[Reader-list] Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition?

[Javed]

Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition?

New Delhi, Oct 4 (IANS) Was legendary poet Tulsidas, who wrote 'Ram
Charit Manas' in the 16th century, so scared of Mughal emperor Akbar
that he did not mention the demolition of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and
the construction of the Babri mosque thereupon in his work?

'If a temple standing on the premises in dispute had been demolished
and a mosque had been constructed thereupon less than 50 years before
Tulsi Das wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' at Ayodhya, there was no reason for
not mentioning the said fact by him in his famous book,' Justice S.U.
Khan of the Allahabad High Court said in his judgment on the Babri
Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suits Sep 30.

Justice Khan made this observation while rejecting the contention of
several counsel appearing for different Hindu parties on this count.

These counsel had tried to explain this vital omission - no mention of
the demolition of Ram's temple and construction of the mosque at the
site - on the ground that Tulsidas feared emperor Akbar would not like
it and cause him harm if he mentioned it.

But Justice Khan said such a wild accusation against a poet of such
repute and calibre as Tulsidas was rather unpalatable even to
non-Hindus.

Moreover, Justice Khan says Tulsidas had given up all the comforts of
life and had virtually renounced the world by separating himself from
his wife for writing 'Ram Charit Manas' at Ayodhya. The work is
considered the common man's Ramayana.

'A poet in such a situation and of such calibre is not expected to be
fearful in writing the truth,' said Justice Khan.

It was during the reign of emperor Akbar (1556-1605) that Tulsidas
(1532-1623) wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' from 1574 to 1577 in Awadhi,
which was the common man's language at that time.

Justice Khan said: 'Even if it is assumed that the mosque was
subsequently constructed by Aurangzeb, still Tulsidas should have
mentioned in 'Ram Charit Manas' that a specific small piece of land
measuring 1,500 square yards or a temple standing on such a site was
birthplace of Lord Ram.

'Symbolism and similes are two most essential, handy tools of poetry.
Accordingly, if not directly then at least symbolically or in similes
some indication could have been given by Tulsidas regarding the
premises in dispute to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and demolition of
the temple,' underlined Justice Khan.

Further disagreeing with the counsel of Hindu parties, Justice Khan
said: 'Apart from (its) religious importance, 'Ram Charit Manas' has
got great poetical value. Poetry is basically flight of imagination'
and this could not be subjected to any fear.'

Elaboratin, Justice Khan said: 'Wealth and fear are two great
retarding gravitational forces for flight of imagination. No wealthy
or fearful person has composed great poetry.'

However, he said, this principle does not apply to prose writers. Leo
Tolstoy who wrote 'War and Peace', the best novel of the world, was a
feudal lord of Russia of considerable wealth and position.

The Ayodhya verdict, given by the Lucknow bench of the high court, has
divided the disputed land into three parts - one for Ram Lalla, one
for the Nirmohi Akhara and one for the Sunni Wakf Board. It also said
the Babri mosque had been built on a site that was the birthplace of
Hindu god Ram.

refer:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20101004/812/tnl-why-didn-t-tulsidas-mention-ram-temp.html