EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO THE MANDIR-MASJID [MOSQUE] COMPLEX AND A DISCUSSION OF THE

DATA

From the previousparagraphsit isclear that the excavationsat Ayodhya were a part of a much larger project known as the ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana sites’. The primary objective wasto ascertain the antiquity of thissite and compare it with that of the other sites associated with the Ramayana story. Thus it was decided to exca-vate as many spots as possible to ensure that the lowest levels, if these existed at only some places and not at others, were not missed. Fourteen different areas were chosen for the operations, including Hanuman Garhi, Kaushilya Ghat and Sugriva Tila, and the Janma-Bhumi area wasjust one of them.

In this last-named area there existed the Mandir-Masjid [mosque] complex.

Here a trench was laid out on the southern side of the complex, at a distance of about 4 metresfrom the boundary wall. Like all other trenchesat Ayodhya, thistoo revealed that the earliest occupation was that of the early stage of the NBPW, dating back to about the seventh century BC. Thereafter the occupation continued through the variousstagesof the NBPW and the Sunga periodsright up to the late Kushan times. For whatever reason, the spot was abandoned, though the remains of the Gupta period were duly encountered in a neighbouring area known as Kaushilya Ghat.

In the first occupation that followed this desertion of the trench under discus-sion, parallel rows of pillar-bases (foundations), made of brick-bats or of brick-bats with a few stones, were found (Plate 9.1). These bases were mostly squarish in shape, although some examples of circular ones also existed. These rows of pillar-bases ran in an east–west direction. While some pillars fell well within the excavated trench, a few lay underneath itsedge towardsthe boundary wall of the Mandir-Masjid complex. Associated with these pillar-bases there were four floors made of lime mixed with brick-powder.

Here it may not be out of place to mention that an over-enthusiastic Babri Masjid archaeologist, in his effort to deny the entire pillar evidence, has stated that these were not pillar-bases but walls. The most amusing part, however, is that he just drawswhite linesinter-connecting the pillar-baseson the photographsconcerned and thereby wants us to believe that these are walls. What a mockery of archaeology!

Yet another Babri Masjid archaeologist, while conceding that these are pillar-bases all right, has suggested that the structure concerned was no more than a mere cow-shed. No doubt for a person coming from a rural background the cowshed idea is a very natural one, but the archaeologist 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.

No coin or inscription was found in any of the levels associated with these pillar-bases. Thus one has to fall back upon evidence from other material to ascertain their chronological horizon. Associated with the earlier of these floors there were a few fragments of sculptures and pottery which may be assigned to about the twelfth centuryAD. Thus, with its four successive floor-levels, the pillared complex as a

whole may be dated from the twelfth centuryADto about the end of the fifteenth century.

The fact that the pillar-basesextended into the edge of the trench towardsthe Mandir-Masjid complex indicated the possibility of there having been more such rowsof pillarsin that direction. How many? Only further excavation could have revealed that. That thispillar-base-cum-lime-floor complex did extend very much beyond the confines of the excavated trench discussed above has since been amply established.

On 10 February 1991, while delivering a lecture at Vijayawada on ‘The Ramayana: An Archaeological Appraisal’ to the distinguished scholars assembled for Plate 9.1 Pillar foundationsencountered a little below the surface in the trench adjacent to

the Babri Masjid. Courtesy of Archaeological Survey of India

the Annual Conference of the Museums Association of India, I was asked about the inter-relationship between the pillar-bases encountered in the trench excavated by me and the stone pillars incorporated in the Babri Masjid (Plate 9.2) and further whether there wasany temple underneath the Masjid. I replied, asany archaeolo-gist would have: ‘If you do want to know the reality, the only way is to dig under-neath the mosque’. The following is the relevant extract fromThe Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated 11 February 1991, which carried the story.

Plate 9.2 One of the fourteen pillarsof the destroyed Hindu temple, which had subsequently been affixed to the piers of the Babri Masjid. Courtesy of Archaeological Survey of India

Some of the pillar-bases, Prof. Lal said, lay under the edge of the trench on the side of the Babri Masjid and it was likely that there may exist more such bases in that direction. It was also probable that the stone pillars incorporated in the mosque and the pillar-bases found in the excavation hardly half-a-metre below the surface may belong to a structure that existed at the site prior to the con-struction of the mosque.

In order to verify thisand to obtain a clear picture of the preceding structure, it would be necessary to carry out further excavations in the area including that underneath the mosque.

Prof. Lal said it was essentially a political issue rather than an archaeological one and added that the sooner it was settled amicably the better would it be for the country.

As seen, this statement of mine appeared in the newspapers on 11 February 1991.

The very next day ‘twenty eminent historians’ issued a statement casting serious aspersions on my innocuous suggestion. One really wonders at the secret mecha-nism devised by these historians to prepare and sign the statement in a single day when they are physically located variously at Kurukshetra, Delhi and Patna. Is there someone in this august world body [WAC] who would dare probe into this secret (unethical) technique? Anyway, the relevant part of their statement read as follows(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 13 February 1991):

In a joint statement, these historians deplored as unfortunate that professionals should tend to lose proper sense of India’s past ‘under the impetus of the cur-rent Hindutva campaign’ [a campaign to change India from a secular state to a Hindu one]. The statement referred to the observation made by Mr Lal in his lecture two daysago at Vijayawada on ‘The Ramayana, the archaeological appraisal’.

They added that Mr Lal by arguing fresh excavations at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya would be fulfilling the demand of those who wanted the Babri Masjid to be demolished to construct the temple at that site. They felt that Mr Lal’s suggestion was ‘highly disquieting’ and added that the pillars found in the structure of the Masjid ranged from the ninth to the fourteenth century and ‘seem to have been brought from various structures outside the Masjid to decorate it.’

What a fantastic idea: to decorate it!

To the foregoing I issued a rejoinder which appeared in the Statesman, New Delhi, dated 18 February 1991. The relevant part is extracted below:

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, according to former Archaeological Survey of India Director General, Mr B.B. Lal, reports UNI.

If both the Vishwa Hindu Parishad [a Hindu organization campaigning for

the demolition of the mosque] and the All-India Babri Masjid Action Com-mittee had honest intentions to know what actually preceded the mosque, they should not shy away from further excavations, the noted archaeologist said in a lengthy rebuttal to the commentsmade by some historiansin regard to hislec-ture at Vijayawada recently.

‘Why should the contending parties shy away from further excavation, unless they are afraid of facing the truth?’ he asked.

Asmay be seen from the foregoing, I had never ‘pleaded’ for ‘relocating’ the mosque, as is alleged even today by some Babri Masjid historians. Unfortunately, my suggestion to carry out excavation of only a part of the floor without in any way damaging the mosque fell on deaf ears. The tension between the two contending partiescontinued to develop.

Curiously, events take their own course. On 6 December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by someKar sevaks [Hindu activists] who had assembled in thou-sands at the site. A regrettable event in itself, the demolition incidentally brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick wallsof the Babri structure.

Having not seen the material myself, I have no personal knowledge of the actual number of these objectsand of the variouscategoriesinvolved. However, from the published reports it seems that these comprised about 200 specimens and included, besides sculptured panels and images, architectural components which must have once constituted the parts of a temple, and, above all, three inscriptions on stone.

Of the above-mentioned three inscriptions, the largest one (Plate 9.3) inscribed on a slab 1.10× 0.56 metres and consisting of twenty engraved lines, has been pub-lished in thePuratattva by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri (1992–3) of Nagpur Uni-versity, 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 centuryAD. It hasyet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance for our purpose here. 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 tellsusthat a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heapsof stone(sila-sam hati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire(hiran ya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akritam kritam nripatibhir) wasconstructed. This wonderful temple(aty-adbhutam) wasbuilt in the temple-city (vibudhalayni) 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).

The inscription speaks for itself and no further comments are necessary.

It has been contended by the Babri Masjid historians that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slabs were brought by theKar sevaks from somewhere else and surreptitiously placed there. This suggestion does not, however, hold good, since there are photographsto contradict this: for example, the two photographspublished on page 33 ofIndia Today on 31 December 1992. The Kar sevaks are seen carrying a huge stone slab bearing a very long sculpted frieze, after having picked it up from the debris.

They were in the process of depositing the piece thus recovered nearby.

The above-mentioned historians, like the village schoolmaster of Oliver Goldsmith, who ‘though vanquished would argue still’, also allege that the inscription has been forged. Many eminent Indian epigraphists have, however, examined the inscribed slab and not one of them haseven remotely thought that the inscription isforged.

In thiscontext, it may not be out of place to mention that hundredsof examples are available of the destruction of temples and incorporation of their material in the mosques. In Delhi there is the example of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque (near the Qutb Minar) which incorporated partsof a large number of templesthat had been destroyed. Or at Ajmer, there is the well-known Adhai-din-kajhonpra, presenting a similar picture.

From the foregoing it isabundantly clear there did exist a twelfth-century 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 Plate 9.3 Recovered from the in-fillingsof the wallsof the Babri Masjid, thisinscription gives details of the Hindu temple which stood at the site prior to the construction of the Masjid. Courtesy of Archaeological Survey of India

the piers of the Masjid, to show them off as symbols of victory. Some other pieces, not used in either of the foregoing manners, were thrown away in a nearby depres-sion, like the onesrecovered by the Public WorksDepartment of the Uttar Pradesh government in June 1992 in the course of the levelling of the adjacent area.

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?

While, as already stated earlier, the destruction of the mosque was a regrettable event, the outcry to reconstruct it is no less regrettable. Let me ask a simple ques-tion: what is it that we want to reconstruct and why? If the reconstruction is to assuage the hurt feelings of the Muslim community, this is just not the forum to debate the issue. This is a problem for the government of India to resolve and it is being dealt with. The matter isbefore a court of justice and the political partiescon-cerned have agreed to abide by the decision of the court. Nothing can be more unwise for this body than to meddle with the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

However, we do come into the picture when we take up the archaeological importance of an ancient building. It iswell known that the mosque had no archi-tectural pretensions whatsoever. It must have been for this very reason that no Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, right from the daysof Sir John Marshall, ever thought of including it in the list of ‘protected monuments’.

And if in spite of the foregoing we are enthusiastic about the reconstruction of the mosque, how do we go about it? The mosque has been completely erased; thus it will have to be builtde novo. According to archaeological principles, we ought to reconstruct the mosque exactly as it was and not just any mosque. Can we achieve that? The answer is a big ‘no’. In the first place, I am not aware if any detailed plans exist, sections and elevations which might help us in reconstructing the mosque exactly asit was. Second, do we have the right mortar and bricksaswere used in the original mosque? The answer again is ‘no’. Finally, if we are faithful to history, we have to put all the inscriptions, sculptures and other parts of the temple back into the walls of the envisaged mosque and refix all the sculptured pillars to their piers.

If we do not do that we would not only be distorting history but also doing great injustice to the soul of the great Mughal who wanted to remind the vanquished of the event by putting up those pillars from the destroyed Hindu temple against the piers of the mosque. Let us think twice before taking a plunge.

NOTE

Explanatory comments in square brackets have been added by the editors.

REFERENCES

Lal, B.B. 1954–55. Excavationsat Hastinapur and other explorationson the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins.Ancient India 10–11: 4–151.

Lal, B.B. 1981. The two Indian epics vis-à-vis archaeology.Antiquity 55: 27–34.

Shastri, A.J. 1992–3. Ayodhya and God Rama.Purâtattva 23: 35–9.