# Vishnu Hari inscription

The Vishnu Hari inscription (or Hari-Vishnu inscription) is the name given to a Sanskrit language inscription found in the Uttar Pradesh state of India. It records the construction of a temple by Anayachandra, a feudatory of the king named Govindachandra, and also contains a eulogy of Anayachandra's dynasty.

## Quotes

* Verse 2. May you all be ever protected by Lord Vāmana in the form of Trivikrama who, though being dwarf, is tall with a physique which is an embodiment of all sixteen branches of knowledge. He bears in his palm the Universe which gets disturbed by cloud Samavarta and Pramad, as they strike against the rocks of Kulagiri and create echo.
* Verse 5. It is the abode of the dynasty which had succeeded in ending all anxieties (over Bhargava’s war) and is the birthplace of a man with unmatched valour, i.e. Rāma. Herein resides the person who is illuminated with the power of thousands of valorous deeds, i.e. Rāma. He may not generate greed in us even for most exciting wealth hankered after by the world.
* Verse 8. He, the resolute noble Karna, first sent his fame to the heaven and then, intending to reach there in person, bestowed his entire asset along with his throne upon his son Sallakshana in the same way as the Sun bequeathes his lustre to the fire – an event unique in the world.
* Verse 19. That Alhana’s nephew (brother’s son) and the son of Megha, rich in wisdom, was Anayachandra who became the ruler of Sāketa mandala with the grace of the elderly Govindachandra, the Lord of the earth.
* Verse 21. He, contemplating a shortcut to cross over the ocean of the world, made this beautiful Vishnu-hari temple adorned with a gold Kalas+a, on a scale never done before by any preceding king. It was constructed with the blocks of rocks sculpted out with chisels from the mountain peaks.
* Verse 24. While residing at Ayodhyā, which was full of towering abodes and temples, he pacified dissension through his righteous conduct, constructed thousands of wells, tanks, rest-houses and ponds throughout the Sāketa-mandala.
* Verse 28. And now the King, having fierce arms, annihilated the fear coming from the west. The brilliance of the mighty great ruler (spreads) in the east and west like a festive occasion.
** quoted in in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
* The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alaayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, (...). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana). Line 20 contains an allusion to the serious threat from the west, apparently posed by Sultan Subuktigin and his son Mahmud of Gahni, and its destruction by the king.
** About the Vishnu Hari inscription found at the Babri masjid site. Ajay Mitra Shastri, Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), cited in S.P. Gupta: If Only the Court had Examined the Evidence in: India., & Dasgupta, S. (1995). The Ayodhya reference: The Supreme Court judgement and commentaries.
* The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigennd, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th century... The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra..... verse 21 gives the important information that, in order to ensure his easy passage into the heavens, Meghasuta built a lofty stone temple for the Gode Visnu-Hari.. verse 28 refers to a king (probaly Ayusyacandra) as warding off the danger of invasion from the west... Lines 13-14, verse 19. His nephew (literally brother's son), the widely, celebrated Meghasuta, the illustrious one, who superseded Anayacandra; he earned the lordship of Saketa-mandala through the grace of his elder, the lord of the earth, Govindacandra. Lines 14-15, verse 21. By him, who was meditating in his mind on the easiest means of quickly jumping across the ocean of worldly attachments, was erected this beautiful temple of [The god] Visu-Hari, [on a scale] never before done by the preceding kings, compactly formed [i.e., built] with rows of large and lofty stones which had been sculpted out. Lines 15-16, verse 22. ... king Govindacandra's empire, .... his younger (son?) Ayusyacandra. Line 17, verse 24. By him, who was of good conduct, and abhorred strife, while residng at Ayodhya, which had towering abodes, intellectuals and temples, Saketa-Mandala was endowed with thousands of wells, reservoirs, alms-houses, tanks. Lines 18-19, verse 27. Separating [the flesh and blood of the demon] Hiranyakasipu from his skeleton,....and performing many valorous deeds, having killed the Ten-headed [demon Ravana],...
** Vishnu Hari inscription. Translated by K.V. Ramesh, Appendix II in Lal, B. B. (2008). Rāma, his historicity, mandir, and setu: Evidence of literature, archaeology, and other sciences. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. p. 81 ff.
* Now, Irfan Habib’s seemingly strongest piece of evidence (not for the temple’s non-existence, of course, but at least for the untrustworthiness of some pro-temple spokesmen) turned out to be false. During the demolition on 6 December 1992, many Hindu artefacts had turned up, albeit in less than desirable circumstances from an archaeological viewpoint. Proper excavations at the site in mid-1993 found some more, before the thorough Court-ordered excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 uncovered the famous pillar-bases, long ridiculed as a “Hindutva concoction” by the secularists but henceforth undeniable. Among the first findings during the demolition was the Vishnu Hari inscription, dating from the mid-11th century Rajput temple, which the Babri Masjid masons had placed between the outer and inner wall. Several Babri historians dismissed the inscription as fake, as of much later date, or as actually brought by the Kar Sevaks during the demolition itself. Prof. Irfan Habib, in a combine with Dr. Jahnawi Roy and Dr. Pushpa Prasad, dismissed this inscription as stolen from the Lucknow Museum and to be nothing other than the Treta ka Thakur inscription. The curator kept this inscription under lock, but after some trying, Kishore Kunal, author of another Ayodhya book (Ayodhya Revisited, 2016), could finally gain access to it and publish a photograph. What had been suspected all along, turns out to be true: Prof. Habib, who must have known both inscriptions, has told a blatant lie. Both inscriptions exist and are different... Yet, none of the three scholars has “responded to the publication of the photograph of the Treta ka Thakur inscription, which falsifies the arguments they have been persistently advocating for over two decades.”
** Elst, K. Forever Ayodhya, 2023, Aryan Books International Chapter 13. Epitaph for the Ayodhya affair by K. Elst, citing Meenakshi Jain, 'The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya'(p.104-112) p.112
* Instead, just like B. B. Lal’s report, this inscription became a skeleton in their closet, which they have to keep from public view as long as possible.
** Elst, Koenraad Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002)
* But what is truly astounding is Kishore Kunal's exposure on the Treta Ka Thakur inscription housed in Lucknow Museum. For over two decades, Left historians, principally Professor Irfan Habib, mounted a forceful campaign claiming that this inscription was stolen from Lucknow Museum and planted at Ayodhya during the chaos of 6th December. Now for the first time a photograph of the Treta Ka Thakur inscription has been published. It conclusively establishes that the Treta Ka Thakur inscription and the Vishnu Hari inscription found in 1992 are two distinct epigraphs and that there had been no substitution. But does evidence really matter? Evidence may come; evidence may go; bu Left historians "go on forever".
** Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 1 (p 7)
* The Indian History and Culture Society arranged a three-day (10th–13th October 1992) all-India workshop and seminar on ‗Archaeology and History of Ayodhya‘, … [which] was attended by 40 delegates … [The scholars] added at least two more and most vital pieces of archaeological evidence — one, epigraphical and second, architectural. The former ... is the letter ‗ si’ found engraved on the top portion of the black stone pillar fixed on the outer left side of the main entrance to the central domed-room. Palaeographically, it is in the Nagari script of 11th-12th century AD. In Sanskrit it stands for Shrī, the Goddess Lakshmi. ... A year later, … a similar black stone-pillar inscribed with the same letter ( si) in the same location of the pillar, the capital, was found re-erected in a small triangular park [nearby]... The architectural evidence came to light in the form of a fragmentary wall over which ran the outer boundary wall of the disputed structure. It means that the Muslims used a part of the temple wall to build the boundary wall of the mosque.
** (Gupta 1995: 116–17) Gupta, S.P. 1995. ―If Only the Court Had Examined the Evidence‖. In Dasgupta, Swapan, et al., The Ayodhyā Reference, Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries, Voice of India, Delhi, pp. 112ff
* Among the stone pieces with carvings found after demolition of the disputed structure, on 6 December 1992, three had inscriptions in Nagari script of the 11th-12th century: ―Two of these are fragmentary and datable palaeographically to a period fifty years later than the third inscription. These were found deeply and clearly cut and engraved on a pillar, unfortunately found broken vertically in two parts (…). These fragmentary inscriptions bear the names of some Gods and some kings, in genealogical sequence, and courtiers.
** (Gupta 1995: 118) Mid–12th c.Gupta, S.P. 1995. ―If Only the Court Had Examined the Evidence‖. In Dasgupta, Swapan, et al., The Ayodhyā Reference, Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries, Voice of India, Delhi, pp. 112ff
* The third inscription, … running in as many as 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5ft. long, 2ft. broad and 2.5 inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a very heavy tablet … Three-fourths of the first line is found obliterated anciently. The last line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected to chipping off. A portion of the central part is found battered, maybe some one tried to deface it anciently. The patination is, however, uniform all over the surface ...
** (Gupta 1995: 118-119) Gupta, S.P. 1995. ―If Only the Court Had Examined the Evidence‖. In Dasgupta, Swapan, et al., The Ayodhyā Reference, Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries, Voice of India, Delhi, pp. 112ff
* According to Ajay Mitra Shastri, ―The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nāgarī script of the eleventh-twelfth century A.D. … It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it.
** (Shastri 1992–93: 37) Shastri, A.M. 1992-93, ―Ayodhyā and God Rāma‖, Purātattva no. 23, pp. 35–39. Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi.
* Another respected epigraphist, K.V. Ramesh, states: ―The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigned, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th century on palaeographical grounds as well as the internal evidence provided by the inscriptional text in question. … The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra, obviously of the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a fairly vast empire from 1114 to 1155 A.D.‖
** (Ramesh 2002–2003: 98) Ramesh, K.V. 2002–2003. ―Ayodhyā Viṣṇu-Hari Temple Inscription‖. Purātattva, no. 33, Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi, pp. 98–103.

## See also

* Govindachandra (Gahadavala dynasty)