Kishore Kunal

Acharya Kishore Kunal (b. 1950) is a retired Indian Police Service Officer and Sanskrit scholar from the state of Bihar, India.

Ayodhyā revisited

 * Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.


 * Preface
 * 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... (Preface)


 * 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).(M.C. Joshi, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, ,quoted in Preface)


 * 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. (Preface)


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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. (...) 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.


 * 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.


 * 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!


 * Chapter 1


 * 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’.


 * 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... 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.


 * 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.


 * 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. ... 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.


 * 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.


 * Chapter 2
 * 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


 * It is now learnt that Ram Narayan had a photograph [in 1875] 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.


 * 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.


 * Chapter 8


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * In 1855-56 Mirza Jan wrote a book ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’ wherein he claimed thus.. 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. ... 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.


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts.


 * 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.


 * Chapter 10


 * 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


 * 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.


 * Chapter 11
 * 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 report to the nation is a beautifully written document with a lot of distorted and misleading statements.


 * 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.


 * The scholarly Professor Panikkar should go through the text thoroughly before making such comments or stop misleading readers deliberately.


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * Mir Rajjab Ali further complained that whenever the Moazzin called Azaan, the Respondent Nihang blew conch... 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.


 * 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.


 * 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 13
 * 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... 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.


 * Chapter 15
 * 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!


 * 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.


 * Chapter 18


 * 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.