CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

1

Ayodhya : Was there a temple?

Athith Krishna

School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Cornell University

Ayodhya, an Introduction

Ayodhya, a city in Uttar Pradesh (India), mostly around the Babri Mosque location, represents an

important locus of debate for issues of identity, religion and history in modern India. Not only

has the history of the site been controversial through the ages, the archeology of Ayodhya has

been a topic of heated debate ever since it was first excavated in 1967, by the Banaras Hindu

University1. The issues have become so heated as to appear in the courts in India at various

levels. With the Allahabad High Court verdict on the site in 2010, the topic of discussion has

become more complex than ever. The controversy over the history of a small site in the city of

Ayodhya has been a blot in the recent history of India, not least because because it has led to the

deaths of hundreds of people. Was there indeed a temple dedicated to Rama under the Mosque

built by Babar, the 1st Mughal Emperor of India? For many who were not drawn into one or the

other position, this began to look like a matter of ideology rather than fact. This paper will focus

more on the Archeological aspects of the site, the use of archeological evidence obtained, and

will analyze the results obtained by various reports on the site. The paper will also explore the

effect of social & political factors on the interpretation of the archeological evidence available.

Due to the presence of a lot of biased evidences and evidences from those sources who were not

actually available at the site of excavation, this paper will strongly follow the published accounts

by Dr.Supriya Varma and Dr.Jaya Menon2. The paper also follows the judgement by Justice

Sudhir Agarwal since his judgement is the one that puts more emphasis on archeology compared

to judgements by the other two judges3.

History of Ayodhya - in scriptures & historical texts

Ayodhya is a city with a very rich depiction in Ramayana, one of the most important texts in

Hinduism. With over 24,000 verses, this text is more than ten times the size of Iliad and Odyssey

combined. This is the oldest Hindu work of history, with the first available manuscripts from 5th

to 4th century BCE4, dating the site to 7000 BCE5. This work of literature can be compared to

1 Economic Times. Oct 1, 2010 2 Dr.Supriya Varma is at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Dr.Jaya Menon is at the Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University. According to their paper, Supriya Varma was present during the excavations in Ayodhya from 5 to 12 April 2003, 11 to 31 May 2003, 22 to 27 June 2003 and from 8 to 19 July 2003, while Jaya Menon was present from 26 April to 2 May 2003, 20 to 31 May 2003, 22 to 27 June 2003 and from 19 to 26 July 2003. 3 The Ayodhya Verdict was given out in 2010 by 3 judges, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice D V Sharma and Justice S U Khan. It resulted in 2 judges favoring the temple theory and one, Justice S U Khan not favoring the temple theory. 4 P.38, History of Ancient India by Prof. Radheshyam Chaurasia

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

2

the Bible, with the site Ayodhya being compared to Bethlehem, the birthplace of the protagonist.

To understand the international impact of this site, the cities of Ayutthaya in Thailand, and

Yogyakarta in Indonesia are named after Ayodhya6. The main reason for Ayodhya being a bone

of contention is that the city has appeared in the scriptures of various religions and communities

other than just Hinduism.

Ayodhya has historical significance for the Jain community. It is believed to be birthplace of five

‘Thirthankaras’ of Jainism7 , including the first one, two-thousand years ago. According to Jain

Agams, it is the second eternal city after Shikharji, and will never vanish or disappear during the

changing epochs.

This site has significance to Buddhists as well. At the time of Buddha, Ayodhya was called

Saketa in the buddhist scriptures. It was conquered by the Buddhist Kushan Emperor of India,

Kanishka in c. 127 CE, who made it administrative center of his eastern territories8. Chinese

pilgrim monks, Xuanzang and Faxian, who visited India, also make a note about this city and the

buddhist monasteries in this city in their accounts.

Not just in India, but Ayodhya has connections to Thailand, Indonesia and Korea. The 11th-

century Korean chronicle, the Samguk Yusa, mentions that the wife of King Suro of the Korean

kingdom of Geumgwan Gaya was a princess who came by boat from a land faraway called

Ayuta to Korea in 48 AD9. The local government of Ayodhya and South Korea acknowledged

the connection and held a ceremony to raise a statue of the princess on the banks of the Sarayu

River in India. The adopted Korean name of the princess is Heo Hwang-ok, the first queen of

Geumgwan Gaya Dynasty and the ancestor of the Korean Kim family10.

When Ayodhya is put on a historical timeline, it is known to have been an important city of

civilized India by the 6th century B.C. During the time of Buddha, it was ruled by King

Prasenajit. Ayodhya (then called Saketa) continued its prominence during the Mauryan11 rule

and suffered an attack around 190 B.C. by a Bactrian Greek expedition. After the fall of the

Maurya and Sunga dynasties, the city came under the rule of Deva and Datta kings. An

5 Basham, A.L.,The Wonder that was India, London,1956, p. 303. 6 E.M. Pospelov, Geograficheskie nazvaniya mira (Moscow: Russkie slovari, 1998), p. 138. 7 Tirthankaras are equivalent to that of Christ, as the son of God. They were not gods, but messengers of god and

hence worshipped in Jainism 8 Hill, John E. 2004. The Peoples of the West from the Weilüe Yu Huan: Third Century Chinese Account Composed

between 239 and 265 CE. 9 South Korea's Ayodhya connection, V N Arora, TNN, 12 September 2004 10 Festivities organized to honor Indian princess, San Whan Ahn, India Abroad, 12 May 2000

11 Maurya Empire was the first true Empire in India. It faced and beat many powerful armies of the world

including that of Alexander the Great. Mauryans ruled from c.330 BCE - 185 BCE. Prominent Mauryan rulers were Chandragupta [defeated the armies of Alexander under Seleucus Nikator], Ashoka the Great [First ruler to conquer the whole of India].

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

3

inscription found at Ayodhya refers to a king Dhanadeva12, who claimed to be the sixth

descendant of Pushyamitra Sunga.

Under the Gupta rulers, Ayodhya reached its highest political importance. The Chinese pilgrim

Faxian visited the city in the 5th century AD, referring to it as "Sha-chi". During the reign of

Kumaragupta, the capital of the empire moved from Pataliputra to Ayodhya. The name "Saketa"

was replaced by "Ayodhya," and firmly identified as Rama's capital city. Under Narasimhagupta,

the empire was ravaged by the Huns. Subsequently in the 6th century AD, the political centre of

North India shifted to Kanauj and Ayodhya fell into relative oblivion13. These empires were

predominantly Hindu with only the Mauryas having emperors belonging to different religions.

During these empires, Islam had not entered India yet.

Indologist Hans T. Bakker, in his account, clearly mentions that the only religious significance of

Ayodhya in the first millennium A. D. was the “Gopratara tirtha”, which is believed to be the

place where Rama entered the waters of the Sarayu river in order to ascend to heaven14. The city

of Ayodhya itself was not regarded as a pilgrimage centre. Gahadavalas that came to power in

Ayodhya in early 1100 AD, in the wake of the Ghaznavid15 raids on North India, promoted

Vaishnavism16. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya. Hans Bakker mentions that there

might have been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas but there

is no clear account of the presence of a temple at that spot. In Fact, the birth spot of Rama has

never been determined. In subsequent years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism,

with Rama being regarded as the foremost avatar of Vishnu and Ayodhya's importance as a

pilgrimage centre grew17.

Around 1220 A.D., Ayodhya became the capital of the province of Awadh within the Delhi

sultanate which was ruled by muslims. This is believed to be the first recorded instance of this

city being under the possession of Islamic rulers. Muslim historians state that the area was little

12 Stella Kramrisch, Raymond Burnier (1946). The Hindu temple, Volume 1 13 Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal 24 (2): 103–

126 14 Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal 24 (2): 103–126 15 The Ghaznavid Raids on Northern India were the first instance of Islam power in India. There were muslim citizens in India since 7th century AD but they were only travellers or traders. Ghaznavids were the first muslim invaders of India, and their invasions led to the foundation of Muslim empires in India like the Slave dynasty, Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. There have also been clear textual sources mentioning the destruction caused by the Ghaznavid invasions on temples in Western and North-western India, most prominent of them being the legendary Somnath Temple in Western India. This temple will be important for comparisons later in the paper 16 There were two popular forms of Hinduism in India - Shaivism & Vaishnavism. Shaivism referred to the

worship of Shiva, Ganesh and other related deities. Vaishnavism referred to the worship of Vishnu and his incarnations (Rama was one of them). 17 Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal 24 (2): 103–

126

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

4

more than forests prior to this. Pilgrimage was tolerated, but the tax18 on pilgrims ensured that

the temples did not receive much income. The Babri Mosque was built in 1528 AD by Babar, the

first Mughal Emperor of India. This mosque was the most important mosque in India until its

demolition in 1992 AD19. After the death of Aurangzeb, the last powerful Mughal emperor, in

1707 AD, the central Muslim rule weakened, and Awadh became independent, with Ayodhya as

its capital. The rulers became increasingly dependent on the local Hindu nobles, and control over

the temples and pilgrimage centres was relaxed. The rulers of Ayodhya were Shia20. There are

written accounts of the Sunni groups beginning to protest against this attitude of the government.

The British intervened and crushed the Sunni revolt. Saadat Ali Khan, ruler of Awadh, bestowed

the province of Ayodhya on his loyal Hindu soldier Dwijdeo Mishra, for quelling revenue rebels

in eastern part of his kingdom21. The Hanumangarhi temple22 was built by the Nawab of

Awadh.In 1857, the British annexed Awadh under the Doctrine of Lapse and subsequently

merged it into the United Provinces under the British rule23 until India’s Independence in 1947

when it continued to be a part of United Provinces (present day- Uttar Pradesh).

The conflict in Ayodhya (1857 onwards)

The Ayodhya conflict is a historical, political & socio-religious issue in India which is centered

on a 2.77 acres of land. The main issue is that, a temple dedicated to Rama at his supposed

birthplace in Ayodhya was demolished by Babar, the first Mughal Emperor of India, and the

Babri Mosque was erected in its place. The Hindu activists plan to reclaim the area and build a

temple in the area, and the Muslims claim that no temple existed in the first place and hence the

question of demolition does not arise.

It is said that the Muslim and Hindu population in the area led an extremely peaceful life until

the British took over the state in 1850s. Actually, there are accounts of both Hindus and Muslims

praying (Muslims, inside the mosque, and Hindus, outside the mosque within the compound) in

the same area24. The first instances of violence occurred after the British took the area under their

control after 1857. The mahant (or chief priest) of Hanumangarhi temple took over the eastern

18 This form of tax called Jaziya was in existence till late 1800s. Hindu pilgrims had to pay taxes to their Muslim rulers if they wanted to offer pilgrimage to a religious site under Muslim rule. This tax was the cause of a lot of communal conflicts in medieval India, but it is not within the scope of this paper. There were some tolerant rulers who showed their tolerance by abolishing this tax(Emperor Akbar of Mughal Dynasty), and then there were some who showed their religious radicalism by increasing the taxes (Emperor Aurangzeb). 19 The other important mosque was the Jamia Mosque in present day Delhi. 20 Shia was one sect of islam, the other being sunni 21 Plaint Of Ayodhya, The Financial Express, Sunday, 22 August 2004 22 A temple dedicated to the Hindu monkey-god Hanuman. Hanuman is also believed to be a loyalist of

Ram according to scriptures 23 This move by the British was one of the most important causes of the First War of Indian Independence

in 1857 (Sepoy Mutiny), mainly because of the religious importance of this site to both Hindus and

Muslims 24 Harsh Narain, The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

5

part of the mosque courtyard, building the Rama Chabutra25 on the south-eastern side. In the

same year, a petition was submitted to the magistrate by Maulvi Muhammad Asghar, the head

Maulvi(priest) of the Babri mosque, complaining of a forcible takeover of the courtyard. The

British government built railings in 1859, separating the place of worship for Hindus and

Muslims. Similar petitions were filed by the Muslims in 1860, 1877, 1883 and 1884 but each of

them was rejected. Finally, in 1885, Mahant filed a lawsuit to gain legal possession of the land

and permission to construct a temple on the Chabutra. The significance of this lawsuit was that

(a) Mahant claimed to be the priest of the janmasthan (birthplace) of Rama in Ayodhya; (b) the

janmasthan was claimed to be the chabutra; and (c) no claim was made that any temple had

actually stood where the mosque did26. The suit as well as appeals was dismissed in 1886.

Since then, local Hindu radical groups have made demands that they should have the possession

of the area and that they should be permitted to build a temple dedicated to Rama on the site, all

of which were denied by the government. In 1946, a sub-section of the Hindu Mahasabha27

called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha (ABRM) started a protest for the possession of the

site. In 1949, head priest of Gorakhnath Mutt28 joined the ABRM and organised a continuous

recitation of Ramcharitmanas29. At the end of this event, Hindu nationalists broke into the

mosque and placed idols of Rama inside30. Rumor spread and people were led to believe that the

idols had appeared inside the mosque miraculously31.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India, ordered the idols to be removed. However,

the local collector, Mr. K. K. Nair refused to carry out orders claiming that it would lead to

communal riots. The police locked the gates and the area was shut-down to public. However, the

idols remained inside and priests were allowed entry to perform daily worship. So, the mosque

had been converted into a de facto temple. Both the Sunni Wakf Board and the ABRM filed civil

suits staking their respective claims to the site. The land was declared to be under dispute, and

the gates remained locked32. Vishva Hindu Parishad33 was formed in 1964 and started agitating

25 A platform on the spot said to be Rama’s birthplace 26 “Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological ‘Evidence’,” Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon 27 Hindu Mahasabha was hindu radical organization that played in a huge role in mobilizing people in protests for the Indian Independence movement prior to 1947 28 Mutts are Hindu religious places of learning equivalent to sunday school in churches 29 Ramcharitmanas was a text written to glorify deeds of Rama. It was written in 1578 AD, and hence any mishaps to religion in those days would have been duly noted in this work. 30 Bacchetta, Paola (2000). "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid Affair". Growth and Change 31 (2): 255–284 31 Jha, Krishna; Jha, Dhirendra K. (2012). Ayodhya: The Dark Night. HarperCollins India. 32 van der Veer, Peter (1992). "Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines, Contested Histories". Social Research 59 (1): 85–109 33 VHP was the Hindu Radical Organization formed after India’s independence. They eventually become responsible for the demolition of the Babri Mosque

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

6

for the Babri Mosque site34. The collector, K. K. K. Nair, who refused to carry out orders of the

PM, was eventually dismissed, but he became a local hero35.

Demolition of the mosque, 1992

Figure : (far left)Babri Mosque before demolition; (center) during demolition; (far right) at

present[after demolition]36

On December 6th, 1992, a large number of Hindu radicalists vandalized and destroyed the 16th

century Babri Mosque. They passed around the statement that their work was justified as they

had reclaimed the land that rightfully belonged to the Hindus and a Ram temple had been

demolished way back in 1526 to pave way for the mosque37. This was the result of a rally gone

wrong, where it turned violent, leading to several months of intercommunal rioting between

Hindu and Muslim communities in India, causing the death of at least 2,000 people38. The 2009

report by the Liberhan Commission39, found 68 people responsible for the demolition of the

mosque, of which there were a few leaders from Bharatiya Janata Party40. Among those named

were Atal Behari Vajpayee41, L K Advani42, M M Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia. Justice Liberhan

wrote that he posted bureaucrats and police officers to Ayodhya and their record indicated that

they would stay silent during the mosque’s demolition43. This demolition and the communal riots

34 Jaffrelot, Christophe (6 October 2014). "The other saffron" . Indian Express 35 van der Veer, Peter (1992). "Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines, Contested Histories". Social Research 59 (1): 85–109. 36 All images used are under the Creative Commons License 37P51, BJP’s White Paper on Ayodhya & the Rama temple movement, Bharatiya Janata Party, 1993 38'Timeline: Ayodhya crisis', BBC News, October 17, 2003.

39 Liberhan Commission was set up to investigate the 1992 demolition of the Babri Mosque. Justice M

Liberhan, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India headed the panel. 40 The political situation is in India, like in the US, is a contest at the center between the two political Parties : Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party 41 A B Vajpayee was the Prime Minister of India thrice. 42 L K Advani was the Deputy Prime Minister of India from 1999 - 2004 43 Uproar over India mosque report: Inquiry into Babri mosque's demolition in 1992 indicts opposition BJP leaders, Al-Jazeera English – 24 November 2009

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

7

that followed, led to the deaths of 2000 people in Ayodhya, about 900 in Mumbai, and is

believed to be motive for terrorist organizations for the Serial Bomb blasts of 1993 in Mumbai44.

The government of India set up the Liberhan commision to investigate this in 1992, and after

about 400 sittings, the commision submitted its, over 1000 pages long, report in 2009. Although

the report was not made public, the summary of the report, according to Justice Liberhan was, “

the events of December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya were "neither spontaneous nor unplanned”45. This

act of violence drew the ire of the international community and especially the muslim majority

populations in Pakistan, UAE, Bangladesh, and Iran.

Questions for the Indian judiciary

There were two cases up for the Indian judiciary. One was the case handling the cause of death

of thousands of people in the area, and the other was the case of ownership of the land. The

second case could be determined only through Archeology and proofs, and therefore, the Court

ordered the Archeological excavation of the site and went through the excavations since 1960s,

to come to a conclusion. The suits for the second case that were filed at the court were as

follows:

a. Suit 1 - the Hindu Mahasabha

b. Suit 2 - Paramhans Ramchandra Das; this was later withdrawn

c. Suit 3 - Nirmohi Akhada- a small gymnasium dedicated to the Monkey-god Hanuman

who claim that they owned the temple that was allegedly demolished in 1528 AD.

d. Suit 4 - Sunni Wakf Board, on behalf of the Muslims in the Region

e. Suit 5 - (The most ridiculous one of the lot) - Lord Rama, the child (given the name Ram

Lalla), who demanded his home back. An RSS46 member claimed to the friend of Rama

chose to file a petition in his name, and the court accepted this suit.

The questions that the court faced can be explained through the diagram shown below:

44 Raman, B. (December 9, 2010). "The Latest 'Indian Mujahideen Mail', Outlook India 45 "India Babri Masjid demolition neither spontaneous nor unplanned: Liberhan". Hindustan Times.

November 24, 2009 46 Rashtreeya Swayamsevak Sangh - the radicalist wing of the Hindu Nationalist Political Party - BJP.

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

8

Archeological Excavations of Ayodhya

The main issue in the Ayodhya debate has been whether or not the Babri mosque was built on

the remains of a Hindu temple. If yes, was it a temple dedicated to Lord Ram or was it any other

deity? Naturally archaeology can be a powerful tool in justifying or disproving such claims. This

leads the discussion towards the archeological evidence that was obtained and tries to answer the

questions like - how important were the archaeological findings? And How effective were the

techniques used? Or perhaps most importantly, to what degree are personal biases influencing

archaeological interpretations. Archeology dominates in the case of Ayodhya due to the absence

of eyewitnesses or unbiased contemporary records during the actual event leading to the conflict.

The main reason for excavations being difficult at site is that it is in the middle of one of the

highest populated towns, of the most populous state, in the 2nd most populated country in the

world47. So, the presence of a large population prevents excavation to be carried out easily.

After taking over as the first director general of the Archeological Survey of India, Alexander

Cunningham surveyed Ayodhya in 1862-6348. His primary interest was to identify historical

places mentioned in the Buddhist pilgrim records of Xuanzang and Faxien. He mentions the

discovery of three structures - Mani Parbat, Kuber Parbat and Sugriv Parbat, and identifies them

respectively as two stupas49 , the first of Ashoka, the second supposedly containing the hair and

47 This is according to the most updated CIA World Factbook. India with population of 1.252 billion is

second only to China with 1.357 billion. Uttar Pradesh(where Ayodhya is located) is the most populated state in India with 204.2 million. 48 “Depths of Ayodhya” by Ashok Malik, India Today, March 23rd 2003. 49 Domed Buddhist Places of worship

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

9

nails of the Buddha, and the third as a monastery50. Something of note is that Cunningham wrote,

of several traditions associated with Rama, nowhere did he refer to the Babri mosque as standing

on the spot of a destroyed temple51.

More than a century later, B.B Lal started studying this site in 1955-56 and then Dr. V. S Dubey

in 1961-62. Excavations began in Ayodhya in 1969-70 when the Benares Hindu University

archaeological team led by A K Narain, T N Roy and P Singh opened three small trenches in

three separate localities - the Jain Ghat, Laxman Tekri, and Nal Tila52, and also submitted part of

Kuber Tila to surface scraping. According to the published summary of results, it was announced

that the history of the town went back to the northern black polished ware period53, which is

generally accepted as covering 6th to 1st Century BCE. This was the first scientific

Archaeological excavation of the site.

In 1975, B.B Lal, who had retired as Director General of ASI, began a project on the archeology

of sites mentioned in the Ramayana. This was an independent work without any prior supporting

study being done. With the help of a team from the ASI, he excavated at Ayodhya over two

seasons. The area under conflict was chosen as one of the sites for excavation. In a trench here,

Prof. Lal found a ‘massive brick wall’ (later identified to be a part of a fortification), house

floors, rubble collapse, and the typical ring wells of the ancient historic India54. The initial

reports make no mention of pillar bases in any of the trenches.Taking all the trenches into

context, the yield of coins and terracotta sealings was interesting55.

The third period of excavation in Ayodhya happened in 1992. This excavation was not carried

out in a systematic manner, but just a set of artifacts were recovered when the ground near the

conflict area was being levelled. Stone carvings were found 12 feet under the ground56. After this

find, the ground was being levelled up and saw that the brick walls and floors had been exposed

in several places57.

All these excavations were independent of each other with each study not following up with the

previous work done at the site. This was mainly because, either the report was not published or it

was published at a date so late that it did not have much consequence.

50 “Depths of Ayodhya” by Ashok Malik, India Today, March 23rd 2003. 51 Ancient Geography of India, Alexander Cunningham, 321 52 Ghat, tekri refer to different versions of tunnels; Tila refers to small lake. All these are named for characters from Ramayana. 53 Indian Archeology - A review, 1969-70, 40-41, ASI 54 Indian Archeology - A review, 1979-80, 76-77, ASI 55 Indian Archeology - A review, 1976-77, 52-53, ASI 56 Ramajanmabhumi : Ayodhya : New Archeological Discoveries, P1 57 Ramajanmabhumi : Ayodhya : New Archeological Discoveries, P11

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

10

The last archaeological investigations at the disputed site in Ayodhya was initiated because of a

high court order, on 1 August 2002, to the ASI calling for excavations at the site58. While the

arguments from all the parties were being heard, a ground penetrating RADAR survey (GPR) of

the site where the mosque had once stood was done. The GPR survey was outsourced by the ASI

to Tojo-Vikas International, which performed it from 30 December 2002 to 17 January 2003, and

submitted its report to the director general of the ASI59. The result of their report was, “the GPR

survey reflects in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 m in depth that could be

associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab

flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies

has to be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological

trenching”60. There were three clear issues with this statement :

a)When a GPR report concludes that there would be walls and floors underneath, it was

stating the obvious since any 10-metre high mound is bound to have such structures underneath

it.

b)It is not the normal practice for GPR surveys to label the structures that lie under the ground. It

would have been appropriate to have mentioned the presence of anomalies and leave the rest to

actual excavations.

c)The GPR report mentions pillars underneath but no pillars were found in the

excavations. Two pillars were found in the debris of the demolished mosque61.

d)By looking at the geophysical interpretation map in Annexure A of the GPR report, one

cannot find alignments reflecting the supposed pillar bases recovered by the ASI (in their final

report).

e)In trying to confirm the anomalies noted by GPR survey, the ASI recorded that “out of

184 anomalies, 39 of them were confirmed at the specified depth and location where they were

shown and 74 were not found in spite of digging up to the required depth”62.

On inspecting these claims, those present on the site, note that only 21 anomalies were confirmed

at the depth (within 20 centimetres) and location that was mentioned. Of these, 10 anomalies

were identified as flooring, 5 as “pillar bases”, 2 as architectural features, 3 as structures, and 3

as a wall63. After the survey had ascertained the presence of walls, pillars and slab flooring under

58 “The excavation order” by V Venkatesan, Frontline, Volume 20 - Issue 06, March 15 - 28, 2003, New Delhi 59 “Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological ‘Evidence’,” Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon 60 P.31, Robillard, C, M Kumar and R Rishi (2003): “Final Report on GPR Survey of the Disputed Site in Ayodhya”, Tojo-Vikas International, New Delhi. 61 Manjhi, H and B R Mani (2003): Ayodhya: 2002-03, Vols I and II, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.(P140,148) 62 Manjhi, H and B R Mani (2003): Ayodhya: 2002-03, Vols I and II, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.(P19) 63 “Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological ‘Evidence’,” Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

11

the ground, a court order was passed, directing the ASI to carry out excavations to confirm “the

exact nature of anomalies/objects” as was pointed out by the GPR64 and to ascertain “whether the

building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the

same”65. The ASI began with a general survey of the site and layout of trenches. ASI followed

the Wheeler method66 of excavating in a grid, leaving 1-metre baulks of unexcavated soil

between trenches with cutting edges of 4 × 4 m67. The site notebooks contained the following

information- starting and closing depths, layer numbers, the features and the artefacts found in

the trench at the end of each day. These notebooks do not document the process of recovery of

each of the individual features, which is presently the norm at all excavation sites. This was one

major flaw in the method since the various stages of recovery after each dig are not mentioned. A

total of 90 trenches were excavated. The report of the excavations was submitted in two volumes

(Volume I - Text and Volume II - Plates) to the court in August 2003. As in the conventional

style, the report included an introduction, and chapters on the cuttings, stratigraphy and

chronology, pottery, architectural fragments,inscriptions, seals, terracotta figurines, coins, as

well as a summary of the results. The flaw here is that there are no chapters on either the animal

bones recovered during the excavations or the human skeletal remains found in graves68. The

latter were probably the remnants of a Muslim graveyard that was located to the north and south

of the mosque.

Results of Excavations

The results of excavations in the 19th century and the one by the Banaras Hindu University do

not tell us much but mention that the history of the town goes back to the NBP period - c.6th -

1st Century BCE69. The chief excavator in the same excavation notes that the he observed that in

general, the site was characterized by large-scale brick robbing or removal of the bricks of early

buildings for raising of later buildings70.

64 Manjhi, H and B R Mani (2003): Ayodhya: 2002-03, Vols I and II, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.(P8) 65 This comprises issues of Suit 4 - “whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri mosque was

erected after demolishing Temple at its site”. 66 An area that is to be excavated is divided into equal-sized squares in a north-south direction. These squares are then excavated as trenches and between each square a 1-m area is left unexcavated to allow movement between the trenches as well as enable a study of the sections. This unexcavated area is referred to as a “baulk”. As one digs down, the sides of the baulk within a trench, which archaeologists term “sections”, reveal the strata or layers of different occupations - “stratigraphy” of the area. 67 “Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological ‘Evidence’,” Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon 68 Manjhi, H and B R Mani (2003): Ayodhya: 2002-03, Vols I and II, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.(Plate 58) 69 D.Mandal (1993), Ayodhya: Archeology after Demolition, Orient Longman 70 T.N Roy, A Study of the Northern Black Polished Ware Culture, New Delhi, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, 1986.

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

12

The next excavation(1970s) was controversial for the delay in the publication of the findings.

The ASI team asserted that pillar cases of what appears to have been a temple have been found at

the site, which is thought to belong to a larger building as compared to the Babri Mosque. In

1989, the preliminary report was published in the Indian Council of Historical Research. The

former Director-General of ASI, B.B. Lal have claimed that there existed 12 stone pillars close to

the Babri Mosque, which were decorated with the figures of Hindu deities and Hindu patterns71.

These pillar bases weren’t reported initially, but made their way into literature after a very long

time which raised a lot of questions about the authenticity of the report.

In 1992, innumerable archaeological relics were found at Ayodhya all of a sudden. A statue of

Rama and some religious sculptures were amongst the findings72. The archeologists exploring

the area indicated that the inner boundary of the structure of the Babri Mosque might have

probably belonged to a larger structure which could possibly have been an ancient temple. Hindu

figures belonging to the age of the Kushanas dating back to 100 to 300 AD were also unearthed

from the site. But, it was later found out that these were stolen from a nearby museum and kept

at the controversial site. Therefore, it is very difficult to differentiate between those that were

stolen from the museum and those that were actually obtained at the site.

The 2003 excavation report concluded that a temple indeed existed below the mosque structure

in Ayodhya, and it was demolished and a mosque was built over it. But, this excavation had a lot

of flaws from the beginning of the digging, till the submission of their report. The concluding

paragraph of the ASI report says, “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 up to the construction of the

disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated

sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, āmlaka,

kapotapali doorjamb with semicircular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of schist pillar, lotus

motif, circular shrine having pranāla (water chute) in the north, 50 pillar bases in association of

the huge structure are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with

the temples of north India.73” This tells us that the existence of a temple underneath the mosque

structure is based on two arguments : a) architectural fragments; b) a “massive structure” of

which only the western wall, with 50 “pillar bases” has been found74.

Impact of the Archeology on the site

71 B B Lal, 'Rama: His Historicity Mandir and Setu' (1990) 72 Pant, Ashok (2012). The Truth of Babri Mosque p.196 73 Manjhi, H and B R Mani (2003): Ayodhya: 2002-03, Vols I and II, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.(pg.272) 74 “Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological ‘Evidence’,” Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

13

As we have seen through times, results of Archaeology have had the reputation of helping shape

and legitimize a group’s identity by giving them a connection to the past, be it nationalist,

colonialist or imperialist. Well known examples are the Nazis who claimed an Aryan history75

and France used the Gauls to strengthen nationalism.

Ayodhya illustrates this as well - if archaeologists could prove the presence of a temple

dedicated to Rama below the remains of the mosque, Hindus could, using the mythical concept

of history, bring the past closer to present and hold the Muslims living in Ayodhya today

responsible for what Mughal Emperor Babur did to the Rama temple five centuries ago. This, in

turn, would legitimize the destruction of the mosque in 1992, since it could then be considered as

a justification for a wrong inflicted on Hindus by Muslims. But, here comes the twist - Muslims

living in Ayodhya today are usually not descendants of the Mughals or Muslims who came to

India with them, but low caste Hindus who tried to improve their status in society by converting

to Islam. The result was that, as Bernbeck and Pollock put it: “…, archaeology and

archaeologists found themselves at what appeared to be the nerve center of a conflict that goes

well beyond academic squabbles, one that reached the Supreme Court of India and has

cost hundreds of lives.”76

This shows clearly that in an issue such as this, the use of archaeology for creating identity is

definitely not a neutral undertaking. Therefore, by delving into the impact of the Archeological

findings, we can see that every small result of the report led to more questions and concerns. Of

all the Archeological attention that Ayodhya received, just like its history, it is prone to biased

interpretations and misuse.

The excavations done in mid 1970s by B.B Lal were more detailed compared to the any previous

study done on the site. His first comments to the media, and notes from his preliminary rough

report stated that there was, “no notable medieval occupation of the site and thus the existence of

a Rama temple seemed unlikely”77. But, in 1990, he published an article in Manthan78 which

conflicted his previous conclusions. He, now claimed that he had found the remains of a Hindu

temple and that the alleged site was indeed the site of Rama’s birthplace79. As expected, Lal’s

reinterpretation was strongly criticised, was controversial, and went through heated debates.

Finally, the ASI excavation of 2003 was used by the High court of the state for the Ayodhya

verdict eventually sentenced in 2010. The verdict split the area into 3 parts, and awarded each of

these parts to a) Lord Rama; b)Sunni Waqf Board and c)Nirmohi Akhada(a hindu gymnasium).

75 The Nazi Swastika was a religious symbol of the Aryans who invaded India and started the Vedic

Culture after the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization. Swastika is used even to this day as the auspicious symbol of Hindus and Jains 76 Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S140. 77 Thomas Van Damme (2010-11). The Use and Misuse of History and Archaeology in the Ayodhya Dispute, University of Ghent 78 Manthan is the official magazine of RSS, the hindu radicalist wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party 79 Karen D. Vitelli (2006). Archaeological Ethics. P105, Oxford University Press

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

14

This was obviously rejected by the Muslims who were against giving 1/3rd of the land to Rama,

and they went ahead and questioned the existence of Rama, and the legality of giving land to a

character whose presence 9000 years ago is questioned even to this day. Using this, they

appealed to the Supreme Court of India and a “stay order” was brought on the judgement of the

High Court80. This has obviously led the discussion to square one where the Archeologists have

to determine the presence of Rama himself before going into further discussion.

Factors that influenced the excavations and the shortcomings

The ASI findings are extremely controversial and debated. The reason for this reiteration is that,

there have been so many instances where the results, methods, and ways of operation could be

questioned81. Two Muslim graves were recovered in the excavation. The ASI videographed and

photographed the graves but did not perform a detailed analysis of them82. The skeletons

obtained from the graves were not sent for carbon-dating, and the graves were not measured83.

Former ASI archaeologist, Dr. A Srivastava mentioned that in a few trenches and graves, they

discovered terracotta, lime mortar and surkhi, all of which indicated Muslim habitation. It was

thus supposed (by him, without enough evidence), that a mosque existed on the site and Babri

mosque was built on the site of another mosque84.

An American historian, Richard Eaton who specialized in history of medieval India, had

documented prominent instances of demolition of Hindu temples between 1192 and 176085.

Eaton had mentioned 80 cases of temple destructions in the mentioned period, and each of these

cases have instances of not just one temple but a set of temples in the area being destroyed.An

example is : Banaras, 1094 AD, where the army of Muhammad Ghor destroyed a hundred

temples and built mosques on them86. If we believed the ‘Existence of Temple’ theory, it is

extremely surprising to note that Eaton’s book did not have the case of Ayodhya which is a few

hundred miles from Banaras.

There were some questions raised regarding the level of digging that had to be done at the site.

Both Buddhists and Jains requested for the digging to continue much further, after the

‘supposed’ discovery of a temple, to figure out if they, too, could lay claim to the site in

question87.

80

K Venkatesan(2011), Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya, The Hindu

81 Shrivastava, Sushil (25 October 2003)"The ASI Report - a review. Frontline 82 Sandipan Dep (June 2003).Secrets Of The Shrine. Outlook India 83 ""Countercurrents", ''Outlook''". Web.archive.org. 12 October 2007 84 Deccan Herald September 8, 2003 85 Richard M. Eaton, Essays on Islam and Indian History 86 Richard M. Eaton, Essays on Islam and Indian History 87 Seema Chishti (14 March 2003). "14 March 2003". BBC News.

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

15

The theory of existence of pillar bases by B B Lal was strongly criticised by archaeologist

Dhaneshwar Mandal. Prof. Mandal's conclusion, by archaeological theory, states that discovered

"pillar bases" belonged to different periods in history and did not exist together at any point of

time. He went on further to mention that, the finds were not in alignment with one another and

were not even pillar bases, but junctions of walls, bases of the load-bearing columns at the

intersections of walls.88

Remains of bones of animals have also been found from this site, which proves, to some extent,

the absence of a temple in the area. The existence of animals bones, with jagged edges, indicates

that this site was inhabited by non-vegetarians and that it was a residential region as opposed to a

place of worship. This gives us a theory that a mosque was built on a predominantly muslim

habitat, by the Mughal emperor Babur.

It is well known fact that the ASI is a governmental organization directly under control of the

Central government of India. Therefore, just like the Central Bureau of Investigation, ASI has

come under the criticism of scholars for not being an independent organization since there are

very high chances of the ruling government influencing the ASI results.

ASI’s uncritical use of early texts, and epics marks the kind of historical archaeology practised

by the it. An example is : archaeological findings of the remains of huts at the site of Allahabad

(also in Uttar Pradesh), have been used to suggest that it was where Rama, Lakshman and Sita

stayed before crossing the river Yamuna89, although there is no further evidence to prove that.

Since that site was not at the heart of any conflict, it did not matter much, but something of note

is the Author of the above result who happens to be B B Lal, the same one responsible for all the

false “pillar base” theory in Ayodhya.

ASI’s recording and excavation methods remain unchanged from the Wheeler Method (from the

1940s) where emphasis is on establishing a cultural sequence, in spite of having innovative

methods introduced over the last 50 years in various university departments of archaeology in

India and outside. This displays a clear lack of academic training and engagement in the ASI,

where archaeologists are seen as governmental officials rather than academicians.

Many critics of the ASI excavations at Ayodhya have prevented themselves from writing against

the ASI because of ASI having complete control over heritage management in India. Any

archaeologist who wants to explore, study or excavate sites in India has to obtain a permit from

the ASI, which obviously means that no field archeologist would raise questions against the

ASI’s outdated modes of operation and flawed results. Regarding the expertise of the ASI, the

Ayodhya Judgement states,“They [the ASI] are experts of expert. No archaeologist in this

country or from any country can undertake an archaeological expedition at a historical site of

88 Mandal, Dhaneshwar (2003). Ayodhya, Archaeology After Demolition: A Critique of the "new" and "fresh"

Discoveries. Orient Blackswan. 89 B B Lal(2002): “Historicity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana: What Has Archaeology to Say in the Matter?” in S Settar and R Korisettar (ed.),

CLASS 4761 : Final Paper Name: Athith Krishna

Spring 2015 Net-id : ak857

16

importance without permission or licence from the ASI. The finds and researches as well as the

determination and conclusion of any archaeological or other expert in this field is not normally

recognised unless it has been scrutinised by ASI and after approval by it is also published in the

regular journals of ASI”90. Academically speaking, the work that ASI has produced over the

years has little or no value within the social sciences communities in India and internationally.

The ASI excavates annually because there exists a central government budget for it, and not for

the purpose of academic research in archeology91.

Therefore a major impact on the ASI excavations has been the ruling government at the centre

and the lack of research in the ASI, which leads to its flawed operational methods.

Conclusion : Was there a temple?

After all the discussion, we have been able to prove the possible absence of temple based on the

given evidence. But, we have missed a lot more of the evidence that was probably neglected by

the ASI due to its out-dated investigation methods. ASI being under the control of the central

government of India, will not be able to give an unbiased result until it is made an independent

body. The Indian Supreme Court stay order on the judgement given by the High Court gives us

the sense that the judiciary is looking for more concrete evidence for the presence or absence of a

temple. This means that we can expect another set of excavations of the site in the near future.

Being a part of the academia, we should expect that this excavation is carried out after making

ASI an independent body, and bringing it up to the technological advancements in the field of

Archaeology. As of now, all we could do is hope that the previous findings are made available to

the public so that the students of archeology can make themselves familiar to the actual context

of the subject rather than referring to biased sources which have just expressed their personal

opinions rather than actual findings at the site.

90 Full Ayodhya Judgement 2010, Justice Sudhir Agarwal section 91 Chadha, A (2007): “Performing Science, Producing Nation: Archaeology and the State in Postcolonial India”, PhD Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford.