ayodya evidence

8/6/2019 Ayodya Evidence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ayodya-evidence 1/39

Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama

This page offers some of the latest developments regardingthe archeological research on the ancient temple of Lord

Rama at His birthplace at Ayodhya.

JAY SRI RAM !!!

1. WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT AYODHYABy N.S. Rajaram

There already exists a good deal of literary andarchaeological evidence relating to the existence of templesat the disputed site.

The Allahabad Bench of the Uttar Pradesh High Court hasdirected the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate inthe disputed site at Ayodhya to determine whether the Babri



Masjid was built after demolishing a temple that was already.This is a welcome development, for we will soon have ascientific investigation of the claims and counterclaims in fullpublic view and under official direction. It is important to note

however that there have been previous investigations, bothliterary and archaeological, that pretty much establish thepre-existence and destruction of temples at the site wherethe Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baki on Babar's orders.This was drowned in all the noise generated in theemotionally charged climate following the destruction of thedisputed structure on December 6, 1992. I will present someof this material from sources that are well known to experts,

but not the public.Literary EvidenceThere are basically two kinds of literary sources--writtenrecords and inscriptions. Both these are available at RamJanmabhumi at Ayodhya. One major inscription is that of Mir Baki himself, apparently placed on the Masjid wall when itwas built in the 16th century. Another was discoveredfollowing the demolition on December 6, 1992. I'll look at it

later. There are numerous literary records by Hindu, Muslimand British authors. When we survey even a small part of this vast literature, we find that until recently, until somepoliticians created the so-called 'controversy', no author--Hindu, Muslim, European or British official--questioned that atemple existed on the spot, which had been destroyed toerect the mosque. We may begin with a couple of referencesfrom European writers from published sources that are

widely available.



A. Fuhrer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptionsin the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, ArchaeologicalSurvey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: "Mir Khanbuilt a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, whichstill bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine

one, for many of its columns have been utilized by theMusalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid." H.R.Neville in theBarabanki District Gazetteer , Lucknow, 1905,pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple "wasdestroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque." Neville, inhis Fyzabad District Gazetteer , Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177further tells us; "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot andmarked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came toAyodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the

ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known asBabar's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., thetemple] were largely employed, and many of the columnswere in good preservation."One could cite many more in similar vein, but theseexamples should suffice for recent European records. When



we reach back in time, what we find particularly interestingare the accounts attributed to Guru Nanak. He was acontemporary of Babar, and an eyewitness to his vandalism.Nanak condemned him in the strongest terms. The historian

Harsh Narain in his book The Ayodhya Temple MosqueDispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, writes: "Guru Nanak,according to Bhai Man Singh's Pothi Janam Sakhi, said tohave been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D.,visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana:'Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramachandraji ki hai. So,chal, iska darsan kari'e. Translation: 'Mardana! this Ayodhyacity belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us have its

darsana.'"

This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before thedestruction of the Rama temple by Babar. Another work byBaba Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account, againsuggesting that Nanak visited Ayodyha before the templewas destroyed by his contemporary, the Mughal invader Babar. Muslim sources also give a similar account. In 1855,Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad for the recapture of HanumanGarhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid,which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. ThisJihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Oudh. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan,was a participant in that Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following thefailed Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:"'wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus

ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas'ud Ghazi'srule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries,and inns, appointed mu'azzins, teachers and store-stewards,spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs.Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from thefilth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre



of worship and capital of Rama's father. Where there stood agreat temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a bigmosque, ... Hence what a lofty mosque was built there byking Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of

Musa Ashiqqan!" Even more impressive is a Persian textknown as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa'ih Bahadurshahi written in1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urduwork Hadiqah-i Shuhada just cited. Mirza Jan quotes severallines from her work which tell us:

"...keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers

should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook nolaxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to HinduRajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting onfoot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep inconstant use for Friday and congregational prayer themosques built up after demolishing the temples of theidolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras andAvadhà."

Other Muslim authors than Mirza Jan also cite the work,which appears to have been widely available in the 18th and19th centuries. Then there is the evidence of the threeinscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) onthe orders of Babar. Babar's Memoir mentions Mir Baqi ashis governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription weredamaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with

minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that,recorded for instance in Mrs. Beveridge's translationof Babur-Nama published in 1926.Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of AyodhyaWhile this evidence is strong, the archaeological evidence isstill stronger. This is what Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of



the Allahabad Museum), has to say about recentexcavations at Ayodhya: "At Ayodhya, Professor Lal [B.B.Lal. Former Director General of ASI] took as many as 14trenches at different places to ascertain the antiquity of the

site. It was then found that the history of the township was atleast three thousand years old, if not more... When seen inthe light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the 'mosque', Prof. Lal feltthat the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu templebuilt on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th centuryAD..."

On further archaeological and other evidence, Lal concludedthat the pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu templethat stood between 12th and the 16th centuries. What thismeans is that Lal had found evidence for possibly twotemples, one that existed before the 13th century, andanother between the 13th and the 16th centuries. Thiscorresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. Weknow that this area was ravaged by Muslim invadersfollowing Muhammad of Ghor's defeat of Prithviraj Chauhanin the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This wasapparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed againin the 16th century by Babar.

The Hari-Vishnu InscriptionThe demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picturedramatically, providing inscriptional support to the traditionalaccounts--both Hindu and Muslim. The most important of

these is the Hari-Vishnu inscription. It is written in 12thcentury AD Devanagari script and belongs therefore to theperiod before the onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD andlater). It was later examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairmanof the Epigraphical Society of India who gave the following



summary.

"The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse,except for a very small portion in prose, and is engraved in

chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfthcentury AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple,the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed onit... Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells usthat a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones ... , and beautified with a golden spire ... unparalleledby any other temple built by earlier kings ... This wonderfultemple ... was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in

Saketamandala. ... Line 19 describes god Vishnu asdestroying king Bali ... and the ten headed personage(Dashanana, i.e., Ravana)." The inscription confirms whatarchaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found about theexistence of a temple complex. I have given a copy of theHari-Vishnu inscription. New archaeological finds ordered bythe court are likely to yield more such riches but unlikely tochange the historical picture.

Note added after publicationThe reaction of 'secularist' scholars aired from their favoriteplatform of SAHMAT is intriguing to say the least. First theysay that no excavation should be carried out because thatwould open a can of worms leading to disputes at other sitesalso. This is not very different from the objection raised byPope Innocent against Galileo's discoveries. Not so longago, the same worthies were telling us that no temple was

destroyed by Babar when the mosque was built. If they weretelling the truth, why should they fear excavation?

_________

Dr. N.S. Rajaram is a mathematician, linguist and historian.He has written several books



on India including Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and theDead Sea Scrolls.

MORE NEWS

2. Archaeological Excavations at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi

New Delhi, June 16, 2003. A few days ago a news itemallegedly supplied by the Archaeological Survey of India wasplanted in the newspapers that no evidence of a pre-existing

structure under the disputed Rama Janma Bhumi-BabriMasjid was found. The said news item was definitelydeceptive, groundless, misrepresented and calculated todupe the country. The misrepresented item was based on anunfinished progress report of the ASI. Three-fourths of thereport have been concealed. The item was cooked up on thebasis of the excavation report of a spot that was about 50feet away from the western wall of the Rama Janma Bhumi

structure. As such the inferences of the news item based onthe report of this pit is reckless. In spite of this, even thesepits gave away two-thousand year old molded bricks andornate stone pieces of different shapes and sizes. The newsitem dishonored these facts.

The excavations so far give ample traces that there was amammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed

Babri structure. Ancient perimeters from East to West andNorth to South have been found beneath the Babrifabrication. The bricks used in these perimeters predate thetime of Babur. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hinduornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade,etc., have been used in these walls. These decorated



architectural pieces have been anchored with precision atvaried places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab issticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. Therest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting

portion bears a five-letter Dev Nagari inscription that turnsout to be a Hindu name. The items found below 20 feetshould be at least 1,500 years old. According toarchaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoilevery hundred years. Primary clay was not found even up toa depth of 30 feet. It provides the clue to the existence of some structure or the other at that place during the last2,500 years.

More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans.The pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel.The pillar-base rows are in North-South direction. A wall issuperimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of thefloor are visible. An octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund)has been found. These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a constructionmaterial in our country since over 2000 years and in the

constructions at the Janma Bhumi Surkhii has beenextensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapesand sizes were neither in vogue during the middle ages nor are in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago. Manyornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars havebeen found in the excavation. Terracotta idols of divinefugurines, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., havebeen found. Even to this day terracotta idols are used in

worship during Diwali celebrations and then put by templesanctums for invoking divine blessings. The Gupta and theKushan period bricks have been found. Brick walls of theGahadwal period (12th Century CE) have been found inexcavations.



Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residentialhabitation there. The excavation gives out the picture of avast compound housing a sole distinguished and greatlycelebrated structure used for divine purposes and not that of

a colony or Mohalla consisting of small houses. That was anuncommon and highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people. Hindu pilgrims havealways been visiting that place for thousands of years. Eventoday there are temples around that place and the itemsfound in the excavations point to the existence of a holystructure of North Indian architectural style at that place.

So the excavation was to find the answer to the question asto whether Babur superimposed the domed structure on apreexisting structure after demolishing it or built it on virginground. The answer to this question has been found fromthe excavations.

3. Archeological Society of India Says Temple Existed at

Ramjanmabhoomi Site

LUCKNOW, INDIA, August 25, 2003: TheArchaeological Survey of India (ASI) said a temple-like"massive structure" existed beneath the disputed site inAyodhya in its 574-page report. The ASI report, submitted onAugust 22, was opened by the three-member Full Bench,comprising Justice SR Alam, Justice Khem Karan and

Justice Bhanwar Singh on Monday. The bench has givensix-week time to contesting parties for filing their objectionson the sensational revelations made by the ASI in its two-volume report. "Viewing in totality and taking into account thearchaeological evidence of a massive structure just belowthe disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural



phases from the tenth century onwards up to theconstruction of the disputed structure along with yield of stone and decorated bricks as well mutilated sculpture of divine couple...., fifty pillar bases in association of the huge

structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctivefeatures found associated with the temples of north India,"concluded the ASI in its report. The ASI team, led by HariManjhi and B R Mani, had excavated the disputed site for nearly five months between March 12 and August 7 2003 onthe March 5 order of the High Court. In its report on thefamous excavations, the ASI has dwelt at length the periodfrom circa 1000 BCE to 300 BCE and from Sunga (first

century BCE) to Kushan, Gupta, Post-Gupta up to MedievalSultanate level (12-16 century CE). The ASI report mentionsa huge structure (11-12th century) on which a massivestructure, having a huge pillared hall (or two halls), with atleast three structural phases and three successive floorsattached with it was constructed later on. "There is sufficientproof of existence of a massive and monumental structurehaving a minimum of 50 x 30 meter in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputedstructure," states the report.

To prove its point, the report says that during thecourse of digging, nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbatfoundation, below calcrete blocks topped by sandstoneswere found. It also suggests that the center of the centralchamber of the disputed structure falls just over the centralpoint of the length of the massive wall of the precedingperiod which could not be excavated due to presence of

Ram Lala at the spot in the makeshift structure. Significantly,the ASI report did not give any weightage to the glazedwares, graves and skeletons of animals and human beingsfound during the excavations. Rather it suggests that theglazed tiles were used in the construction of original disputedstructure. Similarly, the celadon and porcelain shards and



animal bones, skeletons recovered from trenches in northernand southern areas belong to late and post-Mughal period, itadds. In drafting its report, the ASI has also givenimportance to the carbon dating to ascertain the period of

soil and artefacts found during digging. About the habitationaround the disputed ground, the ASI report observed that"below the disputed site remained a place for public use for along time till the Mughal period when the disputed structurewas built which was confined to a limited area andpopulation settled around it as evidenced by the increase incontemporary archaeological material, including pottery."

However, and as to be expected, the ASI report has

come as a rude shock to the Sunni Central Wakf Board andother Muslim organizations. "It is baseless, misinterpreted,based on wrong facts and drafted under intense politicalpressure," reacted Jafrayab Jilani, counsel for SCWB whileannouncing that they will challenge the report.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=145797

4. The Archeological Survey of India's Report on AyodhyaAugust 27, 2003

In what could be a turning point in the Ayodhya dispute,the Archaeological Survey of India has reported to the highcourt that its excavations found distinctive features of a 10thcentury temple beneath the Babri Mosque site. The Sunni

Central Waqf Board, however, termed the report as 'vagueand self-contradictory'.

The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinionsand maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknowbench of the Allahabad high court on Monday morning.



The report said there was archaeological evidence of amassive structure just below the disputed structure andevidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10thcentury onwards up to the construction of the disputed

structure (Babri Mosque).Among the excavation yields it mentioned were stone

and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple,carved architectural members including foliage patterns,amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrinepilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotusmotif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in thenorth and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge

structure.The archaeological evidence and other discoveriesfrom the site were indicative of remains that are distinctivefeatures found associated with the temples of north India,the ASI report said.

The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existenceof a massive and monumental structure having a minimumdimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-westdirections respectively just below the disputed structure.

In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar baseswith brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped bysandstone blocks were found, the report said.

It said the pillar bases exposed during the presentexcavation in the northern and southern areas also give anidea of the length of the massive wall of earlier constructionwith which they are associated and which might have beenoriginally around 60 metres.

The centre of the main chamber of the disputedstructure falls just over the central point of the length of themassive wall of the preceding period which could not beexcavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in themake-shift structure, the ASI report said.



In a significant observation the report said towards eastof this central point, a circular depression with projection onthe west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signifyingthe place where some important object was placed.

The ASI report, however, said various structuresexposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speakeither about their nature or functional utility as no evidencehas come to approbate them. The report said during andafter the Gupta period up to late and post-Mughal period theregular habitational deposits disappear in the concernedlevels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the

adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose.As a result of this much of the earlier material in theform of pottery, terracottas and other objects of precedingperiods, particularly of Kushan period, are found in thedeposits of later periods mixed along with contemporarymaterial, it said.

The area below the disputed site thus remained a placefor public use for a long time till the Mughal period when thedisputed structure was built which was confined to a limitedarea and the population settled around it as evidenced bythe increase in contemporary archaeological materialincluding pottery, the ASI said in its report.

It went on to state that this observation was further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitationalstructures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage

jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces.The report said the human activity at the site dates

back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific datingmethod providing the only archaeological evidence of suchan early date of the occupation of the site.

The ASI report said the northern black polished wareusing people were the first to occupy the disputed site atAyodhya in the first millennium BC although no structural



activities were encountered in the limited area probed. Around signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, it said.

The report said the Sunga period (second-first century

BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the sitefollowed by the Kushan period.

The report said during the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to havebeen short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposedduring the excavation belonged to this level with a brickcrush floor. On the remains of the above structure was

constructed a massive structure with at least three structuralphases and three successive floors attached with it, it said.The architectural members of the earlier short-lived

massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of themonumental structure which has a huge pillared hall differentfrom residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period, the report said.

The report concluded that it was over the top of thisconstruction during the early 16th century that the disputedstructure was constructed directly resting over it.

Summary of the Report submitted by the ASI on Ayodhya

excavationsAugust 31, 2003

Excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhumi â"Babri Masjid was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003. During thisperiod, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court,



Lucnow. 82 tenches were excavated to verify the anomalicsmentioned in the report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking up theexcavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with some

of their baulks were checked for anomalies and anomalyalignments. The anomalies were confirmed in the trenches inthe form of pillar bases, structures, floors and foundationthough no such remains were noticed in some of them at thestipulated depths and spots. Besides the 82 trenches a fewmore making a total of 90 finally were also excavatedkeeping in view the objective fixed by the Hon'ble High Courtto confirm the structure.

The results of the excavation are summarized as hereunder.

The Northern Block Polished Ware (NBPW) using peoplewere the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya. Duringthe first millennium B.C. although no stuructural activitieswere encountered in the limited area probed, the materialculture is represented by terracotta figurines of femaledeities showing archaic features, beads of terracotta andglass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks etc. Theceramic industry has the collection of NBPW the maindiagnostic trait of the period besides the grey, black slippedand red wares. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmiis another important find of the level. On the basis of materialequipment and 14 C dates, this period may be assigned tocirca 1003 B.C. to 300 B.C.

The Sunga horizen (second-first century B.C.) comes next inthe order of the cultural occupation at the site. The typicalterracotta mother goddess human and animal figurines,beads hairpin, engraver etc. represent the cultural matrix of this level. The pottery collection includes black slipped, redand grey wares etc. The stone and brick structure found



from this level mark the beginning of the structural activity atthe site.

The Kushan period (first to third century A.D.) followed the

Sunga occupation. Terracotta human and animal figurines,fragments of votive tanks, beads antimony rod, hair pin,bangle fragments and ceramic industry comprising red warerepresent the typical Kushan occupation at the site. Another important feature of this period is the creation of large sizedstructures as witnessed by the massive structure runninginto twenty-two courses.

The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century A.D.) did notbring any qualitative change in building activity although theperiod is known for its Classical artistic elements. However,this aspect is represented by the typical terracotta figurinesand a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta) andillustrative potsherds.

During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenthcentury A.D.), too the site has witnessed structural activitymainly constructed of burnt bricks. However, among theexposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrinewhich speaks of its functional utility for the first time. Torecapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan. It is circular whereasinternally squarish with an entrance from the east. Thoughthe structure is damaged the northern wall still retains aprovision for pranala, i.e. waterchute which is a distinctfeature of contemporary temples already known from the

Ganga-Yamuma plain.

Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh totwelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m. in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to havebeen short lived as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed



during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crushfloor. On the remains of the above structure wasconstructed, a massive structure with at least three structuralphases and three successive Peers attached with it. The

architectural members of the earlier short lived massivestructure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorativemotifs were reused in the construction of the monumentalstructure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which isdifferent from residential structures, providing sufficientevidence of a construction of public usage which remainedunder existence for a long time during the period VII(Medieval-Sultanate level to twelfth to sixteenth century

A.D.) It was over the top of this construction during the earlysixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructeddirectly resting over it. There is sufficient proof of existenceof a massive and monumental structure having a minimumdimension of 50x30 m. in north-south and east-westdirections respectively for below the disputed structure. Incourse of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases withbrickbat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped bysandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposedduring the present excavation in northern and southernareas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated andwhich might have been originally around 60 m (of which the50 m length is available at present). The center of the centralchamber of the disputed structure falls just over the centralpoint of the length of the massive wall of the precedingperiod which could not be excavated due to presence of

Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area isroughly 15x15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of thiscentral point a circular depression with projection on thewest cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify theplace where some important object was placed. Terracottalamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the



levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with thestructural phase.

In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make

their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied by glazed thiswhich were probably used in the original construction of thedisputed structure. Similarly is the case of celadon andporcelain sherds recovered in a very less quantity they comefrom the secondary context. Animal bones have beenrecovered from various levels of different periods, butskeletal remains noticed at the trenches in northern and

southern areas belong to the Period IX as the grave pitshave been found out into the deposition coeval with the latedisputed structures and are sealed by the top deposit.

It is worthwhile to observe that the various structuresexposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speakeither about their nature or functional utility as no evidencehas come to approbate them. Another noteworthy feature isthat it was only during and after Period IV Gupta level)onwards upto Period IX (late and post Mughal level) that theregular habitational deposits disappear in the concernedlevels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from theadjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose.As a result of which much of the earlier material in the formof pottery, terracottas and other objects of precedingperiods, particularly of Period I (NBPW level) and Period III

(Kushan level) are found in the deposits of later periodsmixed along with their contemporary material. The areabelow the disputed site thus, remained a place for public usefor a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) when thedisputed structure was built which was confined to a limitedarea and population settled around it as evidenced by the



increase in contemporary archaeological material includingpottery. The same is further attested by the conspicuousabsence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains,

wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces etc. from Period IV (Guptalevel) onwards and in particular from Period VI (EarlyMedieval Rajput level) and Period VII (Medieval-Sultanatelevel).

The site has also proved to be significant for taking back itsantiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of thethirteenth century B.C. (1250Â±130 B.C.) on the analogy of

the C14 dates. The lowest deposit above the natural soilrepresents the NBPW period and therefore the earliestremains may belong to the thirteenth century B.C. which isconfirmed by two more consistant C14 dates from the NBPW(Period I), viz. 910Â±100 B.C. and 880Â±100 B.C.) Thesedates are from trench G7. Four more dates from the upper deposit though showing presence of NBPW and associatedpottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780Â±80B.C., 710Â±90 B.C., 530Â±70 B.C. and 320Â±80 B.C. In thelight of the above dates in association with the NorthernBlack Polished Ware (NBPW) which is generally accepted tobe between circa 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. it can be pushedback to circa 1000 B.C. and even if a solitary date, threecenturies earlier is not associated with NBPW, the humanactivity at the site dates back to circa thirteenth century B.C.on the basis of the scientific dating method providing theonly archaeological evidence of such an early date of the

occupation of the site.

The Hon'ble High Court in order to get sufficientarchaeological evidence on the issue involved whether therewas any temple/structure which was demolished andmosque was constructed on the disputed site as stated on



page 1 and further on p. 5 of their order dated 5 march 2003and given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India toexcavate at the disputed site where GPR Survey hassuggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure,

pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could beconfirmed by excavation. Now viewing in totality and takinginto account the archaeological evidence of a massivestructure jut below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth centuryonwards up to the construction of the disputed structurealong with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well asmutilated sculpture of divine coupe and carved architectural

members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapolapalidoorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaftof black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine havingpranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar basesassociation of the huge structure, are indicative of remainswhich are distinctive features found associated with thetemples of north India.

5. Some Web Sites on More Information About Ayodhya

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com -- N. S. Rajarama's web siteall about Ayodhya and the ancient temple of Lord Rama.You may alsotry:http://members.tripod.com/ayodhya2000/table_of_contents.htm.

http://www.ayodhya.com -- another site on the sacred city of Lord Rama, Ayodhya.



6. The Ayodhya Issue: A Summary of the History of the Ram

Temple

Hindus have always known that the site on which Babur built his

infamous structure which has been erroneously regarded as amosque was the site where Shree Raama, Vishnu Incarnate, took

birth in human form. The fact that this building did not have

minarets, or a water-pool for mandatory ritual pre-prayer ablutions,

is evidence that this building was not a mosque. It was built as a

monument to celebrate the subjugation of the people

of Hindusthan by the incoming invaders. This structure, just like

the Qutab Minar in Delhi , was established as a monument to

pronounce publicly ‘Quvat-ul- Islam’ – the might of Islam.Hindus fought and sacrificed their lives to prevent the demolition

of the holy temple at Ayodhya by Babur, and on many occasions

since then have attempted to regain that site back to rebuild the

temple that had been there.

During the 20th

Century, particularly around the time of Partition

and thereafter, the demand for this site to be restored to Hindus

was thwarted by politicians, impelled by their need to ‘not upset’

the Muslim community. The myth was created and perpetuated

that Hindus were bent upon ‘subjugating Muslims’ and wanting to‘destroy their mosques’. The reality is far from it. Hindus have

always supported the concept of freedom of religious belief and

expression. There are well over a million mosques in India , with

many more regularly being added to that number with the passage

of time. Hindus have not sought to damage or destroy these

mosques, despite the fact that over the centuries numerous Hindu

temples and holy shrines were destroyed by the Muslim rulers. Of

these, they hold three sites as amongst the holiest – Ayodhya, the birthplace of ShreeRaama, Mathura , the birthplace of Shree

Krishna, and Kashi Vishwanath in Varanasi . They have made it

clear that these three sites must be restored to the Hindus devotees.

The judicial process for the restoration of the Ayodhya site has

been dragging on in the courts for decades, the court’s judgement



being delayed for one reason or another, year in and year out. The

brief account given in the attached document illustrates that.

One of the latest developments was the directive given to the

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) by the Indian Government

and the Supreme Court to undertake excavations atthe disputed site to find out whether there is any evidence in

support of the existence of a temple at the disputed site. The report

from the ASI is also attached as a PDF file, and speaks for itself.

What should have been a straightforward case has been made into

a complex issue, with political dimensions attached to it. A verdict

is now expected to be given this month. Hindus earnestly hope and

pray that the courts, not succumbing to political pressure, and

taking account of facts, will pronounce their judgement that does justice to the sentiments and aspirations of the Hindu community.

****************

The Archaeological Survey of India Report

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the

mosque site at the direction of the Allahabad Bench of the Uttar

Pradesh high court in 2003. The archaeologists reported evidence

of a large 10th century structure similar to a Hindu temple having

pre-existed the Babri Masjid. A team of 131 labourers including 29

Muslims - who were later on included on the objections of the

Muslim side- was engaged in the excavations. In June 11, 2003 the

ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the

period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. In August 2003 the ASI

handed a 574-page report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad

High Court.

The ASI, who examined the site, issued a report of the

findings of the period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. This

report stated:“Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in east-west orientation’, several ‘in north-southorientation’, ‘decoratedcoloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with vaksha figurines on four corners’ as well as



"Arabic inscription of holy verses on stone" Earlier reports

by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among

other things a staircase and two black basalt columns

‘bearing fine decorative carvings with

two crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus witha peacock whose feathers are raised upwards’.

The excavations give ample traces that there was a mammoth

pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure.

Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have

been found beneath the Babri fabrication. The bricks used in these

perimeters predate the time of Babur. Beautiful stone pieces

bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel,

alligator facade, etc., have been used in these walls. Thesedecorated architectural pieces have been anchored with precision at

varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking

out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab

lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter

Dev Nagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name. The

items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old.

According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on

topsoil every hundred years. Primary clay was not found even up

to a depth of 30 feet. It provides the clue to the existence of some

structure or the other at that place during the last 2,500 years.

More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The

pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillar-

base rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed

upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An

octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) has been found. These facts

prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been

used as a construction material in our country since over 2000years and in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi Surkhii has

been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes

and sizes were neither in vogue during the middle ages nor are in

use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago. Many ornate

pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the



excavation. Terracotta idols of divine fugurines, serpent, elephant,

horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day

terracotta idols are used in worship during Diwali celebrations and

then put by temple sanctums for invoking divine blessings. The

Gupta and the Kushan period bricks have been found. Brick wallsof the Gahadwal period (12th Century CE) have been found in

excavations.

Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential

habitation there. The excavation gives out the picture of a vast

compound housing a sole distinguished and greatly celebrated

structure used for divine purposes and not that of a colony

or Mohalla consisting of small houses. That was an uncommon and

highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for thecommon people. Hindu pilgrims have always been visiting that

place for thousands of years. Even today there are temples around

that place and the items found in the excavations point to the

existence of a holy structure of North Indian architectural style at

that place.

Radar search

In the January 2003, Canadian geophysicist

Claude Robillard performed a search with a ground-penetrating

radar. The survey concluded the following: "There is some

structure under the mosque. The structures were ranging from 0.5

to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and

contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab

flooring, extending over a large portion of the site".

Claude Robillard, the chief geophysicist stated the following:

"There are some anomalies found underneath the site relating to

some archaeological features. You might associate them (the

anomalies) with pillars, or floors, or concrete floors, wallfoundation or something. These anomalies could be associated

with archaeological features but until we dig, I can't say for sure

what the construction is under the mosque."

The final ASI report of August 25, 2003 stated that there was evide



nce of a large Hindu temple having pre existed the Babri mosque.

Midway into the excavations the courts ordered the removal of the

head of the ASI excavations for not following the excavationnorms.

“OM”

VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD

SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI MOVEMENT AT A GLANCE

1. Ancient History:

1.a. Ayodhya was founded by Vaivasvata Manu (the progenitor

and presiding figure of the current Manvantara, which is the 7thof the 14 that make up the current Kalpa, each Kalpa making up aday of Brahma) on the banks of the holy Sarayu. He saved life on

earth from the great deluge with the blessings and help

of Bhagwan Matsyavatar . Two of his

children Ila and Ikshvaku became the progenitors of the Lunar

Dynasty and Solar Dynasty respectively. The Saptarshis (seven

sages) in the Ministry of Vaivasvata Manu

are Kashyapa, Atri, Vashishtha, Vishvamitra,

Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvaja.

1.b. Lord Sri Ram – an Incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu – was

born in the solar dynasty in Ayodhya in theTreta Yuga - the

second of the four Yugas, or ages of mankind – to rescue the

world from global evil, wickedness and sensuousness and to

restore it to a happy, healthy and blessed state, for future

generations.

2.a. 2100 years ago – A grand temple, on 84 black touchstone

pillars, was constructed by Sakari Samrat Vikramaditya at SriRama JanmaBhumi (birthplace of Sri Rama), in Ayodhya and

dedicated to Sri Ram to glorify and perpetuate his memory as a

national and global hero and savior. Further temples were built at

different times to replace old ones that had been affected by

vagaries of nature including the Sarayu floods, new ones coming



up to mark the site as Sri Ramjanma bhumi sthaan. According to

experts, the pre-Babri temple had been in existence from

theGahadwal period.

2.b. 1528 –Mir Baqi, the Mughal invader Babur’s commander,

demolished this temple.2.c. The first battle by Sri Ram Bhaktas (devotees) to save the

temple from the invading marauders lasted for 15 days. The

invaders, unable to overrun the temple, used the canons to destroy

it. 176,000 lionhearted Ram devotees sacrificed their lives

attempting to save their most celebrated temple.

2.d. An Islamic structure was forcefully superimposed on the

demolished temple site, re-using the material obtained from the

wreckage of the temple. Babar’s built this structure to celebrate hisvictory, the subjugation of Hindusthan by the ‘might of Islam’.

This structure did not have any minarets (essential for Azan – call

for prayer) nor a water-pool for Wazu (ablution) which are

mandatory requirements for a mosque. This shows that this

building was not a holy mosque, but a monument to celebrate ‘the

enslavement of Hindusthan by Islam’, much like

the Qutab Minar in Delhi.

3. 1528 - 1949 – During this period, there were 76

battles/struggles to reclaim the Rama Janma Bhoomi site and to

reconstruct the temple. Guru Govind Singhji Maharaj the

(10th

Sikh Guru), Maharani Raj Kunwar and many other great

warriors fought to reclaim the holy place.

4.a. 1949 - At midnight on 22nd December , Sri Ram Lala (Infant

Sri Ram) revealed Himself at the birthplace that was under the

central dome of the structure. At that time Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru

was the Prime Minister of Bharat, Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant was

the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Sri K.K. Nayyar fromKerala was the District Magistrate of Faizabad (

where Ayodhya is situated).

4.b. To maintain law & order, the City Magistrate attached the

structure u/s 145 Crim. P.C., appointed Sri Priya Dutt Ram as a

Receiver, entrusted the site to his care and ordered the gates to be



locked, but allowed a priest to go inside the structure and perform

regular worship and rituals twice a day. The devotees were allowed

only up to the locked gate. The local people and Sadhus started

chanting “Sri Ram Jai Ram JaiJai Ram” (Victory to Sri Rama)

and Akhand Naam Sankeertan in front of the locked gate.2This sacred chanting was continued non-stop throughout day and

night.

5. 1983 March - A veteran Congress leader of Western U.P.

Sri Dau Dayal Khanna gave a rousing call to the Hindu society

at Muzaffarnagar(U.P.) while addressing a Hindu Conference to

reclaim the Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi sites. Sri Gulzari Lal

Nanda – two times interim Prime Minister of India after demise of

PM Nehru and PM Shastri - was also present on the dais.6. 1984 April - The First Dharma Sansad (National Parliament

of Sants and Dharmacharyas of various branches of

the Dharmic Tradition organized by VHP at Vigyan Bhavan, New

Delhi) resolved to reclaim Ayodhya and, in order to create public

awareness on this issue, to start a Jan Jagaran Yatra (march across

the length and breadth of the country to create a mass movement to

demand that the gate of the JanmaBhumi sthaan (birthplace of

Shree Rama) be unlocked.

7. 1984, October - VHP started Ram-

Janaki Rath Yatra from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya onwards

to Lucknow, ending in Delhi, again to create public awareness.

However, the Yatra had to be withdrawn for a year due to

unfortunate developments in the country.

8. 1985, October - Rath Yatras were restarted for the above-

mentioned objective.

9. 1986 – On February 1, responding to the massive support given

by the public to these RathYatras, the District Judgeof Faizabad ordered the locks be opened. At this time, Sri

Veer Bahadur Singh of Congress was the Chief Minister of U.P.

and Late Sri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister at that time.

10. A sketch for the proposed temple was drawn, and a wooden

model of it was prepared by Sri Chandrakantbhai Sompura – an



eminent temple architect of Gujarat – whose

grandfather Padmashri P.O. Sompura was the architect for the

rebuilding of the Somnath Temple. TheSompura family has

modeled many other Nagari-style temples.

11. 1989, January – A Dharma Sansadh was held on the holyoccasion of Kumbh Mela at Prayagraj (Allahabad), on the banks

of the sacredTriveni Sangam, organized by the VHP. In the august

presence of Pujya Deoraha Baba, it was decided to hold

the Ramshila (consecrated brick) Poojan programme at every

temple of the country. The first brick was consecrated at

Sri Badrinath Dham.

12. 1989 – By the end of October, about 275,000 such consecrated

bricks (Ram Shilas) from Bharat and abroad had reached Ayodhya.An estimated 60 million people participated in this programme.

13. 1989 - On 9th November, the foundation stone was laid by

Sri Kameswar Chowpal of Bihar (belonging to Scheduled Caste

community) with due permission of the then State Government.

Sri Narayan Dutt Tiwari was the Chief Minister of U.P. and Late

Sri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister.

14.a. 1990 - On 24th

June a declaration was made by Sadhus to

start Kar Seva (voluntary service) for the construction of the

temple fromDevotthani Ekadashi (30th Oct., 1990).

14.b.. A Jyoti (light/fire) was ignited by arani manthan (creating

fire through the process of friction of wood blocks) at Ayodhya. It

was called“Ram Jyoti”. The Jyoti reached every Hindu home

across the country and all celebrated Deepawai Festival with

this Jyoti.

15. 1990 - On 30th

October, thousands of Ram devotees

entered Ayodhya crossing numerous hurdles put up by the then

U.P. Government headed by Sri Mulayam Singh and a saffron flagwas hoisted atop the disputed structure.

16. 1990 – On 2nd

November, the U.P. Chief

Minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav ordered the police to open fire

on Kar Sewaks, resulting in the death of many devotees including



the Kothari Brothers – Sri Ram Kothari & Sri Sharad Kothari

from Kolkata.

17. 1991 – On 4th

April, Delhi witnessed the grandest ever rally at

Boat Club. Mulayam Singh resigned as Chief Minister of U.P.

18. 1992, September - Sri Ram Paduka Pujan was organized in allvillages in India and another call was given to Bhaktas (devotees)

to reachAyodhya on Gita Jayanti (6th December, 1992). Tens of

thousands reached for Kar Seva and the world knows the fate of

the Babri structure.

19. A stone slab approx. 5 ft in length and 2.25 ft in width was

found from the demolished walls of the Babri structure. The

epigraphists deciphered it to be an inscription of 20 lines written in

Sanskrit of 12th

Century CE. The first line starts with“Om Namah Shivaya”. The 15

th, 17

thand the 19

thlines speak about

the details of the grand temple and the king who built it. The

15th line clearly mentions that the temple was dedicated to

“Vishnu Hari who killed Dasanan (Ravan)”. About 250 Hindu

artifacts were also found from the rubble, presently held under the

protection of the Court. [To see the ASI Report, refer to the

attached PDF file.]

20. 1993 - Makeshift temple with Tarpaulins was erected

by Kar Sewaks on the same spot where Sri Ram Lala had been

seated before demolition of the Babri building. Approximately 67

acres of land was acquired by the Central Government ordinance

(Sri P.V. Narasimha Raowas the PM at that time), in order to

safeguard Sri Ram Lala. This ordinance was then approved by the

Parliament through an Act on January 07, 1993.

21. 1993 - A lawyer Hari Shankar Jain approached

the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court requesting that

devotees be permitted to do regular Sewa-Pooja of Sri Ram Lala.Permission was granted on the 1

stJanuary 1993. Ever since then,

devotees have been obtaining a non-stop Darshan as well as

offering pooja.

22.a. The then President of India Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma

referred a question to the Supreme Court under Article 143-A of



the Constitution of India. The question was “Whether a HinduTemple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to theconstruction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid in the area onwhich the structure stood?”

22.b. Some people, including one Sri Ismail Farooqui, challengedthe acquisition of the land by the Central Government, mentioned

in (23) above.

23.a. 1994 - The Supreme Court heard all the above petitions and

also the special presidential reference jointly for about 20 months.

In its judgment on 24th October, 1994, it said: The Lucknow Benchof Allahabad High Court would decide the title of the disputed siteand answer the special reference made by the President.

23.b. 1995 - A three-Judge Full Bench (two Hindu judges and oneMuslim judge) started hearing the matters in 1995. Issues were

reframed. Oral evidences began to be recorded.

23.c.. To find out the direct answer to the presidential special

reference, in August 2002, the said Bench ordered Ground

Penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS) of the site which was conducted

by the Tojo Vikas International with its expert from Canada. The

expert mentioned in his report the existence of a huge structure

extending over a large area underneath the demolished structure

scientifically proving thereby that the Babristructure was not built

on virgin land as had been claimed by a group of Muslims in their

civil suit filed in December 1961 before the Civil Judge

of Faizabad. The expert also gave his opinion to verify the GPRS

report through scientific excavation.

24. 2003 - The High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of

India to excavate the site scientifically and verify the GPRS

report. The excavation was conducted in the presence of two

observers appointed by the Court (two Additional DistrictJudges of Faizabad). The parties concerned, their counsels,

their experts/representatives were permitted to remain present

during excavation. To maintain impartiality, it was ordered

that 40% of the labour would be Muslims. Minute to

minute videography and still photography of excavation were



done by the ASI. The excavation was an eye-opener. Several

walls and floors, and two rows of pillar-bases at 50

equidistant places were found. A Shiva temple was also seen.

The GPRS report and the ASI report are now an integral part

of the High Court records.25.a. The civil procedure of the Court of Law in the matter is now

over after an exercise of about 60 years (40 years in the District

Court and 20 years in the High Court) and the final verdict is

expected by the end of September, 2010. Despite the fact that all

evidence supports the Hindu claim that theBabri structure was

superimposed on the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi site after the temple

on the site had been demolished, nobody can predict the judgment.

It is obvious that the judgment will create unrest in one party andits followers. This party may challenge the High Court verdict in

the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, may or may not

take notice of it. In any case, every Indian citizen knows the fate of

the Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case. The ball, thus,

may finally end up in the Parliament of India. Hindus have always

maintained that the Indian Parliament should pass a law and

handover the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi to the Hindu society.

25.b. In the Constitution of India, there are illustrations depicting

the Bharatiya national culture. The third illustration in the said

volume is that of Lord Ram and comrades returning

to Ayodhya riding the aerial vehicle Pushpak Viman after his

victory in Lanka.

26.a. The two storey proposed temple with 108 pillars in each

storey will be 270 ft. long, 135 ft. wide and 125 ft. high and the

temple ringed by a 10 ft. wide Parikrama Marg (circumambulation

path). Wall thickness will be 6 ft and door frames will be made of

white Makrana marble. Carving work has been done at 5workshops [two at Ayodhya (U.P.), one at Makrana (Raj.) and

three at Pindwara (Rajasthan)]. 60% of carving work is complete

to date.

26.b. Sants and Dharmacharyas in their meeting held on 5th

April

2010



at Haridwar Kumbh Mela resolved that Hanuman Chalisa Paath b

e arranged all over the country under the banner of

“Sri Hanumat Shakti Jagaran Samiti”, commencing

on Tulsi Jayanti (16th

August, 2010)

untilAkshyay Navami (16th November, 2010) andthat Sri Hanumat Shakti Jagaran Maha Yajna be performed inevery Prakhand during the month

from Devotthani Ekadasi (17th

Nov., 2010)

to Gita Jayanti (16th

Dec., 2010). These Yagnas will be organized

at approx. 8,000 centresthroughout Bharat.

--------

Note: You may circulate it to your friends, print it as it is or after

translation in your native language. For further queries, you may contact the following:- Champat Rai, Joint General Secretary, VISHVA HINDU

PARISHAD, (looking after Ayodhya Court matter. Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-VI, Ramakrishna Puram,

New Delhi-110 022, Bharat (India). E-Mails: [email protected] ; [email protected] ;Mobile: 9811119040; TeleFax: 00-91-11-2610 3495, 2617 8992; Fax: 00-91-11-26195527; URL: vhp.org ; http://shreeramjanmabhoomi.org

7. Archeological Evidence of Sri Ram and His Birthplace -- A

Page from History, by Dr. B. B. Lal

October 3, 2010WHEN the Britishers left India in 1947, there was an yawning

gap in our knowledge of ancient Indian history. We had at one end

of the scale the Harappan Civilisation which, in its mature stage,

ranged in date from circa 2600 to 2000 BCE, and on the other the

period of Sodasa Mahajanapadas (Sixteen Big States) beginning



around the sixth century BCE.

Excerpts from the book Rama: His Historicity, Mandir and

Setu, Evidence of Literature, Archaeology and other Sciences by

Dr BB Lal; Rs. 190 (PB), Aryan Books International, Pooja

Apartments, 4-B, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.Archaeologically, very little was known about the intermediary

period and thus it was loosely termed as the ‘Dark Age’, although

there was nothing ‘dark’ about it. It was indeed a great challenge

for Indian archaeologists. (pp-15)

..The readers will kindly forgive me for this seemingly

unwanted and long introduction. But I thought it was necessary to

let the readers know how, encouraged by the results (though by no

means immense) of my excavation at Hastinapur (that establishedthe historicity of the Mahabharata), I embarked upon my next

project, namely ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’. Though

conceived while in the Survey (ASI), I could not undertake it since

as the Director General almost all my time was taken up by

administrative and other allied matters. It was only after my

voluntary retirement from the Survey (ASI) in 1972 that I could

plan to take up this project, to begin with at the Jiwaji University,

Gwalior, and later with full attention at the Indian Institute of

Advanced Study at Shimla. The Survey (ASI) helped me in the

field work which ran from 1977 to 1986, by deputing staff of its

Excavations Branch, which for most of the time was headed by

Shri KN Dikshit. (pp-19)

"Was there a temple in the Janmabhoomi area at Ayodhya

preceding the construction of the Babri Masjid?" (pp-54)

As mentioned earlier (pp-20), excavations were carried out in

the Janmbhoomi area at Ayodhya as part of the project

‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites’. Of the trenches laid out inthis area, one was immediately to the South of and almost parallel

to the boundary wall of the Babri Masjid, the intermediary space

being hardly four metres. (pp-50)

..Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid there were twelve

stone pillars which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and



mouldings but also figures of Hindu deities (Figs. 2.3). It was self

evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid but

were foreign to it. Since, as already stated, the pillar-bases were

penetrating into the Masjid complex, a question naturally arose

whether these bases had anything to do with the above mentioned pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid. (pp-55)

...However, since these pillar-bases raised a question about

their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid,

which evidently had originally belonged to a Hindu temple, these

did draw public attention. The first reaction that came up from a

certain category of historians (Eminent Historians) was to deny the

very existence of these pillar-bases. Their approach was simple: If

there were no pillar-bases, the question of their relationship withthe pillars affixed to the piers of the Babri Masjid became

automatically redundant. These historians took recourse to

publishing all sorts of unsavoury comments in the newspapers.

However, when they were told that the pillar-bases were not

someone’s fancy but their photographs (along with the negatives),

taken at the time of the excavation, did exist in the photo-archives

of the Excavations Branch of the ASI, they gave up their first

exercise in denial, of which more would be said later. (pp-55)

...Curiously, events take their own course. On December 6,

1992, the Masjid was demolished by the karsevaks who had

assembled in large number at the site. The demolition, though

regrettable, brought to light a great deal of archaeological material

from within the thick walls of the Masjid. From the published

reports it is gathered that there were more than 200 specimens

which included many sculptured panels and architectural

components which must have constituted parts of the demolished

temple. Besides, there were three inscriptions, of which two areillustrated here. (pp-61)

Of the above mentioned three inscriptions, the largest one is

engraved on a stone-slab measuring 1.10 x .56 meters, and consists

of twenty lines. It has since been published by Professor Ajaya

Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puruttatva No. 23 (1992-



93), pp-35. (Professor Shastri, who unfortunately is no more, was a

distinguished historian and a specialist in Epigraphy and

Numismatics). The relevant part of the paper reads as follows:

‘The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except

for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It has yet 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 tells us that a beautiful

temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones and beautified

with a golden spire unparalleled by any other temple built by theearlier kings was constructed. This wonderful temple was built in

the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala 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 Vamana

manifestation) and the ten headed personage (i.e. Ravana). (pp-63-

64)

The inscription makes it abundantly clear that there did exist

at the site a temple datable to circa 11th-12th century CE (AD).

The sculptures and inscribed slab that came out from within the

walls of the Masjid belonged to this very temple. (pp-64)

It has been contented by certain historians (Eminent

Historians) that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed

slab were brought by the karsevaks from somewhere else and

surreptitiously palced there at the time of the demolition of the

Masjid. This contention is absolutely baseless.

On the other hand, a reputed journal India Today, published inits issue dated December 31, 1992, a photograph, which shows the

karsevaks carrying on their shoulders a huge stone-sculpted with a

long frieze, after having picked it up from the debris. (pp-64)

The above mentioned historians have also alleged 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 even one of them is of

the view that the inscription is forged. (Note: Emphasis as

appearing in the book) Anyway, to allay misgivings, I append herea note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the

country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, ASI, Dr KV Ramesh

(Appendix II). In it he first gives a summary of the inscription,

then an actual reading of the text and finally an English translation

thereof. While many scholars may like to go through the Note, it

maybe straightaway here that according to it this temple was built

by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala (i.e.

Ayodhya) through the grace of the senior Lord of the earth vizGovinda Chandra, of the Gahadavala dynasty who ruled over a

vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE. (pp-66)

In this entire context, it also needs to be added that there exist

hundreds of examples, all over the country, of the destruction of

temples and incorporation of their material in the mosques during

the medieval times. For example, right in Delhi there is the

Quwwatu’l-Islam Mosque (‘Might of Islam’) near the Qutb Minar,

which incorporated parts of a large number of temples that had

been wantonly destroyed by Qutub-ud-din Aibak. A figure shows,

standing within the mosque complex, a colonnade which was

constructed by using sculpted pillars of the demolished 27 Hindu

and Jain temples. This was a matter of glory for the conqueror as

has been recorded by himself in an inscription still existing on

inner lintel of the eastern entrance of the mosque. Its English

translation, by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, is as follows: "The fort was

conquered and this Jami Masjid was built in (the months of) the

year 587 (1191-92 AD) by the Amir, the great and gloriouscommander of the army, (named) Qutub-ud-daulat-wa-d-din, the

Amir-ul-umara Aibak Sultani, may God strengthen his helpers.

The material of 27 temples, on (the erection of) each of which

2,000,000 Deliwals had been spent, were used in (the construction

of) this mosque. May God the great and glorious have mercy on



him who should pray for the faith of the founder of the good

(building) (pp-66).

To sum up, the evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in

respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janma Bhumi

area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babri Masjid is

so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately,

the basic problem with a certain category of historians and

archaeologists-and others of the same ilk-is that seeing they see not

or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has

revealed itself. (pp-68)

(A world renowned archaeologist the writer was the Director General of the ASI. His excavations cover a very wide range. At

Kalibangan, Rajasthan, he unearthed a prosperous city of the Harappan Civilisation. The excavations at Hastinapur haveestablished that there was a kernel of truth in the Mahabharata,

even though the epic is full of interpolations. The excavations at Ayodhya have shown that the Ramayana too has a basis in history. In 1961 he conducted excavations in Egypt too. The President of India honoured him with Padma Bhushan.)

In support

AUTHENTICATING Prof Lal is this statement of Shri KK

Muhammad, Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist (Madras

Circle) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express onDecember 15, 1990: "I can reiterate this (ie. the existence of the

Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with

greater authority - for I was the only Muslim who had participated

in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-77 under Prof. Lal as a

trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen



the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted

ONLY ONE

PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE

OTHER." Muhammad went to add: "Ayodhya is as holy to theHindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the

sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the

structure for constructing the Ram Temple."

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=364&page=9

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::This Article POSTED BY ,

HINDU SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Email :- [email protected]

ayodya evidence

Documents