The History of Ayōdhyā and the

Rāma Janmabhūmī Dispute – III

By Smita Mukerji

“…in Trētāyuga, in the shape of Rāma 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…”

~ Abū Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bīrūnī

(quoting Viŝñupurāña, in ‘Qitāb-ul-Hind‘)

Read the previous section of this series here.

Rāmkōt

Before we go on to the mystery of how much longer did Rāmkōt abide in the state it
was found in by mediaeval European travellers in the middle of the 17th century, let us
go back in time to discover how long had it already existed then. What were its
distinctive features? Where exactly is the place where Rāma is said to have been born
and what in passage of time bechanced it?

Map of Area under Faizabad Municipality in Carnegy’s book, showing position of Rāmkōt
One of the clearest descriptions of Rāmkōt is provided by Patrick Carnegy, officiating
British Commissioner and Settlement Officer of District Faizabad (1863), in his book
‘Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh
and Pachhimrath with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad’, published in 1870, in
which he writes:
“…aided by descriptions found recorded in ancient manuscripts, the different spots
rendered sacred by association with the worldly acts of the deified Ráma, were
identified …indicated the different shrines to which pilgrims from afar still in thousands
half-yearly flock.
The most remarkable of
those was of course Rámkot
the strong-hold of
Rámchandar. This fort
covered a large extent of
ground and according to
ancient manuscripts, it was
surrounded by 20* bastions,
each of which was
commanded by one of
Bastions surrounding Rāmkōt fort, enumerated by P. Carnegy Ráma’s famous generals,
after whom they took the
names by which they are still known. Within the fort were eight royal mansions where
dwelt the Patriarch Dasrath, his wives, and Ráma his deified son…”
There is an easy credence in these narrations of early European travellers and British
administrators about the story of Rāma that describe the path trodden by countless
pilgrims and the devotions undertaken by them at Ayōdhyā since times of yore. This
is unlike the way this longstanding belief of millions has been assailed by later day
academicians who have raised questions on the antiquity to which the tradition traces
its origin and the historicity of its central character Rāma, a millennia old conventional
truth—and every single facet of it—weighed by present day evidential liability and
documentary rigour incompatible with the dynamic character of Hinduism, in a way the
beliefs of no other people are attacked. In reality, there is little proof of the characters
Jesus or Mohammed having existed, or their having visited, lived at or being born at
the places they are associated with as per tradition, and several contradictory
elements in traditions as well as textual accounts on them (and this despite the unitary
structure of these religions).
On May 14, 1991, four historians well-established in academic circles (R. S. Sharma,
M. Athar Ali, D. N. Jha and Suraj Bhan) issued a public statement in a booklet titled
“Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid; A Historians’ Report to the Nation”, submitted to the
Indian Home Minister. Among the several averments in this lengthy exposition was the
following:
“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.”
Are there really any textual references that testify to the association of present-day
Ayōdhyā with the iconography of Rāma over a greater epoch? Without going into what
evidence could actually be mustered in support of their case by Vishwa Hindu
Parishad (VHP), one of the main litigants in the Rāma Janmabhūmi dispute, let us, in
order to assess the Historians’ assertion, go over the sources that can be found in the
vast body of literature available on the incarnation of Rāma from which this might be
indicated. What are the particulars in the “ancient manuscripts” alluded to by Carnegy
that might help ascertain the validity of the beliefs enacted in the pilgrimage
undertaken to Ayōdhyā by devotees since centuries, possibly much longer?

The ‘Māhātmya’ of the Janmasthāna of Rāma at Ayōdhyā

The ‘māhātmya’ or eminence of Ayōdhyā as pilgrimage is described in at least four
major Sanskrit treatises, the most significant among these being the Ayōdhyā-
māhātmya of Skaṇḋapurāña.
The Purāñas1 are a genre of Sanskrit texts which are an important source of Indian
history2 as well as traditions that can be seen as a bridge to the Vēdas. By most reliable
estimates they date to at least the first millennium B.C.E., but most extant manuscripts
appear to be from the first millennium C.E.3 Transmitted as oral traditions, the material
came to be established and reorganised the second time4 around the Gupta period
(3rd to 6th century C.E.) into the designated 18 Mahāpurāñas, but continued to be

1
They are considered to be of human origin and constitute the smṛtīs. Written and copied continually by many
writers, the literature is stratified having grown by numerous accretions in successive historical eras (Cornelia
Dimmitt and J.A.B. van Buitenen - ‘Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Puranas’) and cannot be
traced to any single author. Their content is therefore also inconsistent after multiple redactions (and at times
even corruption) over time, having survived in multiple manuscripts and versions preserved by pundits who
maintained Hindu pilgrimage sites and temples. They are encyclopaedic in nature, that cover wide-ranging
topics from cosmogony, cosmology, astronomy, medicine, mineralogy, and grammar, to genealogies of gods,
goddesses, kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, folk tales, pilgrimages, temples, humour, romantic stories, as
well as theology and philosophy. The Purāñas play an important part in the cultural and religious landscape of
India, several major national and regional religious practices, diverse arts and festivals being derived from
them.

2
This however, in combination with independent corroborating evidence, such as "epigraphy, archaeology,
Buddhist literature, Jaina literature, non-Puranic literature, Islamic records, and records preserved outside
India by travelers to or from India in medieval times such as in China, Myanmar and Indonesia." (Ludo Rocher,
‘The Puranas’ – 1986; L. Srinivasan, ‘Historicity of the Indian mythology: Some observations’ - 2000)

3
Vincent Smith, Moriz Winternitz

4
As per the Viṣñupurāña, the earliest compilation ‘Purāñasaṁhitā’ was made by Sage Vyāsa, which was
augmented and arranged into 18 Purāñas by his disciples.
edited and expanded over the subsequent 5 centuries or even a millennium thereafter.
The Skaṇḋapurāña appears in at least two listings of the Mahāpurāñas, that from
Ādipurāña to Bhaviṣyapurāña, at the 9th place, and in another listing which appears in
the Viṣñupurāña at the 13th place.5
I. Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of the Skaṇḋapurāña
The Skaṇḋapurāña is categorised as a ‘sthalapurāña’, a corpus of texts that describes
the origins and traditions of particular temples, shrines or pilgrimage sites. Named after
Skaṇḋa6, the son of Śiva and Pārvati, and the god of war, it is a primary Śaivite text
that is one of the eighteen Mahāpurāñas and in volume the most expansive, containing
over 80,000 stanzas. It is subdivided into seven khaṇdas7 (groups) – all of which
narrate the legends associated with tīrthasthalas (pilgrimage spots) located in various
corners of Greater India and the virtue earned from visiting them. Ayōdhyā-māhātmya
occurs in the grouping known as ‘Viṣñu Khaṇda’ or ‘Vaiṣñava Khaṇda’.

A page from the Skaṇḋapurāña manuscript in Sanskrit language and Devanagari script (Source: Wiki)

Like all texts of the Purāñic canon, the Skaṇḋapurāña has been received in the modern
era in the form of several recensions and in multiple manuscripts, owing to which the
age of the specific manuscript from which reference is drawn is important. The oldest
of these is a palm-leaf manuscript of the Purāñas discovered8 in the Nepal Raj Durbar
Library in Kathmandu that contained portions of the Skaṇḋapurāña. Though the
portion is too scant to make any reliable estimate about the text it was excerpted from,

5
Al-Bīrūnī in ‘Qitāb-ul-Hind’ (ca. 1027-30)

6
Kartikeya

7
Maheśvara Khaṇda, Viṣṇu Khaṇda or Vaiṣṇava Khaṇda, Brahma Khaṇda, Kāśī Khaṇda, Āvantya Khaṇda,
Nāgara Khaṇda, Prabhāsa Khaṇda

8
By Haraprasad Shastri and Professor Cecil Bendall, published 1905 (‘Catalogue of Palm Leaf and Selected
Papers Mss Belonging to the Durbar Library in Nepal’)
it was written in Gupta script and estimated to have been copied before 659 C.E.
based on palaeographic grounds9, indicating that the original text almost certainly
existed before this time. This is affirmed by Benjamin Walker who dates the
Skaṇḋapurāña to ca. 550 C.E.10 and as such one of the oldest Purāñas.
Excerpts from the Skaṇḋapurāña can also be found in other important texts, viz. the
Dānasāgara of Vallālasēna11, composed in Śaka 1091, i.e. 1169 C.E., and the
Mitākśarā, a celebrated commentary on the Yājñavalkya smṛtī and estimated to have
been composed in the middle or end of the 11th century.
Though difficult to ascertain the age of the individual khaṇdas or determine whether
their root text belonged to the original version of the Skaṇḋapurāña, the first 162
chapters are consistent in most versions which correspond to the older
Nepalese editions12, save the occasional omissions and insertions13. Irrespective of
the several interpolations, what is of utmost interest for us here is the authenticity of
the Ayōdhyā-māhātmya, more specifically the Janmasthāna-māhātmya, merit of the
place of birth of Rāma.
Apparently insistent on assigning a later date to the tradition of Ayōdhyā as the
birthplace of Rāma, the four historians in their ‘Report to the Nation’ write:
“The various versions of Ayodhya mahatmya seem to have been prepared
towards the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the
nineteenth; even as late as that the birthplace was not considered to be
important. It is significant that Janma-sthana is not mentioned even once
in any itinerary of pilgrimage in the mahatmya.”
In their eagerness, the four historians who otherwise borrow copiously from the book
‘Ayodhyā’ by the Dutch scholar Hans T. Bakker, who had made a detailed study of
Ayōdhyā-māhātmya, published in 1986, studiously omit his conclusions regarding the
date of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya as approximating the 13th or 14th century.14

9
“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 ‘Paramesvaratantra’ 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.” (Pg. 52, ibid.)

10
Benjamin Walker, ‘Hindu World – An Encyclopaedic Survey of Hinduism’ (1968)

11
The Sēna king of Bengal (1159-1179 C.E.) and founder of the kulīna system of nobility.

12
The oldest versions of the Skaṇḋapurāña texts have been discovered in the Himalayan region of South Asia
such as Nepal, and the north-eastern states of India such as Assam, and therefore the critical editions of the
text, for scholarly studies, rely on these manuscripts.

13
Hans Bakker, ‘The Structure of the Varanasimahatmya in Skandapurana’, pgs. 26-31

14
“In view of the above considerations we are inclined to accept the close of the 13 th or 14th century as the
most plausible date for the redaction of a type of text and its insertion in the Vaishṇavakhaṇda (S)” (‘Ayodhyā’,
pgs. 129-130)
Bakker bases his estimate on the other three tīrthamāhātmyas mentioned in the
Vaiṣñavakhaṇda, which appeared to be “the work of one editor who collated his
materials in the 14th century”: Venkatachala-māhātmya, Badrikāśrama-māhātmya,
and the Puruṣottamakśetra-māhātmya (Puri). Though the date of the former two was
uncertain, he estimated the time of composition of the Puruṣottamakśetra-māhātmya
to be around 1300 A.D. But even this date would seem too late, as an analytic study
of its contents shows. It was clearly composed much earlier, since it does not mention
the construction of the magnificient Jagannātha temple, built in 1042 C.E.15 by
Anaṇtavarman Choḋagaṅga.16
On what then did the historians base their wide estimate of date? 12th 13th 14th
The four historians claimed to have based their supposition of date of Skaṇḋapurāña
on three versions: a printed edition and two other manuscripts (one found in Vrindavan
Research Institute, Vrindavan, and another kept at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.) It is
interesting that these are the versions that form the basis of Bakker’s study, mentioned
by him in references as ‘S’, ‘B’ and ‘OA’ respectively. It is unclear whether any of the
historians undertook direct study of the original material they cite or simply took it down
from Bakker’s references since they quoted him profusely. The lack of diligence of
these historians can be gauged from the following observation in their ‘Report to the
Nation’:
“The internal contents of the Skanda Purãṇa, including the mention of
Vidyapati, who passed away in the first half of the sixteenth century, show
that the core of this Purãṇa itself was not compiled earlier than the
sixteenth century.” [Emphasis added]
It may be noted that the Vidyāpati mentioned in Skaṇḋapurāña is not the famed Maithili
poet, as assumed by the historians, but a mythological character described in the
Mahābhārata and also the Bhāgavatapurāña, as the younger brother of the priest of
the legendary king Indradyumna of Ujjain, who had tasked Vidyāpati to trace the Nīla
Mādhava deity worshipped by the Śabara tribe of Utkala country. 17
Moreover, Vidyāpati of Janakpur (Nepal) could not have lived in the first half of the
16th century since he was born in 1350 C.E. He is known to have copied the entire
Bhāgavatapurāña in Mithilākśara, which he himself dated in the colophon to L.S. 309
(1418 C.E.), at a ripe old age during his exile in Nepal, after the defeat of King
Śivasiṁha18. Other works by him, ‘Likhanāvali’, a treatise on drafting of official letters,
is dated L.S. 299 (1408 C.E.) and ‘Durgābhakti Taraṅgini’, written on the request of
Mahārāja Bhairava Siṁha, is definitely dated to Śaka 1375 (1453 C.E.) in an
inscription in the Sun-temple in Kandāhā (near Saharsa, Bihar). In the enthusiasm to
prove their case the historians kept Vidyāpati alive till mid-16th century!

15
S. N. Sen (‘A Textbook of Medieval Indian History’); by other estimates, in the 12th century (1156-1170 C.E.)

16
Kunal Kishore (‘Ayodhyã Revisited’)

17
Ibid.

18
Known to have ascended to the throne in 1402 C.E. at the age of 50 (Vidyāpati was elder to him by 2 years.)
Before we discuss the other sources that describe the ‘māhātmya’ of Ayōdhyā and
that of the ‘janmasthāna’ of Rāma, let us dwell a while longer on the historians’
puzzling keenness to prove recent origins of the sanctity of Ayōdhyā as Rāma’s
birthplace. Acharya Kunal Kishore19, provides an interesting factoid from which this
motivation would become evident.
Deputed as Officer on Special Duty in 1990 during his career with the Indian Police
Service, to assist the Ministry of State for Home Affairs in mediations between the
contending parties in the Rāma Janmabhūmi-Bāburī Masjid dispute, Ach. Kunal
Kishore held the appointment at the time when the four historians came up with their
vehemently worded missive which contained the following exhortations:
“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 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.” [Emphasis added]
The charge that the government of India was acting as “umpire” between the litigants
was patently not true since both parties had been formally invited by the government
to include reputed historians in their respective panels for holding debate and
discussions within the framework of the negotiations, in order to arrive at objective
conclusions that would help settle the issue. It turns out however, that all the four
historians who had issued the ‘Report to the Nation’ pretending to be “impartial
historians” were really experts preferred by BMAC and not independent, certainly not
free of bias and prejudice, which can be seen from the list of experts nominated by
both parties present with the government20. It was no surprise that the document

19
Retired I.P.S.; Vice-Chancellor of K.S.D. Sanskrit University, Darbhanga (Bihar); President, Board of Religious
Trusts, Patna; Author (‘Ayodhyã Revisited’)

20
Letter dated January 23, 1991, from OSD, Ministry of State (Home), to Shri Surya Krishna (VHP) and Shri
Javed Habib (AIBMAC), 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
Shri Ram Virajman and Ors. Vs. Shri Rajendra Singh and Ors., during the cross-examination of OPW-3 Dr. S. P.
Gupta. It was marked ‘Exh. 005-5-D 20’, with the remark “genuineness admitted” (‘Ayodhyã Revisited’, pg.
xxxix)
 “Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid; A
Historians’ Report to the Nation”
criticised only the claims of VHP
and did not comment on the quality
of evidence presented by the All
India Babri Masjid Action
Committee (AIBMAC).

Contents of letter dated January 23, 1991,

from OSD, Ministry of State (Home), to Shri
Surya Krishna (VHP) and Shri Javed Habib
(AIBMAC)

Cover Picture:
Rāma’s Court, Folio from a Rāmāyaña – India, Himachal Pradesh, Chamba,
1775-80 (Source: Collections Lacma)

Read the next section of this series here.