The History of Ayōdhyā and the

Rāma Janmabhūmī Dispute – VII

By Smita Mukerji

प्रभ्राजमानाां हरिण ां यशसा सांपि वृताम् ।

पुिां हहिण्यय ां ब्रह्मा हववेशापिाहजताम् ॥

~ अथवववेद (१०.२.३३)

“That aparājitā city (Ayōdhyā) which is

exceedingly resplendent, exceptionally
enrapturing and enveloped in acclaim, is
imbued with the golden effulgence of
Brāhmañ established at its core.”

~ Atharva Vēda (10.2.33)

Read the previous section of this series here.

One mediaeval European traveller who is of central importance to the story of Ayōdhyā
is the Austrian Jesuit padre named Joseph Tieffenthaler (1710–1785 C.E.) During his
wanderings over 42 years (1743–1785) in India he travelled its length and breadth
through 22 provinces documenting in detail the topography, political situation and
religion of 18th century India. A trained geographer and polyglot, he was a prolific writer
and his meticulous account in Latin, Descriptio Indiæ1, is one of the most remarkable
works on geography which offers a wealth of precise and scientifically recorded
information that has been only inadequately tapped till now.2 The book was published

1
Translated ‘A Description of India’
2
Among the manuscripts he sent back to Europe were maps and drawings of natural features and structures,
papers on the course of the Ganges, a Natural History of India, a geographical account of India ‘Descriptio
Indiæ’, a treatise on the origin of Hindus and the ‘Brahminical’ religion in Latin and other works on Hindu
polytheism and asceticism, papers on Nadir Shah’s invasion in Latin, Ahmad Shah Abdali’s invasion in French
and the deeds of the Mughal emperor Shah Alam in Persian. His works numbering 40 include a book on
contemporary history during 1757–64 and the religion of the Persians and Muslims, and in linguistics a
Sanskrit-Persian lexicon and treatises in Latin on Persian language. He wrote on astronomical observations on
sunspots and zodiacal light and on his studies of Hindu astronomy, astrology and cosmology.
(‘The Mapping of Hindustan: A Forgotten Geographer of India, Joseph Tieffenthaler (1710–1785) by Jose K.
John, based on the account of Fr. Severin Noti, ‘A Forgotten Geographer of India’)
in part in Latin in the period 1776–1784, a German translation3 in 1785–87 and a
French translation4 in 1786–91.
Born on July 24, 1710 at Bozen (in Tyrol county in the Austrian empire), he entered
the Society of Jesus in early youth and received his academic training at Landesberg
in Upper Germany. In 1740 he travelled to Spain and Portugal, and from Lisbon sailed
for an East Indian Mission to Goa in 1743. After various assignments in Surat, Agra
and Narwar, following an order of the Portuguese Prime Minister Pombal in 1759 for
all Jesuits to be expelled from Portuguese-controlled territories, he was forced on an
itinerant course.
Thereafter, he undertook
an arduous journey along
the course of the Ganges
down to Calcutta,
studying the regions and
tracing the sources of the
major rivers of North
India, among them the
Ghaghra (Sarayū)5 that
brought him to Ayōdhyā
in 1770. Called ‘Oude’ in
his writings, he stayed in
the province from 1766
until 1772 and some 58
pages in Descriptio Indiæ
are devoted to the towns
and villages in its range
describing the
contemporary life, with
maps and drawings of
buildings and fortresses
and their design, accurate
measurements depicting
their location, plan and
condition at that point.
Some of these are a
revelation as they show a
degree of technical
Lavatorium named ‘Mancancound’ (bottom) and the cluster of
monasteries in Awadh (top) it was a part of, sketched by advancement far greater
Tieffenthaler in 1767 C.E. (Source: ‘The Battle for Rama’) than the standard of

3
‘Des Pater Joseph Tieffenthaler‘s Historisch-geographische Beschreibung von Hindustan’ (Father Joseph
Tieffenthaler’s Historical-geographic Description of India), translated by Jean Bernoulli
4
‘Description Historique et Geographique De L’Inde’ (Father Joseph Tieffenthaler’s Historical and Geographic
Description of India), translated by Anquetil Du Perron, Jaques Rennell and Jean Bernoulli.
5
Considered by some to be synonymous with the Ghaghra (or Gogra) forming its lower portion. By others seen
as a tributary of Ghaghra which ultimately flows into the Ganges at its left bank. Ayōdhyā lies on the right bank
of the Sarayū.
buildings today.
One of these
illustrations is
particularly
remarkable
which is of a
multi-storied
complex for
monks in
Ayōdhyā
(labelled ‘some
monasteries in
Awadh where
6
heathen monks
live’, apparently a
mûṭh for sādhūs) Great Bath of Mohenjo-daro (Source: Harappa.com)
and a lavatorium
(Lat. for washing room) labelled ‘Mancancound’ (Skt. maṇćankuṇd) which was part of
it. The reservoir had a sophisticated system of aqueducts for collection and discharge
that had an uncanny resemblance to the ‘Great Bath’ of Mohenjo-daro.
From Tieffenthaler’s account it is apparent that Ayōdhyā had many imposing
structures in the 18th century and continued to be the centre of vibrant religious activity.
But most importantly, it contains the first ever reference to the demolition of the
castle in Rāmkōṭ and the construction of a mosque at the place, subsequently
referred to as Bābûrī masjid.7 Tieffenthaler’s descriptive and categoric account
blows apart every single contrivance of the cabal of historians intent on falsifying the
historical circumstance that a temple had existed on the site of the Islamic structure
that came to be known as Bābûrī masjid.
It was first quoted in the context of the Rāma Janmabhūmī–Bābûrī Masjid Dispute by
Abhas Kumar Chatterjee (IAS) in a series of articles which appeared in Indian Express
in 1991 (‘History Versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramjanmabhoomi Mandir
presented by the Vishva Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December–
January 1990-91’), though he had not used the original Latin account but quoted from
the French translation. The book was not available in English until a translation was
requisitioned by the Government of India to be placed before the Lucknow Bench of
Allahabad High Court, as there had been some objections raised on the authenticity
of the French version when placed before the court as evidence. Unbeknownst to them
however, an English translation did in fact exist as part of Vol. IV of the book ‘The
Modern Traveller: A Popular Description, Geographical, Historical and Topographical,
of the Globe’, by Josiah Conder, published 1828. This was submitted before the same

6
Used to refer to Hindus
7
It was first quoted in the context of the Rāma Janmabhūmī–Bābûrī Masjid Dispute by Abhas Kumar
Chatterjee (IAS) in a 1990 article which appeared in Indian Express, though he had not used the original Latin
account but quoted from the French translation.
bench by Ach. Kishore Kunal. An excerpt from this version8 provide us with an
unequivocal picture of what had happened at the Janmabhūmī of Rāma:

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 many
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 inhabitants of the city.
The deserted town was repeopled and restored to its
former condition by Bikramjit, 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.”

Tieffenthaler’s account clearly mentions the presence of two mosques which were built
in Ayōdhyā after demolition of the temples that stood there, on the orders of Emperor
Aurangzeb: the first at Svargadwārī at the bank of the Ghaghra and another east of
this spot. So what state was Rāmkōṭ in at that time? Tieffenthaler further informs:
“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 of arcades of the mosque; the two others

8
There exists however almost no variation in content between the translated versions.
 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 monkeys.”

This was the third Hindu structure, and apparently, most significant, that was
destroyed and a mosque built in its place. But what site was this so significant that
Tieffenthaler talked about?

The exact location of birth of Śrī Rāmaćaṇdra

When the account
of Joseph
Tieffenthaler was
first brought as
evidence in the
adjudication of the
Rāma
Janmabhūmī
Dispute9,
numerous
questions were
raised on its
authenticity by the
lobby opposing the
Rāma
Janmabhūmī
temple movement.
There is however a
The ‘Plaintiff’
Bhagwān Śrī Rāmlallā Virājaman
striking
Sabarimalā to Ayōdhyā – Hindu Deities plead for their space in ‘secular’ India consistency in all
the translated
versions done centuries apart and almost no variation from the original Latin work. Still
this did not keep the fraternity of established historians from belittling its evidentiary
value. In an article ‘A Historian’s Overview’ that appeared in the book, ‘Anatomy of a
Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India’, K. N. Panikkar
tried to discredit Tieffenthaler’s account with the words: “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

9
Suit filed in 1989 by Bhagwan Sri Ramlala Virajman at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya, as Plaintiff No. 1 and
Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya as Plaintiff No. 2, represented by Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal (Retired
Judge of High Court, resident of Allahabad) as Next Friend of Ramlala Virajman and also Plaintiff No. 3 in the
Suit. Among a total of 27 Defendants named in this Suit were Rajendra Singh, s/o Gopal Singh Visharad,
Paramhans Mahant Ramchandra Das, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Central Board of Waqf and a few Muslims, Sri
Rama Janma Bhumi Nyas and Shia Central Board of Waqf, and all the parties of previous four suits filed in the
case.
Svargadvara with the Babri mosque. In this context it is necessary to make a distinction
between the janmasthan and the janmabhumi (location of birth and place of birth.)”
But this claim is obviously fallacious as Tieffenthaler mentions the mosque built at
Svargadwārī as distinct from “another mosque…built by the Moors, to the east of
this”, the agency for which he clearly specified. Another mosque, a third, with three

domes was constructed at Rāmkōṭ (located to the south-west of Svargadwārī), in case

of which however he was not sure the
(Source: Researchgate)
causer. Thus he clearly identified three
separate spots where demolitions were
carried out.

The differentiation of ‘Janmasthāna’ from

‘Janmabhūmī’ is also specious, as a perusal
of the textual sources pertaining to the
birthplace of Rāma (please see parts III, IV
and V) would show, since the two terms are
used interchangeably all through. An
excerpt from Skaṇdapurāña in the picture
below shows synonymous use of the two
terms repeatedly describing the same place.
In the following lines from Satyōpākhyāna
the two terms are used for Rama’s
birthplace in a single verse:
 स्नात्वा च शियां हदव्ाां जन्मस्थानां ततो गतााः ।
व्रहतनो िामचन्द्रस्य जन्मभमेाः प्रदशवनात् ॥३४.१८॥
(After ablutions at the heavenly Sarayū devotees should go [there] to the Janmasthāna and
obtain a vision of the Janmabhūmī of Rāmaćaṇdra.)

In a verse from Ayōdhyā-māhātmyam Excerpt from Skaṇdapurāña (1910 printed version of

(derived from the Rudrayāmala) found Shri Venkateshwar Steam Press)
in a sequence describing the pieties to be undertaken at the place of Rāma’s birth on
Rāma-navamī (the tithī on which Rāma’s is said to have been born), the birthplace is
referred to as ‘Janmasthāna’ in the MS dated 1801 C.E. preserved at Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute in Pune, while newer versions term it as ‘Janmabhūmī’.

Excerpt from 1801 M.S. preserved at Bhandarkar Excerpt from Bengali version, M.S. preserved at Oldest printed version (1868 C.E.), lithograph edition published
Oriental Research Institute in Pune Vrindavan Research Institute (used by Bakker) by Kashi Sanskrit Press

Carnegy10 too seemed to have entertained no doubt in using the two terms for the
same place: “On its western side is the Janam Bhúm or Janam Asthán, the birth place
of the hero.”
Patently, the terms do not denote two separate places but a single location. For all the
earnest strains of these historians entrenched in academe to prove the contrary,
Tieffenthaler’s description leaves no scope for ambiguity that the mosque in Rāmkōṭ
was built on the site that was recognised since ages as ‘Janmasthāna’,
alternatively ‘Janmabhūmī’, the birthplace of Śrī Rāma, and a platform called
bēdī marked the exact spot of birth.

“On the left [of Sītā Rasōī] 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 Beschan (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 Tschet

10
‘Epitome Of The “Ájúdhiá Mahátum,” Which Is Again Taken From The Púráns’, by Patrick Carnegy
 (Choitru), a large concourse of people celebrate here
the birth-day of Ram, so famous throughout India.”

And what was the word of our favourites on this, the EIHs11? They found an artful
explanation to discount this stark evidence that: “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 x 5 feet x 4 feet, and its identification as Rāma’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’.”
But this is a facile argument as the ‘house in which Rāma was born’ (which formerly
was) and a flat platform called bēdī marking the exact spot of birth (which could still be
seen at the time of Tieffenthaler’s visit) are mentioned in no uncertain terms. The
French translation of the book refers to it as ‘maison natale de Ram’ (natal home of
Rāma). In other textual accounts too, e.g. Badrikāśrama-māhātmya (collated early 14th
century) and the Tīrthayātrā Vidhāna of Rudrayāmala-sarōddhāra (early 15th century),
the temple at the Janmasthāna has been referred to as ‘Rāmālaya’ or the ‘house of
Rāma’, and the latter also refers to the ‘ćabūtarā’ (a square platform) there. (See Part
IV of the series.)
The historians moreover mistook ‘ells’ to mean ‘feet’. Ell is defined as
‘the length of the arm or forearm, later standardised (English ell) as equal to 45 inches
or 114 centimetres. The platform described as bēdī would have then been 18 feet and
9 inches x 15 feet x 5 inches. But where exactly in Rāmkōṭ was the bēdī and where
had the temple stood?
In the light of recent proceedings in the matter it becomes particularly important to
have answers to these questions, as in spite of the clear findings of the previous
bench12 hearing the matter, on the subject of the presence of a pre-existing Hindu
structure at the site where the ‘Bābûrī Masjid’ had stood until December 1992,
the Supreme Court again came up with the aggravatingly disobliging question directed
at the Hindu parties in a hearing on August 16 this year, asking them to present ‘proof’
of their claim that the mosque was built on the remains of an ancient temple.13 The
counsel appearing for Bhagwān Śrī Rāmlallā Virājaman stated that ‘the unstinting faith
and belief of the people and the “preponderance of probabilities” show that it was

11
This document submitted by the historians ‘Babari Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians Report to the
Indian Nation’ was heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of the submissions that neither the site in
dispute was ever believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama nor there existed any temple which was
demolished to construct building in dispute.
12
The Supreme Court of India resumed hearing in the case in 2018, after the ruling of the Lucknow Bench of
Allahabad High Court was suspended in May 2011, after Hindu and Muslim groups appealed against it. We will
go into the landmark 2010 judgement at length later.
13
Justice S. A. Bobde, also part of the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Bobde, asked Mr. Vaidyanathan
to corroborate his arguments that the structure was a temple and that too one dedicated to Lord Ram.
“Over the past two millennia we have seen civilisations settle and resettle on river banks. They have built upon
pre-existing structures. But prove that the alleged ruins or demolished building [on which Babri Masjid was
built] was religious in nature…” – Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, to senior advocate C. S.
Vaidyanathan, appearing for the deity of Ayōdhyā, Ram Lalla Virajman.
indeed a temple for Lord Ram.’ But the validity of the “belief” rests primarily on the
antiquity and continuity of the tradition and the successful pinpointing of the site
associated with the belief.
Returning to Tieffenthaler’s account: we are informed that Rāmkōṭ was demolished
and a mosque “erected on the site”. But Rāmkōṭ is too vast an area! Then Tieffenthaler
further points to Sītā Rasōī and the bēdī and says that one of the two Muslim emperors
named “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…” He does not say that another mosque was built at this
location in Rāmkōṭ. Taken together the two sentences lead to only one unmistakable
conclusion: the mosque was built right on the site of the temple (mentioned as
“natal dwelling of Ram”) which contained the spots marked as Sītā Rasōī and
the bēdī, since there was only one mosque in Rāmkōṭ!

Late 19th century photograph of ‘Bābûrī Masjid’ from Patrick Carnegy's Book (Source: Getty)

Moreover, these passages, along with the testimonies of William Finch (1608–11),
Joannes De Laet (1631 C.E.) and Thomas Herbert (1634), establish the case of
“unstinting faith and belief of the people” since at least early 17th century. Strangely
however, all these accounts describe the presence of Hindus and their
performance of devotions at the site and curiously enough, contain no mention
of Muslims there. Since none of the earlier writings mention a mosque at the
Janmabhūmī (as we shall hereafter refer to the site at Rāmkōṭ where the erstwhile
‘Bābûrī Masjid’ stood until 1992), it is apparent that Hindus’ activities continued
undeterred even after the mosque was built. How did it come to this pass? And then,
does this mean that the bēdī was actually inside the mosque and the Hindus were
worshipping there already in 1770? We will find out in the upcoming sections of this
series.
Tieffenthaler’s rather crystal clear account nevertheless leaves one abiding puzzle still.
How come there was a confusion in his mind about who caused the destruction of the
Rāmkōṭ temple and built the mosque there? Considering his minute observation of the
building, premises and the objects and careful measurements, e.g. of the bēdī, his
inspection(s) of the site would have been far more than cursory. Did he not find inside
the mosque some sign to confirm the prevalent assertion of the people that Aurangzeb
had ordered the temple destroyed and the mosque built in its place, or the alternative
view, that his great-great-great grandfather had performed the ‘pious deed’ ca. 1½
centuries ago? Something… like an inscription perhaps..(?)

Cover Picture: A view of the ‘Bābûrī’ mosque (Deccan Herald)