Was a temple razed? What the stones say

A magnificent Ram Mandir in Nagara style is coming up in Ayodhya. The ‘pran pratishtha’ (consecration) ceremony of the Ram Lalla idol took place on January 22 and a nation watched, many with tears in their eyes. Millions across the world marvelled too.

That’s faith.

For centuries, when the temple didn’t exist, people held on to that faith.

Faith and belief are said to be blind. But the evidence is what makes even the blindfolded Lady Justice see. Excavated archaeological evidence doesn’t lie.

So, what do the stones say?

The first question first. Why dig up the past? There have been some experts and politicians who have reignited the controversy over the history of the Ram Janmabhoomi site. This came around the 'pran pratishtha' (consecration) ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22.

Moving to the other questions. How old is the history of the site? What was there below the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid ground? Was there a temple? If yes, what happened to it?

To find the answers, we will have to go back to 2003, when a team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) worked on the site of the Babri Masjid, which was demolished in 1992.

The team, led initially by archaeologist BR Mani, was there on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. The court was hearing the case on the ownership of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya.

The Babri Masjid stood on the site in Ayodhya, the place where Lord Ram is believed to have been born.

THE ASI SURVEY AT AYODHYA DISPUTED SITE IN 2003

The team had initially used Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology to find if there was any “anomaly” under the ground. An archaeological anomaly is likely to be a man-made object or structure of historical significance inside the earth.

Experts detected some “anomalies” and were given the go-ahead by the high court to carry out excavation work and dig out the truth.

The ASI team of 14 members was expanded to over 50. The work started on March 12, 2003, and would go on for almost five months, till August 7 that year.

Like most excavation sites, the Ayodhya excavation spot where BR Mani and his team were working wasn’t quiet.

“There were security personnel with sniffer dogs. Then there were labourers. Even people of the 25 parties involved in the court litigation were present,” BR Mani, who is now the Director General of the National Museum in Delhi, tells IndiaToday.in in an exclusive interview.

“Actually, the structure of the Babri Mosque had already gone in 1992. So, it was only in the shape of a mound with earth and debris from the mosque and earlier debris. So, when we started our excavations, we did the layout of the entire area in different trenches. We had 90 trenches of 5x5 metres each excavated at the site,” says BR Mani.

The team started descending those trenches and examining layer after layer.

That is when the evidence came popping out. Layer after layer, period after period, like a multi-layered cake being cut through.

The evidence collected by the archaeologists would go on to play a crucial role in the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 2010 and the Supreme Court in 2019.

WHAT EVIDENCE DID ASI DIG OUT IN AYODHYA?

What Mani, a renowned archaeologist, goes on to describe shows the continuity at the Ayodhya Janmabhoomi site. It also pushes back the history of the site by a thousand years to the 17th Century BCE.

"Better evidence of continuous worship" by the Hindu side than those representing the Muslim parties was cited as one of the reasons for giving the land for a Ram temple by the Supreme Court in its 2019 judgment.

Mani says that the top layer of the site was from the late Mughal (18th, 19th Century) and below that was the Mughal period.

His team encountered evidence from the early Sultanate period and then the Rajput period or early Mediaeval period (11-12th Century). Further down were the post-Gupta period and then the level of Kushans (1-3rd Century AD). Further below was the Shungha period, corresponding with the 1st and 2nd centuries BC.

“Then further below was the Muryan period (from say 3rd to 2nd century BC), and then interestingly, we found remains of northern black polished ware, which was a deluxe type of pottery, which existed even in the Modern period and which was known to have existed from 6th century BCE onwards. But here we found that it was in existence from the 13th and 14th Century BCE. The lowest level was 1680 BCE,” says Mani.

The significance, explains Mani, is that it takes back the history of the place by a thousand years.

“So, it contradicted earlier scholars who thought that the site of Ayodhya belonged to the 7th century BCE. The excavations took it back to the 17th century BCE, which is at least a thousand years older than what they had considered earlier,” BR Mani explains.

WAS THE AYODHYA JANMABHOOMI ALWAYS A RELIGIOUS SITE?

These details are interesting because, even after all these years, the ASI report on excavations hasn’t been made public. Just a handful of people who the court asked for copies to be shared with know what the findings are.

Was the Ayodhya Janmabhoomi site always a religious spot?

Though the history of the site starts from the 17th Century BCE, it was not a religious site at that time. There is evidence of drains, drainage ring wells and hearths, which suggest it was a “habitational site” until the Gupta period, which is about 4th Century AD.

“From the 4th Century AD, we started getting very huge structures that are suggestive of either a big palace or a big religious structure. There is no evidence to suggest a palace there, but sculptures, terracottas, lamps and architectural members, which are normally used in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religious structures were found,” BR Mani tells IndiaToday.In.

So, it is safe to assume that from the Gupta period onwards, the nature of the site changed from a “habitational site” to a religious site. “From the 9th Century to the 13th Century we have evidence of three different temples at the site,” Mani adds.

PROFESSOR BB LAL’S AYODHYA FINDINGS OF 1976-77

The first hint of archaeological evidence of a temple below the Babri Masjid was provided in 1988 by BB Lal, former Director General of ASI, writes historian Meenakshi Jain in ‘The Battle for Rama -- Case of the Temple at Ayodhya’.

The study was undertaken by BB Lal for a project on ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’ and the initial findings were published in Indian Archaeology 1976-77.

Archaeologist KK Muhammed, who was a student and part of BB Lal’s research team, tells IndiaToday. In that pillar bases, religious symbols and terracotta idols all suggested that a temple existed on the Babri Masjid site.

“When we went inside the mosque, we saw 12 temple pillars made of black granite. On the lower part of the pillars, 'poornakalasha' (a symbol of prosperity in Hinduism) was engraved. That symbol was seen on all the pillars and then there were certain sculptures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, that were badly defaced,” KK Muhammed, who retired as Regional Director of ASI, tells IndiaToday.In.

“Then there were terracotta idols, which would be associated with a temple, not with a mosque. Idols of a woman drummer and animals were there. On the basis of these evidences, Professor Lal came to the conclusion that there was a temple below the mosque,” he says.

KK Muhammed says BB Lal didn’t want to whip up a frenzy, and it was only when a section of historians wanted to “outsmart” him, that he presented his findings.

“Kishore Kunal, who in 1990 was appointed Officer on Special Duty (Ayodhya) by then Prime Minister VP Singh, met BB Lal to enquire about the excavations. BB Lal confirmed that the remnants of a temple lay beneath the Masjid,” writes Meenakshi Jain.

BABUR, BABURNAMA AND THE BABRI MASJID

Even the ASI team that conducted the 2003 excavation came to the same conclusion but with a lot more evidence.

“In our report, we have stated that a temple of Nagar style of North India existed at the place before the construction of the mosque,” BR Mani tells IndiaToday.In.

“After the 12th Century it seems that the temple existed for the next two centuries and then, when Babur came to India at that time, his army went there. There is, however, no evidence as such of the time when his army was in Ayodhya. Those few pages of the Baburnama are missing,” says Mani.

However, an entry on April 2, AH 934 (1528), confirmed Babur’s stay in Ayodhya for a fortnight, historian Meenakshi Jain writes in ‘The Battle for Rama -- Case of the Temple at Ayodhya’.

Babur’s narrative, Jain writes, broke off on April 2 to resume on September 18, during which period the Babri Masjid was constructed.

The Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528 by Babur’s commander, Mir Baqi.

Author-historian Meenakshi Jain also cites examples to highlight that Babur didn’t document every important event of his life.

WAS A TEMPLE RAZED TO BUILD A MOSQUE IN AYODHYA?

The Archaeological Survey of India report submitted to the Allahabad High Court and later used by the Supreme Court contains detailed analysis of 47 pillar bases. The floor supporting the pillar bases was the floor of a temple. The ASI report also had an analysis of an east-facing circular shrine, which had been damaged.

Terracotta figurines of elephant, tortoise and crocodile were excavated from the site.

Referring to the ASI report, the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and there was evidence of a temple-like structure having existed on the land before the mosque was built. "The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure," it said.

However, it said there wasn’t enough evidence to say that a temple was razed to build the Babri Masjid.

Mani says the Supreme Court reached that conclusion because the ASI report didn’t “interpret” the evidence.

When asked why the evidence wasn’t interpreted, Mani says, “We were not supposed to interpret, we were supposed to only write what we found.”

Then Mani goes on to say something that points to human force in the temple’s destruction.

“If you have the evidence that the pillar bases are cut, they are destroyed. The floors have been cut from place to place. That means that when the mosque was under construction, those damage took place,” he says.

A place of continued worship could turn into debris either due to a natural calamity or due to human force.

Was any stamp of a natural calamity like flood or earthquake found?

BR Mani answers in the negative, pointing to the use of force for the destruction.

One has to remember, these are mere interpretations.

However, these aren’t interpretations without any circumstantial evidence.

A mosque at Sambhal was also constructed by Babur’s general Mir Hindu Beg after the demolition of a Hari Mandir, according to author-historian Meenakshi Jain. It was a temple dedicated to Kalki, an avatar of Vishnu.

“The use of temple material in the Sambhal mosque is evident from the internal architecture of the mosque,” writes Meenakshi Jain.

Jain says, just like the Ayodhya temple, Babur kept silent about this episode too, though there was no break in his memoirs.

If Lord Rama is considered the avatar of Vishu in the Treta Yuga, Kalki is supposed to be the Vishnu avatar in the Kali Yuga.

The Allahabad High Court delved deep into the ASI report and also cross-examined the observers. It took almost seven years to deliver the verdict. Some of its observations, like the builder knew the strength of the pre-existing structure while erecting the mosque, are interesting.

"Sufficient indication has been given by the ASI that the building in dispute did not have its own foundation but it was raised on the existing walls. If a building would not have been existing before construction of the subsequent building, the builder might not have been able to use foundation of the erstwhile building without knowing its strength and capacity of bearing the load of new structure. The floor of the existing building was just over the floor of the earlier building. The existence of several pollar bases all show earlier existence of a sufficiently bigger structure, if not bigger than the disputed structure then not lesser than that also," the Allahabad High Court said.

Among several observations after analysing the ASI evidence, the court also said, "Material like stone, pillars, bricks etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure."

MORE EVIDENCE AFTER THE SITE DUG UP FOR RAM MANDIR

After the demolition of the mosque, a huge 12th Century Vishnu-Hari inscription was found, which is clinching evidence of the site's association with Lord Ram. The inscription says the temple of Vishnu Hari was constructed in the reign of Gahadwal ruler Govind Chandra of Kannauj.

"There are beautiful verses on it. The word Janmabhoomi is mentioned there. Then it mentions Vishnu who had killed Bali. So, that was definitely a reference to Lord Ram," says Mani.

In the Ramayana, Lord Ram kills the monkey king Bali.

There seems to be no dearth of evidence that the Ayodhya Janmabhoomi site had for centuries been associated with temples and there was one just below the Babri Masjid.

“There were 12 pillars from the previous temple that were used in the construction of the mosque. They were found in the mosque debris,” says Mani. “We have found water chutes, normally used in temple architecture and called ‘makar pranalas’, that were reused in the foundation of the mosque.”

More evidence was to spring up when the construction of the present Ram Mandir started. After the ‘shilanyas’ (foundation-stone laying ceremony) was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in August 2020, the entire area was dug up.

“Hundreds of pieces of evidence came out. More than 50-60 pillars and other elements of the temple like amalakas, karna amalakas and kapotwalis were found when the entire area was dug up with bulldozers. I went and studied the objects in 2020,” says BR Mani.

CAN AYODHYA EVIDENCE END VOICES OF DISSONANCE?

Both Mani and KK Muhammed have been facing personal attacks and vilification drives from a section of historians. Both have been accused of serving an agenda.

KK Muhammed has been vocal in criticising the "Marxist historians". “They have damaged the social fabric of the entire country,” he says, blaming them for scuttling an agreement between the Hindus and Muslims on the Ayodhya site.

BR Mani says there are historians with biased opinions who have held an adversarial position. He wants the Central government to make ASI’s 2003 excavation report public.

“Once they come to know how the things were found and dating to which particular period, then it would be possible for even those who do not accept it to finally accept it. So, the main issue is the publication of the report,” Mani adds.

Despite the evidence, it is unlikely that the doubters will come around. Copies of the report were handed to the parties by the courts and historians have taken firm positions.

It is, however, for the people to form their own opinion. And it is for them that BR Mani wants the report to be made available.

The ASI report provides evidence pushing back the history of the Ayodhya Janmabhoomi site to the 17th Century BCE. It gives archaeological evidence of several temples at the site and the association of the place with Lord Ram.

The stones have spoken. It is for us to listen. And form our opinion.