ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES
OF RAM JANMABHOOMI
-By Dr. B.P. Sinha*
The significance of
archaeological evidence in the context of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy,
is being keenly stressed by both the contending parties - VHP and BMCC.
Being one of the few having the first hand experience of both as a historian
and a field archaeologist for many decades, I would like to point out the
inadequacy of archaeology as the only or even a dominant source for the
reconstruction of ancient Indian history. Our knowledge about our
past will be very poor if we ignore archaeology and it will be still poorer
if we depend on archaeology alone as our most important source. While
archaeology is a young and growing science in India, other sources such
as epigraphy, numismatics and literary evidences have for much longer time
been analysed and collated to build a framework of ancient Indian history,
and therefore, archaeology as a tool is useful for confirmatory evidence
mainly.
Archaeology, as a positive
science gives us information about material life of periods as unfolded
by different stratas exposed from it that what it has not exposed, never
existed. Momentous archaeological discoveries are like Archimedies
'Eureka' i.e. chance discoveries, and the same chance goddess may
bestow luck to other archaeologists disclosing from within the womb of
the mother earth such knowledge missed by previous, may be well-versed,
archaeologists. So it is always safe and wise to qualify the results
of archaeological discoveries as 'to-date' or 'so far.' This self-evident,
but often ignores, virtue of caution can be demonstrated. When we
were excavating Chirand, luxurient chalcolithic ceramic culture eas noticed
on the earliest exposed level in many trenches down to the virgin soil.
But in one of the trenches was discovered evidence of an earlier neolithic
culture, a pleasant surprise to the excavator who was almost going to close
the excavation, then underway for many years. What a loss to knowledge
it would have been! Again if R.D. Bannerji and Marshal had been excavating
"Mohenjadaro" today under the present-day financial constraints and expensive
archaeological technique of vertical digging, it was very likely that they
would have stopped the digging after laying bare the so-called coolie quarters
with elements of "Harappan" pottery & building activities; but then
we would have missed the massive Harappan architecture and its special
monuments for which the civilisation is most famous. The point is
that in view of lack of extensive horizontal excavations of all stratas
of a site, its full history is not possible to be grasped. Moreover,
in the context of getting archaeological proof of our pre-historic past
& personalities one should ask the question what sort of evidence will
prove the historicity or non-historicity of the Epic or Vedic characters.
As no evidence of writing before Asoka (leaving out the Harappan script)
has been available so far, no contemporary written material for the time
of "Rama" or Krishna" should be expected. The cultural sequence exposed
in the various stratas could give only relative chronology but no absolute
chronology. Even when "C 14" (carbon-14 archaeological test) dates
would give some approximate bracket in absolute dates to the excavated
cultures, as there is no certainty or unanimity about the exact period
of time when "Rama" or "Krishna" flourished, how far one would be right
in assigning one or the other set of "dated cultures" unearthed in trenches
as the culture of the time of Rama or Krishna. This would be arguing
from the unknown to the unknown, particularly when we are not sure whether
cultures depicted in the "Ramayana" or the "Mahabharata" works which were
definitely much later composed than the time of the heroses, must have
contained elements of culture, more of their authors' times then of their
pre-historic heroes. Thus the inadequacy of archaeological evidence
and literary works as well for the period of Rama or Krishnaparticularly,
material culture-architecture should be self-evident. In view of
no evidence of use of stone as building material before "Ashoka" or of
burnt brick before "Buddha" is available, the literary references to the
luxurous buildings described in Epics and the "Puranas" will never be confirmed
by archaeology. Wood-construction must have perished under the bowels
of earth down the millennia. The difficulty of reconciling the literary
evidence and the archaeological evidence "to date" is thus obvious.
The easiest way chosen by many is to reject wholesale the testimony of
the ancient literature the Epics and the Puranas for the period before
the time of the Buddha. But this selective rejection is not beyond
reproach. The same scholars who reject the Puranic dynastic lists
before the Buddhist period, have used the same Puranas for the political
and dynastic history of the Buddhist period. But, it is hardly fair
then, giving allowances for emendation, glosses, imagination to reject
the entire pre-Buddha dynastic list as sheer figment of imagination, particularly
when some kings, priests and peoples mentiones in the Vedic literature
are mentioned in the Epics and the Puranas.
Now, according to Pargiter's
reconstruction of the Dynastic synchronisms of the Puranas, Rama-Dasarathi
is about 30 generations or so, earlier than Krishna of the Mahabharata.
But, according to archaeological evidence to date Ayodhya, the traditional
homecity of Rama is not earlier 8th century B.C., while in Hastinapur and
other Mahabharata sites, PGW culture equated with the Mahabharata pottery
by Mr. B.B. Lal is dated between 110-800 B.C., & the Mahabharata war
was fought according to Lal in 836 B.C., according to Pargiter in 950 B.C.
So, Rama who was not the founder of Ayodhya must have come much after 800
B.C., and should be nearer Buddha than Krishna; especially when many archaeologists
place PGW later than Lal has put it. But, the excavator of Dwarka
and the pioneer of marine archaeology, Mr. S.R. Rao has found evidence
of the submerged city of Dwarka of Krishna, which he would place not later
than 1500 B.C. Dwarka was later than Hastinapur which was founded by Kuru,
while the former was founded by Krishna himself. All this discussion
just points to the insufficiency of the available archaeological date and
lack of consensus among archaeologists about the period of the Epic-Puranic
heroes. Would it therefore be wise today to fix the chronology, and
even relative chronology of Rama and Krishna with any degree of certainty.
More extensive diggings may shed some more light on the vexed problem.
It would be sheer bravado, therefore on this evidence to deny the historicity
of Rama and Krishna so richly portrayed in ancient historical traditional
accounts. Even the archaeological excavations do not confirm the
history of Ayodhya in the past, post NBP or Post-Maurya period. The
Sunga, Kuhana and Gupta stratas have been rather bare, but epigraphy, coins
and literature speak of flourishing Ayodhya in these and earlier periods.
Archaeology has not revealed anything of the prakars, pratolis, devapatha
referred to by Patanjali in the Mahabhashya. Neither we have found
in the excavation evidence of Buddha's and Adinathas' association with
Ayodhya. Should we reject Buddhist and Jain evidence as imaginary
as the Epic? We should particularly remember that the Jaina tradition of
line of Tirthankars is consistent and quite reasonably reliable.
1st, 2nd, Ikshavaku dynasty of Ayodhya, which this certainly antedated
8th century B.C. Dhanadeva's inscription, the coins of Mitra-kings of Ayodhya,
and the fortification of Ayodhya, its capital city-architecture of the
time of Gupta Kings, Vikramaditya & Baladitya of the 5th-6th century
A.D., are all unknown to archaeology of Ayodhya. Would we be justified
to reject the epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidence? And where are
the Samgharamas described by Hsuan Tsang and associated with Vasubandhu
and Asanga? It is not only the "Epic Ayodhya" but even "Gupta Ayodhya"
that is uncorroborated from archaeology. But, both traditions and
other historical sources vouchsafe for an active and living Ayodhya-Mahatamaya
appended to the Skanda-purana should be dated not later than 9th century
A.D. It refers to "Sir Ram Janmabhoomi" and other sacred places.
According to Vikramankadeva charita, Bilhana came to Ayodhya on pilgrimage.
Therefore, to think of Ayodhya as an important place for Hindus only from
the 14th century onwards is all hogwash. Sculptural representations
of Ramayana scenes in temples have been found in different parts of India
from the 3rd century onwards. Sri Krishnadeva has drawn our attention
to senes from Ramayana sculptured at the Ikshavaku art centre of Nagarjunikonda
in Andhra pradesh dated in the 3rd Century A.D. The sculptured stucco
panels at Aphasad in Bihar, depicting as many as eight scenes from the
Ramayana were introduced to the scholarly world by the present author,
and they are dated in the 7th century A.D. The depiction of redemption
of Ahalya by Rama is vividly depicted in the Gupta temple at Deogadh dated
in 6th Century A.D. Similar scene depicted on a terracotta and belonging
to the Gupta period has been found at Sravasti. In a stone niche
from Nachna (4th-5th Century A.D.) earlier than Deogadh example, Surpanekha's
episode has been beautifully engraved. Numerous Ramayana scenes on
Angkorvat (Vishnu temple) in Cambodia are testimony to the spread of Ramayana
fame in the S.E Asia. Ramayanic scenes at Ellora (8th century) are
well-known. Sculptures representing Ramayana scenes are found in
Karnatak. The scene depicting Meghanada dragging Hanuman to Ravana's
court was first noticed as Nachna (M.P.) and is found at the Varahi temple
at Chaurasi (dt. Puri, Orissa) of the 10th Century A.D. From the
Chinese sources it has been shown that the Ramayana was a well-known and
popular story in the time of Vasubandu. The public recitation of
the Ramayana is referred to the manuscript of kalpanamanditika of the 2nd
century A.D. found in Central Asia. The Paumacarita of Vimalasuri
dated in the 1st Century A.D. is a recast of the Ramayana story.
The Khotanese and the Tibetan version of the Ramayana further prove the
antiquity and widespread of the Epic story. A distinguished scholar
(B. N. Puri) held that on the basis of available evidence the Ramayana
was known in Central Asia from the 2nd century A.D. may be still earlier,
as Asvaghosha who wrote Buddha charita was indebted to Valmiki and is said
to have lived in Ayodhya. The recitation of the Ramayana is referred
to in a Kambuja inscription of the 6th century A.D. Recitation of only
secret texts is reasonable. The above very bried summary of Rama
in art and literature from the 1st century A.D. down to the 12th Century
A.D., makes it clear that Rama was held in great reverence not only in
almost all parts of India, but also in South-East Asia, and Central Asia.
The worship or deification of Rama is also as ancient. Even if we
exclude the evidence of the Balakanda and the Uttarkanda or the Ramayana
showing Rama to be an incarnation of Vishnu, believed to be no part of
the original Ramayana of Valmiki, they are certainly not as late as Ramanand
or Kabir. But Kalidasa in the Raghuvansa (4th-5th Century A.D.) refers
to Rama as a divine figure.
However, while archaeology
has so far failed to prove or disprove the hoary antiquity of Ayodhya going
back to 2nd millennium B.C., or that of the historicity of Rama, it has
certainly clearly indicated that the Babri Maszid stands on the ruins of
a pre-Islamic structure of the 10th-11th centuries. That brick-pillar
bases placed at uniform distances going into section of the excavated trenches
are extending into the Babri Maszid complex cannot be doubted. About
a dozen pillars used in the mosque are standing testimony to the fact that
parts of a damaged Hindu structure have been appropriated in the construction
of the mosque. It is now contended by some leading motivated historians
that the structure was a Buddhist one, may be one of which Husan Tsang
refered to in his account of Ayodhya. But, the distinguished historians
failed to mention rather may be as a deliberate move to spread disinformation
that the Chinese pilgrim has mentioned no less than 10 'deva' temples,
which would be Brahmanical only. What is wrong to ascribe one of
these Brahmanical templese lying ruined under the Maszid? And should we
forgive the Muslims for destroying the Buddhist structure? One is reminded
of Goldsmiths' famous schoolteacher who went on arguing though vanquished
still. However, the most crucial point in the archaeological evidence
has been missed. The structure belongs to the 10th-11th centuries
A.D. So it was constructed more than a couple of hundred years after
the Chinese pilgrim. The chances of the structure being Buddhist
are dim. We all know that as a result of Shankaracharya's digvijaya
and other causes Buddhism suffered mortal injuries and soon disappeared
from the land of its birth. We know that under the patronage of the
Buddhist Pala kings, it survived in Bihar and Bengal only. One would
like to know if Buddhist monuments of substantial dimensions were erected
in the 10th century and later, east of Banaras. It is, therefore,
a valid point to hold that Babri Maszid stands on the destroyed Hindu temple
of the Pratihara or sahadavala times, who were all Hindus by faith.
We are not aware of any ruling dynasty of 9th-10th centuries in this part
of the country claiming to be Buddhist by faith, and it is well established
that Buddhism largely flourished on royal munificance. Unfortunately,
the details of the so-called Salabhanjika figure found in the Babri Maszid
have not been given. But, granting the presence of the motif, it
is hardly fair to rule the ruined structure, whose parts were appropriated
in the Maszid, on this ground alone as Buddhist. It has been well-argued
and documents elsewhere that in the post-Gupta periodthe motif was adapted
by Hindu sculptors & salabhanjika model was modified to represent Lakshmi,
Ganga and Yamuna. In the Harshacarita Lakshmi has been compared to
a salabhanjikaadorning the arm of a great hero like a victory-stand.
From the same book it has been inferred that columns engraved with salabhanjika
motifs were found in royal apartments. The word salabhanjika occurs
in Aryasaptasat of Goverdhanacharya, a court poet of Lakshamanaursena (12th
century A.D.) a Hindu by faith. The Allahabad Museum houses many
salabhausika figures in dancing poses under mango tree. They are
representatives of Jamsat-art. So the motif was not exclusively Buddhist
in the post-Gupta period. It is really strange that while the obvious
conclusion is that the structure was Hindu, the obduracy to ignore Hindu
religion and art has made a particular brand of historians to look for
a very unlikely explanation instead of the obvious one.
There should be no valid
reason, now to hold that the structure over which the Babri Maszid stands
was not Hindu in character. Then who destroyed the temple? It is
possible that Mahmud Ghazni or more probably Muhammad Ghori plundered Ayodhya
as well, but as traditions persist that the maszid was built in the time
of Babar, and it is natural to hold that the temple was destroyed in his
time as well. Since the time of the prophet Muhammed, the Muslim
conquerors or invaders have been destroying un-Islamic structure and idols
from China to Spain including Arabia, Iran and India. And Babar could
very well emulate the persistent tradition. Meer Baqi's inscription
in the mosque clearly states that it was built at the command of Babar
in 1528. And if not Babar, Mohmud Ghazni or Muhammad Ghori.
How does it weaken the Hindu standpoint? Unfortunately, the pages containing
the events between April 2 and 18 September have been long lost irretrievably.
Babar believed in and led jihad against Hindu rivals, and he did smash
jain idols and mutilated many jain temples in 1925 such as in Urwah Valley
near Gwalior as is admitted in his autobiography. In 1927 after his
victory over Ranasanga in jihad against non-muslims, Babar took the title
of Ghazi, as he himself claims in Babarnama. Before the battle, on
the eve of his jihad against the Rana, he broke his drinking cups into
pieces in a manner, in which if Allah wills, the idols of the idolators
will be smashed." So where remains the case that Babar, a tolerant ruler,
could not destroy the Hindu temple at Ayodhya. He certainly demolished
many Hindu temples at Chanderi when he occupied it and Babar was in for
a jihad covering a dar-ul-hab into dar-ul-Islam. There is a persistent
evidence coming from Muslim sources since 1858 that the controversial site
was known as Janmabhumi site on the basis of earlier medieval sources certainly
not on British detail.
In our opinion the Hindus
were never reconciled to the loss of this sacred place and it may be due
to opposition that the mosque was not completed - it is without minarets
and a pond for ablution (wazu) of namazis in the mosque by the faiithful
doen the centuries. In was probably in recognition of the strength
of the Hindu opposition (in vast majority in the city) and in deference
to his policy of toleration that according to local tradition Akbar is
said to have built the Chabutara on which Hindu idols were installed for
worship and the adjacent spot known as Sita-ki-Rasoi was called Sitapak.
The Muslim rulers dared not destroy the sacred site of architecture.
But Hindu sense of grief and loss continued and often violent clashes over
the issue of Ram Chabutara or the Janmabhoomi continued in the time of
the great Mughals like Jehangir and Aurangzeb, and of the nawabs which
must have caused consideratable loss of life. Long before the British
occupied Ayodhya, the European traveller Tieffenthaler who visited the
place in 1767, wrote about the Hindu worship being reguylarly conducted
in the Maszid and mentions the tradition of the Janmabhoomi temple having
been destroyed to make way for the existing mosque. It is sheer blindfoldness
to assert that the dispute was concocted by the British for divide and
rule. One cannot expect the great muslim divine and scholar Maulana
Abdul Hai to be writing under British inspiration. He categorically
writes that the Babri Maszid was constructed by Babar on the site of birth
place of Sri Ramchandraji.
So there should be no
doubt in any reasonable unprejudiced mind that the Babri maszid was built
after destroying a Hindu temple. It is sheer obduracy to argue that
Mir Baqi got the Hindu pillars from a few kilometers away to instal in
the mosque. Why was he so much in love with the pillars? It is obvious
that he used the pillars which he found after destruction of the temple
on the site and a similar evidence has been found in Kutubminar complex.
And it is beyond dispute that for hundreds of years if not thousands, the
Hindus have believed this site to be the birth place of their divine Lord
Rama. You cannot whisk away such long held pious belief of millions
with even tons of weighty polemics. Who could dare dispute that the
hair in Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar does belong to the Prophet Muhammad?
It is absolutely desirable for the Muslim community in the interest of
peace and goodwill of the vast majority of their co-nationals to respect
the aroused sentiments of the Hindus to agree to relocate the mosque and
co-operate with the Hindus in construction of Rama's temple on the site.
Mosques have been and are being relocated on much minor grounds even in
muslim countries. And particularly when the mosque has not been in
constant use by the namazis for decades. I have been a regular visitor
of Ayodhya since 1926, and I have seen the continuous worship of 'Rama's
idols on the "chabutara" and except for the some Muslims at prayer in the
mosque compound. As has been said above, the mosque without facilities
for essential ablution (wazu) for namaz was never very popular with namazis.
And the Hindu worship and also struggle for the repossession of the site
continued unabated. As early as in 1936-37, a bill was introduced
in the legislature council of U.P. to transfer the site to the Hindus.
Sri G.B. Pant, the Chief Minister tried to assuage the roused feelings
of both the communities, and it is said that the bill was withdrawn on
the unwritten understanding that no namaz was performed; the caretaker
and his family could be the only namazis. And in 1949, the idols
were discovered and installed in the garbhagriha, and till 1986, the continuous
worship of Sri Ramalala has been on in the maszid with no entry of muslims
there. The Hindu devotees received parshads, had darshan of the deity
through iron-grilled window, protected by police. Since 1987, the
Hindus have been worshipping the deities installed in the mosque without
any hindrance. So the Babri Maszid does represent the humiliating
experience of the Hindus and the militancy of Islam, and the Hindus throughout
centuries have not accepted the fait accompli. This is not that much
true of Mathura or Dwarka sites. The maszid on the otherhand has
never been a very prominent and popular place of worship for the Muslims
who congregated in Faizabad with splendid mosques. The maszid has
not been in use since 1936. In view of all this, is it too much for
the Hindus now to build a temple on the site which is traditionally the
most pious site for the Hindus, after carefully and piously relocating
the mosque at some distance from the site! The muslims may be assured that
if they show the necessary grace, wisdom and sense of realism, no aggressive
mass Hindu movement against other mosques could be again built up.
Should not the Babari Maszid Co-ordination Committee, and the VHP and BJP
think on such a course of action to assure communal amity and peace, the
bedrock on which the stability and prosperity of the nation depends.
*(Professor & Head
of the Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology (Retired) |