A mosque, it looks like
The ASI report confirming the existence of a Ram temple
on the site of the Babri Masjid is suspect
BY KANNAN SRINIVASAN
The
Archaeological Survey of India’s report that it has confirmed the existence of a
Ram temple on the site
of the Babri Masjid has delighted the supporters of Hindutva. But the report has
important failings which render it suspect. The ASI has said that it has
discovered the bases of pillars which originally supported the roof of a temple
at a layer below the mosque. It adduces the discovery of terracotta figurines at
the site to strengthen this claim. And it claims to have discovered a “circular
shrine” which it conjectures contained a Shivaling, which it would have us
believe, fortifies the claim to a Ram temple at the site.
However, the
evidence does not indicate that a Ram temple existed at this site. On the
contrary, important evidence which the ASI has not properly examined or
accounted for includes animal bones and glazed ware, both foreign to a Hindu Ram
temple of medieval times.
Pillar bases which supported a temple?
About the
scatters of bricks which the ASI claims are the bases of pillars which supported
a temple, the ASI report says: “(the) present excavation has set aside the
controversy by exposing the original form of the bases... and their arrangement
in rows including their association with the top floor of the structure existing
prior to the disputed structure.”
But even the
very first lot of scatters of bricks on the west is not aligned as a row, nor is
it at a uniform distance from the western wall. Secondly, these scatters are in
different strata; pillars emanating from them could not have supported the same
roof.
In figures 23,
23A, 23B, the ASI performs what it calls an “isometric reconstruction”, a
three-dimensional picture of what it conjectures existed at the site, and draws
a temple. This has a power of misleading suggestion. From the same base plan,
architects could well reconstruct other architectural forms – such as a mosque.
In figure 23A,
which it must be remembered is no more than a hypothetical reconstruction; these
scatters of bricks against the south chamber wall have been presented as though
they were encased structures. But Plate XXX, an actual photograph, shows this is
not true. Stone blocks lie on top of and within scatters of brick-bats. These
would not have provided a firm foundation for any load-bearing structure. The
roof of the temple could not have been supported by such weak foundations.
Indeed, what they claim are rows of pillar bases, could otherwise be
interpreted: as simply cavities filled up with brick-bats and debris.
If indeed, as
they say, the mosque stratum is less than 50 cm below the surface, and the
“temple”, so-called, immediately underneath, why did they not stop once they had
found the “temple”? For that was their brief from the High Court: to determine
whether there had been a mosque and a temple. Why did they, first, go more than
2 metres deep in some trenches and, second, take so many months to complete the
excavations? Did they think they had not yet found the temple, and were they
still desperately looking for it? And, failing to find it, did they thereafter
label — what they had originally thought was part of the mosque or some earlier
Muslim religious site such as an Idgah — a “temple”?
A twelfth
century construction, if it existed on the same site and pre-dated the mosque,
could have been either a secular structure or a Muslim religious site which
re-used earlier material. The fact that blocks are re-used in the masjid does
not mean that the temple was destroyed to build it.
The hypothesis of the temple is tailored to the theory
of the Hindutva archaeologists BB Lal and SP Gupta, made in a pamphlet they
produced after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and a website. The pamphlet
focuses on so-called “pillar bases” (pp 55-67). Yet there is no evidence to show
that this is a temple, or that Vaishnava or Ram worship was conducted here.
There is not a single specifically religious artefact. Much is made of a “divine
couple”. But there is no indication of divinity – only a fragment of two waists.
Most
importantly, if this were such a sacred place, the birthplace of Ram, then why
was there no temple according to the ASI claim, till the Sultanate period,
XIIth-XVIth century AD? Why was it a site of continuous human habitation till
then? The Archaeological Survey does not address this question.
Circular shrine
In Period V, he ASI says it found a round brick shrine
with a water channel – a small Shivalinga installation. The circular shrine is
dated to the seventh to tenth century AD (p269). The ASI says that the hall of
the Sultanate Period of the 12th century – which it would like us to believe was
a Hindu temple – was built at a higher level — and following it. Then how can
the shrine be presented as evidence of “remains” which indicate “whether there
was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the
disputed site”?
Since the
shrine was not demolished to build the mosque, surely it is no proof of the
existence of a Hindu temple which may or may not have existed before the mosque
came up.
“Now viewing
in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive
structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in
structural phases from the tenth century onwards unto the construction of the
disputed structure along with (sic) the yield of stone and decorated bricks as
well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members
including foliage patterns, amlaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular
pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular
shrine, having pranala waterchute in the north, fifty pillar bases in
association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are
distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”
Now this
foliage and the decorated bricks, could have belonged to either a secular
structure; or been material reused in a Muslim religious structure of the 12th
century. And “viewing
in totality” means taking the Siva shrine into account. But how does that help?
The Siva shrine does not prove existence of a Ram Mandir.
Terracotta
The press has made references to figurines of
terracotta being found. These may not be significant as they are not confined to
Layer VII. They occur, in fact, even in the mosque levels! The ASI says this is
because the peripheries of the mound were dug and the earth brought up to level
the ground, and raise it, for the various structural activities. Therefore there
is a big mix; and the findings of terracotta cannot date the “temple”.
Animal bones
If what the ASI has chosen to mention is important
though misleading, what it has left out is equally significant. The presence of
both animal bones and glazed ware at different levels of this site causes
awkward problems for the claim of a Ram temple here.
The ASI report
has had to acknowledge that animal bones were found because of the insistence of
observers appointed by the Court that they be recorded. But it refuses to
identify them by the stratum they were found, and hence the period (of time) to
which they belonged.
“Animal bones
have been recovered from various levels of different periods (emphasis added,
270, Summary).” But which levels, which periods?
Under
Objectives and Methodology, page 9, the report says: “samples of plaster,
floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-botanical remains were also collected for
scientific studies and analysis.” But from which strata? This question is
avoided. And what scientific studies and analysis was done on the bones? This is
nowhere explained.
Why are such
animal bones not identified by stratum? These bones are material evidence; yet
they were not photographed, perhaps to minimise their importance.
The
significant question which the ASI report avoids dealing with is: have they
appeared at a strata below the mosque, that is, period VII, XIIth to XVIth
centuries AD? If so, the temple theory collapses.
At page 10 the
report says: “As per the instructions of the High Court in order to maintain
transparency all the excavated material including antiquities, objects of
interest, glazed pottery and tiles and bones recovered from the trenches were
sealed in the presence of advocates, parties and nominees and kept on the same
day of their recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised Person (the
commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the excavation team for the specific
purpose, which again was locked and sealed every day when it was opened. Thus
the time available for their documentation, study, photography, drawing and
chemical preservations was limited to just a few hours only and that too not in
the case of material recovered from the trench towards closing of the work for
the day.”
Is the ASI
preparing excuses for the sloppiness of the work done? Where is the
stratigraphy, analysis, photography, chemical preservation of the bones found at
the site?
Glazed ware
Glazed ware was unknown in India before the coming of
Islam. So it would not be found in a pre-Islamic site such as a Ram temple at
Ayodhya.
It is
significant that any identification of the glazed ware found at the site, by the
specific layers in which it has been found, and therefore the period, has been
omitted. At page 270, the report says: “In the last phase of the period VII (the
medieval-Sultanate period, that of the supposed temple) glazed ware shreds make
the appearance… celadon and porcelain.”
At page 73,
under “Pottery”, the report says: “Hence the pottery of these periods (Mughal,
late and post-Mughal) are not dealt with separately but are recorded along with
the pottery of period VII (Medieval-Sultanate).”
And at page
108, it says: “The pottery of medieval Sultanate, Mughal and late and
post-Mughal period (period VII to IX) combined together indicates that there is
not much difference in pottery wares and shapes and hence they are not
segregated, but instead clubbed together. The distinctive pottery of these
periods is the glazed ware…”
Glazed ware
has not been separated by stratum in the photographs. Even in Plate 77 which
shows porcelain ware of a very late, probably British period, no stratum or
period is mentioned in the photo-caption.
The ASI would
have us believe that stratum VII is a temple, and stratum VIII a mosque. Then
why did they club the pottery of these together? They say, the pottery is so
similar. Would a temple in use since the 12th century for 400 years, and a
mosque in use since the beginning of the Mughal period have similar pottery?
Even in a
medieval temple, contemporaneous with Islam in India, glazed ware would not be
used. As a Hindu I am aware that specific vessels of specified materials are
used in ritual. Surely if the temple was built in the medieval Sultanate period,
and functioned as one for several centuries, we should be able to find in it
some distinctive remains of pottery which would be appropriate to a Hindu sacred
structure?
Instead, the
fact that the pottery from even phase VII is glazed and otherwise similar to
Mughal pottery indicates that this may well have been a Muslim sacred or secular
site. One reason they
may have clubbed the pottery together is that they first thought strata VIII and
VII belonged to the same Mughal building, the Babri Masjid. Only later, under
pressure, did they decide to interpret phase VII as being a temple.
In sum
To summarize. What are claimed to be the bases of
pillars which held up the temple turn out not to be pillar bases at all. The
Siva shrine at a lower level adds no strength to the claim of a Ram temple. The
terracotta from different levels has been so jumbled up that it can be linked to
no particular stratum and period. And the presence of animal bones and glazed
ware makes it difficult to claim that a Ram temple existed on this site between
the XIIth and XVIth centuries.
Mosque
And, finally, the ASI Report (figure 23 included)
accepts the existence of a mosque. Were there a mosque since 1530 AD, where is
the sense in prolonging the title suit? Clearly the site belongs to the mosque.
(The author is a free lance journalist and a research scholar.
[email protected])
|