People's Democracy

 The Ayodhya Excavation 2002-3

Suraj Bhan

THE excavation was ordered to find out if there existed any Hindu temple below the Babri Masjid. The GPR survey was also ordered to help find if there were anomalies indicating the possibility of architectural remains below the mosque. The GPR survey could have made the excavation economical, both in time and money. But the excavation undertaken from March 12, 2003, came out to be an area excavation. The excavation has distorted the Mughal levels all over, leaving no scope for cross checking the evidence collected by the present excavation or for taking up excavation in future with improved techniques and with better perspective. To that extent it is a loss to our cultural heritage.

The report on the present excavation has also been submitted. It is in fact a report on the total data collected and not specific to the problem at hand. It practically abides by the perspective of ‘Rewriting of History’ School. In doing so, the date of the NBPW period (early historic era) has been pushed back to at least 1000 BC (three to four centuries earlier than the established date). Secondly, it has tried to highlight in its attempt at periodisation the Sunga period, Rajput period etc for no sound reason. Besides this, it has used the data selectively and ignored some crucial facts relating to the Babri Masjid complex, the massive burnt brick structure found below the mosque (assumed to be a temple of the 10th-11th century) and the base (for wooden posts) having bearing on the problem.

It is well known that the temples are characterised by its architectural type, i e its plan and the superstructure, etc, the objects associated with its function and placed in their original position inside the temple. Important temples in the past were known for their styles. The Nagar style, as known from the famous Khajuraho temples, became popular in North India between the 9th and 12th centuries.

The excavation report has come out with a thesis that there have been found remains of an early medieval temple constructed in the 11th-12th century, which continued to exist until the early 16th century (when the Babri Masjid was constructed over this complex).

This thesis is based on the following assumptions:

1) That the ‘massive’ burnt brick structure was constructed in the 11th-12th century.

2) That there have been found at least 50 pillar bases associated with this structure, particularly with its last floor.

3) That a circular depression (ghata shaped), in due east of the centre of the central dome of the Babri Masjid and the central point of the western wall of the preceding ‘massive’ burnt brick structure, was cut into a brick pavement.

4) That the site excavated was not inhabited after the Gupta period. It was put to public use only, thereby implying its use for religious purposes.

The ASI has claimed the existence of a ‘massive’ burnt brick structure below the Babri Masjid complex or the existence of some genuine circular, rectangular or squarish constructions of brickbats or of stones termed in the report as ‘pillar bases.’ But the report has will fully ignored crucial evidence from the Ayodhya excavation. This is briefly discussed as under:

1) The alleged ‘massive’ burnt brick structure belongs to the Sultanate period and not to the early medieval period  (11th-12th century) as its floor as well as the plaster on the wall are made of lime and surkhi mortar, used in the Sultanate and Mughal periods. Lime mortar has also been used in the construction of the so-called pillar bases assumed to be associated only with this structure. Moreover, an arch, ‘mehrab’ so typical of the medieval period, was noticed by me on the inner face of the ‘massive’ burnt brick structure to the south of the make-shift temple when I visited the site in June.

2) The plan of the alleged ‘massive’ burnt brick structure tallies with that of the Babri Masjid complex in its extent and construction of the central dome exactly over the central point of the western wall of the former and not with burnt brick structure of the post-Gupta period. Secondly, the southern chamber of the Babri Masjid overlies the remnants of this pre-Babri Masjid burnt brick structure.

3) That the ‘massive’ burnt brick structure was not a Hindu temple complex is clear from the fact that it does not correspond with the typically Hindu Nagar style of temple of the early medieval period. Secondly, the foundation of the western wall of the ‘massive’ burnt brick structure has in it sculptured stones (like those found used in the temples). The Hindus immerse the temple remains (when out of use) in water. They do not bury these under the earth or in the foundation walls. The southern hall of this ‘massive’ structure is nearly as large as that of the mosque. Temples of the past had neither such large square halls nor a plan similar to it. No artifacts used in the temples such as the icons, conch shells, aarti lamps, dhoopdan etc were found inside this chamber or in any other context within the alleged massive structure.

The above facts clearly points out that the ‘massive’ burnt brick structure belonged to the Sultanate period (1206-1526) and not to the 11th-12th centuries.

Secondly, its plan and architectural features exposed so far help to infer that it was a mosque and not a temple. It is unfortunate that the report has not made us wiser on the problem. Rather it has stood behind the Hindutva viewpoint.