What do you think?
Rate this book
Ayodhya: City of Faith, City of Discord
Ayodhya: City of Faith, City of Discord is the first comprehensive biography of a sleepy city in northern India, which has been a place of reverence for many faiths for millennia, but has also been a place of violence, bloodshed and ill-will.
Ayodhya lodged itself permanently in the national consciousness with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. The destruction of the mosque was the climax of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement that has been at the heart of Indian politics for a quarter century since the BJP first campaigned on the promise of building a Ram temple at the site of the mosque. The demolition was followed by large-scale riots that killed thousands of people and permanently communalized the polity of the country.
In the first section of the book, the author tells the complex story of a city holy to many faiths—Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Jainism. Through a comparative analysis of the various versions of the Ramayana in which it features, Valay Singh goes back almost 3,300 years in time to when Ayodhya is first mentioned. He then traces its history showing its transformation from being an insignificant outpost to a place sought out by kings, fakirs, renouncers and reformers. He looks at the propagation of an aggressive Hindu cultural and religious consciousness in the city that was exacerbated during the period in which the East India Company became a military power in north India in the eighteenth century.
The second section seeks to bring together the disparate events and developments after India’s Independence in 1947 that were responsible for launching Ayodhya to centre stage in Indian politics and the political imagination. This section goes deep into the violent years leading up to the demolition and its aftermath through which the right wing gained decisive ground in electoral politics.
Drawing on archives, current scholarship, numerous interviews with key players from various castes, communities and religions in the city and the surrounding region, Ayodhya: City of Faith, City of Discord is a balanced chronicle of faith, fanaticism and the war between secularism and religious fundamentalism in a key battleground in modern India.
Ayodhya lodged itself permanently in the national consciousness with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. The destruction of the mosque was the climax of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement that has been at the heart of Indian politics for a quarter century since the BJP first campaigned on the promise of building a Ram temple at the site of the mosque. The demolition was followed by large-scale riots that killed thousands of people and permanently communalized the polity of the country.
In the first section of the book, the author tells the complex story of a city holy to many faiths—Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Jainism. Through a comparative analysis of the various versions of the Ramayana in which it features, Valay Singh goes back almost 3,300 years in time to when Ayodhya is first mentioned. He then traces its history showing its transformation from being an insignificant outpost to a place sought out by kings, fakirs, renouncers and reformers. He looks at the propagation of an aggressive Hindu cultural and religious consciousness in the city that was exacerbated during the period in which the East India Company became a military power in north India in the eighteenth century.
The second section seeks to bring together the disparate events and developments after India’s Independence in 1947 that were responsible for launching Ayodhya to centre stage in Indian politics and the political imagination. This section goes deep into the violent years leading up to the demolition and its aftermath through which the right wing gained decisive ground in electoral politics.
Drawing on archives, current scholarship, numerous interviews with key players from various castes, communities and religions in the city and the surrounding region, Ayodhya: City of Faith, City of Discord is a balanced chronicle of faith, fanaticism and the war between secularism and religious fundamentalism in a key battleground in modern India.
383 pages, Hardcover
Published December 20, 2018
7 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 10, 2019
Before I start my review, I must mention that I belong to Faizabad, have spent first 20 years of my life there and still visit my hometown at least once a year.
To summarize, Valay Singh has dwelled on Buddhist, Jain and Muslim heritage and past of Ayodhya, rather that Hindu. He has emphasized upon the plurality and ambiguity of Ramayana by writing at length about its Buddhist, Jain, Folk and Tribal versions thereby questioning its integrity. He has also written at length about significance of Ayodhya for Muslims, writing about abundance of Mazars and graves of Muslim peers and fakirs, and about 45 mosques being in Ayodhya. The book attempts weaken the Hindu cause by portraying them as provocateurs; highlights the violent rivalry between Vaishnava and Shaiva sects (thus implying that Hinduism lacks unity and cohesion). It's also full of incorrect information.
The author starts with Iron Age and mentions that there's no proof of urban settlements during pre-historic times. He instead highlights Buddhist inscriptions being found during later period.
Then he explains about different version of The Ramayana- Thai, Tamil, Jain, Tribal, Folk as well as the Ramcharitmanas. In the chapter 'The Ramayana in Tribal and Folk Traditions in India and Beyond' Valay Singh has written that in Avadhi folk songs, Sita is said to be the daughter of Ravan. I haven't heard of any such folk songs. However, the author's approach to a scientific analysis and chronology of Ancient History is laudable.
In the chapter 4, 'Scripture Myth and Reality', page 52, the author says that poet-philosopher Allama Iqbal wrote the national anthem of Pakistan. Allama Iqbal didn't write the national anthem of Pakistan. It's first national anthem was written by Pt Jagannath Aazad and the second one was written by Hafiz Jallandhari, adopted in 1950. In the same chapter, on page 56, the author writes about a picnic spot in Ayodhya (without naming the spot) from where 'Awadh ki Shaam' can be enjoyed. He explains that Awadh ki Shaam (evening of Awadh) means beautiful sunsets.
'Awadh ki Shaam' actually refers to the gathering of poets, nawabs, courtesans, musicians and nobility in Lucknow city under the rule of Nawabs. The Nawabs who made Lucknow their capital and used to organize such gatherings and events during evenings, and thus evenings of Lucknow became famous as 'Shaam -e- Awadh'.
On page 57, the author mentions that poet-saint Kabir was a disciple of Tulsidas, another great poet and saint. The fact is that Kabir (1398-1448 or 1440-1518) was never a disciple of Tulsidas (1511-1623). Anyone hailing from UP or who has interest in Hindi literature can confirm this.
Throughout the book, Valay Singh has questioned on Ayodhya being a seat of Vaishnava sect, Brahminical belief and worship of Lord Ram, but with confidence emphasizes on Ayodhya's significance for Jain and Buddhist faith. The author also questions relying on Hindu texts such as Puranas and Mahatamyas as a base for Ayodhya's significance in Hinduism and Hindu mythology, but also the Ramayana.
In 'Changes to Ayodhya's Religous Landscape' (chapter 5), the author mentions that Nawab Sa'adat Khan built Qila Mubarak, which is supposed to be a mud fortress on banks of River Saryu in Ayodhya. The author is absolutely wrong. As per 'Guzishta Lucknow', written by Maulana Abdul Halim Sharar, Sa'adat Khan did built a fortress and it was never in Ayodhya, but in Faizabad which he made his capital city. The remains of this fortress cannot be found today, however a locality in Faizabad is called Dilli Darwaza, named after entrance gateway of this said fort (Maulana Sharar mentions that a gateway of this fortress was named 'Dilli Darwaza').
The mud fortress the author has written about is 'Lakshman Qila', which was actually built by Nawab Shuja ud Daula, after his defeat in battle of Buxar in 1764. The actual name of this fort is Fort Calcutta and lies on the banks of Saryu in Meeran Ghat area. An edict of this fort can still be found, though the area of the fort where the edict is now out of bound for civilians- it lies in cantonment and is close to the firing range. This fortress is know as Lakshman Qila by ignorant uneducated locals who know a little about the history of town and associate every unidentified old building with Ramayana. It appears that Valay Singh has simply interviewed local tea shop owners and herdsmen for this book.
The paragraphs that follow he writes about history of Ayodhya under the Nawabs of Awadh (Oudh), which is actually the history of Faizabad, Ayodhya's twin town and district and zonal headquarters.
Again on page 100, the author says that Nawab Safdarjung moved the capital of Awadh(Oudh) from Ayodhya to Faizabad. The fact is that this never happened. Ayodhya was never capital of Awadh under the nawabs; it was at Faizabad that the first capital city of Awadh under the Nawabs was established.
On page 124 (The Indian Rebellion of 1857, chapter 7) the author has written that Safdarjung was the first Nawab of Awadh. The fact is that it was Burhan-ul-Mulk Sa'adat Ali Khan who was the first nawab.
Valay Singh has profusely written about the violence and enmity between the Vaishnava and Shaiv traditions of Hinduism. Not just Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions, but he also highlighted the rift between the Ramanandi and Ramanuji schools within Vaishnava tradition. He has blamed the Bairagis (followers of Vaishnava tradition) of starting the violence with Muslims during the rule of Nawabs.
The book has concluded that the Ayodhya dispute of Ramjanmabhumi and Babri Masjid as we have now today started with Hanuman Garhi (a fortress temple of Lord Hanuman which stands till today), with muslims claiming that it was a site of a mosque (though the author is honestly admitted that muslim claim of such a mosque was entirely false and baseless). This dispute resulted into a communal riot and the local Muslims (during the riot) took refuge in a mosque. This mosque, Singh says in this book, is dubbed as 'Babri Mosque'. However the book has no proof, reference or citation about this claim; though everywhere else in the book the author is profuse with sources and citations of his findings and claims.
Rather than presenting the facts, Valay Singh has many times presented conclusions of his own e.g.- on page 141, he writes 'the expansionist Ramanandi Bairagis'. The author has never presented any proof or source of this conclusion, just only writes that Ramanandi Bairagis started laying claims to newer lands.
At certain places he has not only made conclusions, but has exaggerated details on his own. E.g. on page 143, is written : 'the petition made by the muezzin of a mosque (calling it Babri Masjid) says that a platform has been made, an idol has been placed and 'Ram Ram' has been written with coal on the platform.'
What the author has done is to just write on his own, that one Mahant Balram Das colluding with Raja Man Singh during the British Raj, had forcibly occupied and built the platform in the masjid's premises and to substantiate this claim the author has quoted the muezzin's petition. The text mentioned in the book of this petition only states 'that a platform has been built and an idol has been placed.' The actual quoted text of the muezzin's petition on the book never blames or names the individuals that the author has mentioned.
The author has projected Valmiki Ramayan as a base for Jain and Buddhist philosophy, however downplays its own significance as an epic that influenced Indian, but Indo-Chinese culture as well. On page 49, the author says "What makes Thai version unambiguously non-Hindu is the absence of hierarchical, Brahminical and dualistic elements. On the contrary, it contains Buddhist sensibilities, karmic explanations and Buddhist attitude of life". Further, "In an epilogue to Ramakien Thai King Ram I wrote 'the writing of Ramakien was done in accordance with a traditional tale, its not of abiding importance; rather it has been written to be used on celebrative occasions. Those who hear it and see it performed should not be deluded.' "
And, "The Thai Ramayana owing to Buddhist influence is unapologetic and unpretentious". The book has projected Ramayana as ambiguous, plural and pretentious thus downplaying its integrity and Ayodhya's history as largely undocumented and hazy.
In chapter 9, 'The Ramjanmabhumi Movement' on page 222, the author describes the siege of the disputed mosque on 30Oct 1990 by karsevaks. He has written 'A man bearing the resemblance of a sadhu hijacked an empty bus and drove towards the disputed site'. It was indeed a sadhu, not a man 'bearing resemblance of a sadhu' who had hijacked a UPSRTC bus. The author has further described that during the attack by unruly karsevaks then Uttar Pradesh CM Mulayam Singh Yadav was helpless. The karsevaks were indeed unruly and violent hooligans but Mulayam wasn't helpless either. The security forces including police and paramilitary were heavily deployed and used firearms and lathis freely. Many karsevaks died during firing on that date. The govt hospitals of Ayodhya and Faizabad were full of maimed and injured and karsevaks and some of them died in the hospitals also.
In the same chapter, Valay Singh has written about a helicopter sent by the Air Force during the attack. The helicopter was from the govt of Uttar Pradesh. In fact, military wasn't called on that occasion at all, despite a cantonment being in Faizabad.
Then, in his description of Gujarat riots in 2002, the book blames Hindu pilgrims for provoking violence. On page 262 the author writes "On 27 Feb 2002, karsevaks returning from Ayodhya had a scuffle with some Muslim men at Godhra station in Gujarat. More than fifty karsevaks were burnt to death by a 'Muslim Mob' ". The point to be noted here that Valay Singh mentions Muslim Mob within single inverted commas as 'Muslim Mob'. What is he implying by this? Is he trying to say that it was not actually a muslim mob? Is it just an allegation by Hindus? Why hasn't he written the term karsevaks within single inverted commas?
Then again on page 281, about the riots that broke out in Faizabad on 24 Oct 2012 the author writes "during the Durga Puja procession, violence erupted against Muslims and their businesses in Faizabad. A prominent mosque in Faizabad Chowk was vandalized." The violence actually started when the said procession was passing through a Muslim neighbourhood, a stone was thrown at an idol of Goddess Durga. Its arm and shoulder were damaged. Thus riots broke out and in its aftermath, the mosque at Chowk was indeed vandalized. But what the author has either deliberately omitted or maybe doesn't know that dozens of Hindus were burnt alive in a place called Bhadarsa during the same riot.
In the preceding page 280, theft of the idol from the Badi Devkali temple (Devkali is supposed to be guardian goddess of Ayodhya and Faizabad) has been written about. The book informs us that the guilty who were caught were Hindus. But the Valay Singh has forgotten to write about bomb blasts in Sabarmati Express train at Rauzagaon station (bordering Barabanki and Faizabad districts) in 2001 when a Muslim man from Faizabad, Aqil was found guilty.
The author has also ridiculed methods of promoting devotion by local Ayodhya seers even when there's nothing communal, anti-Muslim or political about them. The Ram Naam Bank- on page 342, the author has linked this institution - where people are simply asked to write Lord Ram's name as many times as they can on free stationery given to them- to VHP and BJP, as a method of promoting fundamentalism.
The book is heavily biased, full of incorrect information. I WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS BOOK A RELIABLE SOURCE ON AYODHYA'S HISTORY.
The author's introduction on the book flap answers the bias and his shallow research. Valay Singh has worked with NDTV and The Wire.
To summarize, Valay Singh has dwelled on Buddhist, Jain and Muslim heritage and past of Ayodhya, rather that Hindu. He has emphasized upon the plurality and ambiguity of Ramayana by writing at length about its Buddhist, Jain, Folk and Tribal versions thereby questioning its integrity. He has also written at length about significance of Ayodhya for Muslims, writing about abundance of Mazars and graves of Muslim peers and fakirs, and about 45 mosques being in Ayodhya. The book attempts weaken the Hindu cause by portraying them as provocateurs; highlights the violent rivalry between Vaishnava and Shaiva sects (thus implying that Hinduism lacks unity and cohesion). It's also full of incorrect information.
The author starts with Iron Age and mentions that there's no proof of urban settlements during pre-historic times. He instead highlights Buddhist inscriptions being found during later period.
Then he explains about different version of The Ramayana- Thai, Tamil, Jain, Tribal, Folk as well as the Ramcharitmanas. In the chapter 'The Ramayana in Tribal and Folk Traditions in India and Beyond' Valay Singh has written that in Avadhi folk songs, Sita is said to be the daughter of Ravan. I haven't heard of any such folk songs. However, the author's approach to a scientific analysis and chronology of Ancient History is laudable.
In the chapter 4, 'Scripture Myth and Reality', page 52, the author says that poet-philosopher Allama Iqbal wrote the national anthem of Pakistan. Allama Iqbal didn't write the national anthem of Pakistan. It's first national anthem was written by Pt Jagannath Aazad and the second one was written by Hafiz Jallandhari, adopted in 1950. In the same chapter, on page 56, the author writes about a picnic spot in Ayodhya (without naming the spot) from where 'Awadh ki Shaam' can be enjoyed. He explains that Awadh ki Shaam (evening of Awadh) means beautiful sunsets.
'Awadh ki Shaam' actually refers to the gathering of poets, nawabs, courtesans, musicians and nobility in Lucknow city under the rule of Nawabs. The Nawabs who made Lucknow their capital and used to organize such gatherings and events during evenings, and thus evenings of Lucknow became famous as 'Shaam -e- Awadh'.
On page 57, the author mentions that poet-saint Kabir was a disciple of Tulsidas, another great poet and saint. The fact is that Kabir (1398-1448 or 1440-1518) was never a disciple of Tulsidas (1511-1623). Anyone hailing from UP or who has interest in Hindi literature can confirm this.
Throughout the book, Valay Singh has questioned on Ayodhya being a seat of Vaishnava sect, Brahminical belief and worship of Lord Ram, but with confidence emphasizes on Ayodhya's significance for Jain and Buddhist faith. The author also questions relying on Hindu texts such as Puranas and Mahatamyas as a base for Ayodhya's significance in Hinduism and Hindu mythology, but also the Ramayana.
In 'Changes to Ayodhya's Religous Landscape' (chapter 5), the author mentions that Nawab Sa'adat Khan built Qila Mubarak, which is supposed to be a mud fortress on banks of River Saryu in Ayodhya. The author is absolutely wrong. As per 'Guzishta Lucknow', written by Maulana Abdul Halim Sharar, Sa'adat Khan did built a fortress and it was never in Ayodhya, but in Faizabad which he made his capital city. The remains of this fortress cannot be found today, however a locality in Faizabad is called Dilli Darwaza, named after entrance gateway of this said fort (Maulana Sharar mentions that a gateway of this fortress was named 'Dilli Darwaza').
The mud fortress the author has written about is 'Lakshman Qila', which was actually built by Nawab Shuja ud Daula, after his defeat in battle of Buxar in 1764. The actual name of this fort is Fort Calcutta and lies on the banks of Saryu in Meeran Ghat area. An edict of this fort can still be found, though the area of the fort where the edict is now out of bound for civilians- it lies in cantonment and is close to the firing range. This fortress is know as Lakshman Qila by ignorant uneducated locals who know a little about the history of town and associate every unidentified old building with Ramayana. It appears that Valay Singh has simply interviewed local tea shop owners and herdsmen for this book.
The paragraphs that follow he writes about history of Ayodhya under the Nawabs of Awadh (Oudh), which is actually the history of Faizabad, Ayodhya's twin town and district and zonal headquarters.
Again on page 100, the author says that Nawab Safdarjung moved the capital of Awadh(Oudh) from Ayodhya to Faizabad. The fact is that this never happened. Ayodhya was never capital of Awadh under the nawabs; it was at Faizabad that the first capital city of Awadh under the Nawabs was established.
On page 124 (The Indian Rebellion of 1857, chapter 7) the author has written that Safdarjung was the first Nawab of Awadh. The fact is that it was Burhan-ul-Mulk Sa'adat Ali Khan who was the first nawab.
Valay Singh has profusely written about the violence and enmity between the Vaishnava and Shaiv traditions of Hinduism. Not just Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions, but he also highlighted the rift between the Ramanandi and Ramanuji schools within Vaishnava tradition. He has blamed the Bairagis (followers of Vaishnava tradition) of starting the violence with Muslims during the rule of Nawabs.
The book has concluded that the Ayodhya dispute of Ramjanmabhumi and Babri Masjid as we have now today started with Hanuman Garhi (a fortress temple of Lord Hanuman which stands till today), with muslims claiming that it was a site of a mosque (though the author is honestly admitted that muslim claim of such a mosque was entirely false and baseless). This dispute resulted into a communal riot and the local Muslims (during the riot) took refuge in a mosque. This mosque, Singh says in this book, is dubbed as 'Babri Mosque'. However the book has no proof, reference or citation about this claim; though everywhere else in the book the author is profuse with sources and citations of his findings and claims.
Rather than presenting the facts, Valay Singh has many times presented conclusions of his own e.g.- on page 141, he writes 'the expansionist Ramanandi Bairagis'. The author has never presented any proof or source of this conclusion, just only writes that Ramanandi Bairagis started laying claims to newer lands.
At certain places he has not only made conclusions, but has exaggerated details on his own. E.g. on page 143, is written : 'the petition made by the muezzin of a mosque (calling it Babri Masjid) says that a platform has been made, an idol has been placed and 'Ram Ram' has been written with coal on the platform.'
What the author has done is to just write on his own, that one Mahant Balram Das colluding with Raja Man Singh during the British Raj, had forcibly occupied and built the platform in the masjid's premises and to substantiate this claim the author has quoted the muezzin's petition. The text mentioned in the book of this petition only states 'that a platform has been built and an idol has been placed.' The actual quoted text of the muezzin's petition on the book never blames or names the individuals that the author has mentioned.
The author has projected Valmiki Ramayan as a base for Jain and Buddhist philosophy, however downplays its own significance as an epic that influenced Indian, but Indo-Chinese culture as well. On page 49, the author says "What makes Thai version unambiguously non-Hindu is the absence of hierarchical, Brahminical and dualistic elements. On the contrary, it contains Buddhist sensibilities, karmic explanations and Buddhist attitude of life". Further, "In an epilogue to Ramakien Thai King Ram I wrote 'the writing of Ramakien was done in accordance with a traditional tale, its not of abiding importance; rather it has been written to be used on celebrative occasions. Those who hear it and see it performed should not be deluded.' "
And, "The Thai Ramayana owing to Buddhist influence is unapologetic and unpretentious". The book has projected Ramayana as ambiguous, plural and pretentious thus downplaying its integrity and Ayodhya's history as largely undocumented and hazy.
In chapter 9, 'The Ramjanmabhumi Movement' on page 222, the author describes the siege of the disputed mosque on 30Oct 1990 by karsevaks. He has written 'A man bearing the resemblance of a sadhu hijacked an empty bus and drove towards the disputed site'. It was indeed a sadhu, not a man 'bearing resemblance of a sadhu' who had hijacked a UPSRTC bus. The author has further described that during the attack by unruly karsevaks then Uttar Pradesh CM Mulayam Singh Yadav was helpless. The karsevaks were indeed unruly and violent hooligans but Mulayam wasn't helpless either. The security forces including police and paramilitary were heavily deployed and used firearms and lathis freely. Many karsevaks died during firing on that date. The govt hospitals of Ayodhya and Faizabad were full of maimed and injured and karsevaks and some of them died in the hospitals also.
In the same chapter, Valay Singh has written about a helicopter sent by the Air Force during the attack. The helicopter was from the govt of Uttar Pradesh. In fact, military wasn't called on that occasion at all, despite a cantonment being in Faizabad.
Then, in his description of Gujarat riots in 2002, the book blames Hindu pilgrims for provoking violence. On page 262 the author writes "On 27 Feb 2002, karsevaks returning from Ayodhya had a scuffle with some Muslim men at Godhra station in Gujarat. More than fifty karsevaks were burnt to death by a 'Muslim Mob' ". The point to be noted here that Valay Singh mentions Muslim Mob within single inverted commas as 'Muslim Mob'. What is he implying by this? Is he trying to say that it was not actually a muslim mob? Is it just an allegation by Hindus? Why hasn't he written the term karsevaks within single inverted commas?
Then again on page 281, about the riots that broke out in Faizabad on 24 Oct 2012 the author writes "during the Durga Puja procession, violence erupted against Muslims and their businesses in Faizabad. A prominent mosque in Faizabad Chowk was vandalized." The violence actually started when the said procession was passing through a Muslim neighbourhood, a stone was thrown at an idol of Goddess Durga. Its arm and shoulder were damaged. Thus riots broke out and in its aftermath, the mosque at Chowk was indeed vandalized. But what the author has either deliberately omitted or maybe doesn't know that dozens of Hindus were burnt alive in a place called Bhadarsa during the same riot.
In the preceding page 280, theft of the idol from the Badi Devkali temple (Devkali is supposed to be guardian goddess of Ayodhya and Faizabad) has been written about. The book informs us that the guilty who were caught were Hindus. But the Valay Singh has forgotten to write about bomb blasts in Sabarmati Express train at Rauzagaon station (bordering Barabanki and Faizabad districts) in 2001 when a Muslim man from Faizabad, Aqil was found guilty.
The author has also ridiculed methods of promoting devotion by local Ayodhya seers even when there's nothing communal, anti-Muslim or political about them. The Ram Naam Bank- on page 342, the author has linked this institution - where people are simply asked to write Lord Ram's name as many times as they can on free stationery given to them- to VHP and BJP, as a method of promoting fundamentalism.
The book is heavily biased, full of incorrect information. I WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS BOOK A RELIABLE SOURCE ON AYODHYA'S HISTORY.
The author's introduction on the book flap answers the bias and his shallow research. Valay Singh has worked with NDTV and The Wire.
June 8, 2019
Every nation has a few defining moments in its history, at which the course of events rapidly change direction and heads to news destinations. The civil war in the USA, the French Revolution, the Great Depression and the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev were some such moments that can be cited as examples. The demolition of the disputed structure at the Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid complex on 6 December 1992 was such an event for independent India. It marked the moment Indian politics began veering towards the right and the beginning of the end of Indian National Congress which ruled the country virtually unimpeded for four decades till then. The demolition had occurred 26 years ago, and a new generation has since taken its place in society. This makes it worthwhile for a book that analyses all aspects of the issue – past and present and the role of the city of Ayodhya in fulfilling the religious aspirations of devout Hindus. The book is a repertoire of countless interviews with all stakeholders and anecdotes – both factual and mythical – from Ayodhya. Valay Singh is a journalist based in Delhi who began his career with NDTV as a researcher and editor. He has been widely published in leading newspapers and magazines of India.
The Babri mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi, a commander of Babar in 1528 CE. The Hindu contention is that this mosque was built by demolishing a temple dedicated to Lord Ram at the site. The author denies this citing absence of literary evidence. Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas was written nearly three quarters of a century after the construction of the mosque. Valay Singh’s fatuous argument is that since the destruction of a temple at Ram's birthplace was such a tectonic event in the life of a devotee of Lord Ram, Tulsidas would surely have mentioned about it in his poem, Ramcharitmanas. The fallacy and illogic of this argument surprises the readers. First of all, we must admit that Tulsidas was not a journalist reporting the breaking news to his listeners. He was composing poem set ages ago and designed to enhance devotion to Lord Ram among laypeople. Besides, the demolition of the temple had happened almost two generations before Tulsidas’ time and might have become a painful but accepted fact of reality. The unusually high number of Hindu religious places in the disputed area and the existence of an exact point believed to be the actual birthplace of Ram so near to the demolished masjid shows conclusively that there was a near-certain likelihood that a temple existed there. Otherwise, we have to assume that Mir Baqi entered the temple complex, located an empty piece of real estate and squeezed his mosque into that vacant lot! However a later narrative quoted in the book establishes the fact that worship of Ram was practiced in or very near to the masjid in the eighteenth century itself. A Jesuit priest Joseph Tiefenthaler visited Ayodhya in 1766-71 and published a book titled Description Historique et Geographique de I’Inde. It describes the Hindu worship astonishingly near the Masjid and the local belief that Aurangzeb or Babar had destroyed a temple there. Tiefenthaler states that Hindu rituals like circumambulation and prostration were also observed.
The book narrates the first recorded instance of religious violence in which Babri Mosque is specifically mentioned. Hanumangarhi is a small hillock a few hundreds of metres away from Babri Masjid where a large number of temples of the Ramanandi sect of Vaishnavism were concentrated. On 28 July 1855, an angry Muslim mob set out for Hanumangarhi seeking revenge for the rumoured destruction of a mosque there. They were repelled by Ram devotees and had to seek asylum in Babri Masjid. They were then besieged by their opponents who killed about sixty people in the clashes, in full view of a British police contingent which refused to intervene. In the police complaint registered by the muezzin of the mosque, Babri Masjid is referred as the Janmasthan mosque but the author somehow misses this crucial factor to take into account (p.143). Change in political fortunes of Wajid Ali Shah, the king of Awadh, was about to prove detrimental to Muslim interests. Shah was deposed by the British in the very next year. Raja Mansingh allied with the British in the 1857 Mutiny and Ayodhya was given to him as a reward for his loyalty. Muslim authority never returned to Ayodhya.
The book includes a nice comparison of variations in the Ramayana story prevailing in various regions, including India and other countries. The variety is amusing and amazing at the same time. These are co-opted in the main text to suit local conditions or to justify specific tribal customs. In the story prevalent among the Baiga tribal community, a primitive group in Central India, it is Ram's brother Lakshman who undergoes the ordeal by fire to prove his fidelity to his brother and sister-in-law. This was mandated by some peculiar social customs among them. It also maps Ayodhya’s rise as a pilgrim centre over the eighteenth century, when several battles were waged between Shaiva and Vaishnava schools of Hinduism.
The post-independence history of Ayodhya is overshadowed by the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. The idols of Ram Lalla Virajmaan and his brothers were clandestinely installed inside the disputed structure in 1949. At the end of a long series of serious protests and mass struggle, the temple activists finally brought down the structure on December 6, 1992. A temporary shrine is functioning at the site until the Supreme Court of India disposes the petitions pending there for the last thirty years.
Valay Singh’s handling of the post-independent history of Ayodhya is disappointingly partisan with a strong anti-Congress, anti-BJP bias. He even terms P V Narasimha Rao, the Congress Prime Minister who followed Rajiv Gandhi, as the first BJP prime minister because of his alleged conspiratorial role in the destruction of Babri Masjid under his tenure. He also recounts a colourful report of the ill effects of demonetisation announced by Prime Minister Modi. As can be expected, the traders and common people of Ayodhya too experienced tough times in the initial stages. Singh irrelevantly describes a loud-mouthed businessman in Ayodhya who abused Modi with ‘the choicest, most colourful and imaginative expletives’. As with many leftist journalists, Singh had obviously hoped for the ouster of Modi in the 2019 elections at which point this incident would have been trumpeted as an early warning found by a discerning journalist. Such simple slips expose the true colours of the author.
The Ayodhya dispute is a vexed issue. Nobody has a solution in mind which is acceptable to both parties. There was a mosque in which namaz has not been performed since 1949, which was destroyed in 1992. Rebuilding the mosque was unviable even in 1992 and quiet unthinkable in 2019. Curiously, the mosque party and the Marxist historians who support them are reluctant to carry out scientific research to ascertain whether a temple existed at the site before Babar’s general destroyed it. ‘Once a mosque, always a mosque’ seems to be their logic, like the notorious leader of the ISIS who denied the right of abortion to raped women. The High Court of Allahabad ordered a survey in 2002 using ground-penetrating radar which helps to identify subterranean structures without actual digging. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) did the study and the result was unambiguous. It noted that ‘there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50m x 30m in north-south and east-west directions respectively, just below the disputed structure’ (p.271). The work was held under the court’s supervision, but the author alleges that with this report, ASI’s credibility and reputation were compromised and communalized. In 2005, a heavily armed gang of five Islamic terrorists attacked the shrine, but all of them were shot down by security forces before they could inflict any damage. This has made it clear that a solution by force is not possible anymore – by both the factions. So, how can it be resolved? The author is tight-lipped on this crucial question. He does not even bother to suggest a way out of the maze. People who closely observe the socio-political environment of India know by intuition that it is high time the so-called secular brigade realise that the situation on the ground has changed. It is no use of their hollering that the temple is only in the agenda of the Sangh Parivar. The Hindu masses, at least in the north, want to see a grand temple erected at the site. But this is not caused by any ill-will towards Muslims. It is what is called national pride or self-respect. After all, man lives not by bread alone. There is enough historical evidence that the spot was considered sacred by Hindus continuously from many centuries back, before the BJP or RSS were even formed. The author himself has provided evidence for this. Not only that, consider what Ayodhya is to Hindus whereas it is just one of the hundreds of thousands of mosques for the Muslims. Why can't a move of accommodation come from their part? It is sure that such an action will be suitably reciprocated by providing land at an appropriate place in Ayodhya itself for the construction of a mosque as well as relinquishing all claims to other mosques in various parts of the country that were also built by destroying temples. The leftist historians and left-leaning journalists won’t let them see the possibilities to a solution. In fact, the author claims that Irfan Habib is an independent historian (p.268)!
Valay Singh goes on a rampage in the early part of the book in which he assaults the entire belief system of north India. First of all he asserts that Ram is not a historical character. Then comes the rider that even otherwise, there is no proof that he was born in Ayodhya. From this, he vaults to the position that even if he was born in the city, there is no evidence that the birth had taken place at the exact spot. If that also is accepted, there is no proof that a temple existed there. It is notable that he never alludes to a certain historical fact – that a religious structure was indeed destroyed. Intellectual honesty is missing in the book’s argument which is cleverly assembled to conform to an agenda of trivializing the emotions and passion of the people in favour of adhering to the dictates of some social principles and theories whose time has already gone.
The book is recommended.
The Babri mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi, a commander of Babar in 1528 CE. The Hindu contention is that this mosque was built by demolishing a temple dedicated to Lord Ram at the site. The author denies this citing absence of literary evidence. Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas was written nearly three quarters of a century after the construction of the mosque. Valay Singh’s fatuous argument is that since the destruction of a temple at Ram's birthplace was such a tectonic event in the life of a devotee of Lord Ram, Tulsidas would surely have mentioned about it in his poem, Ramcharitmanas. The fallacy and illogic of this argument surprises the readers. First of all, we must admit that Tulsidas was not a journalist reporting the breaking news to his listeners. He was composing poem set ages ago and designed to enhance devotion to Lord Ram among laypeople. Besides, the demolition of the temple had happened almost two generations before Tulsidas’ time and might have become a painful but accepted fact of reality. The unusually high number of Hindu religious places in the disputed area and the existence of an exact point believed to be the actual birthplace of Ram so near to the demolished masjid shows conclusively that there was a near-certain likelihood that a temple existed there. Otherwise, we have to assume that Mir Baqi entered the temple complex, located an empty piece of real estate and squeezed his mosque into that vacant lot! However a later narrative quoted in the book establishes the fact that worship of Ram was practiced in or very near to the masjid in the eighteenth century itself. A Jesuit priest Joseph Tiefenthaler visited Ayodhya in 1766-71 and published a book titled Description Historique et Geographique de I’Inde. It describes the Hindu worship astonishingly near the Masjid and the local belief that Aurangzeb or Babar had destroyed a temple there. Tiefenthaler states that Hindu rituals like circumambulation and prostration were also observed.
The book narrates the first recorded instance of religious violence in which Babri Mosque is specifically mentioned. Hanumangarhi is a small hillock a few hundreds of metres away from Babri Masjid where a large number of temples of the Ramanandi sect of Vaishnavism were concentrated. On 28 July 1855, an angry Muslim mob set out for Hanumangarhi seeking revenge for the rumoured destruction of a mosque there. They were repelled by Ram devotees and had to seek asylum in Babri Masjid. They were then besieged by their opponents who killed about sixty people in the clashes, in full view of a British police contingent which refused to intervene. In the police complaint registered by the muezzin of the mosque, Babri Masjid is referred as the Janmasthan mosque but the author somehow misses this crucial factor to take into account (p.143). Change in political fortunes of Wajid Ali Shah, the king of Awadh, was about to prove detrimental to Muslim interests. Shah was deposed by the British in the very next year. Raja Mansingh allied with the British in the 1857 Mutiny and Ayodhya was given to him as a reward for his loyalty. Muslim authority never returned to Ayodhya.
The book includes a nice comparison of variations in the Ramayana story prevailing in various regions, including India and other countries. The variety is amusing and amazing at the same time. These are co-opted in the main text to suit local conditions or to justify specific tribal customs. In the story prevalent among the Baiga tribal community, a primitive group in Central India, it is Ram's brother Lakshman who undergoes the ordeal by fire to prove his fidelity to his brother and sister-in-law. This was mandated by some peculiar social customs among them. It also maps Ayodhya’s rise as a pilgrim centre over the eighteenth century, when several battles were waged between Shaiva and Vaishnava schools of Hinduism.
The post-independence history of Ayodhya is overshadowed by the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. The idols of Ram Lalla Virajmaan and his brothers were clandestinely installed inside the disputed structure in 1949. At the end of a long series of serious protests and mass struggle, the temple activists finally brought down the structure on December 6, 1992. A temporary shrine is functioning at the site until the Supreme Court of India disposes the petitions pending there for the last thirty years.
Valay Singh’s handling of the post-independent history of Ayodhya is disappointingly partisan with a strong anti-Congress, anti-BJP bias. He even terms P V Narasimha Rao, the Congress Prime Minister who followed Rajiv Gandhi, as the first BJP prime minister because of his alleged conspiratorial role in the destruction of Babri Masjid under his tenure. He also recounts a colourful report of the ill effects of demonetisation announced by Prime Minister Modi. As can be expected, the traders and common people of Ayodhya too experienced tough times in the initial stages. Singh irrelevantly describes a loud-mouthed businessman in Ayodhya who abused Modi with ‘the choicest, most colourful and imaginative expletives’. As with many leftist journalists, Singh had obviously hoped for the ouster of Modi in the 2019 elections at which point this incident would have been trumpeted as an early warning found by a discerning journalist. Such simple slips expose the true colours of the author.
The Ayodhya dispute is a vexed issue. Nobody has a solution in mind which is acceptable to both parties. There was a mosque in which namaz has not been performed since 1949, which was destroyed in 1992. Rebuilding the mosque was unviable even in 1992 and quiet unthinkable in 2019. Curiously, the mosque party and the Marxist historians who support them are reluctant to carry out scientific research to ascertain whether a temple existed at the site before Babar’s general destroyed it. ‘Once a mosque, always a mosque’ seems to be their logic, like the notorious leader of the ISIS who denied the right of abortion to raped women. The High Court of Allahabad ordered a survey in 2002 using ground-penetrating radar which helps to identify subterranean structures without actual digging. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) did the study and the result was unambiguous. It noted that ‘there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50m x 30m in north-south and east-west directions respectively, just below the disputed structure’ (p.271). The work was held under the court’s supervision, but the author alleges that with this report, ASI’s credibility and reputation were compromised and communalized. In 2005, a heavily armed gang of five Islamic terrorists attacked the shrine, but all of them were shot down by security forces before they could inflict any damage. This has made it clear that a solution by force is not possible anymore – by both the factions. So, how can it be resolved? The author is tight-lipped on this crucial question. He does not even bother to suggest a way out of the maze. People who closely observe the socio-political environment of India know by intuition that it is high time the so-called secular brigade realise that the situation on the ground has changed. It is no use of their hollering that the temple is only in the agenda of the Sangh Parivar. The Hindu masses, at least in the north, want to see a grand temple erected at the site. But this is not caused by any ill-will towards Muslims. It is what is called national pride or self-respect. After all, man lives not by bread alone. There is enough historical evidence that the spot was considered sacred by Hindus continuously from many centuries back, before the BJP or RSS were even formed. The author himself has provided evidence for this. Not only that, consider what Ayodhya is to Hindus whereas it is just one of the hundreds of thousands of mosques for the Muslims. Why can't a move of accommodation come from their part? It is sure that such an action will be suitably reciprocated by providing land at an appropriate place in Ayodhya itself for the construction of a mosque as well as relinquishing all claims to other mosques in various parts of the country that were also built by destroying temples. The leftist historians and left-leaning journalists won’t let them see the possibilities to a solution. In fact, the author claims that Irfan Habib is an independent historian (p.268)!
Valay Singh goes on a rampage in the early part of the book in which he assaults the entire belief system of north India. First of all he asserts that Ram is not a historical character. Then comes the rider that even otherwise, there is no proof that he was born in Ayodhya. From this, he vaults to the position that even if he was born in the city, there is no evidence that the birth had taken place at the exact spot. If that also is accepted, there is no proof that a temple existed there. It is notable that he never alludes to a certain historical fact – that a religious structure was indeed destroyed. Intellectual honesty is missing in the book’s argument which is cleverly assembled to conform to an agenda of trivializing the emotions and passion of the people in favour of adhering to the dictates of some social principles and theories whose time has already gone.
The book is recommended.
April 5, 2019
I am not quite sure what should I say about this book, because I loved each and everything about this book. This is a book where author Valay Singh has raised a topic of an unresolved matter in India. This is undoubtedly a remarkable state affair which has demolished two different religions for the sake of their abstract and ideological differences. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has always played their political role with the name of "Dharma," “Hinduism” and "Temple." Ayodhya has been the bait for Maryadaprushottam Ram and his birth place.
.
.
Not only Author but still so many people think that depredation of Babri Masjid was admittedly an ANTI-SECULAR & ANTI-COMMUNAL act. However, author has also narrated a mass history of graphical representation of Ayodhya City. You will also find some various events and facts about this city since 1830 to until now. I will pen down my description about this book here and will suggest you to read this book if you want to know more about Ayodhya and some facts about this city.
.
.
Not only Author but still so many people think that depredation of Babri Masjid was admittedly an ANTI-SECULAR & ANTI-COMMUNAL act. However, author has also narrated a mass history of graphical representation of Ayodhya City. You will also find some various events and facts about this city since 1830 to until now. I will pen down my description about this book here and will suggest you to read this book if you want to know more about Ayodhya and some facts about this city.
April 30, 2019
The book seems a bit raw. Author collected a bunch of research, did a dozens of interviews, but a free flowing narrative is missing, which makes the user disengaged.
January 27, 2019
It is as if Ayodha speaks to the reader in me: its glorious history, its tumultuous history ever since politics crept into the scene and most of all, its people seething but trying to hold together in the face of a crumbling façade where there is poverty and a lack of future for its people even as the temple city gets dragged into the scheme of things over the Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid tussle. It was a revelation to read about how the tussle and conflict is not just between two major religions but also within various sects of Hinduism itself. It gave me hope that there are people (even if a few) who frown on the push and pull of politics and power plays and want to resolve matters amicably.
I do know for a fact that this book will only cater to a few readers but if you are someone who is keen to know about the cultural history of Ayodha which occupies a central position in the political fabric of India; if you have a thing for a balanced and well written non fiction book, this is the one book you will have to pick.
I do know for a fact that this book will only cater to a few readers but if you are someone who is keen to know about the cultural history of Ayodha which occupies a central position in the political fabric of India; if you have a thing for a balanced and well written non fiction book, this is the one book you will have to pick.
March 13, 2024
I want to start by stating that this book is tough to review because of its topic: Ayodhya. Also, I'd like to congratulate Valay Singh on writing this book and maintaining a balanced voice throughout the narrative. Some may dispute his material, but I am not in a position to do so. The research is meticulous, and he presents several aspects of the town's history and its link with society, religion, faith, and mythology. I believe this aspect of the book is critical: he does not take sides. In presenting the various aspects of history, he invites the reader to make up their minds. It is vital to read this book with an open mind.
The writing and planning of the book are excellent. If you want to start with a comprehensive study of Ayodhya, start here.
The writing and planning of the book are excellent. If you want to start with a comprehensive study of Ayodhya, start here.
August 5, 2020
This book is about ayodhya which has been a place of reverence for many faiths for millennia, but has also been a place of violence , bloodshed and ill will
.
Ayodhya lodged itself permanently with the demolition of babri masjid in 1992. The demolition was the climax of Ram janambhoomi movement that has been started by the BJP with the promise of building ram Mandir at the site of the mosque. The demolition leads to Hindu Muslim riots.
.
In the first section of the book,
The complex story of city holy to many faiths
Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism and Islam.
Valay Singh goes back in the history for almost 3300yrs to give comparitive analysis of various versions of Ramayana.
And how ayodhya have evolved aggressive Hindu cultural and religious consiousness i.e that was in East India company period.
.
The second section,
Talks about the events that are responsible for bringing ayodhya to the center age of Indian politics after independence.
This section goes deep into the violent years including the masjid demolition.
.
The third section ,
Drawing on archives , current scholarship , numerous interviews with key players from castes , communities and religions in the city and the surrounding region.
.
.
What I liked about the book -
Author have done extensive research and dwelled deeper into the content and evolution of the city as a prominent Hindu holy site.
This book have all the essence of faith, fanaticism and the war between secularism and religious fundamentalism.
For a person who belongs to the same place and living there too , is a kind of delight reading this book
I can relate to the historical background and stories of the each and every place mentioned in the book and it's kind of amazing to know how things have changed with time , how knowledge passed with generations have their added versions,
How a city which have such huge significance even mughal era left neglected and used just for political propaganda.
.
What I didn't liked -
I felt that author have made up a specific opinion before writing this book.
And most of the times his views seems biased towards that ideology .
Rather than the significance of ramayan or current status part of the book I have enjoyed more about the historical background and architectural details related to the mughal and British period of the city .
.
Ayodhya lodged itself permanently with the demolition of babri masjid in 1992. The demolition was the climax of Ram janambhoomi movement that has been started by the BJP with the promise of building ram Mandir at the site of the mosque. The demolition leads to Hindu Muslim riots.
.
In the first section of the book,
The complex story of city holy to many faiths
Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism and Islam.
Valay Singh goes back in the history for almost 3300yrs to give comparitive analysis of various versions of Ramayana.
And how ayodhya have evolved aggressive Hindu cultural and religious consiousness i.e that was in East India company period.
.
The second section,
Talks about the events that are responsible for bringing ayodhya to the center age of Indian politics after independence.
This section goes deep into the violent years including the masjid demolition.
.
The third section ,
Drawing on archives , current scholarship , numerous interviews with key players from castes , communities and religions in the city and the surrounding region.
.
.
What I liked about the book -
Author have done extensive research and dwelled deeper into the content and evolution of the city as a prominent Hindu holy site.
This book have all the essence of faith, fanaticism and the war between secularism and religious fundamentalism.
For a person who belongs to the same place and living there too , is a kind of delight reading this book
I can relate to the historical background and stories of the each and every place mentioned in the book and it's kind of amazing to know how things have changed with time , how knowledge passed with generations have their added versions,
How a city which have such huge significance even mughal era left neglected and used just for political propaganda.
.
What I didn't liked -
I felt that author have made up a specific opinion before writing this book.
And most of the times his views seems biased towards that ideology .
Rather than the significance of ramayan or current status part of the book I have enjoyed more about the historical background and architectural details related to the mughal and British period of the city .
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews