'Battle for Rama Janmabhumi: Is a solution near?' - by Sandhya Jain

From

Battle for Rama Janmabhumi: Is a solution near?

By

Sandhya Jain

05 Nov 2010

(The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

The article was written for the Diwali Special Issue of Organiser weekly

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=369&page=7

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1481)

 

The Hindu struggle to recover the Sri Rama Janmabhumi is still some battles and skirmishes away, as all parties plan to approach the Supreme Court to rectify - to the satisfaction of each contending litigant - the fractured verdict delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Sept. 30, 2010. Hence it is dicey to engage in political forecast over whether we are near a solution to this vexed issue. Nor is it advisable to stir the waters at a time when the nation is besieged with complex and volatile problems and nothing will be gained by provoking ill will and unrest.

 

What is gratifying, however, is that for the first time in the decades since the murti of Ram Lalla appeared beneath the central dome of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and particularly since the climactic moment of Dec. 6, 1992, voices have risen within the Muslim community in favour of closure of the dispute. Some of the parties have held meetings to attempt a settlement, and important Muslim religious leaders, notably Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Maulana Mahmood Madani, MP (Rajya Sabha) have urged Muslims to accept the High Court verdict.

 

Regardless of the milestones ahead, we may now be able to present some of the issues involved in the Ayodhya dispute dispassionately. Previous attempts by Prime Ministers V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, and P.V. Narasimha Rao, to resolve the issue by across-the-table sharing of evidence by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Babri Masjid Action Committee ended in abrupt Muslim withdrawal; now the community seems prepared to face the issue in totality.

 

Hindu tradition lists the Ramayana and the Mahabharata epics as Itihasa (History); thus, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are divine historical personages, and not the subject of legend or faith (read imagination) – the argument being used by opponents of the verdict to undermine its legality.

 

Coming to the material evidence, archaeological investigations in the 1970s showed evidence of a temple; this was validated by a Ground Penetration Radar Survey which showed several pillars below the spot where the Masjid once stood. In 2003, the Supreme Court ordered archaeological excavation of the site, which yielded convincing evidence of two temples – one a grand structure build by the Gahadvala dynasty, and an earlier smaller structure that probably made way for the grander temple. The Babri Masjid was built atop the Gahadvala temple and incorporated the pillars of the old temple into its structure – a feature typical of early Muslim architecture in India.  

 

The historical experience of northern India is that since 1000 AD, every Hindu temple has been desecrated, razed, or appropriated; not one stands intact, save those built after the Mughal Empire went into terminal decline and could not be accessed. Hindus then became pro-active about regaining the lost sacred spaces; Akharas were formed and armed sadhus waged pitched battles at several temple sites to reclaim the sacred heritage. Hence the samadhis (graves) of thousands of sadhus at temple sites in northern India.

 

Ayodhya was one such contested site, contrary to the fatuous claims of Leftist intellectuals that no one had heard of it until the Sangh Parivar made a political movement of it in the last decades of the twentieth century. Sadhu-devotees clawed their way back into the sacred precincts, established and maintained control of spaces known as Sita ki Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, even as Muslim political power held sway in Awadh-Faizabad.

 

Ayodhya entered the annals of modern India when, on Dec. 22-23, 1949, the murti of Ram Lalla appeared under the central dome of the disputed mosque. Local intelligence believes this to be the handiwork of Seth Bishan Chand and Mahant Digvijay Nath ji Maharaj of Gorakhnath Mandir (both Hindu Mahasabha MPs); Shri Ramchandra Paramhans; and Gopal Singh Visharad, Faizabad district president, Hindu Mahasabha.

 

Visharad took the matter to court on Jan. 16, 1950, and won the right to worship the deity. Thereafter the 'Ram durbar' (murtis of Sita, Lakshman, Hanuman were incorporated into the makeshift temple). This victory set the foundation for establishing the Hindu title to the site as it validated Hindu law that 'once a temple, always a temple,' which was upheld by the British Privy Council in the case of the Natraj statue stolen from the premises of a derelict temple. This must be the starting point for overturning any Muslim claim to the site. The High Court judges unanimously gave the central dome where Ram Lalla Virajman is housed to the Hindu Mahasabha.

 

The Nirmohi Akhara became party to the court case in 1959, claiming it alone had the right to perform puja, and that it had won cases to this effect under the Raj, notably in 1853 and again in 1885. In 2010, the Akhara won the Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra.

 

The Sunni Central Waqf Board impleaded itself as a party only in 1961; one judge declared it time-barred. But the more pertinent question about the Board is its legality and locus standi. There is an All India Waqf Board established by the Government of India, which is a registered body. The Sunni Waqf Board is neither registered nor a recognised body, nor is it known when it was established.

 

In contrast, the Nirmohi Akhara has been present in Ayodhya since the 18th century. The Hindu Mahasabha was set up in 1882 by Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi of Bengal, and Kurtikoti Adi Guru Shankaracharya of Sringeri (which is why Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao brought the current Sringeri Shankaracharya to set up a parallel Ramalaya Trust, though the Matham had ceased to have contact with the Mahasabha). The Hindu Mahasabha was registered as a society in 1915 in Lucknow.

 

A more ticklish issue is the Islamic denomination of the Babri mosque-structure. Babur and the Mughal dynasty were Sunni; his general, Mir Baqi, reputed to have built the mosque by demolishing an extent temple or over the ruins of a temple, was a Shia. So was the mosque a Shia or Sunni mosque? Or was it just a structure covering a Hindu sacred site?

 

The question is pertinent because the Shia Nawabs of Awadh did not perform namaaz at Ayodhya, and most likely prayed at the Imambara. There are doubts if the Babri structure was ever a functional mosque as there is no wazu for washing before prayers, which is mandatory in Islam. Hence there was never a regular namaaz there, and hence the obscurity over its denominational status. 

 

Interestingly, the Shia community was never excited over the mosque and is now even more disinterested in fighting for it. It is the Sunni-dominated All India Muslim Personal Law Board that is pushing for confrontation. And as in 1992 when some leading Muslims toyed with the idea of giving the site to the Hindus, the Secular Stalinists and Leftists in the media and academia are egging them on, opposing all voices of reasonableness and sanity.

 

All told, Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Aggarwal, and SU Khan performed yeoman's service in giving some form and coherence to this centuries-old dispute. It is for the apex court to remove the anomalies in their judgment and give the land to Ram Lalla Virajman.

 

 

 

 

 

Will they exchange Babri Masjid for all the Mandirs demolished so far?

 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/291081/Faith-fact-and-fiction.html

 

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Faith, fact and fiction

by

Prafull Goradia

[ History and ASI records prove Hindu temples have been vandalised time and again by Muslim rulers and invaders.

Will Muslims consider returning all those mandirs to Hindus in exchange of the Babri Masjid? ]

The recent judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi has been criticised by several Muslim leaders and a self-styled secularist as one based on faith and not facts. To insist on facts, when it comes to religion, is a contradiction in terms. That Virgin Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ is a belief inspired by faith and we respect it. Similarly, we do not question that Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven from the Dome of Rock.

The short-sightedness of the Muslim institutions wanting to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's recent judgement on Ram Janmabhoomi is obvious. In contrast, recall the vision of Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, the distinguished Premier of undivided Punjab: The Muslim League had sponsored the Punjab Muslim Mosques Protection Bill of 1938. The intention was primarily to secure the restoration of the Shaheed Ganj mosque, which was being used as a gurudwara.

As stated by Professor Coupland, the Bill was expected to create a grave political crisis for Sir Sikander's Unionist Party. However, he still stood firm against the Bill and stated openly in the Punjab Assembly that the enactment of the legislation would provoke a retaliatory action in other provinces in respect of the numerous non-Muslim places of worship, which had passed into Muslim hands and had become sites of important Muslim holy places such as, the Dargah at Ajmer or the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Qutb Minar.

 

Significantly, the Council of the Muslim League approved of Sir Sikander's contention and the Punjab Governor accordingly, did not permit the Bill to be introduced. That left Barkat Ali, the sponsor of the Bill, disappointed. The incident is quoted from Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan by Mr SM Ikram.

As a Hindu, I welcome the insistence on facts. I could go to the extent of offering the Muslims the Babri masjid back provided their leaders agree to give back all the places of worship, which were proven mandirs and were converted into masjids by invaders or Muslim rulers.

I have seen and photographed several mosques whose walls carry integral carvings of Lord Ganesh. The Quwwat-ul-Islam in Delhi and the Adina Mosque near Malda in West Bengal are two such examples. The Jama Masjid in Vidisha near Bhopal is a veritable museum of Hindu idols. The Rudra Mahalaya Complex at Siddhpur in Gujarat with its 11 temples used as Jami Masjid is another interesting example. From within the precincts of the mosque, Hindu idols were excavated by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1979, but were buried back at the insistence of Muslim leaders. This incidence was reported by the Fourth National Minorities Commission Report, 1983. According to Alexander Cunningham, the legendary founder of ASI, it was the resplendent kingdom of Kannauj, which was later destroyed by Muhammad Ghori in 12th century.

In his Mathura : A District Memoir, FS Growse has recorded his exhaustive survey of Brajbhoomi. He was so overwhelmed by the vandalism that he visited the area repeatedly and recorded it in detail. To quote: "Thanks to Muhammadan intolerance, there is not a single building of any antiquity either in Mathura or, its environs. Its most famous temple — that dedicated to Kesava Deva (Krishna) — was destroyed in 1669, the eleventh year of the reign of Aurangzeb or Alamgir. The mosque (idgah) erected on its ruins is a building of little architectural value."

Over two centuries after the desecration, Growse felt that "of all the sacred places in India, none enjoys a greater popularity than the capital of Braj, the holy city of Mathura. For nine months in the year, festival follows upon festival in rapid succession and the ghats and temples are daily thronged with new troops of way worn pilgrims".

Today, Balkrishna is worshipped in a little room, which appears like a servant quarter attached to the back of the idgah. Definitely, any visitor, whether a devotee or otherwise, would feel pathetic.

The birthplace of Krishna was vandalised repeatedly. It started with Mahmud of Ghazni in 1017 and went on till Aurangzeb's rule in 17th century. Historian Sri Ram Sharma in his The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, first published in 1940, wrote: "Then came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of `33,00,000 by Rao Bir Singh Bundela during the reign of Jahangir. It had excited the envy of many Muslims who, however, had not Aurangzeb's power. It had been built after the style of the famous temple at Bindraban which Man Singh had built at a cost of `5,00,000. But Bir Singh had improved upon his model and spent more than six times as much as Man Singh had lavished on his shrine at Bindraban. It had become a centre of pilgrimage for the whole of India. The idols, studded with precious stones and adorned with gold work, were all taken to Agra and there buried under the steps of Jahanara's mosque. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor." Historian Sharma has relied on Maasiri-i-Alamgiri.

 

The Russians at the end of their conquest of Warsaw had built an Orthodox church, which stood for a hundred years until World War I. It was demolished after the Polish takeover. At the same site, the Poles rebuilt their Catholic church. The incident was described by Sir Arnold Toynbee in the first Azad Memorial lecture delivered in Delhi. He then went on to comment on the irony of independent India tolerating the idgah over Krishna Janmabhoomi and the two tall mosques built on the ghats of Benares.

Ours being a peaceful society, Indians should avoid desecration. A fair and square exchange of the Babri edifice for all the mandirs turned into masjids, which authentic records prove, should be acceptable to all.

 

Six Destructions of Somnath by Islam

 

 

From
 http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/islams-six-destructions-of-somnath.html

 

http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=547&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=214

(The Somnath temple as it stands today,

was destroyed by Islam six times,

rebuilt by Hindus six times.)


Muslim invaders and rulers destroyed over 10,000 Hindu temples over the centuries. Perhaps none was destroyed as many times, and rebuilt as many times, as Somnath. The destruction of Somnath by Mahmud Ghazni is well known. Here is a list of the lesser known destructions of Somnath. Each time, the temple was rebuilt by Hindus, often accompanied by great loss to Hindu life. Somnath is the symbol of Hindu defiance and resilience in the face of barbaric assault that would have (and did) bury most other civilizations.


1. The first temple of Somnath is said to have existed before the beginning of the Common Era.


2. The second temple, built by the Maitraka kings of Vallabhi in Gujarat, replaced the first one on the same site around 649AD. In 725AD Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, sent his armies to destroy the second temple. This was destruction No. 1.


3. The Pratihara king Nagabhata II constructed the third temple in 815AD, a large structure of red sandstone. In 1024AD, Mahmud Ghazni raided the temple from across the Thar Desert. During his campaign, Mahmud was challenged by Ghogha Rana, who at the ripe age of 90, sacrificed his own clan fighting against this Islamic warrior. The temple and citadel were ransacked, and more than 50,000 defenders were massacred. Mahmud personally hammered the temple's gilded lingam to pieces and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jamiah Masjid (Friday mosque). This was destruction No. 2.


4. The fourth temple was built by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara) or Patan between 1026AD and 1042AD. The wooden structure was replaced by Kumarpal who built the temple of stone.


5. The temple was razed again in 1297AD when the Sultanate of Delhi conquered Gujarat, and again in 1395AD, and once more in 1401AD (please see quote at end of this article). These were destructions No 3, 4, and 5.


6. The last destruction of Somnath was by the last Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1706AD, just a year before his death. This was destruction No. 6.


Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, then Home Minister & the first Deputy Prime Minister of India took a pledge on November 13, 1947 for Somnath's reconstruction for the seventh time. A mosque present at that site was shifted few miles away. The construction was completed on December 1, 1995 and the then President of India, Dr.Rajendra Prasad dedicated it in the service of the nation. The present temple was built by the Shri Somnath Trust which looks after the Shri Somnath temple complex.


I end with the description of Muzaffar Khan's destruction of Somnath, taken from M. M. Syed's " History of the Delhi sultanate ", pp. 184:

" Next year, in 1395, Muzaffar Khan invaded Somnath, burnt the temple, and destroyed the idol. He killed many hindus, and left the place after arranging for the erection of a mosque. In 1401, news reached him that the hindus were trying to restore the temple of somnath, and revive their customary worship. Muzaffar immedaitely proceeded thither with an army, and the Hindus, defeated after a sharp encounter, retired to the fort of the lop. This fort also fell after a few days of fighting, and Muzaffar killed the entire garrison, and had the men trampled under the feet of elephants. He then demolished the temples and laid the foundations of a mosque."

 

The poor show put up by the “Eminent Historians”

 From

 

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267377#comments

 

The Eminent Historians

by

Koenraad Elst

(Belgian Indologist, the author, inter alia of Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple and Ayodhya, The Finale)

 

The Eminent Historians

 

A group of them raised the stakes and turned a local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, viz. secularism.

 

In 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared to young Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. Before long, Lourdes became the most important pilgrimage site for Roman Catholics and other Mary worshippers. France prided itself on being a secular state, in some phases (esp. 1905-40) even aggressively secular, yet it acknowledged and protected Lourdes as a place of pilgrimage. Not many French officials actually believe in the apparition, but that is not the point. The believers are human beings, fellow citizens, and out of respect for them does the state respect and protect their pilgrimage.

For essentially the same reason, the mere fact that the Rama Janmabhumi (Rama's birthplace) site in Ayodhya is well-established as a sacred site for Hindu pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture. Ayodhya doesn't have this status in any other religion, though ancient Buddhism accepted Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha. The site most certainly doesn't have such a status in Islam, which imposed a mosque on it, the Babri Masjid (ostensibly built in 1528, closed by court order after riots in 1935, surreptitiously turned into a Hindu temple accessible only to a priest in 1949, opened for unrestricted Hindu use in 1986, and demolished by Hindu militants in 1992). So, the sensible and secular thing to do, even for those sceptical of every religious belief involved, is to leave the site to the Hindus. The well-attested fact that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque was standing, even under Muslim rule, is helpful to know in order to gauge its religious importance; but is not strictly of any importance in the present. For respecting its Hindu character, it is sufficient that the site has this sacred status today.

Secular PM Rajiv Gandhi had understood this, and from the court-ordered opening of the locks on the mosque-used-as-temple in 1986, he was manoeuvring towards an arrangement leaving the contentious site to the Hindus in exchange for some other goodies (starting with the Shah Bano amendment and the Satanic Verses ban) for the Muslim leadership. Call it Congress culture or horse-trading, but it would have been practical and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

That is when a group of "eminent historians" started raising the stakes and turning this local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, viz. secularism. Secure in (or drunk with) their hegemonic position, they didn't limit themselves to denying to the Hindus the right of rebuilding their demolished temple, say: "A medieval demolition doesn't justify a counter-demolition today." Instead, they went so far as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple. 

Note, incidentally, that the temple demolition, a very ordinary event in Islamic history, was not even the worst of it: as a stab to the heart of Hindu sensibilities, the Babri mosque stood imposed on a particularly sacred site. Just as for Hindus, the site itself was far more important than the building on it, for Islamic iconoclasts the imposition of a mosque on such an exceptional site was a greater victory over infidelism than yet another forcible replacement of a heathen temple with a mosque. Though the historians' and archaeologists' ensuing research into the Ayodhya temple demolition has been most interesting, it was strictly speaking superfluous, for the sacred status venerated by most Hindus and purposely violated by some Muslims accrues to the site itself rather than to the architecture on it. The implication for the present situation is that even if Muslims refuse to believe that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple, they nonetheless know of the site's unique status for Hindus even without a temple. So, they should be able to understand that any Muslim claim to the site, even by non-violent means such as litigation, amounts to an act of anti-Hindu aggression. Muslims often complain of being stereotyped as fanatical and aggressive, but here they have an excellent opportunity to earn everyone's goodwill by abandoning their inappropriate claim to a site that is sacred to others but not to themselves.

After the eminent historian's media offensive against the historical evidence, the political class, though intimidated, didn't give in altogether but subtly pursued its own idea of a reasonable solution. In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar's minority government, supported and largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) to mandate some selected scholars for a discussion of the historical evidence. The politicians had clearly expected that the debate would bring out the evidence and silence the deniers for good. And that is what happened, or at least the first half. Decisive evidence was indeed presented, but it failed to discourage the deniers. 

The VHP-employed team presented the already known documentary and archaeological evidence and dug up quite a few new documents confirming the temple demolition (including four that Muslim institutions had tried to conceal or tamper with). The BMAC-employed team quit the discussions but brought out a booklet later, trumpeted as the final deathblow of the temple demolition "myth". In fact, it turned out to be limited to an attempt at whittling down the evidential impact of a selected few of the pro-temple documents and holding forth on generalities of politicized history without proving how any of that could neutralize this particular evidence. It contained not a single (even attempted) reference to a piece of actual evidence proving an alternative scenario or positively refuting the established scenario. I have given a full account earlier in my book Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple (2002).

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence could make the deniers mend their ways. Though defeated on contents, the "eminent historians" became only more insistent in denying the evidence. They especially excelled in blackening and slandering those few scholars who publicly stood by the evidence, not even sparing the towering archaeologist BB Lal. Overnight, what had been the consensus in Muslim, Hindu and European sources, was turned into a "claim" by "Hindu extremists". Thus, the eminent historians managed to intimate a Dutch scholar who had earlier contributed even more elements to the already large pile of evidence for the temple demolition into backtracking. Most spectacularly, they managed to get the entire international media and the vast majority of India-related academics who ever voiced an opinion on the matter, into toeing their line. These dimly-informed India-watchers too started intoning the no-temple mantra and slandering the dissidents, to their faces or behind their backs, as "liars", "BJP prostitutes", and what not. In Western academe, dozens chose to toe this party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba in Mecca, the Mezquita in Cordoba, the Ummayad mosque in Damascus, the Aya Sophia in Istambul, the Quwwatu'l-Islam in Delhi, etc.) was one of the numerous ancient mosques built on, or with materials from, purposely desecrated or demolished non-Muslim places of worship.

Until the Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu activists on 6 December 1992, Congress PM Narasimha Rao was clearly pursuing the same plan of a bloodless hand-over of the site to the Hindus in exchange for some concessions to the Muslims. The Hindu activists who performed the demolition were angry with the leaders of their own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991 elections with it, but perhaps the leaders had genuinely been clever in adjusting their Ayodhya strategy to their insiders' perception of a deal planned by the PM. After the demolition, Rao milked it for its anti-BJP nuisance value and gave out some pro-mosque signals; but a closer look at his actual policies shows that he stayed on course. His Government requested the Supreme Court to offer an opinion on the historical background of the Ayodhya dispute, knowing fully well from the outcome of the scholars' debate that an informed opinion could only favour the old consensus (now known as the "Hindu claim"). In normal circumstances, it is not a court's business to pronounce on matters of history, but then whom else could you trust to give a fair opinion when the professional historians were being so brazenly partisan?

The Supreme Court sent the matter on, or back, to the Allahabad High Court, which, after sitting on the Ayodhya case since 1950, at long last got serious about finding out the true story. It ordered a ground-penetrating radar search and the most thorough excavations. In this effort, carried out in 2003, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) employed a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of acting as a Hindu nationalist front. The findings confirmed those of the excavations in the 1950s, 1970s and 1992: a very large Hindu religious building stood at the site before the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court has now accepted these findings by India's apex archaeological body. But not everyone is willing to abide by the verdict.

In particular, the eminent historians are up in arms. In a guest column in The Hindu (2 Oct. 2010: The verdict on Ayodhya, a historian's opinion),  Prof. Romila Thapar claims that the ASI findings had been "disputed". Oh well, it is true that some of her school had thought up the most hilariously contrived objections, which I held against the light in my booklet Ayodhya, the Finale: Science vs. Secularism in the Excavations Debate. Thus, it was said that the presence of pillar-bases doesn't imply that pillars were built on it; you see, some people plant pillar bases here and there once in a while, without any ulterior motive of putting them to some good use. And it was alleged that the finding of some animal bones in one layer precludes the existence of a temple (and somehow annuls the tangible testimony of the vast foundation complex and the numerous religious artefacts); and more such hare-brained reasoning. The picture emerging from all this clutching at straws was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there was no refutation of the archaeological and documentary evidence presented earlier. 

Today, I feel sorry for the eminent historians. They have identified very publicly with the denial of the Ayodhya evidence. While politically expedient, and while going unchallenged in the academically most consequential forums for twenty years, that position has now been officially declared false. It suddenly dawns on them that they have tied their names to an enterprise unlikely to earn them glory in the long run. We may now expect frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad verdict, starting with the ongoing signature campaign against the learned Judges' finding; and possibly it will succeed. But it is unlikely that future generations, unburdened with the presently prevailing power equation that made this history denial profitable, will play along and keep on disregarding the massive body of historical evidence. With the Ayodhya verdict, the eminent historians are catching a glimpse of what they will look like when they stand before Allah's throne on Judgment Day.

 

 

Rama lived 7000 years ago.

Previous posts:-

When was Rama born?

Rama’s birth date.

Planetary combination at the time of birth of Rama is given in Valmeeki Ramayana.

Based on that, it is possible to locate the time period.

The two researchers Dr Vartak and Dr Bhatnagar have used these details from Ramayana to arrive at the date. But they have differed by 2000 years. The reason is that they have not used the same set of events related years.

Of the two, the date by Dr Bhatnagar can be identified in the astrology software. Dr Bhatnagar says that the birth date of Rama was January 10^th, 5114 BC.

But in the Jhora software, the planetary configuration falls on 9^th January, 5114 BC.

Valmeeki says that 5 planets, namely Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and Venus were exalted at that time. His exact version as follows:-

“On completion of the ritual six seasons have passed by and then in the twelfth month, on the ninth day of chaitra month [April-May,] when the presiding deity of ruling star of the day is Aditi, where the ruling star of day is punarvasu, the asterism is in the ascendant, and when five of the nine planets viz., Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus are at their highest position, when Jupiter with Moon is ascendant in Cancer, and when day is advancing, then Queen Kausalya gave birth to a son with all the divine attributes like lotus-red eyes, lengthy arms, roseate lips, voice like drumbeat, and who took birth to delight the Ikshwaku dynasty, who is adored by all the worlds, and who is the greatly blessed epitome of Vishnu, namely Rama. [1-18-8, 9, 10, 11]”

In the astrology software that I use all these match perfectly on 9^th January with an exception. Saturn had gone to the next sign of Scorpio just by a degree and was in retrogression. By retrogression a planet is deemed to be in the previous sign. Therefore Saturn can be said to be in Libra, its sign of exaltation, as told in Ramayana. 

But what is noticed is that the same planetary configuration of Rama’s birth day did take place in BC 5114.

Given below is the sky map as per the astrology software that I use.

Moon is in punarvasu in Cancer on 9^th

The nodes have changed from the traditional account. Valmeeki does not mention the position of nodes. Traditionally Ketu is put in the 12^th house (Gemini) in Rama’s horoscope indicating absence if Punar janma. 

Rama's birth date:-

This date must go well with other dates of Rama’s life.

For instance just before the time of proposed coronation, it is deduced that a solar eclipse occurred in the birth star of Dasaratha. His birth star is not noted in Valmeeki Ramayana. But using the inputs given by Dasaratha himself on the kind of planetary affliction to his birth star, it is deduced that his birth star was either Aswini or Revathy. My article on this is pending publication in a magazine and hence I am not writing here the details of how I deduced it. I will upload it in my scribd once it is published.

The year of the proposed coronation was BC 5089. 

This puts Rama;s age at that time at 25 years. Dr Bhatnagar had taken this age at the time of coronation whereas Dr Vartak has taken Rama’s age as 17!

This is the major issue where he differed and therefore his calculation of Rama’s time differed from Dr Bhatnagar’s

Let us see why such a difference in interpretation had crept in.

Looking at the places where the age is mentioned, Kausalya grieves on hearing the aborted coronation saying that she has waited for 17 years since the birth of Rama to see him rule.

She says,

“dasha sapta ca varSaaNi tava jaatasya raaghava |”(2-20-45)

The “jatasya” is literally taken as from the time of birth.

If we assume that Rama was 17 years of age when he was about to be crowned, the question comes when he was married.

At 2 places Sita says that she was happily married for 12 years before the coronation was fixed. She says this first to Ravana who came in disguise to deceive her in Aranya khandam.

uSitvaa dvaa dasha samaaH ikshvaakuuNaam niveshane |
bhu.njaanaa maanuSaan bhogaan sarva kaama samR^iddhinii || 3-47-4

("On residing in the residence of Ikshvaku-s in Ayodhya for twelve years, I was in sumptuosity of all cherishes while relishing all humanly prosperities. [3-47-4])

tatra trayo dashe varSe raaja ama.ntryata prabhuH |
abhiSecayitum raamam sameto raaja man.htribhiH || 3-47-5

("In the thirteenth year the lordly king Dasharatha deliberated together with his imperial ministers to anoint Rama as Crown Prince of Ayodhya. [3-47-5])

Sita gives the age of herself and Rama in clear terms while speaking to Ravana :-

mama bhartaa mahaatejaa vayasaa pa.nca vi.mshakaH || 3-47-10
aSTaa dasha hi var.hSaaNi mama janmani gaNyate |

("My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth. [3-47-10b, 11a])

Sita was 18 while Rama was 25 at the time of proposed coronation.

Sita tells the same thing to Hanuman in Sundhara Khandam as follows:-

samaa dvaadasha tatra aham raaghavasya niveshane || 5-33-17
bhunjaanaa maanuShaan bhogaan sarva kaama samR^iddhinii |

("I stayed in Rama's house there for twelve years, enjoying the worldly pleasures belonging to human kind and fulfilling all my desires.")

tataH trayodashe varShe raajyena ikShvaaku nandanam || 5-33-18
abhiShecayitum raajaa sa upaadhyaayaH pracakrame |

("Thereafter, in the thirteenth year, King Dasaratha along with his preceptors started to perform anointment of the kingdom to Rama, a celebrity of Ikshvaku dynasty.")

Thus it is clear that Rama and Sita were married for 12 years before coronation was planned and the age gap between them was 7 years.

Ignoring these details which were clearly told in later chapters, we can not say that Kausalya meant that Rama was 17 years when he was about to be crowned.

If so when was he married. If we deduct 12 years of togetherness of Rama and Sita and a couple, then it comes to 5 years as the age of Rama at the time of marriage. 

But then why did Kausalya make such a statement?

The 'jaatasya' can be about the upanayanam of Rama. There is no exact mention of the time of upanayanam of Rama in Valmeeki Ramayana. It is all mentioned in a single verse in the chapter on Rama's birth (V.R.1-18-24).

Since astrology has been very much part of life in those days, Rama's upanayanam could not have taken place before 8 years.

8 year period is a crucial period because this constitutes 'baalarishta ' period. Baalaarishtam means death before 8 years.

The first 4 years including the period in the womb is influenced by the mother's destiny (according to astrology). The next 4 years by father's destiny. The child's destiny starts to work on it only after 8 years. The harm to the child in the first 8 years is therefore considered to be the effect of parents’ destiny. The child’s own destiny starts controlling the child from 8^th year onwards. Therefore the child is left under complete protection for the first 8 years after which the child is allowed to move out of the mother or home. The age of Uapnayana at that year has been determined on this basis only. 

For Kshariyas, the upanayanam year is the 9^th year. The reason to extent the age  that the child is physically little capable to take up the kshatriya related education of military practice.

For vaishyas, the upanayanam comes later than the kshatriyas as they have to be trained in communication skills etc which are needed for their profession. 

Rama could have had his upanayanam at his 8^th or 9^th year.

Upon upanayanam, the child physically leaves the mother (after maathru bhojanam ceremony before the start of the upanayanam ceremony.)

From then onwards, the child is an individual, taking care of himself.

It is possible to assume that Kausalya meant this. She waited for 17 years for Rama's coronation after Rama had his initiation at the age of 8. This means 8+17=25

The age of Rama at the time of marriage can be known from other sources in Valmeeki Ramayana. 

From Sita’ narration of her and Rama’s age and number of years she spent with him, it is known that Rama was 13 years and Sita was 6 years when they were married. She had spent most of their time in Ayodhya as a little girl.

Looking at corroboratory verses in Ramayana, Dasaratha laments that Rama was not even 16 years when sage Vishwamitra wanted to take Rama to the forest to protect the yajnas.

uuna SoDasha varSo me raamo raajiiva lochanaH |
na yuddha yogyataam asya pashyaami saha raaxasaiH || 1-20-2

("Less than sixteen years of age is my lotus-eyed Rama, and I see no warring aptitude to him with the demons. [1-20-2])

Why the mention of 16?

Again as per astrology 16 is a crucial year.

The life span of man is divided into 3, alpaayusu (below 32), madhyaayusu (between 32 and 72) and dheergayusu (between 72 and 100).

Half of Alpaayusu is 16 years.

By 16 years the child completes his education in Gurukulam and comes back to the father. (The education  may extend upto 24 years)

Here Rama, though a kshathriya by birth, has had vedic teaching (refer Hanuman's description of Rama in sargam 35 of Sundhara khandam) and could have followed the regular learning schedule of a Brahmin.

Dhasharatha might have meant this. Rama was still young not even had crossed the 16 year mark of age which was alpa -alpa ayusu, not even completed his formal education in astra vidya. How could he be expected to battle with rakhshasas?

But the near exact age of Rama at that time can be known from Mareecha’s description to Ravana. Mareecha describes the valour of Rama he encountered at dandaka forests where Rama was brought by Vishwamitra to protect the yajnas.

Mareecha says that Dasaratha told Vishwamitra that Rama was less than 12 years of age.

uuna dvaadasha varSo ayam akR^ita astraH ca raaghavaH || 3-38-6
kaamam tu mama yat sainyam mayaa saha gamiSyati |

( 'This boy Rama is less than twelve years in his age, unproficient in the use of weapons, and if need be, whatever army of mine is there it will march on along with me instead of Rama. [3-38-6b, 7a])

So Rama was 12 or little under 12 when he accompanied Vishwamitra to the forest. It was during those times that he takes part in Sita’ Swayamwar.

He could be 13 when he actually married Sita.

The events must tally with the age of Rama as per astrology. It does for the birth year in BC 5114.

Krishna lived 5000 years ago.

Rama lived 2000 years before Krishna. 

Kings of Ayodhya before and after Rama.

Rama was very much a historical figure who ruled from Ayodhya a few thousands of years ago. The details of the line of kings before and after Rama are available in olden texts. The kings associated with some of the places have a bearing on the names of those places even today.

 

The lineage until Rama is given in Valmeeki Ramayana.

39 kings were there in the lineage before Rama. But counting from Ikshvaaku, the founder of the Ikshvaaku dynasty, there were 34 kings before Rama. This lineage is told by Vasishta, the Kula Guru, at the time of Rama's marriage, as it was the custom to present the lineage of forefathers to the assemblage of dignitaries and the people of the bride's household.

This lineage takes into account only the eldest of the family who inherits the throne. King Sibi comes in the lineage of siblings and not the first born. In lineage comes Chola varman who founded the Chola dynasty in the South. Taking the name from Sibi, the Cholans called themselves as Sembians.

 

The kings who succeeded Rama are given in Raghu Vamsa by Mahakavi Kalidasa.

24 kings are mentioned after Rama in Raghu vamsa which was named after King Raghu, the ancestor of Rama who made military expeditions to all parts of Bharat. He went to the west, to the region of Indus river and far beyond and conquered the lands there.

He went to the east India, then turned south and from there he went along the west coast of India and reached back to his place. King Raghu has thus established his rule throughout Bharat varsha. According to Kalidasa, Rama is the great grand son of Raghu. He starts the narration from king Dileepan and then goes to Raghu.

Raghu's son was Aja. In the narration of Aja's marriage, there comes the description of swayamvar of Indumathi. Aja takes part in the Swayamwar and wins her hand. The interesting  piece of information for us in this part of Raghu vamsa is that the Pandyan king also took part in the Swayawar!

 

There is a detailed description of that king in Raghu vamsa. The bride's friend Sunanda who introduced the kings said of the Pandyan king as one who had rich  lands. If the princess chose to marry him she would have only his land as her co-wife (other wife of the king). By a specific mention like this, it is implied that the Pandyan kings were the up-holders of Eka patni vratham.

 

Another interesting piece of information is that the Pandyans had won over Ravana. Ravana had bought peace with the Pandyan kings. This information is also found in the copper plates unearthed at Sinanmanur which lists down the name and feats of Pandyan kings.

 

However there is confusion over the time periods here. Victory over Ravana is mentioned at a place where Rama's grandfather was seeking his bride. Rama was 2 generations away from that time and was yet to be born. But Ravana's early tiff with Pandyans finds a mention there.

 

I think the Kavi had added up the information that happened later. While composing the verses in praise of the kings who participated in the swayamwar, he had cobbled up the valiant feats connected with the king's dynasty and attributed them to the king in focus.

 

Rama's grand father Aja marries Indumati in the Swayamwat. His son was Dasaratha to whom Rama was born.

From Dileepan to Rama, the lineage is not completely told by Kalidasa as Valmeeki does.

But Kalidasa explains what happened after Rama's times.

 

Let us see what happened to the sons of Rama and his brothers.

All the brothers had 2 sons each.

 

Shatrugna's sons:-

Bahu-shruta – becomes the king of Mathura.

Subahu – becomes the king of Vidisha 

 

Bharatha and his sons:-

 

Then Rama made over the country named Sindhu to Bharata with full sovereign authority, at the message of Yudhajit, the maternal uncle of Bharata. [15-87 Raghu vamsa]

 

Note here that what is now being told as the bastion of Dravidians was originally ruled by Bharatha! His maternal uncle's home is in Kekaya and the route to go that place is described in Valmeeki Ramayana. That route goes through Indus, Baluchisthan and crossing across Bolan pass and then reaching the fringes of Caspian sea. Kekaya was somewhere in today's Kazhaksthaan. We can expect archeological proof of "Aryan" in Kazhaksthaan soon which was actually the home town of Kaikeyi.

 

Kalidasa proceeds to say that in the Sindhu region Bharata  conquered the Gandharva-s in battle and compelled them to take up lutes forgoing their warlike weapons. [15-88]  The Gandharvas are semi-divine beings who are the heavenly singers and musicians. They were the dwellers in the country known by the name of Sindhu i.e. the country situated on both sides of the river Indus. The Gandharvas were forced to go back to their hereditary profession of musicians (says Kalidasa)

 

I will write about the Gandharvas in the upcoming posts, but for the time being, let me say that Gandharvas belonged to today's Kandhahar which was the home town of Gandhari, the mother of Kauravas.  Bharata's route to Kekaya in Valmeeki Ramayana goes through Kandhahar. Perhaps Bharata was keen on conquering the places en route his maternal country. It is mentioned on valmeeki Ramayana that Bharatha's grandfather and uncle sent along with him a contingent of warriors on his way back to Ayodhya ( when he was called back on the death of Dasaratha) presumably to protect him from attacks by the kingdoms on the way. When he got a chance, I think Bharata made sure that no opponent was there on the way to Kekaya. The entire Indus region stretching up to Kazakhstan's border was thus already under occupation by Bharata. The Dravidian occupation does not match with the history of Bharath.

 

Now about Bharatha's sons.

Taksha and Pushkala were given to the sons of Bharata.

Taksha is Taxila  and Pushkala is Peshawar.

 

Lakshmana's sons:-

 

Lakshmana's two sons Angada and Chandraketu became the rulers of KAra-patha kingdom. [15-90]

 

Rama's sons:-

Kusha was made the king of Kushavati, on the Vindhyas.

Lava was made the king of Sharavati.

 

The end of Rama

All the people of Ayodhya joined Rama in leaving the earthy plane. All of them entered the river Sarayua and had jala Samadhi. The city wore a deserted look after their exit.

As told by Kalidasa:-

Having placed Kusha, who was like the goading-rod to his elephant-like hostile princes, in Kushavati; having placed Lava, who drew drops of tears of joy by his witticisms from the eyes of the good, in Sharavati, that firm-minded Rama with his younger brothers and with the fire-tray carried in front of him started for the North while the inhabitants of Ayodhya precipitately leaving their homes followed him out of devotion to their lord. [15-97, 98]

 

 

While there arrived a heavenly aircraft for himself, that kind-hearted one to his adherers Rama made the Sarayu River as staircase to heavens for his followers who wish to discard their earthly forms and ascend to heaven. [15-100]

 

Since the concourse of people seeking a plunge was great at that spot it looked almost like go-pratam, a line of closely packed cows swimming across, and as a consequence became celebrated as a sacred spot under that name, go-pratara, on this earth. [15-101]

 

What happened after the exit of Rama?

 

 

The sons of Rama and his brothers were in their kingdoms assigned to them at the time of Rama's exit. None of them knew what happened at Ayodhya. But Rama's son Kusha  could not sleep well at that night. The goddess of Ayodhya, pained by the exit of all her subjects appeared before Kusha (in dream?) and begged  Kusha to return to the old capital, Ayodhya.  The next morning Kusha announced the vision of the night, and immediately set out for Ayodhya with his whole army. Arrived there, King Kusha quickly restored the city to its former splendour.

 

He married Kumudavati and had a son Athithi from her.

 

The lineage after Rama:-

 

1) Kusha

2) Athithi

3) Nishadha

4) Nala

5) Nabhas

6) PundarIka

7) Kshema- dhanva

8) devAnIka,

9) ahInagu

10) pAriyAtra,

11) shila

12) unnAbha (this name was because his naval was very deep, and he appeared almost like Vishnu)

13) vajraNAbha

14) shankhaNa

15) vyuShitAshva (on account of his having quartered his soldiery and horses on seacoasts)

16) vishva-saha

17) hiraNya-nAbha

18) kausalya (son)

19) brahmiShTha

20) putra

21) puShya, (devotee of  the great sage Jaimini.)

22) dhruva-sandhi (killed by a lion while hunting)

23) sudarshana, ( an year old when his father died)

24) agnivarNa (indulged in pleasure life.)

 

With this, Kalidasa ends Raghu vamsam. 

This king AgnivarNa did not have any issue from any of the women he enjoyed and died of diseases of his bad habits.

But Kalidasa says that his queen was pregnant at the time of his death and was made  Regina on behalf of unborn son.

 

Scholars are of differing opinion on why Kalidasa ended abruptly. There is an opinion that there must have been a remaining part of Raghu vamsa which was lost.

 

But according to me, looking at the lineage and the description about the kings by Kalidasa, there are some interesting features.

 

 

The kings 21 generations before Rama and 21 generations after Rama have had a successful and highly respectful life. There had never been immoral behaviour reported in them or in their kingdom. There were no unnatural or premature deaths. The kings had lived full life and been just rulers. There had been no invasions or rivalries reported.

 

 

In the above list of the kings who succeeded Rama , until Pushya, the 21^st king, the narration contains nothing other than good things. The 22^nd king was killed by lion while he was on a hunting expedition. His son was only a year old then. The name of the king Dhruva sandhi itself seems to indicate a shift to another era! I am thinking of the probable connections of this name to yuga / era classifications. I will write them later.

 

 

From Dhruva sandhi onwards, the descendants were of lesser quality. Perhaps due to this deterioration noticed further, Kalidasa stopped the narration with agnivarNa.

 

Similarly 21 generations before Rama ( as given by Valmeeki) Sagara was the ruler. His sons had an unnatural death at the curse of sage Kapila. River Ganga was brought to give salvation to them. Where they attained their salvation is the Setu at Rameshwaram. (please read my old posts on this topic)

 

In Sagara's father's times, sibling rivalry was first noticed in the lineage. The practice was to pass on the throne to the eldest son. But the other sons and relatives fought for the throne in Asita's period. Asita lost the throne. When Asita died, his wife was pregnant. Sagara was born to her and with the guidance of sage Chyavana he fought with the detractors and got back the throne. He exiled them to the fringes of Bhratha varsha. They were called as Mlechas as they were ordained to follow non-vedic life. They occupied what is now Assyria, Iran, Iraq etc. Assyria derives the name from Asita in whose honour Sagara fought and won.

 

 

After Sagara the lineage went on smoothly and with great honours. This constituted 21 generations before Rama.

Similarly 21 generations after Rama the lineage was smooth and highly moralistic. Such a status changed only after 21 generations.

 

 

This coincidence makes me connect this to the oft told dictum that one is connected with 21 generations before and after. Rama coming at the centre of this line- up makes me think that the best conduct for 21 generations would result in the birth of a supreme person (su-putran) as Rama. Likewise Rama's in-thing will get manifest for 21 generations after him.

 

 

The lineage before Rama as given by Valmeeki:-

 

1- Brahma,

2-Mariichi

3- Kaashyapa

4- Sun

5- Manu (Manu is the earliest Prajaapati -"manuH prajaapatiH puurvam")

6- Ikshvaaku (first king of Ayodhya)

7- Kukshi

8- Vikukshi

9- Baana

10- Anaranya

11- Pruthu

12- Trishanku

13- Dhundumaar

14- Yuvanaashva

15- Mandhaata

16- Susandhi

17- Dhruvasandhi

18- Bharata

19- Asita

20- Sagara

21- Asamanja

22- Amshuman

23- Diliipa

24- Bhageeratha

25- Kakutstha

26- Raghu

27- Pravriddha

28- Shankana

29- Sudarshana

30- Agnivarsna

31- Shiigraga

32- Maru

33- Prashushruka

34- Ambariisha

35- Nahusha

36- Yayaati

37- Naabhaaga

38- Aja

39- Dasharatha

40- Rama

 

 

 

Related posts:-

Rama in Treta yuga – Yuga is defined on the basis of dharma and not the number of years.

Rama's Coronation – was it a failure of astrology?

Did Rama rule for 11,000 years?