The History of Ayōdhyā and the

Rāma Janmabhūmī Dispute – V

By Smita Mukerji

विमानवमि विद्धानाां तपिाविगांत विवि ।

िुवनिेवितिेश्मान्ाां नरोत्तमिमािृताम् ॥
~ श्री िाल्मीवि रामायण, १.५.१९

“Like an abode afloat in the ‘divi’ (divine

spiritual world), attained by the ‘siddhas’
(accomplished souls) that arrive there through
their ‘tapa’ (austerities), Śrīmatī Ayōdhyāpurī is
filled with exquisitely built dwellings full of the
best (noblest) of men.”

~ Vālmīki Rāmāyaña, 1.5.19

Read the previous section of this series here.

An authoritative religious history of the Hindus and the growth of the pilgrimage centres
revered by them has been lacking owing to the proclivity of established historians to
denigrate the written sources which would constitute its primary reference material,
dismissing these as mythology. But in recent decades several scholars, both Indian
and foreign, have undertaken the study of the sacred literature relating to these,
namely the sthalapurāñas, gleaning information provided in them to reconstruct a
definitive history of the places sanctified in Hindu belief. A pioneer in this field was the
Dutch Indologist Jan Gonda, who wrote in his book ‘Medieval Religious Literature in
Sanskrit’ that, “the literature of holy places of special sanctity is in all probability far
more extensive than any other single topic of the Dharmaśāstras.” He further
observed:
“This genre of literature is not only very useful for deepening our
knowledge of the cultural and religious history of India in general but
also most valuable for those who want to reconstruct the development
of regional history and local cults or to gain a deeper insight into
various religious institutions.”
Several texts lost in oblivion were brought out in the course of respective researches
conducted by scholars, like the Gayā-māhātmya by C. Jacques in 1962, the
Kāṇćipuram-māhātmya by a team led by R. Dessigane in 1964, the legend of
Indradyūmna related to the story of Jagannātha in a detailed study1 by R. Geib,

1
‘Die Indradyumna-Legende: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Jagannatha-Kultes’ (Wiesbaden, 1975)
 Puruṣottama-māhātmya by A. Eichmann and his team, in 1978, the Prayāga-
māhātmya by S. G. Kantawala in 1967 and by G. Spera in 1977, sacred sites of Nēpāl
by H. Uebach in 1970 and Ćidambaram by H. Kulke (1969-70). In this sequence is
Hans T. Bakker’s noteworthy study of the Ayōdhyā-māhātmya published in 1986, as
part his book ‘Ayodhyā’.

Description of Rāma-janmabhūmī in Ayōdhyā-māhātmya

The Ayōdhyā-māhātmya (henceforth AM) identifies in unambiguous terms the spot
where Śrī Rāma is said to have been born, furnishing clear directions and orientation.
But regrettably this vital evidence has never been asserted authoritatively nor properly
presented before the adjudicating authorities in the Rāma Janmabhūmī-Bābûrī Masjid
dispute.2
Ayōdhyā-māhātmya versions used by Hans T. Bakker
Bakker used three versions of AM to base his work. The first of these (denoted by ‘S’
in the sigla) is a printed version (1910) of AM of Skaṇdapurāña,3 by M/s. Khemraj
Shrikrishnadas (Shri Venkateshwar Steam Press)4, in which the following description
of the place of birth of Rāma can be found:

Excerpt from Adhyāya 10, p. 293R. of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Skandapurāña printed by M/s. Khemraj Shrikrishandas
(Source: ‘Ayodhyã Revisited’, by Kishore Kunal)

2
Kishore Kunal
3
8th section of the Vaiṣñava-khaṇda of Skandapurāña
4
Another printed version of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya by the same publishers, published V.S. 1956 (1899 C.E.) is
available, which according to the colophon is from the Rudrayāmala, containing 30 chapters.
 The second version of AM referred to by Bakker is from a manuscript (MS) of the
Rudrayāmala preserved at Bodleian Library, Oxford University5 (denoted by him ‘OA’).
It is in Dēvanāgari script with black Indian ink on hand-made paper. It is the largest
version of the three used by Bakker, containing 30 adhyāyas (chapters) with 10 lines
to a page and 50 akśaras per line. Apart from the specific directions given in ‘S’, this
version gives more details on the exact distance separating the identifying spots.6

Excerpt with description of Janmasthāna from Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Rudrayāmala (Adhyāya 7), from MS at Bodleian Library,
Oxford (Source: ‘Ayodhyã Revisited’, by Kishore Kunal)

5
Bound into one volume along with the manuscripts of the ‘Kēdārakalpa’, the ‘Kōsala Khaṇda’ and the
‘Taṇtrasāra’, this MS belongs to the ‘Chandra Shum Shere Collection’ numbered C150, in black ink, marked
‘No. ‘473’ (possibly a shelf-mark of the original collection above), titled ‘Rudrayamala, Ajodhyamahatma 57’
(with an additional handwritten remark on the title page in red ink that reads ‘Rudrayamale’).
6
There is another MS in Bodleian Library with almost the same content as the first, described by Bakker with
the words: “Chandra Shum Shere Collection of the Bodleian Library Oxford No. C 150. The MS is included in the
same binding as the preceding one (O1). The title page bears the number ‘1800’ and below it the title
‘rudrayamalokta’ in red ink; and the words ‘kosalakhanda’ ‘rudrayamala 78’ below it in black ink. (The word
‘skandakahai’ after ‘kosalakhanda’ has been crossed out.) Below this, noted in another hand are the words
‘Sriayodhyamahatmya’, followed by the number ‘78’, ‘A 30’, and below it ‘2254’ (possibly the shelf mark). It is
Dēvanāgari script in black Indian ink, with 30 adhyāyas over 78 folios, containing a total of 1578 ślōkas. The
name of the scribe and place of copying is missing, but it is dated to V.S. 1895 (1838 C.E.) The first MS used by
Bakker is older than this MS.
 The third version of AM studied by Bakker for his work ‘Ayodhyā’ is a MS in Bengali
script (marked ‘B’ by him), preserved at Vrindavan Research Institute, which again is
part of the text Rudrayāmala.

Description of Janmasthāna in Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Rudrayāmala (Adhyāya 5, folio 13v–14v), from MS at Vrindavan Research
Institute (Source: ‘Ayodhyã Revisited’, by Kishore Kunal)

What is remarkable in the three versions is the striking consistency in the

description and the coordinates of the place of birth of Śrī Rāma that they provide.
The ‘S’ version though does not mention the temple built by Brahmā. It may be
speculated that the MS of this version was scribed at a period when the
(Janmabhūmī) temple and the castle (Rāmkōt) had ceased to exist.
Not all of Bakker’s conclusions can be strictly relied on since they suffer from the
typical biases of Western Indological studies that seek to read the dynamics of India
in terms of a preset notional matrix, devising themes of caste conflict and religious
contention between ‘Brahminism’7 as an orthodox block and Jainism and Buddhism

7
Bakker writes: “We conceive of ‘Brahmanism’ as the culture of the Āryan stratum of the society, notably that
of the Brahmins, which preceded ‘Hinduism’, that is to say which did not yet know temple worship.”
(even Śaivism and Vaiṣñavism and their various sects) as heterodoxies rather than as
valid philosophical traditions in concordance within the grand milieu of Hinduism.
Straightforward evidences that point to the sacred status of Ayōdhyā in Hindu canon
appears to have been consistently devalued, disregarded or misinterpreted and
instead greater antiquity assigned to the association of Buddhist and Jaina traditions
with Ayōdhyā, portraying the Hindu tradition as a later appropriation of the holy site
and the Hindus as interlopers. In an effort to ‘demythologise’, the work tries to
invalidate the longstanding association of Ayōdhyā with Śrī Rāma’s nativity as a
comparatively recently forged tradition.8 Bakker moreover introduces new
divarications which further mired the issue rather than bring clarity. These will need to
be addressed at a later point in this series since these have been adduced in the case
against the movement to reclaim the Rāma-janmabhūmī site.
Bakker’s work however does affirm that Ayōdhyā was a sacred city in Jaina, Buddhist
as well as–what he refers to as–‘brahminical’ tradition by the 6th to 5th centuries B.C.E.
and an important centre of the Śaiva and Vaiṣñava traditions by the Gupta age (3rd to
6th century C.E.) and authenticates the lore of present day Ayōdhyā as Rāma’s
birthplace since the beginning of the second millennium C.E. He confirms the
existence of a temple at that spot, apart from four other Viṣñu temples at
different locations in Ayōdhyā9, at least since the 12th century C.E. (coinciding
with the rule of the Gāhaḋavāla kings) citing epigraphical, archaeological and literary
evidence, unlike the casual claims of our EIHs.
What is interesting is that the emergence of tangible signs of the Śaiva and Vaiśñava
cults in Ayōdhyā coincide with the Gupta age, the period in which much of the traditions
transmitted orally over aeons began to be actually recorded, as well as the beginnings
of use of stone in the construction of temples. These however explain the appearance
of scribed forms of the traditions and enduring edifices related to them and do not
necessarily mark the originating point of the traditions as concluded by Bakker. For
now, let us visit the various versions of AM other than the ones used by Bakker to see
how they describe the Rāma-janmabhūmī.

Location of Rāma-janmabhūmī

The basic premise is clearly erroneous in more ways than one. The idea of an “Āryan stratum” is fundamentally
flawed since no such distinct set of brahminical practices attributable to a class existed. In reality, Hindu
iconography developed over a vast period of time and was more a process of metamorphosis rather than a
break or moving away from ‘Brahminism’ and remains rooted in the ancient Vedic tradition. Indeed most of
the masters of Śaiva, Vaiṣñava, Jaina and Buddhist traditions were drawn from among the ‘brahminical’
complex and were merely philosophical streams inhered to it.
8
Bakker has also made some preposterous assumptions about the political scenario, portraying diminutively
the powerful Hindu kingdoms of the time while exaggerating the Ghaznavid tip-and-run assaults–most of
which were thwarted effectively by Indian rulers–as an overrun.
9
1) Harismṛti (Guptahari) at the Gopratāra ghāt, 2) Viṣñuhari at the Ćakratīrtha ghāt, 3) Ćandrahari on the west
side of the Svargadvāra ghāts, 4) Dharmahari on the east side of the Svargadvāra ghāts, and a 5) Viṣñu temple
on the Janmabhūmī
The identity of all these temples is not uncontested though locations are more or less certain. Three of these,
viz. 3), 4) and 5), definitely existed until their destruction in the mediaeval period.
In 1902, during a visit of the Prince of Wales to India a trip to Faizābād was planned,
which however did not materialise eventually. The British district administration
decided to utilise the funds allocated for the arrangements of the visit to mark all the
locations of religious significance in Ayōdhyā.10 The first stone marker was affixed
in front of the eastern entrance of a mosque atop Rāmkōt bearing the notation
‘No. 1, Rama-janma-bhumi’. This was done in consultation with a local committee
headed by Mahant Rammanohar Prasad of Baḍā-Asthān (Daśarath Mahal) and
established on the basis of the details in AM of Skaṇapurāña. As early as 1902, this
spot was accepted officially by the British administration as the birthplace of Śrī Rāma
revered since yore, pinpointed after assiduous study of traditionally handed down
information as well as textual sources. Its authenticity was impugned by a clique of
latter-day supposed expert historians who had in fact not made any direct study of the
primary sources.
Several recensions of the AM provide a meticulous sketch of the Janmasthāna
mentioning its precise location in relation to other identifying features.
Māhātmya of Ayōdhyā in Awadha Vilās of Lāl Dāsa

Description of Janmabhūmī in Awadha Vilāsa

10
“In 1902 a local committee was formed with the object of commemorating the coronation of His Imperial
Majesty King Edward VII, and a sum of over Rs. 1000 was collected and expended on the erection of stone
pillars marking the sacred spots in Ajodhya and its neighbourhood. This work had been carried out and no
fewer than 145 such stones have been erected; their ostensible purpose being to preserve the memory of the
various holy spots and to serve as a guide to pilgrims and others interested in the place.” – ‘Fyzabad: A
Gazetteer Vol. XLIII’, by H. R. Neville (Allahabad, 1905), pg. 176
The 17th century Bhakti saint Lāl Dāsa left a graphic description of the Janmasthāna
in his composition ‘Awadha Vilāsa’. He was clearly in possession of a MS of AM since
he expressly mentioned the source of his composition to be the Rudrayāmala. The
description of Rāma Janmasthāna in his composition is remarkably similar to those in
the presently available versions and therefore it can be safely assumed that not only
did a MS of AM of the Rudrayāmala exist in 1675 C.E. (the year Lāl Dāsa composed
Awadha Vilāsa), there is no significant change in the description of the
Janmabhūmī for at least since 3-½ centuries, which completely belies the claim of
the EIHs.
But curiously, the Awadha Vilāsa does not at any point mention a temple at the
spot of Rāma’s birth. It however testifies that it was visited by a multitude of people,
the sages and the gods (िे ि विद्धद्ध ररद्धि मुवन जन जेते । िांित हैं ता ठौरवहां तेते ॥). It is likely
that though the location was clearly identified, the structure on the site was no
longer there.
Oldest printed version of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya
The oldest printed version of AM discovered so far is a lithograph edition published by
Varanasi Prasad, at Kashi Sanskrit Press in V.S. 1925 (1868 C.E.) This version from
Rudrayāmala containing 10 chapters was edited by Fatah Narayan Singh, a copy of
which is available in the British Museum Library11.

Excerpt from printed version of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya of Kashi Sanskrit Press

(Source: ‘Ayodhya: Beyond Adduced Evidence’, by Kishore Kunal)

11
Part of the ‘Catalogue of Sanskrit and Pali Books in the British Museum’, prepared by Dr. Ernst Haas in 1876
in London. Ayōdhyā-māhātmya begins on page 141 with the note:
“TantrasRudrayãmalatantrãAyodhyamahatmyam अथायोध्यामाहात्म्यां प्रारभ्यते [A description of Ayodhya and
its sacred localities alleged to be a section of the R] ff. 16, lith. (िािी 1925 (Benares, 1868))]”
Ayōdhyā-māhātmya Manuscript in Oriental Institute Vadodara
A MS with exactly the same contents as AM of Kashi Sanskrit Press, but older, dated
V.S. 1903 (1846 C.E.) is preserved in the Oriental Institute Baroda. The relevant
chapter 5 describes the Janmabhūmī in detail (reproduced in the picture).

‘Ájúdhiá Mahátum’ of P. Carnegy

Patrick Carnegy, the officiating British Commissioner and Settlement Officer of District
Faizabad (1863) had seen one MS of AM which he translated ca. 1860 into English,
titled ‘Ájúdhiá Mahátum’. An abstract of this captioned, ‘EPITOME OF THE “ÁJÚDHIÁ
MAHÁTUM,” WHICH AGAIN IS TAKEN FROM THE PÚRÁNS’, prepared by Assistant Settlement
Officer J. Woodburn, is included in Carnegy’s monumental work ‘Historical Sketch of
Tehsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad’12 with the following introductory note:

12
‘Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh and Pachhimrath with the
old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad’ (1870)
 “No account of Ajudhia would be complete which did not throw
some light on the Ramayana and the Ajudhia Mahatum. Of the
former of these works, I need not speak, for through the
writings of Wheeler, Cust, Monier Williams most readers are
familiar therewith. I will therefore confine my remarks to the
Ajudhia Mahatum, which is comparatively unknown.
This work was prepared to the glorification of Ajudhia
according to some, by Ikshvaku of the Solar race, while others
with more probability aver that it is a transcript from Askandh
and Padam Purans, and is not the production of any Raja. Be
that as it may, it is well that the essence of the work should
be made available to the public, and in this view Mr. Woodburn,
c.s. has been good enough to make a connected abstract for me,
from a literal translation which I had made some years ago.
This abstract is given as Appendix B.” [Emphasis added]

The version could

also have been likely
part of the
Satyōpākhyāna
since it contains a
narration of the story
of ‘the thieves’ found
in the AM of
Satyōpākhyāna.13
So, what can we
know about the
Janmasthāna from
this version?

Excerpt from ‘Epitome Of

The “Ájúdhiá Mahátum,”
Which Is Again Taken
From The Púráns’, with
the story of the thieves,
which can be found in the
Satyōpākhyāna

“In the heart of the city lies the great Rám Kot, the fort of
Rám, with its gates guarded by the immortal monkeys who
accompanied him on his return from Ceylon. On its western side
is the Janam Bhúm or Janam Asthán, the birth place of the hero.
To visit this on the Rám-Nomí, that sacred ninth which falls
in Chait, delivers the pilgrim from all the pains of the
transmigration of souls. The virtue of this act is as if the

13
The Rudrayāmala only alludes to the story of the thieves.
 pilgrim had given 1,000 cows, or performed a thousand times
the sacrifices of the Ráj Súijí or Agin-hotra…
Just beside the birth-place of Ráma is the “Kitchen” of Jánkí-
jí. It is in shape like the ordinary Indian “Chúlha,” and is
supposed to be always filled with food. The sight of it
satisfies every want; a daily visit keeps the house supplied
with food. Close to this is the house of Kaikayi, where Bharat-
jí was born. On the other side is that of Somitra, where
Lachhman and Satrohan were born. South-east of this is the
Sítá Kúp, the waters of which are said to give intelligence to
the drinker.”

Though only a synopsis, the specific spots mentioned in the version tally with the other
versions of AM.
Ayōdhyā-māhātmya in Jīva Gōswāmī’s Library
The 16th century saint of the Gauḍiyā Vaiṣñva tradition, Jīva Gōswāmī (1523–1608),
who established the Rādhā Dāmōdara temple at Vrindāvana had built a library in the
temple premises for which he prepared in his own handwriting an elaborate catalogue
of the books available. This list of books is presently preserved at the Vrindavan
Research Institute. The MS is divided in four parts A to D, according to year of listing.
In folio no. 9 of category A14, listed in 1654 V.S. (1597 C.E.), mentioned as the 9th
entry is the book with title ‘अयोध्या माहात्म्य गौ’ or ‘Ayōdhyā-māhātmya Gauḍiyā15’. A MS
of AM in Bengali script was clearly available in 1597 C.E. possibly copied from a much
earlier version.
Though it has not been possible to determine whether the listed book is extant or not16,
another work by Jīva Gōswāmī, Kṛṣña-saṅdarbha, which is part of the ‘Śata-
saṅdarbha’, contains the following verses that refer to AM:

Excerpt of ‘Kṛṣña-saṅdarbha’ of Jīva Gōswāmī (Source: ‘Ayodhya: Beyond Adduced Evidence’, by Kishore Kunal)

14
Corresponding to book bundle no. 20 which carries various Purāñas wrapped in cloth (presently preserved in
Vrindavan Research Insitute-Acc. No. 5425)
15
Stands for the Bengali recensions
16
Vrindavan Research had four MS of AM all of which however are later editions. No MS seems to have been
received from Rādhā Dāmōdara temple at the Vrindavan library and it is not possible to examine the original
works in Jīva Gōswāmī’s handwriting since they are worshipped by the devotees.
The first of these verses appears in many recensions of AM in relation to the
description of Svargadwāra. The second verse can be found in the first chapter of
printed version of AM which had been used by Bakker, indicating that the text was a
well-known source of reference in Jīva Gōswāmī’s time (1513-1598 C.E.)17 for the
eminence of Ayōdhyā in relation to Śrī Rāma’s nativity available in one or more
versions.
Other minor versions of Ayōdhyā-māhātmya
A printed version of AM in Hindi is known, composed by a poet called ‘Hajari’ in the
Hara-Gaurī samvāda style of Rudrayāmala, published in July 1901, by Seth Chhotelal
Laxmichand (Mumbai) and printed at Jain Press, Lucknow. It is a concise work of 20
chapters covering only 20 pages with neither the poet’s details nor a date. Its contents
indicate the date of the composition to be in the 18th century around the time the
Hanumān-gaḍhi temple was constructed in Rāmkot.
Another version titled ‘Awadha Yātrā’, composed by Munsi Rai Gur Sharan Lal
‘Awadhvasi’ was published in 1869, by Munshi Nawal Kishore Printing Press,
Lucknow. This work narrates the significance of a pilgrimage to the Janmasthāna in
Rāmkōt mentioning the exact particulars and the location.
It is quite clear that there were several recensions and many more manuscripts of AM,
quite a few of which have down the ages been lost. There are also other sources with
corroborative references on the sanctitude of Ayōdhyā.
Dwārkā-paṭṭalam, Badrikā-māhātmya, Yātrā Prabaṇdha and Ćaitanya Bhāgvat
‘Dwārkā-paṭṭalam’ was composed by the royal princess Bīnābāi (daughter of
Māṇdalika, and wife of Hari Singh of the Chauhan clan of Pāṭalipura in Kāṭhiāwāḍ).
The work draws mainly from the Dwārkā-māhātmya (part of the Prabhāsa Khaṇda of
Skaṇdapurāña). Published in 1941 C.E. as part of ‘The contribution of Women to
Sanskrit Literature’, volume III, it was edited by Jatindra Vimal Chaudhari, prepared
from a MS dated to 1518 C.E. In a set of verses the book describes the prestige of
Ayōdhyā:

Excerpt from ‘Dwārkā-paṭṭalam’ of Bīnābāi (Source: ‘Ayodhya: Beyond Adduced Evidence’, by Kishore
Kunal)
17
According to some sources, 1533 to 1618 C.E.
 The Badrikāśrama-māhātmya is a part of Vaiṣñava Khaṇda of Skaṇdapurāña which
is estimated to have been collated in the 14th century18. It contains a short account of
the Janmabhūmī but with some stunning details:

Excerpt from Badrikāśrama-māhātmya in Vaiṣñava Khaṇda of Skaṇdapurāña (Source: ‘Ayodhyã Revisited’, by Kishore Kunal)

The 17th century poet Samarapuṅgava Dīkśita (b. 1574 C.E.) provides a brief but very
specific description of Ayōdhyā from his pilgrimage there, in his treatise ‘Yātrā
Prabaṇdha’, composed in Champu style19. Dated to around 1610 C.E., it testifies to
the history of Ayōdhyā on the banks of Sarayū river as an important centre of
pilgrimage:

Excerpt from ‘Yātrā Prabaṇdha’ (Source: ‘Ayodhya: Beyond Adduced Evidence’, by Kishore Kunal)

The biography of Ćaitanya Mahāprabhū (1486-1534 C.E.) ‘Ćaitanya Bhāgvat’

composed in Bangla by Bṛndāvana Dāsa Thākura (1507-1589 C.E.) around 1545 C.E.
It contains a description of the pilgrimage by Bhagavān Ćaitanya around 1510 C.E.20
and among the places visited by him mentions a visit to Ayōdhyā 21 which attest to the
fact that it was a prime destination of pilgrimage in that time.22
In spite of the destruction and disruptions over the ages and the long passage of time,
the whereabouts and description of the place of birth of Rāma in Ayōdhyā has been

18
Bakker
19
Mix of prose and verse
20
Since he is known to not have been away from Jagannāṭha Purī in the last 18 years of his life
21
Either on his way to Vṛndāvana or on the return journey
22
तिे गे ला वनत्यानन्द अयोध्या नगर ꠰
राम जन्मभू वम िे द्धि िाद्धन्दला विस्तर ꠱२२꠱
(Thereafter Lord Niṭyānanda travelled to Ayōdhyā and seeing the birthplace of Rāma, overtaken by spiritual
ecstasy, shed tears of divine love.)
undeviatingly constant in numerous textual sources and subsequent recensions over
almost a millennium. That it was an active and vibrant place of pilgrimage from the
earliest times can also be seen from some of the accounts and will become clearer as
we go along. But this was not the only bone to pick in Rāma Janmabhūmī Dispute.
Many controversies have been raised on the presence of a temple at the spot of birth
of Rāma which though borne out from these sources, do not account for what
happened to it later. We still have to figure out how and when (and whether) a mosque
came to be at the site of Sri Rāma’s birth. In the next section we take a closer look at
this aspect and also the spots mentioned in the Ayōdhyā-māhātmya with respect to
which the location of the Rāma Janmabhūmī can be ascertained.

Cover Picture: Gold carving depiction of the legendary Ayōdhyā at the Ajmer
Jain temple (Source: Wiki)

Read the previous section of this series here.