Harking back: Nepal and India both claim Ram as Lahore looks on

As Nepal and India ‘battle’ it out to claim ‘original’ ownership of the deity Ram, his wife Sita, and their sons Luv and Kush, it is time that instead of faith-based analysis, we should have a deeper look at the verifiable facts alone.

Why is this important to Pakistan? Well, the fact is that Lahore is named after Luv and Kasur after his brother Kush, both sons of Ram. Added to this is the fact that probably one of the oldest temple exists within the Lahore Fort named ‘Temple of Luv’. It is a small temple on which time has taken its toll, as it seems not to have been repaired or conserved over the last many centuries. A California-based Indian scholar of considerable merit has written a critique over this debate just last week with the comment: “With all respect to the Hindu faith, the fact remains that in the modern context Ram and Luv and Kush were Pakistanis belonging to Lahore. The evidence is there for all to see”.

This debate merits an initial analysis as to which of the three claimants has a stronger case. The claimants being Ayodhya in India, or the village of Ayodhya in Nepal, or is it Lahore in Pakistan. As this is a faith-loaded discussion, our attempt will be to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses in the claims of all three sites. It must be pointed out that Nepal and India are Hindu-majority States, while Pakistan is not. This consideration is important to cleanse this initial analysis of any communal bias.

As we will be analysing the claims of Nepal and India first, let us try to analyse the very word ‘Ayodhya’. In Sanskrit the word ‘Yudh’ means to fight a battle, or to wage war. As ‘a’ is a negative prefix in Sanskrit, it means ‘not to wage war’, or in a positive sense being ‘invincible’. Knowing this is important to this debate.

So let us start with Nepal. The Nepalese Prime Minister, Mr. KP Sharma Oli on Monday last claimed that India had for too long stolen their cultural heritage by claiming that the deity Ram had been born in Ayodhya in India. He said the fact remains that Ram and his wife Sita were born in the Nepalese village of Ayodhya, which is located 135 miles from Kathmandu.

Let us in this piece put forward a few facts only, and refrain from belief-based narratives. The Nepalese Prime Minister said, and we quote verbatim:”We still believe we gave Sita to Prince Ram, but we gave the prince too, from Ayodhya, not India. Ayodhya is a village a little west of Birgunj, a district in Nepal that is around 135 km from capital Kathmandu,” Prime Minister Oli said.

He further added: “We have been oppressed a bit, culturally. Facts have been encroached,” he was quoted by Nepali news. Mr Oli then accused India of cultural oppression and encroachment, and said Nepal’s contribution to science had been undervalued.

At this point it is important to point out that Nepal, especially its foothills, have a strong religious tradition. We know that Gautam, known as the Lord Buddha, was also born in 623 BC, at Lumbini in the Terai plains of South Nepal. This is borne out by a stone inscription on a pillar erected by the Mauryan Emperor Asoka in 249 BC. So the cultural connection holds pretty strongly. Just to point out that the Lord Buddha also visited Lahore and stayed here for three months.

In an editorial in ‘The Kathmandu Times’ last week, it quoted the eminent Indian historian AK Ramanujan as having written: “Valmiki’s ‘Ramayana’ is just one of 300 retelling of the same epic, and each one is as valid as the other”. So no place or fact is final in this discussion. Fair enough.

Now let us have a look at the Indian claim. But first a small diversion. On Tuesday last Indian Buddhist monks staged a sit-in at Ayodhya claiming that it never was the birthplace of Ram, and that the Ram Temple project be stopped and serious archaeological digging take place at the site, which they claim was a Buddhist site. A very fair and scientific proposal. But then it has added to the confusion.

But let us continue with the Indian claim. The later versions of the ‘Ramayana’ claim that Ayodhya is located on the right bank of the River Saraya. So let us take a ‘helicopter’ look at this river. It is 315 miles long and has its origins in Nepal and joins the Ganges at Revelganj in Bihar. However, it flows to the left of the Nepalese village of Ayodhya and is now known as Ghaghara River. The confusion of location is pretty clear. There is no evidence of Ram and his wife returning to Ayodhya as several versions of this epic claim, be it in Nepal foothills or to the Indian one.

Now this is where the Pakistani, or Lahore’s claim comes in. Here we can first quote from the written descriptions available. In the ‘Deshwa Bhaga’ we see Lahore named as ‘Lav Por’, or the town of Lav. Naturally, it was named after where he was born. From Valmiki we know that Ram and his wife Sita lived on a mound on the banks of the Irivati, that is the ancient name of the River Ravi. We know from this epic that many a battle took place here – hence the ‘yudh’ connection, and that the twin towns of Lahore and Kasur were secured by then being ruled by Luv and Kash. We know for a fact that the ‘Battle of the Ten Kings’- Dasarajna - which is what the Ramayana is all about took place on the banks of the Ravi at Lahore.

On the ground we have the temple of Luv (or Lah) named after him. As a first step there is a need for some excavation of the foundations to bring forth brick, or any other, samples for carbon-dating. That should lend this unique temple, in all probably the oldest known, a time frame.

Then we have the 1959 Cunningham inspired excavation inside the Lahore Fort opposite the Diwan-e-Aam by the Pakistan Archaeology Department which went 50-foot deep and after carbon-dating of 20 strata determined the oldest to be of the 4th century, or 1,600 years ago.Depending on the findings of the Temple of Luv, it might make sense to have more digs inside the Lahore Fort, as well as in Mohallah Maullian inside Lohari Gate. If anything emerges then the matter of Ram and Sita and Luv and Kash will be sealed.

If the Indian Ayodhya excavations do take place, which in the current communal environment seems improbable, then only can India claim a place. Just to point out that the Indian Supreme Court verdict on the Babri Masjid case did point out that “at no time has it been proven to be a temple site”. The detailed verdict can be seen on the internet.