The following statement of Prof. B. B. Lal throws light on the recent part of the history, and repudiates the distorted position taken by some historians with perverse thinking and communalist mentality.

*The excavations at Ayodhya, were a part of a large project called ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites'. The primary objective was to ascertain the antiquity of this site and compare the same with that of the other sites associated with the Ramayana story. Thus, it was decided to excavate at Ayodhya at as many spots as possible to ensure that the lowest levels were not missed. Fourteen different areas were chosen for the operations, such as Hanuman Garhi, Kaushilya Ghat, Sugriva Tila, etc.; and the Janma-Bhumi area was just one of them.

A trench was laid out on the southern side of the complex, at a distance of hardly 4 meters from the boundary-wall of the mosque. In this trench, just below the surface, parallel rows of pillar-foundations, made of brick-bats and stones, were met with (photo on page no. 58). While some of these fell well within the excavated trench, a few lay underneath its edge towards the boundary wall of the Janma-Bhumi complex. Since affixed to the piers of the domes there were many pillar-shafts carved with Hindu gods and goddesses (photo on page no. 59); it was but natural to enquire if the pillar-foundations encountered in the trench had anything to do with the pillars incorporated in the mosque, which evidently originally belonged to a temple.

An over enthusiastic Babri Masjid archaeologist, in his effort to deny the entire pillar-evidence, published a propaganda booklet in which he stated that these were not pillar-foundations but walls. The most amusing part, however, was that he just drew some white lines interconnecting the pillar-bases on the photographs concerned and thereby wanted us to believe that these were walls. What a mockery of archaeology Another Babri Masjid archaeologist, while conceding that these were pillar-bases all right, suggested that the structure concerned was no more than a mere cowshed. No doubt for a person coming from a rural background the cowshed idea was a very exciting one, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that this structural complex had as many as four successive floors made of lime - something unheard of in the case of cowsheds.

On 10 February 1991 while delivering a lecture at Vijayawada on 'The Ramayana: An Archaeological Appraisal' to the distinguished scholars assembled for the Annual Conference of the Museums Association of India, I was asked about the interrelationship between the pillar-foundations encountered in the trench excavated by me and the stone pillars incorporated in the Babri Masjid and further whether there was any temple underneath the Masjid. I replied, as any archaeologist would have: 'If you do want to know the reality, the only way is to dig underneath the mosque.' When this view was published in The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated 11 February 1991, a horde of Babri Masjid historians pounced upon me accusing that I made this suggestion 'under the impetus of the current Hindutva campaign', and added that

Mr. Lal by arguing fresh excavations at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya would he fulfilling the demand of those who wanted the Babri Masjid to be demolished to construct the temple at that site.

- The Hindustan Times, 13 February 1991

To the foregoing I issued a rejoinder

Further excavation within the floor area of the Babri Masjid without in any way harming the structure is necessary to know what actually preceded the mosque at Ayodhya. Why should the contending parties shy away from further excavation, unless they are afraid of facing the truth?

- The Statesman, 18 February 1991

Unfortunately, the foregoing suggestion fell on deaf ears and tension between the two parties continued to develop.

Curiously, events took their own course. On 6 December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by Kar Sevaks who had assembled in thousand at the site. A regrettable event in itself, the demolition incidentally brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick walls of the Babri structure. It included, besides sculptured panels and images, architectural components such as 'amalakas', part of the 'sikhara', door-jambs, etc., three inscriptions on stone.

Of the above-mentioned three inscriptions, the largest one (photo on page nos. 62- 63), inscribed on a 1.10 x .56 metre slab and consisting of 20 engraved lines, has been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puratattva (a reputed scholarly journal of the Indian Archaeological Society), No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff. (Professor Shastri is a distinguished historian and a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics). The relevant part of his paper reads as follows:

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 17) showing that Ayodhya and Saketa were closely connected, Saketa being the district of which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana).

It has been contented by the Babri Masjid historians that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slabs had been brought by the Kar Sevaks from elsewhere and surreptitiously placed there. This contention, however, does not hold good, since there are photographs to contradict this stand: for example, the two photographs published by India Today on p. 33 of its issue dated 31 December 1992 (cf. photo on page no. 68). Here, the Kar Sevaks are seen carrying a huge stone-slab bearing a very long sculpted frieze, after having picked it up from the debris.

The above-mentioned historians also allege that 'the inscription has been forged'. This is behaving like the Village School Master of Oliver Goldsmith, who, 'though vanquished would argue still'. So many eminent epigraphists of the country have examined the inscribed slab and not one of them has even remotely thought that the inscription is forged.

In this context, it may not be out of place to mention that hundreds of examples are available of the destruction of temples and incorporation of their material in the mosques. Right in Delhi there is the example of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque (near the Qutub Minar) which incorporated parts of a large number of temples that had been destroyed. Or at Ajmer, there is the well-known Arhai-din-ka-jhonpra, presenting a similar picture.

From the foregoing it is abundantly clear that there did exist a twelfth-century Hindu temple at the site, which was destroyed and some of its parts incorporated within the body of the Babri Masjid. Some other parts, like the stone-pillars, were placed alongside the piers of the domes of the Masjid, to show them off. Some other pieces, not used in either of the foregoing manner, were thrown away in a nearby depression, like the ones recovered by the Public Works Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government in June 1992, in the course of the levelling of the adjacent area. These were identified by as many as 40 archaeologists and historians from different parts of the country who assembled at Ayodhya to attend a 3-day seminar on this very subject. It was chaired by Dr. Y. D. Sharma, a former Dy. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India.

"Had my suggestion to carry out trial excavation underneath the floor of the mosque without in any way damaging the structure itself been implemented, it would have averted the disaster. But who cares for sane advice? Anyway, let it be remembered that by blindfolding yourself you cannot alter facts of history!"

*Being part of a note published by the internationally reputed archaeologist Padma Bhushan Professor B. B. Lal, in the Hindu, dated 1 July 1998.

| TOP |