 |
||
|
||
|
||
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) Even now he 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 that 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 ever 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 entire 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 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 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 meters from the boundary wall. In this trench, just below the surface, parallel rows of pillar-foundations, made of bricks 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 inquire if the pillar-foundations encountered in the trench had anything to do with the pillars incorporated in the mosque, which evidently originally belonged to a temple. An over enthusiastic 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 ears 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 1.10 x 0.56 meter 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 as 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) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvuirapyakritam kritam nripatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alavni) 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 contended 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 lie out of place to mention that hundreds of examples are available of the 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-dinkajhonpra, 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!
|
||
|
||
|
||