beal, SI-YU-KI, Buddhist Records of The Western World, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1981.

Sarkar, Jadunath, A Short History of Aurangzeb, Orient Black Swan Private Limited, New Delhi,1st edition, 2009.

Sarkar, Jadunath, History of Aurangzeb, in 5 volumes, Longmans, Green, 1920-24.

Sarkar, Jadunath, Shivaji and His Times, Orient Longman, Mumbai, 1997.

Sarkar, Jadunath, Studies in Aurangzib’s Reign, Orient Longman, 1933, reprint 1989.

Sarvepalli Gopal, Anatomy of Confrontation: Ayodhyā and the Rise of Communal Politics in India, Penguin Books India 1991.

Sarvepalli Gopal and others, The Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid—Ram Janmabhumi Dispute. New Delhi, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 1989 (updated 1992).

Sarwani, Abbas Khan, Tarik-i-Shershahi, translated by B.P. Ambashthya, Patna, 1974.

Satish Chandra, Essays on Medieval Indian History, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003.

Satish Chandra, History of Medieval India (800-1700), Orient Blackswan Private Limited, New Delhi, 2009.

Say, Samuel, Poems on Several Occasions: And Two Critical Essays, London, Printed by John Hughs, near Lincolns-Inn-Fields, 1745.

Scott, Sir Walter, Marmion : Tale of Flodden Field, Exeter (U.K.), J & B. Williams, 1836.

Setumadhavarao, S. Pagadi, Shivaji, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1983.

Shah Jahan Begum (Nawab of Bhopal), The Taj-ul-ikbal Tarikh Bhopal, or, The History of Bhopal, translated into English by H.C. Barstow, Thacker, Spink & Co., Calcutta, 1876.

Shams ud Daula Shah Nawaz Khan, Nawab and his son Abdul Hai Khan, Masir-ul-Umara tr. into English by Beni Prasad and H. Beveridge, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.

Sharma, R.S. & K.M. Shrimali, A Comprehensive History of India, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 1992.

Sharma, R.S., Communal History and Rama’s Ayodhyā, People’s Publishing House, 1990.

Sharma, S.R., Mughal Empire in India, Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi, 1999.

Sharma, S.R., Mughal Empire in India, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Educational Publishers, Agra-3, 1974.

Shuaib, Maulvi, the report published in Annual Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, 1906-07, Northern Circle, Agra.

Shukla, B.C. , “The earliest Inscription of Rāma Worship.” Art, Archaeology And, Culture of Eastern India: Dr. B.S. Verma Felicitation Volume, (ed.) Chitta Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Bhagwati Sharan Verma, Bihar Puravid Parishad, 1997.

Sircar, D. C., Aspects of the Cultural History of Ancient Bihar, Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1983.

Sircar, D.C., Problems of Rāmāyana, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (1979).

Sircar, D.C., Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1971.

Sircar, D.C., The Śākta Pīthas, Motilal Banarasidass Private Limited, Delhi, Reprint, 1998.

Singh, Dr. Suresh Kumar, People of India, Anthropological Survey of India, 2008.

Srinisvasa Iyengar, K.R., Asian Variations in Rāmāyana, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1983.

Stanley Lane-Poole, Babar, Clarendon Press, Oxford, London 1899.

Sushil Srivastava, The Disputed Mosque, Delhi, 1991.

Thackston, Wheeler M., The Babur-nama, Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.

Takakusu, J., Life of Vasubandhu, T’oung-pao, 1904.

Thevenot, Monsieur de, The Travels of Thevenot, London, 1687.

Thornton, Edward, A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of East India Company, 1854.

Tieffenthaler, Joseph (German version) “Des Pater Joseph Tieffenthalers d. Ges. Jesu. und apost. Missionarius in Indien historisch-geographische Beschreibung von Hindustan” 3 vols., Berlin-Gotha, 1785–87).

Tieffenthaler, Joseph (French version) Description. Historique Et Geographique De L’ Inde, Johann Bernoulli (ed.), Berlin, 178691.

Tirmizi, S.A.I., Mughal Documents, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1989.

Tirmizi, S.A.I., Mughal Documents (1628-1659), Volume II, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1995.

Tripathi, R.P., Rise and Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. 1&2, Surjeet Publications, Delhi, 2011.

Tulasi Das, Gosvami, Ramcharita Manas, tr. into English verse by Rev. A.G. Father Atkins., Birla Academy of Art and Culture, Calcutta, 1966.

Van der Veer, Peter, Gods on Earth: The Management of Religious Experience and Identity in a North Indian Pilgrimage Center, London School of Economics monographs on social Anthropology, London, Athlone Press, 1988.

Varadarajan, Lotika, India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and Political) Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694), Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1981, 1984.

Vishnu Bhatta Godshe Versaikar’s book, 1858 The Real Story of the Great Uprising, tr. by Mrinal Pande, Harper Perennial, 2011.

Walker, John, The Universal Gazetteer, Allen, and Co., 2nd edition, London, 1798.

Wehmeier, Sally, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2005.

William R. Pinch, Peasants and Monks in British India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1996.

Will Durant, The Pleasures of Philosophy, A touchstone Book, Simon and schusten, New York, 1952

Zelliot, Eleanor & Rohini Mokashi-Punekar, Untouchable Saints An Indian Phenomenon, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2005.

Official Publications

Annual Progress Report of the office of the Archaelogical Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra for 1906-07.

Asiatic researches; or, Transactions of the Society, instituted in Bengal for Inquiring Into the History and Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, and Literature of Asia” Vol. XV. Asiatic Society of Bengal, Serampore,1825.

Brooke’s General Gazetteer (Abridged, London. 1796 A.D.)

Buchanan’s Manuscript: Ms. EUR, D 91: Gorakhpur 1: Book 2. 1813-14.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Edited by Chakles G.Herbermann, Ph.D., LLD. and others, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, inc.

District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh: Barabanki, Allahabad, 1905.

Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II (1894), ed., Jas Burgess (reprint 1983).

Epigraphia Indica,Vol. VIII (1905-06), ed., E. Hultzsch (reprint 1981).

Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IX (1907-08), ed., E. Hultzsch (reprint 1981).

Epigraphia Indica,Vol. XIV (1917-18), ed., F.W. Thomas (reprint 1982).

Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXII, (1957-58), ed., D.C. Sircar and B. Ch. Chhabra (reprint 1987).

Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXIII, (1959-60), ed., D.C. Sircar (reprint 1987).

Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXIV, (1960-61), ed., D.C. Sircar (reprint 1987).

Epigraphia India; Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1964-65, ed., Z.A. Desai (Reprint 1987).

Indian Antiquary, vol. XL, ed., J.F. Fleet and R. C. Temple, Bombay, Education Society’s Press, 1886.

Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh ed., W.C. Bennet, Allahabad, 1877 A.D.

The Imperial Gazetteer of India published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council from Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1908.

Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 53, 1884.

Journal of The Asiatic Society of Bengal, New Series Vol. VII, 1911.

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XLIV, 1875.

Journal of the University of Bombay, University of Bombay, Vol. 9.

Judgment of Allahabad High Court on Ayodhya Dispute, September, 2010.

Parliamentary Register of the Great Britain Parliament, London: Printed for J. Debrett, Picsadily, 1781.

Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1875.

Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 2003, printed in 2004.

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 67th Session 2006-07.

The Indian Express, March 17, 1990.

The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1889.

The London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer, Dublin, Printed for Sarah and John Exshaw, 1752.

The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, with Notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and Other Places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, by A. Führer, with Drawings and Architectural Descriptions by Ed. W. Smith, Edited by Jas. Burgess, Superintendent of Government Printing, 1889.

Times of India, report dated 1st Sept. 2001.

White Paper on Ayodhya, Government of India, February, 1993.

White Paper on Ayodhya & The Rama Temple movement, Bharatiya Janata Party, April, 1993.

Articles

Athar Ali, M., “The Religious Issue in the War of Succession 1658-59”, an article, Medieval India Quarterly 5: 80-87, 1963; also compiled in his book Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society, and Culture, Oxford University Press, 2006.

Bopearachchi, Osmund, Recent Archaeological Discoveries from Afgha-nistan Destructon of Cultural Heritage , (Article) Bamiyan: Challenge to World Heritage, K. Warikoo(ed.), Pentagon Press; reprint, Third Eye, Bhavana Biiks & Prints, Delhi, 2004

Catanin, Thomas, “An Episode in Oudh History”, an article published in Pioneer dated 20th June, 1902.

Clegg, Samuel, “Lectures on Architecture”, An article, published in the book “Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, Scientific and Railway Gazetter.” Vol. 13, London, R. Groombridge and Sons, 5, Paternoster Row; J. Weale, 59, 1850.

Commissariat, M.S., Khan Bahadur, “Imperial Mughal Farmans in Gujarat”, an article, Journal of the University of Bombay, Vol. 9.

Crooke, W., “Songs About the King of Oudh : a poetry”, published in Indian Antiquary, Vol. XL, 1911.

Fell, Captain E., “Sanscrit Inscriptions”, an article, Asiatic researches or transactions of the Society instituted in Bengal, for inquiring into the history and antiquities, the arts, sciences, and literature, of Asia, with observations by H.H. Wilson, Volume 15, 1825.

Hans Bakker, “Ayodhyā: A Hindu Jerusalem”, an article, Numen, Vol. 38, Fasc. 1, pp. 80-109 published by Brill Publishers in Leiden, The Netherlands.

Harsh Narain, “The Ayodhyā Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Urdu and Persian Sources” (article), Ayodhyā: History, Archaeology and Tradition, ed. By Lalanji Gopal, All India Kashiraj Trust, 1994.

Irfan Habib, “Medieval Ayodhyā (Awadh) down to the Mughal Ocupation”, an article, published in the Proceedings – Indian History Congress, Calicut, 67th session, 2006-07.

Jahnavi Shekhar Roy, “The Upper Date of Ayodhyāmāhatmya of Skanda-purāna”, an article published in the Journal ‘Purānam’ (Vol. 37), All-India Kasiraja Trust, 1995.

Lal, K.S., “Ramajanmabhumi Mandir/Babri Masjid: A Historical Perspective”, an article published in the book edited by Asghar Ali Engineer, Babri-Masjid Ramjanambhoomi controversy, Ajanta Publications (India), 1990.

Jong, J. W. De, “The Story of Rāma in Tibet”, published article in the book-Asian Variations in Rāmāyana, Kodaganallur Ramaswami Srinivasa Iyengar (ed.), Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 2005.

Karl Marx, “The Annexation of Oudh”, an article published in On Colonialism, second impression, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1850.

Mukhia, Harbansh, “The Ramajanmabhumi-Babari Masjid Dispute: Evidence from Medieval India”, an article in Ayodhya: History, Archaeology, and Tradition, Lallanji Gopal (ed.), All India Kashiraj Trust, 1994.

Marigny, Abbé de (1690-1762), “The Character of the Mogul Emperor Aurenzeb, who died in the Year 1707”, an exerpt from the book “The History of the Revolutions of the Arabian Empire,” published in The London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer, Dublin, 1752.

Pande, B.N., “Distortion of Medieval Indian History”, compiled in the book Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Library, Patna, 1987.

Panikkar, K.N., “A Historical Overview”, an article in Anatomy of a Confrontation, Sarvepalli Gopal (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, 1993.

Pathak, V.S. and J.N. Tiwari, “Rāma Janma-bhūmi Bhavana- The Testimony of Ayodhyā Māhātmya”, an article published in the book ‘Ayodhyā’ Kashi Raj Trust, 1994.

Paul Horn, “Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Dihli”, an article published in Epigraphia Indica Vol. II, ed., Jas Burgess, 1894.

Paul Mus, “Études indiennes et indochinoises. I. L’inscription à Valmiki de Prakaçadharma (Trà-ki?u),” BEFEO, 28 (1928), 147-152.

Prasad, Pushpa, “Three Recently Found Inscriptions at Ayodhyā”, an article in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 64th Session, Mysore, 2003.

Sen, Rajani Ranjan, B.L, “Aurangzeb’s Benaras Farman”, an article in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, New Series Vol. VII of 1911.

Sen, S.N., “Joseph Tieffenthaler and his Geography of Hindustan”, Journal of the Asiatic Society (Vol. IV, 1962 Nos. 3 & 4).

Sharma, R.S. and others, “A Historians’ Report to the Nation” authored by Professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991.

Smith, V.A., “A classified and detailed catalogue of the gold coins of the imperial Gupta dynasty of Northern India”, an article published in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 53, Issue II, 1884.

Woodburn, J., “Epitome of the Ajudhia mahatama”, quoted by P. Carnegy, op. cit.

Sanskrit Books

Agastya-sam¢hitā, Pt. Bhavanath Jha (ed.) Mahavir Mandir Prakashan, Patna, 2009.

Adhyātma-rāmāyanam, Pt. Kuber Nath Shukla, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1998.

Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Kalidasa, Eng. translation by Arthur W. Ryder, London & Toronto, published by J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. New York, (1912).

Abhisheka Nātaka, Bhāsa, Chowkhambha Bidyabhawan Varanasi, 3rd edition, 1982.

Anan¢ga-ran¢ga, Kalyāna Malla, English translation by Richard Francis Burton, on web.

Arthaśāstra, Kautilya, T. Ganapati Shastri, Anantshayan Sanskrit Granthavali- 83, Anantshayan, 1924.

Ādi-purāna (Jain text), Āchārya Jinasena, ed. with Hindi translation by Pt. Pannalal Jain, Bharatiya Jnanapitha, Kashi (Varanasi), 1963.

Āsafa-vilāsa, Jagannatha Panditaraja, Panditarāja Jagannātha Kāvya Granthāvalī, Dr. Hari Narayan Dikshit (ed.) Eastern Book Linkers, Delhi, 1996.

Ayodhyā-māhātmya from the Rudra-yāmala, Agama text, Varanasi in 1868 A.D.

Ayodhyā-māhātmya, quoted text in ‘Ayodhya’ by Hans Bakker and many manuscripts.

Ayodhyā-māhātmya, a manuscript at BORI, Pune, 1802 A.D.

Bāla-Rāmāyana, Rājaśekhara, Dr. Ganga Sagar Rai (ed.) Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi, 1984.

Brahmānda Purāna, Krishnadas Academy, Varanasi, 1983.

Brihat Sam¢hitā, Varahamihira, Pt. Achyutanand Jha, Chawkhambha Vidya Bhawan, Varanasi, 1997.

Buddhacharitam, Asvaghosha, ed. by E.H. Johnston, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers, reprint, 2004.

Chaturvarga-chintāmani, Hemadri, ed. by Pandita Sadashiva Acharya Dikshita, Prabhakari & Company, Banaras Cantt., 1902.

Dānasāgara, Vallālasen, Bhavatosh Bhattacharya, (ed.) Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1953.

Dvārakā-pattalam, Binabai, third volume of ‘The Contribution of Women to Sanskrit Literature’ by Jatindra Vimal Chaudhari at Calcutta, 1941 A.D.

Dvyāśraya Kāvya alias Kumārapālacharita, Hemachandra Suri, Edited by Shankar Panduranga Pandit, Bhandarakar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1936.

Hanuman-nātaka of Dāmodara Miśra, with Dipika commentary of Shri Mohan Das, M/S Khemraj Shrikrishnadas, Mumbai, 1909.

Jahān¡gīra-virudāvalī, Harideva Miśra, ed. Jagannatha Pathaka, Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrta Vidyapith, Allahabad, 1978.

Jānakī-haranam, Kumāradāsa, ed. by Shastri Narayan Vasudev Nigudkar, English tr. by K.M. Goglekar, The Oriental Publishing Company, Bombay, 1908.

Kalpa-pradīpa of Jinaprabha Sūri, (with Hindi translation) Dr. Shriranjan Surideo, Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa, Vaishali, 2010 see also Vividha-tīrtha-kalpa.

Kāśikā-vritti, Vāmana-jayāditya, edited by Pandit Bala Shastri, Medical Hall, Kashi, 2nd edition, 1898.

Kathā-sarit-sāgara, Somadeva, edited by Pandit Durgaprasad and Kashinath Pandurang Parab, published by Pandurang Jawaji (at the Nirnay-Sagar Press, Bombay), 4th edition, 1930.

Kavīndra-chandrodaya, Kavindracharya, Ed. By Vidyasudhakar Hara datta Sharma and M. Patkar, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1939.

Kavyālan¢kara sūtra-vritti, Vāmana, ed. by Shri Gopendra Tripurahara Bhupala, Published and Printed by: Shri Vani Vilas Press, Sri Rangam, 1909.

Khandana-khanda-khādya, Śrīharsha, Hindi tr. by Chandi Prasad Mukul, Achyuta Granthmala Karyalaya, Kasi, 1963.

Krishna-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī, ebook created and uploaded by iskcon on web.

Kritya Kalpataru, tithi-vratas, Lakshmīdhara, ed. by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Baroda Oriental Institute, 1943.

Kritya-ratnākara, Chandeśvara, ed. by Kamala Krishna Smrititeerth, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1925.

Kulārnava Tantra, Āgama text, Introduction by Arthur Ravalon, (Sir John Woodroff), Readings, M.P. Pandit, Sanskrit Text – Taranath Vidyaratna, Motilal Banarasidass Private Limited, Delhi, 2000.

Likhanāvalī, Vidyāpati, Indrakant Jha, Indralaya Prakashan, Patna, 1994.

Madhurā-vijaya, Gangādevī, ed. by Smt. Sharada Mishra, Shri Sharada Publication and Printing Mart, Patrakar Nagar, Patna, 2001.

Mahābhārata, Geeta press, Gorakhpur, 1976.

Mahābhāshya, Patañjali’s great Commentary on the grammatical Sutras of Panini by Pandit Rajarama. Vgl. Record, Börsenbl. No. 256, 1872.

Mālavikāgnimitram, Kālidāsa, Shankar P. Pandit (Ed.), Government Central Book Depot. Bombay, 1869.

Malaya-Māruta, An anthology, ed. by V. Raghavan, The Rashtriya Samskrita Samsthan, New Delhi, 1973.

Mitāksharā, Jīmutavāhana, Late Rai Bahadur Sris Chandra Vidyarnava, Panini Office, Bhavaneshvari Ashram, Allahabad, 1918.

Nīla-mata-purānam, Sanskrit text only, ed. by Ram Lal Kapilal and Pandit Jagad-dhara Zadoo published by Motilal Banarasi Das, The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, Lahore, 1924.

Pratimā Nātaka, Bhāsa, edited with English and Bengali translation by Sharada Ranjan Ray, Calcutta, 1942.

Raghuvam¢śa, Kālidāsa, M.R. Kale (ed.), Gopal Narayan & Co. Book-Sellers, Publishers, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay, 1952.

Rājataranginī, Kalhana, Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 1989.

Rāma-mānasa-pūjā, (Ms.) Pennsylvania University, UPenn Ms. Coll. 390, Item 429; Published with Hindi translation by Pt. Bhavanath Jha in Dharmayan, patna vol. 84, October-December, 2014.

Rāma-rakshā-stotram, Budhakauśika, Stotra-ratnāvalī, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 2014.

Rasārnava, Śan¢kara Mi¢śra, Dr. Kishoranath Jha (Ed.), Gairvani Gaurava Granthmala, no. 6, Ganganath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, 1991.

Śabda-kalpa-druma, dictionary, Sir Radhakant Deb, Motilal Banarasidas, 1961.

Saddharma-pundarīka, Buddhist text, Dr. Rammohan Das, (ed.) Bihar Rastrabhasha Parishad, Patna, 2001.

Sadukti-karnāmritam, Śrīdharadāsa, Radhavallabh Tripathi, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 2007.

Sarva-deśa-vrittānta sam¢grah, M.M. Maheśa Thakkura, Dr. Subhadra Jha (Ed.), Patna University Publication, 1962.

Satyopākhyāna, Venkateshwar Press, Mumbai, 1882 A.D.

Satyopākhyāna, edited by Dr. Shailja Pandeya, Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Ganganath Jha Parisar, Allahabad, 2003.

Saundara-nanda, Aśvaghosha, edited by E.H. Johnston, University of the Panjab, Lahore, Oxford University Press, London, 1928.

Saundarya-Laharī, Śankarāchārya, with the commentary of Lakshmi Dhara Sastry, Hyderabad: Sakhyayana Vidya Parishat, 1999.

Shat-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmi, ebook created and uploaded by ISKCON on web.

Sāmba-Purāna ed. by Pandit Shri Gaurikant Jha, published by the editor, 2001.

Śāhajahān¡ virudāvalī, Raghudava Miśra, Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Ganganath Jha Parisar, Allahabad, 1979.

Siddhānta-kaumudī, Bhattoji Dīkshita, Edited and translated into English by Srisa Chandra Vasu, Published at The Panini Office, Bhuvaneshwari Ashram, 88-40 Bahadurganj, Allahabad, 1905.

Skanda-Purāna, M/S Khemraj Shrikrishnadas, Mumbai, 1911; reprint: Nag Publications, Delhi, 1986.

Subhāshita-ratna-bhāndāgara, an anthology of more than 10000 subhashitas (wisdom sayings) from Sanskrit literature, compiled by Ram Narayan Acharya, Nirnaya Sagar Press, Mumbai, 1952.

Sulaimān-charita, Kalyāna-malla, compiled in the book Malaya-mārutam, ed. by V. Raghavana, The Rashtriya Samskrita Samsthan, New Delhi, 1973.

Tilaka-mañjarī, Dhanapāla, ed. by Pt. Bhavadatta Shastri and Kasinath Panduranga Parab, Kavyamala, Vol. 85, Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay, 1938.

Udbhata-Sāgara, ed. by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara, reprint- Sharada Printing House, Delhi, 1993.

Vālmīki Rāmāyana, Vālmīki, tr. into English by Ralph T.H. Griffith, Benaras, 1895.

Vāyu Purāna, with Hindi translation, Rampratap Tripathi Shastri, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, 1987.

Vikraman¢kadeva-charitam, Bilhana, ed. by G. Buhler, Bombay, Government Central Book Depot, 1875; Pt. Vishwanath Shastri Bhradwaj, The Banaras Hindu University, 1958.

Vividha-tīrtha–kalpa, Jinaprabha Sūri, Singhi Jain Granthamala, 10, Shantinaiketana, Bengal, 1930; translated into Hindi, Dr. Shriranjan Surideo, Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa, Vaishali, 2010. see also Kalpa-pradipa of Jinaprabha Sūri.

Virabhanudaya Kavyam, Madhav, ed. & translated by K.K. Lele and A.S. Upadhayaya, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow,1938.

Yājñavalkya Smriti with Mitāksharā, translated into English by Rai Bahadur Srish Chandra Vidyaranya, Sudhindra Nath Vasu, at the Panini Office, Bahadurganj, Allahabad, 1918.

Yātrā-prabandha, Samarapun¢gava Dīkshita, edited by Pandita Kedaratha, Published by Pandurang Jawaji, Proprietor of the ‘Nirnaya Sagar’ Press, Mumbai, 1936.

Yuga Purāna, ed. by Mitchiner John E., The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, September, 2002.

Hindi Books

Ashtāchakrā Ayodhyā : Itihāsa Aur Paramparā, Mohan Chand Tivari, Uttarayan Prakashan, Delhi, 2006.

Avadha Yātra, Munsi Ray Gur Sharana Lal Avadhvasi, Munsi Navalkishore Printing Press, Lucknow, 1869.

Avadha-vilāsa, Lal Das, ed. By Dr. Chandrika Prasad Dikshita ‘Lalit’, Chanda Das Sahitya Shodh Sansthan, Banda, 1985.

Ayodhyā Ka Itihāsa, Lala Sitarama, Avadhvasi, Hindustani Academy, Prayag, 1932.

Ayodhyā -māhātmya, Hajari, published by Seth Chhotelal Laxmichand of Bombay and printed at Jain Press, Lucknow in 1901.

Baburnama, Yugajita Naval puri (tr.) Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 2004.

Bhāratīya Samaskriti men Āryāvarta kī Ayodhyā, Ramadeo Shastri, Shri Sadguru Rambalakdasa, 2014.

Champū Rāmāyana kā Sāhityika Pariśīlana, Kumari Karuna Shrivastava, Kashi Hundu University, Varanasi, 1968.

Chhatra-prakāśa, Lal Kavi, Major Price (Ed.), Fort William in 1829.

Gupta-rājavam¢asa Tathā Usakā Yuga, Uday Narayan Roy, Lokbharati Prakashan, Allahabad, 1986.

Hindi Sāhitya Kā Itihāsa, Dr. Nagendra, National Publishing House, Delhi, 1973.

Madhyakālina Bhārata, Harishchandra Verma, Directorate of Hindi Medium Implementation, Delhi University, 2009.

Pāli Sāhitya Kā Itihāsa, Bharat Singh Upadhyay, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, 2000.

Prāchīna Bhārata Kā Itihāsa, in 3 vols. Shri Ram Goel, Kusumanjali Book World, Jodhpur, 1998.

Purāna, Vol. XXXIII, No. 2, All-India Kashiraj Trust, Fort, Ramnagar, Varanasi, 1991.

Purāna, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, All-India Kashiraj Trust, Fort, Ramnagar, Varanasi, 1994.

Rāmajanmabhūmi: Yahī hai Akātya Tathya, booklet by Vishva Hindu Parishad.

Rāmakathā Utpatti Aur Vikāsa, Father Camille Bulcke, Hindi Parishad Prayag Vishvavidyalaya, 1997.

Sanskrit Sādhanā, Vidyaniwas Mishra, Ayasa Bharati, Saharanpur, 1990.

Selections from Hindi Literature, vol.1, Sita Ram, Lala , University of Calcutta, 1921.

Śri Rāma Bhakti Kā Vikāsa, Mithila Prasad Tripathi, Shri Manas Prakashanam, Indore, 1993.

Śri Rāma Janmabhūmi : Sachitra Prāmānika Itihasa, by Dr. Radheshyam Shukla.

Śri Rāma Janmabhūmi ka Rakta Ranjit Itihasa, Late Pt. Sri Ramgopal Pandey ‘Visarad’.

Śri-mahārāja-charitra, Raghunatha Prasada of Badā Sthān, Ayodhya.

The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Vaman Shivram Apte, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1985.

Vālmīki-rāmāyana Advitīya Mahākāvya, Manjula Sahadeo, Maharshi Valmiki Peeth, Panjabi University, Patiyala, 1999.

Vinaya-patrikā, Tulasi Das, Geeta Press, Gorakhpur.

Other Books

Pāli, Jātaka-atthakathā, Buddhaghosha, on web http://www.tipitaka.org/

Pali, Jātaka, 4th volume, tr. into Hindi Bhadant Anand Kausalyayan

Pāli, Samyutta Nikāya, on web http://www.tipitaka.org/

Pāli, Ghata-Jātaka on web http://www.tipitaka.org/

Pāli, Sartha-ppakasinī. on web http://www.tipitaka.org/

Pāli, Mahā-parinibbana Sutta, from Ten Sutras from Digh Nikaya (Long Discources of the Buddha), Burma Pitak Association Publication Rangoon, reprinted by Central Istitute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, 1987.

Pāli, Chūlavam¢sa on web http://www.tipitaka.org/

Panjabi, Vachitra Nātaka’ Guru Gobind Singh, Daśama Grantha Sāhiba, Vol.1, Bhuvan Vani Trust. Lucknow, 2002.

Persian, Tarikh-i-Daudi, Abdullah.

Persian, Fasana-i-Ibrat, Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Sarur (1787-1867).

Persian, Dabistan-i-Mazahib, in three volumes, Md. Mohsin Fani, translated into English by David Shea and Anthony Troyer under the title, The Dabistan or School of Manners, London 1843.

Persian, Masir-i-Alamgiri, Saqi Mustad Khan, Translated into English and annotated by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1. Park Street, 1947.

Persian, Riyazu-s-salatin: A History of Bengal by Ghulam Husain Salim, Translated from the original Persian by Maulavi Abdus Salam, The Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, 1902.

Persian, Tārikh-i-Sher Sāhi, Abbas Khan Sarwani, abstract compiled in the book The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians, vol. 4

Mentioned books

Persian, Fasanah-i-Ibrat, Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867).

Muraqqa-i Khusrawi, Shaykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorwi Nami (1811-1893).

Tarikh-i Awadh, Muhammad Najmu ‘I-Ghani Khan Rampuri.

Diya-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammad Hasan.

Fasanah-i-Ibrat by Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur

Guamgashtah Halat-i-Ajodhya ya’ni Tarikh-i Parinah-i Madinath’i-Auliya

Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matl’an- Nur al-Mashriq by Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abdul Hayy

Mirat ul-Ahwal-i-Jahan Numa of Ahmed al-Behzahani

Hadiqah-i Shuhada by Mirza Jan

Nuh-sipihr

Nur al-Mashriq

Panjabi, Tawarikh Guru Khālsā : vol. I”, Gyani Gyan Singh Guru Gobind Singh Press, Sialkot in 1891 A.D.

Panjabi, Janam Sākhī Bhāi Bālā, Guru Nanak Deva.

Panjabi, Ādi Sākhian¡, Guru Nanak Deva.

Panjabi, Sri Guru Tiratha San¢grahī, Tarasingh Narottam Sri Nirmal Panchayati Akhara, Kankhal.

