Ashok Singhal Called Him 'Bharat’s First Karsevak': Thakur Gurudutt Singh

Woman artisans engrossed in the music of sculpt and scrape over stone at the Ramjanmabhoomi Karyashala in Ayodhya do not usually lift their eyes from work. Not even when you ask them questions. Not when “guides” who take pilgrims from distant states of Bharat for a trip to the karyashala break into “Jai Jai Shri Ram".

The artisans’ words and conversations fall on stone. Their breath hits the stone that breathes back their work on its surface. Such is the devotion of these artisans dedicated to shaping pillars for the Ram Mandir.

However, they do lift their heads if you want help in recounting the names of karsevaks whose images are part of a visual display at the karyashala, or pretend to, for a moment, just so you know how special they are as Ramlalaa’s devotees and you, not as much. 

The karsevaks' sacrifices and contributions inspire each line, dig, curve and smoothing of the stone for the physical pillars that are reaching the finishing stages for the mandir.

The karsevaks would make their contribution known for the decades to come, and be remembered as the pillars of the mandir movement's own history.

Among the names taken often at the karyashala is that of Thakur Gurudutt Singh.

There is one karsevak from Ayodhya who was given the title of "Bharat's first karsevak" by the leader of courage, none other than "Hindu Hridaya Samrat" Late Shri Ashok Singhal.

After the sants of the Nirmohi Akhada, Singhal perhaps is the first prominent Hindu leader to acknowledge that Thakur Gurudutt Singh's contribution changed the course of the Rama Janmabhoomi's history and sculpted a landmark in the timeline marking the Hindu struggle for the control of Ram's birthplace and its religious and spiritual sanctity.

The karsevak, Thakur Gurudutt Singh, was the city magistrate of Faizabad in 1949.

Ayodhya offers a duality in pilgrimage. There are two journeys that run parallel to each other. The first pilgrimage leads the devotee to Sri Rama Janmabhoomi, Saryu ji, the temples of Ayodhya and the sacred within the sacred.

Running alongside this yatra within Ayodhya is the pilgrimage that takes a devotee to the stories and accounts of the devotion and courage of the karsevaks.

While many of these karsevaks converged from different parts of Bharat, there were others who sprang from the sacred 'bhoomi' of Ayodhya ji herself.

In order to know the value of Thakur Saab’s contribution, one must visit Shri Rama janmabhoomi.

The darshan of Ramlalla, the moment, the sight and the site, the vigraha, themselves reveal the story of how, when in 1949, when Rama Janmabhoomi’s history took a favourable turn for the Hindus, their deity would be defended by the underestimated power of keertan.

Thakur Saab, the son of Ayodhya, used just two tools for his contribution.

The first tool was his mind, where his devotion to Ramlalla would lead to a nation-centric intellectual harvest of thoughts and decisions.

The second: his pen — in position and authority. He used his mind and the power of his pen in order to stand between a sea-surge of bhaktas on one side and power on the other.

Who would narrate the story of Thakur Gurudutt Singh better than his own grandson?

The address for reaching the grandson of the 'Ram Bhakt magistrate' is simple. "Ram Bhawan, Faizabad".

For the people of Ayodhya, Ram Bhawan is an emotion situated at Civil Lines, Faizabad. In Faizabad and Ayodhya, it is synonymous with two figures of India's history.

One fought for India's freedom. And the other, for Rama Janmabhoomi's.

"Ram Bhawan, na, jahan Gumnami Baba aa kar thehere the (the same Ram Bhawan where Gumnami Baba is known to have stayed?," is how the people of Faizabad and Ayodhya respond when an outsider drops the name of Late Thakur Gurudutt Singh's residence. It was at Ram Bhawan in Ayodhya that Gumnami Baba is known to have spent his last days between 1982 and 1985.

There is, however, another visual marker that helped this author in walking to the gate of Ram Bhawan with a great appetite for the story that was waiting to flow out, in her share, from this historic residence.

On the upper porch of the house, there is a depiction of the under-construction Ram Mandir at Rama Janmabhoomi spread across the breadth of the wall.

At the outer porch of the residence, Shakti Singh, chairman of Faizabad-based Subhash Chandra Bose Rashtriya Vichar Manch, also known as one of the petitioners in the case centred on resolving the mystery behind the identity of Gumnami Baba, was finishing his morning tea.

Singh has retold his accounts of Gumnami Baba's stay at Ram Bhawan to journalists, researchers, writers, public and others, several times over for years.

He would be retelling it, once more, to this author, but with a slight difference, perhaps, from other times. This time, he would also talk about his own grandfather. This story would come in interjections filling his accounts of Gumnami Baba, during pauses.

The story of Thakur Gurudutt Singh’s karseva goes back to 1949. He was serving as the city magistrate.

The two days of test for "Thakur Saab", as he was known in Ayodhya, were 22 December and 23 December 1949. The situation demanded a sacrifice from him. He was confronted by difficult choices, but he stood for Ram and dharm. 

Singh says, "on 22 December 1949, about midnight, the news of a pratima of Ramlalaa found in the disputed site spread in Ayodhya. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister and Govind Vallabh Pant was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. Emotions of Ram's devotees were on a rise and they gathered at Shri Rama Janmabhoomi. The following events would surround him and his position. He would have to take quick decisions that would eventually preserve the devotion and sanctity of the bhakta's devotion for Ram. He stood for dharm."

According to Singh, his grandfather took those decisions while remaining in his position and before stepping down as he knew that he would not be able to do the necessary things after giving up his powers.

On 23 December 1949, a sea of Ram bhaktas surged towards the Rama Janmabhoomi. Among the devotees of Ram were Naga (sants).

Shakti Singh digs out a copy of the book titled "Ram Bhakt Magistrate".

Handing it over to this author, he says, "this book has the entire account of how the Ram Bhakt magistrate made a sacrifice and kept his devotion before his position and comforts."

The book contains a compilation of incidents that prompted Thakur Gurudutt Singh of Ayodhya to take a bold and courageous stand in the honour of devotion and devotees.

It has been compiled with the help of Ram Prakash Tripathi. Singh's narration turns back and forth — from the incidents that propelled Thakur Saab to uphold devotion, and that chapter in Ayodhya's history.

Singh’s narration involves momentary detachment of the family member from the subject. The Ayodhya-waasi and Ram Bhakt in Singh take over during the retelling.

The book mentions, "At the site, Mahant Abhiram Das and Mahant Ramchandra Das Parahamhans had already begun an akhand keertan. There was an era when the bhog aarati was performed at the Ramchabootra at the premises, but this incident had seen the establishing of the deity in the garbhagriha."

It mentions that Radio Pakistan aired the news of the day's events in an exaggerated manner, the language used was inflammatory and presented facts in a twisted manner — done to hurt India's image globally.

"Jab tak Radio Pakistan ka dushprachar prarambh nahin hua thha, tab tak Dilli anbhigya thee (Delhi was unaware until the negative propaganda from Radio Pakistan)." The news reached Delhi.

As both Singh and the book mention, Pt Pant was directed by Pt Nehru to restore the situation as the events had made a particular community angry and upset.

District Magistrate K K Nayyar and magistrate Thakur Gurudutt Singh exchanged thoughts.

"Mantrana mein yeh sunishchit kiya gaya ki kisee bhi roop mein poorvstithi sthapit karne ke prayas nahin kiya ja sakte hain," the book mentions. It means that they reached a conclusion that in no way can efforts be made to restore the pre-existing situation. The two reached the conclusion keeping in mind the situation at Shri Rama Janmabhoomi.

"The district magistrate presented the report and the CM noticed that the concerns of the prime minister were not getting addressed in the report. This prompted him to depart for Ayodhya," Singhs adds, the book echoes.

It was time for ‘Thakur Saab’ to face his superiors in state administration. Singh adds, "as per the protocol, the city administration would have to be present at the border to receive the CM. My grandfather was sent to the district border. He was asked to restore the situation — as it was — before the events took place and mentioned that he would visit the site."

Would they want the public's looming doubt — which was that the administration would want to remove the pratima — to be proven right? The chances seem severely nil.

Singh restores the flow of narration: "That's when my grandfather said that the situation at the site is not suitable for the visit. He added that the public already had a feeling that the administration would try to remove the pratima. In such a situation, people would want to resist any such effort. The situation would worsen. He told the CM that any untoward incident would come as a challenge to his security and controlling the situation would not be possible."

Naturally, the moment came when Thakur Gurudutt Singh would have to make those difficult decisions.

Singh adds, "he had to make a choice. On one hand, there was the path leading to dharm and on the other hand, there was his position, status and livelihood. He told the CM that he had made the decision. The CM would have to return and that the city administration cannot even think of removing the 'pratima' looking at the situation. The CM had to return from the (district) border itself."

Thakur Saab realised the vitality of his position and this led him to do more before stepping down from the post of magistrate.

Singh adds, "He took two decisions. He brought Section 144 in place for the area of concern and secondly, he issued an order that the worship and rituals dedicated to Ramlalaa which had emanated at the site, should continue. After that, he resigned.”

Thakur Saab’s actions created the path for the 'mukti' of Shri Rama Janmabhoomi and shaped the ground for Shri Rama Janmabhoomi movement.

Ram Bhakt Magistrate mentions that Thakur Saab had to bear the consequences of his action.

"He was thrown out of his government accommodation at midnight during winter with his wife and children. He took refuge at Advocate Bhagwati Prasad Singh and stayed here for a long time. During these years, the government continued to hinder his pension over different excuses. However, financial constraints did not deter him from serving the nation and from following the principles of Hindutva."

When the Supreme Court passed the historic judgement in 2019, devotees of Ram remembered the contribution of Thakur Gurudutt Singh, who had carved the possibility of preserving the sanctity of the "vigrah" at Shri Rama Janmabhoomi in 1949. The verdict ended a 500-year long struggle for Hindus. It came 70 years after Thakur Saab's karseva. 

The keertan led by the sants of the Nirmohi Akhada at Shri Rama Janmabhoomi in 1949, might find a generational transition and translation in the keertan offered by bhaktas from across Bharat at Rama Janmabhoomi. Thakur Saab knew and understood the power of keertan and that’s one aspect never discussed in the under-celebrated story of his karseva.