|
The conflict over the now-destroyed
structure in Ayodhya, whose chief antagonists have consistently
sought to pit Hindus and Muslims against each other, has a hidden
dimension, representing a third party, which, if recognised, could
well provide a meaningful solution to the still-unresolved
dispute. So writes Balwant Singh Charvak, a noted Ambedkarite
scholar from Uttar Pradesh, in a book which I recently came across
appropriately titled Ayodhya Kiski? Na Ram Ki, Na Babar Ki (‘Whose
Ayodhya? Neither Ram’s Nor Babar’s’). Echoing several other Dalit
ideologues who have made similar claims, Charvak argues that the
disputed spot in Ayodhya belongs neither to Hindus nor to Muslims,
but, rather, to an ignored third party—Shudras and Buddhists. This
spot, he claims, is where a grand Buddhist temple, dedicated to a
Shudra Rishi, Lomash ( later identified, so he says, as a
boddhistattva or Gautama Buddha in one of his previous lives) once
stood.
In his 230-odd page Hindi book, which is based on meticulous
research, Charvak argues that there is no evidence of any Ram
temple having stood on the site occupied by the erstwhile Babri
Masjid. Indeed, he argues, the cult of Ram centred in Ayodhya is
of relatively recent origin, and is certainly a post-Buddhist
development. He contends that the disputed spot in Ayodhya was
actually a hallowed centre of worship of ‘low’ caste Untouchables
and Shudras even before Ram's birth, for it was there that a
Shudra saint named Lomash was born and where had set up his
hermitage. His son Shambhukh, also a saint, was, so he contends,
also born in the same place. The father and son were both renowned
for their piety, and were immensely popular saints among the
Shudras, who were shunned and scorned by the ‘upper’ caste Hindus.
According to the Ramayana, Charvak writes, Shambhukh was killed by
Ram for having violated the Brahminical code of caste conduct by
engaging in tapasya or stern authorities in the hope of entering
heaven, something that was forbidden to ‘low’ caste Shudras by the
Brahmins and their religion. This indicates, Charvak adds, that
Ram was an ardent defender of the inequitous caste system, which
was premised on the degradation of the Shudras.
Because of its association with the Shudra hero-saints Lomash and
Shambhukh, Charvak writes, the presently disputed spot was widely
revered among the Shudras for centuries. Later, Gautam Buddha is
said to have visited Ayodhya, and Charvak argues that it was near
Lomash Rishi’s chaitya or shrine, supposedly constructed on the
disputed spot, that he announced, so Charvak claims (based on a
reference to the widely-known Buddhist text ‘The Questions of King
Milinda’) that he had been Lomash Rishi in one of his previous
births. In other words, Charvak argues, Lomash Rishi was actually
a boddhisattva.
The bigoted Brahmins of the area, fearful that the Buddha’s
charisma and teaching would attract people to him and that this
would threaten their control and privileges, issued orders that no
one was to give food or water to the Buddha and his bhikkhu
followers accompanying him. Defying their diktat, a woman called
Anitya, a Brahmin’s servant, provided the Buddha with water, which
so angered her Brahmin master that he beat her to death. This
incident, so Charvak argues, took place at the presently-disputed
spot, which added to its religious importance for the Shudras.
Soon, the spot also became a hallowed one for Buddhists (many of
whom were of Shudra origin) particularly because, or so Charvak
says, the Buddha had visited the place.
Prior to the Buddha’s visit to Ayodhya, or the Buddhist Saketa,
the disputed spot, so hallowed to the Shudras, hosted a chaitya or
shrine to Lomash, but after the spread of Buddhism, Charvak
argues, a massive Buddhist temple or vihar was constructed on it
in honour of 'Lomash Boddhisattva' and other Shudra saints.
Charvak quotes well-known historians who have testified to the
importance of Ayodhya/Saket as a great centre of Buddhism and of
it having once hosted a vast number of Buddhist temples. However,
Charvak argues, with the decline of the Mauryas, Buddhism, too,
experienced a decline, and when, in the first century BC, the
Brahmin Pushyamitra Sangha murdered the last Mauryan king and came
to power over much of northern India, he let loose a virtual
genocide of Buddhists, destroying many of their temples, including
possibly the Buddhist vihar that Charvak claims was built on
Lomash Rishi’s hermitage, the site of what Muslims claim to be the
Babri Masjid.
When, in the early sixteenth century, Babar or his general Mir
Baqi arrived in Ayodhya the ruins of this Buddhist temple, built
on a spot that Charvak argues was for centuries holy for the
Shudras and Buddhists, were lying scattered about, having, so
Charvak says, long since been destroyed by Brahminical revivalists
who were as opposed to the Buddhists as they were to the Shudras.
Babar or Mir Baqi simply put together the scattered ruins to build
what is now known as the Babri Masjid, Charvak writes. In other
words, he contends, the structure that originally stood on the
disputed spot was not a Ram temple but, rather, a Buddhist vihar,
and that it was destroyed not by Babar or any other Muslim but,
rather, by anti-Buddhist Brahminical revivalists. Charvak backs
his claim by asserting that relics unearthed during excavations
around the disputed site show clear evidence of his claims and do
not suggest any proof whatsoever of a Ram temple having stood on
the spot. Based on references in an ancient Pali Buddhist text,
the Dashrath Jataka, he also raises the possibility that Ram was
born not in the present-day Ayodhya, on the banks of the Saryu
river, but, rather in another place once also referred to as
Ayodhya, located on the banks of the Ganga in Kashi, where,
according to the Dashrath Jataka, Ram's father orginally ruled. If
this is true, Charvak argues, the claim that the
presently-disputed spot marks the place of Ram's birth is void.
Charvak is not the only person to have argued on these
lines—numerous noted Buddhist and Ambedkarite scholars and
activists have made somewhat the same claim. That Ayodhya was once
a thriving centre of Buddhism is well-known, as is the fact of
Brahminical revivalists destroying vast numbers of Buddhist
temples (as did many intolerant Muslim iconoclasts) or taking them
over and Hinduising them across India. Charvak’s thesis could thus
well have much merit to back it.
Whatever the case may be, a vihar dedicated to the Buddha, the
apostle of universal love, instead of a Brahminical Hindu temple
or a Muslim mosque, being built on the disputed site might
actually be a mutually acceptable and eminently sensible
settlement for many Hindus and Muslims themselves, who are fed up
of the hate-driven politics of mandir and masjid being played in
their name.
|
Comments
|
Quick links