40 SOCIAL SCIENTIST in the larger context their writings appear to be mere compliments to each other. The two papers begin by stating a myth that Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama, had always been an important pilgrimage for the Hindus (See GOI Paper 1.1., p. 1. and BJP Paper p. 1). There is no evidence to support the myth that Ayodhya had been an important place of worship either since the millennia (BJP Paper) or from the time of the writing of the epic Ramayana (GOI Paper). In fact the several Brahminical treatises that were compiled on pilgrimages do not mention Ayodhya as an important holy place for the Hindus until the seventeenth century. It is true that the theory of pilgrimages had been dealt with in the epic and puranic literature but then its treatment was insignificant and unsympathetic.1 The first re-statement of the theory of 'Tirtha-yatra' was made by Bhatta Lakshmidhara in the voluminous work 'Krtyakalpa-taru' in c. 1125 AD. In 'Tirtha-vivecana-kanda', the eighth part of 'Krtyakalpa-taru', he gave a list of the primary pilgrimages of the Hindus. This included Kasi, Prayaga, Ganges and Gaya.2 Ayodhya was mentioned as a place of worship of secondary importance and that too because of Goprataru, a site associated with Vishnu.3 Several treatises on pilgrimages followed the significant work of Bhatta Lakshmidhara but in none of them Ayodhya was mentioned as an important place of worship.4 Mitra Mishra was the first to list Ayodhya as an important pilgrimage. He wrote the 'Viramitrodaya' in c. 1620 AD and in a part of it called the 'Tiriha-prakasa' he placed Ayodhya as the sixteenth most important place of worship because of its association with Rama. He wrote that the religious significance of the city was that it could provide salvation to the one who visited the place.5 It may be mentioned that it was during this time that 'Mahatmya' or guide-books on holy places were being compiled and the 'Ganga-Mahatmya' of Prayaschittva was the first in this series. The 'Ayodhya Mahatmya' followed later. The rise of Ayodhya as an important pilgrimage followed the establishment of the traditions of 'Rama BhaktF or devotion to Rama, the re-incarnation of Vishnu. The Ramanandi sect started in the fourteenth century and believed that Lord Rama, the avatar of Vishnu, was more significant than Vishnu, the Supreme Lord. The Ramanandis established the norms of 'Rama Bhakti9 and strove to make Rama emerge as a popular deity. There is ample historical evidence that supports the view that prior to the rise of this particular sect, Rama was not accepted popularly as the re-incarnation of Vishnu. Bhatta Lakshmidhara did not accept the theory of Rama being the avatar of Vishnu. This is clear from an instance quoted by him in the 'Krtyakalpa-taru^ In the 'Brahmacari-kanda^ the first volume of the 'Krtyakalpa-taru1, he illustrated the distinction between 'dharma' and 'adharma' by using an anecdote from the