Oli says Rama was from Nepal : what is the truth? Communists exposed!

PM K P Sharma Oli of Nepal has claimed that Rama was Prince of Nepal and real Ayodhya is somewhere west of Birganj, a Nepali border town near Raxaul in Bihar, India. He claimed that being born in Ayodhya in UP, Rama could not have come so far to marry Sita in Janakpur, Nepal. Being unwell, I had decided to take the day off, but this issue needs urgent response.

Rama was from Nepal , so what is Ayodhya?
Ayodhya, birthplace and home of Rama

Rama Was from Nepal : another communist fraud?

Oli’s claim is that Rama was from Nepal. But there are many holes in his theory. I will examine one by one:-

  • The important geographical feature of Ayodhya is Sarayu river. It is mentioned in Ramayana and current Ayodhya in on banks of Sarayu. Indeed, the whole Sarayu river is in India and no part of it is present in Nepal.
  • Ayodhya in India has been identified with Ayodhya of Ramayana since thousands of years. We get inscriptions of ancient Kings like Pushyamitra Sunga in Ayodhya. It was also called Saketa in ancient literature like in Ashtadhyayi of Panini. We know that in Mahajanpad era, it was being ruled by Suryavanshi Iksawaku dynasty, the same dynasty that Rama belonged to ! Indeed, Buddha himself was from the same dynasty as Rama! What is the history of that particular area in Nepal?
  • The fact that Shakyas{Buddha’s family} were descendants of Survanshi Ikswakus also disproves the notion that Rama could not have gone to Janakpur, Nepal to marry Mother Sita. Indeed, Rama went thousands of kilometres to Sri Lanka for Sitamata! Janakpur in Nepal is just 500 km from Ayodhya.

Communist agenda and propaganda in Ayodhya

It is to be noted that this is not the first effort of communists to cast doubts on Ayodhya’s history. Before Oli’s claim that Rama was from Nepal, Indian communists have repeatedly misled the public on the issue.

Communist Historians often said that current Ayodhya is not the Ayodhya of Ramayana but a modern fraud. In 1991, Suraj Bhan, Athar Ali, R.S. Sharma and D. N. Jha, all communist historians, released a “Historians’ report to the Nation” In this 24 page booklet, they claimed that :-

  • Ayodhya became associated with Rama’s birth and became a pilgrimage center only in 1850
  • That there was no temple beneath Babri Masjid and no temple was destroyed to build it. Suraj Bhan was the armchair archelogist who wrote this.

During the court case for Ram Janmbhumi, 61 eminent Communist historians were called to court as witnesses. Their answers in the court are worth reading and expose their ignorance about the issue:-

  • Aligarh historian Shireen Moosvi suggested that, ‘The legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history.’ However, during cross-examination Moosvi also admitted: ‘It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.’ Guru Nanak, it may be added, was a contemporary of the first Moghul emperor. Indeed, readers must remember that Sikhs had many times launched movements to recapture Janmbhoomi site in Ayodhya.
  • Suraj Bhan stated: ‘I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.’ He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our  report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal.” It is not clear who gave them such less time and who repeatedly pressured them. I can only presume it was communist party and their Islamist allies.
  • Professor D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to influencing the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that, ‘Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was a ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.’ Justice Agarwal remarked about Mandal that, ‘The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject.’ Yet, Mandal’s book is still cited as evidence of the spuriousness of the claims by Ram Bhakts.
  • Suvira Jaiswal, confessed: ‘I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or …from the report of historians.’
  • Sushil Shrivastava, a ‘historian’ admitted he had ‘very little knowledge of history’, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law.

Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid was built on a previous massive temple, the historians changed track.

It was suggested by Suraj Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an ‘Islamic structure of the Sultanate period.’ D. Mandal said that after the Gupta period ‘this archaeological site became desolate for a long time.’

Supriya Verma contested the ‘Hindu’ character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods – something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, ‘could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure.’

Indeed, in recent days, after more artefacts were uncovered, the radical Ambedkarite activists like Dilip Mandal and Hansraj Meena have repeated the claim that this is a Buddhist place. They were always in favour of Babri and now in their Hindu hate, they claim that Ayodhya Janmbhumi is a Buddhist site.

Conclusion

Naturally, the court rubbished the claims of these communist historians. It is to be noted that Nepali communists are well connected with Indian ones. They are educated in India and were helped by Maoists in capturing power in Nepal.

They understand that until and unless the awareness of Nepal-India cultural relations persists, they cannot succeed in their anti-Hindu agenda.

This statement will now be used to sow confusion in minds of Nepalis and communists will cite this for years as proof that Rama was not even born at Janmbhumi site.

We must remember that Rama has been an ideal for ancient world. He is India’s cultural ambassador to South East Asia. Indeed, in Thailand Ayutthaya, named after Ayodhya, was the capital of Ayutthaya Kingdom for 400 years. Even today Thailand’s Kings are named Rama and its current King is Rama X{Rama the tenth}. Thailand’s national epic is Ramkien{Thai Ramayana}. Even the distant Korea traces its root to Ayodhya of Rama. It does not mean that Rama was born in Thaiand or Korea.

We must protect our history from such distortions. I am sure the dharmiks of Nepal and India will oppose this malicious statement of Oli and teach him a lesson in near future.

If you like this article, please support me by sharing this article as much as possible. You can share this on facebook, twitter, whatsapp etc.

  • To read my other articles, click here.
  • To get updates of my new posts on Telegram channel, click here
Pawan
Follow me:-

Leave a Reply