'Facts of history cannot be altered'
Publication: The Hindu
Date: July 1, 1998
Prof. B. B. Lal, Director General (Retd.),
Archaeological Survey of India writes:
Under the caption 'Tampering with history', the
Editor of The Hindu, (dated June 12, 1998) dealt
with the reconstitution of the Indian Council for
Historical Research (ICHR). Since I happen to be
one of the 18 persons nominated by the
Government on the Council, the editor took the
opportunity to have a dig at me. He made three
distinct allegations. To quote: (i) "his (i.e. my)
initial conclusion was that there was no evidence
to suggest the 'historicity' of the Ramayana"; (ii)
"he even now refuses to hand over his field diaries
to ASI and throw these open to fellow
archaeologists"; and (iii) "Professor Lal began
echoing the Sangh Parivar and even claimed to
possess 'clinching' evidence suggesting-the Babri
Masjid stood on the ruins of a Hindu Temple."
In regard to the first allegation, let me make it
absolutely clear that at no point of time did I every
say that there was no evidence about the
"historicity" of the Ramayana story. My first paper
on the subject appeared in 1981 in Antiquity, a
renowned research journal published from
Cambridge, England. In 1988 the ICHR organised
an international seminar in New Delhi at which I
presented a 60-page paper entitled 'Historicity of
the Mahabharata and the Ramayana: What has
archaeology to say in the matter?' Finding in it
something that went counter to their views, the
then authorities of the ICHR withheld the
publication of the paper. Thereafter. when another
journal published it, there was a great hue and cry,
as if the heavens had fallen. Anyway, in 1993 came
out my first volume under the project
'Archaeology of the Ramayana sites'. In it I
categorically restated "The combined evidence
>from all five sites excavated under the project
shows that there did exist a historical basis for the
Ramayana." I do not know why the editor has
chosen to misrepresent my viewpoint and give an
altogether opposite impression to the reader.
The allegation that I am withholding the
documents from the Archaeological Survey of
India is again outrageously baseless. The Survey is
the custodian of all the documents, including field
diaries, plans, sections, photo negatives, and the
tire excavated material; and, as my information
goes, the Babri Masjid historians did see the same
a few years ago. Why all this fuss now?
Finally to the evidence 'suggesting that the Babri
Masjid stood on the ruins of a Hindu temple'.
Since it is an issue about which the entire country
would like to know the facts, I am presenting the
same in some detail.
The excavations at Ayodhya were a part of a much
larger project called 'Archaeology of the
Ramayana Sites'. The primary objective was to
ascertain the antiquity of this site and compare the
same with that of the other sites associated with
the Ramayana story. Thus, it was decided to
excavate at Ayodhya at as many spots as possible
to ensure that the lowest levels were not missed.
Fourteen different areas were chosen for the
operations, such as Hanuman Garhi, Kaushilya
Ghat, Sugriva Tila, etc.; and the Janmabhumi area
was just one of them.
In the Janmabhumi area, where there existed the
Mandir-Masjid complex, a trench was laid out of
the southern side of the complex, at a distance of
hardly four metres from the boundary wall. In this
trench, just below the surface, parallel rows of
pillar-foundations, made of brick-bats and stones,
were met with. While some of these fell well
within the excavated trench, a few lay underneath
its edge towards the boundary wall of the Mandir-
Masjid complex. Since affixed to the piers of the
Masjid there were many pillar-shafts carved with
Hindu gods and goddesses, it was but natural to
enquire if the pillar-foundations encountered in the
trench had anything to do with the pilars
incorporated in the mosque, which evidently
originally belonged to a temple.
An overenthusiastic Babri Masjid archaeologist, in
his effort to deny the entire pillar evidence,
published a propaganda booklet in which he stated
that these were not pillar foundations but walls.
The most amusing part, however, was that he just
drew some white lines interconnecting the pillar
bases on the photographs concerned and thereby
wanted us to believe that these were walls. What a
mockery of archaeology! Another Babri Masjid
archaeologist, while conceding that these were
pillar bases all right, suggested that the structure
concerned was no more than a mere cowshed. No
doubt for a person coming from a rural
background the cowshed idea was a very exciting
one, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that
this structural complex had as many as four
successive floors made of lime - something
unheard of in the case of cowsheds.
On February 10, 1991, while delivering a lecture at
Vijayawada on 'The Ramayana: An archaeological
appraisal' to the distinguished scholars assembled
for the Annual Conference of the Museums
Association of India, I was asked about the inter-
relationship between the pillar foundations
encountered in the trench excavated by me and the
stone pillars incorporated in the Babri Masjid and
further whether there was any temple underneath
the Masjid. I replied, as any archaeologist would
have: "If you do want to know the reality, the only
way is to dig underneath the mosque." When this
view was published in The Hindustan Times, New
Delhi, on February 12, 1991, a horde of Babri
Masjid historians pounced on me accusing that I
made this suggestion "under the impetus of the
current Hindutva campaign," and added that "Mr.
Lal by arguing fresh excavations at the site of the
Babri Masjid in Ayodhya would be fulfilling the
demand of those who wanted the Babri Masjid to
be demolished to construct the temple at that site."
(The Hindustan Times, February 13, 1991.)
To the foregoing I issued a rejoinder (The
Statesman), February 18, 1991. "Further
excavation within the floor area of the Babri
Masjid without in any way harming the structure is
necessary to know what actually preceded the
mosque at Ayodhya. Why should the contending
parties shy away from further excavation, unless
they are afraid of facing the truth?" Unfortunately,
the foregoing suggestion fell on deaf cars and
tension between the two parties continued to
develop.
Curiously, events take their own course. On
December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was
demolished by Kar Sevaks who had assembled in
thousands at the site. A regrettable event in itself,
the demolition incidentally brought to light a great
deal of archaeological material from within the
thick walls of the Babri structure. It included,
besides sculptured panels and images, architectural
components such as amalaka, sikharas, doorjambs,
etc., three inscriptions on stone.
Of the above-mentioned three inscriptions, the
largest one, inscribed on a 1.10x.56 metre slab and
consisting of 20 engraved lines, has been published
by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur
University in the Puratattva (a reputed scholarly
journal of the Indian Archaeological Society). No.
23 (1992-93), pp. 35 ff. (Professor Shastri is a
distinguished historian and a specialist in epigraphy
and numismatics.) The relevant part of his paper
reads its follows:
"The inscription is composed in high-flown
Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose,
and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari
script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. 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 stone (sila-sam
hati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire
(hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unpralleled by any
other temple built by earlier kings
(purvvuirapyakritam kritam nripatibhir) was
constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adhutam)
was built in the temple-city (vibudh- alayni) of
Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district,
line 17) showing that Ayodhya and Saketa were
closely connected. Saketa being the district of
which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes god
Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the
Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed
personage (Dasanana i.e. Ravana)."
The inscription speaks for itself and no further
comments are necessary.
It has been contented by the Babri Masjid
Historians that these images, architectural parts
and the inscribed slabs had been brought by the
Kar Sevaks from elsewhere and surreptitiously
placed there. This contention, however, does not
hold good, since there are photographs to
contradict this stand: for example, the two
photographs published by India Today on p. 33 of
its issue dated December 31, 1992. Here, the Kar
Sevaks are seen carrying a huge stone-slab bearing
a very long sculpted frieze, after having picked it
tip from the debris. The above-mentioned
historians also allege 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 one of them has even
remotely thought that the inscription is forged.
In this context, it may not be out of place to
mention that hundreds of examples are available
ofthe destruction of temples and incorporation of
their material in the mosques. Right in Delhi there
is the example of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque
(near the Qutb Minar) which incorporated parts of
a large number of temples that had been destroyed.
Or at Ajmer, there is the well-known Arhai-dinka-
jhonpra, presenting a similar picture. From the
foregoing it is abundantly clear there did exist a
twelfth-century temple at the site, which was
destroyed and some of its parts incorporated
within the body of the Babri Masjid. Some other
parts, like the stone-pillars, were placed alongside
the piers of the Masjid, to show them off. Some
other pieces, not used in either of the foregoing
matter, were thrown away in a nearby depression,
like the ones recovered by the Public Works
Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government in
June 1992 in the course of the leveling of the
adjacent area.
Had my suggestion to carry out trial excavation
underneath the floor of the mosque without; in any
way damaging the structure itself been
implemented. it would have averted the disaster.
But who cares for sane advice? Anyway, let it be
remembered that by blindfolding yourself you
cannot alter facts of history!
