Back to Article List
Was there a temple in Janmabhumi area preceding Babri Masjid?
by B B Lal on 24 Sep 2010 23 Comments

[Suddenly on Thursday, 23 Sept., hours before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court was to deliver the long-awaited judgment on the Ayodhya title suit, the Supreme Court deferred the verdict till September 28; further delays are now inevitable. We are of the view that the sudden intervention by the apex Court was unwarranted in law, and will vitiate the atmosphere for the disposal of politically or communally sensitive cases in future.

 

[Prof B.B. Lal excavated the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya as a part of a project titled ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites.’ One trench was immediately to the south of and almost parallel to the boundary wall of the Babari Masjid, the intermediary space being hardly four metres. The lowest levels in this trench was characterized by early Northern Black Polished Ware, and on the basis of Carbon-14 dates provided by the Birbal Sahni Research Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, the beginning of settlement at Ayodhya goes back to the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BCE. We publish excerpts – Editor]

 

In the uppermost levels of this trench, hardly 50 centimetres below the surface, were encountered rows of pillar-bases, squarish on plan and made of brick-bats sometimes intermixed with a few stones. While most of these bases were well within the trench, a few of them lay underneath the edge of the trench towards the boundary wall of the Masjid. Associated with the pillar-base-complex there were successive floors made of lime mixed with brick jelly. No coin or inscription was found on these floors but on the basis of the associated pottery and other antiquities the entire complex could be dated from the twelfth to fifteenth century CE.

 

Attached to the piers of the Babari Masjid there were twelve stone pillars which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings but also figures of Hindu deities. It was self-evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid but were foreign to it. Since, as already stated, the pillar-bases were penetrating into the Masjid-complex, a question naturally arose whether these bases had anything to do with the above-mentioned pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid.

 

A summary report on the essentials of the excavations at Ayodhya was published in Indian Archaeology 1976-77 – A Review, pp. 52-53. Since the main objective of the excavation was to ascertain the antiquity of the settlement, the brief report in the Review did not make any mention of these pillar-bases. In fact, these had nothing to do with the main enquiry.

 

However, since these pillar-bases raised a question about their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid, which evidently had originally belonged to a Hindu temple, these did draw public attention. The first reaction that came up from a certain category of historians was to deny the very existence of these pillar-bases. Their approach was simple: if there were no pillar-bases, the question of their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Babari Masjid became automatically redundant. These historians took recourse to publishing all sorts of unsavoury comments in the newspapers. However, when they were told that the pillar-bases were not someone’s fantasy but their photographs (along with the negatives), taken at the time of the excavation, did exist in the photo-archives of the Excavations Branch of the Archaeological Survey of India, they gave up their first exercise in denial…

 

In this context it needs to be added that, after a recent order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the Archaeological Survey of India carried out excavation in the area which earlier lay underneath the Babari Masjid and has discovered that the series of pillar-bases continues all over the area…

On December 6, 1992, the Masjid was demolished by the Kar Sevaks who had assembled in a large number at the site. The demolition, though regrettable, brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick walls of the Masjid. From the published reports it is gathered that there were more than 200 specimens which included many sculptured panels and architectural components which must have once constituted parts of the demolished temple. Besides, there were three inscriptions…  

 

…the largest one is engraved on a stone slab, measuring 1.10 x .56 metres, and consists of 20 lines. It has since been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-93), pp. 35 ff. (Professor Shastri, who unfortunately is no more, was 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 has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance for our purpose here. 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-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akritam nripatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alayani) 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 makes it abundantly clear that there did exist at the site a temple datable to circa 11th-12th century CE. The sculptures and inscribed slab that came out from within the walls of the Masjid belonged to this very temple. It has been contented by certain historians that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slab were brought by the Kar Sevaks from somewhere else and surreptitiously placed there at the time of the demolition of the Masjid. This contention is absolutely baseless. Transportation of the above-mentioned material from elsewhere would have required the use of many trucks, an act which would have certainly been noticed by the innumerable representatives of the print and electronic media present on the spot to cover the event. On the other hand, a reputed journal, India Today, published in its issue dated December 31, 1992 a photograph which shows the Kar Sevaks carrying on their shoulders a huge stone-slab sculpted with a long frieze, after having picked it up from the debris.

 

The above-mentioned historians have also alleged that the inscription has been forged. … So many eminent epigraphists of the country have examined the inscribed slab and not even one of them is of the view that the inscription is forged. Anyway, to allay any misgivings, I append here a Note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey of India, Dr. K.V. Ramesh.

 

… according to [Ramesh] this temple was built by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala [i.e. the Ayodhya region] through the grace of a senior Lord of the earth, viz. Govinda Chandra of the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE.

 

… The evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janma Bhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a ceratin category of historians and archaeologists - and others of the same ilk - is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has revealed itself.

 

[Reprinted with permission from:-

Rama: His Historicity, Mandir and Setu. Evidence of Literature, Archaeology and other Sciences; B.B. Lal; Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2008.

Email: aryanbooks@vsnl.com]
User Comments Post a Comment
More Indians should know about these facts - Indians - Hindu and Muslim - so they can understand why Hindus are upset with the mosque over their temple.
B Shah
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
[Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992]


WAS THERE a temple beneath the Babri Masjid? Having examined the records of excavations conducted by Prof. B.B.Lal, former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the seventies at the Ayodhya site, preserved at the Purana Qila office of the ASI, a team of four historians and archaeologists came to the conclusion that there was no proof of it. They explained their findings and conclusions at the press conference held at the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), New Delhi, on October 23,1992. The experts: Prof. R.S. Sharma, former Chairman of the ICHR; Prof. M. Athar Ali (Rtd.) Department of History, Aligarh University; Prof. Suraj Bhan (Rtd.), Professor of History, Kurukshetra University; and Prof. D.N. Jha, Professor of History, University of Delhi. They had earlier been to Ayodhya and made on-the-spot studies of the Ayodhya excavation site.

The new material evidence relates to excavations done by Prof. B.B. Lal over 11 years ago in areas in the vicinity of the Babri Masjid. Prof. Lal has since published a series of documents on results of his studies. He made an announcement recently that brick base found in the vicinity of the masjid could be meant for sustaining pillars and therefore suggest the existence of a temple-like structure south of the Babri masjid. The BJP is taking it as the basic evidence for the existence of a temple where the masjid stands.

The experts examined the site notebook and register of antiquities connected with the Ayodhya excavations, studied the drawings, plans, photographs, and excavated material and found that the recent claim of Prof. Lal regarding the existence of a mandir-like structure was unsubstantiated. The existence of a brick base for pillars does not prove that it could be of a temple. If there was a temple, at least some articles related to the temple could have been found during the excavations. No such evidence had been found by Prof. Lal.

Even in his own report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and in 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated “several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been sighted, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest.” The later medieval period indicated 17th-l8th centuries. If remains of a structure of 17th-l8th centuries, are found outside the masjid area, how do they prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the early 16th century? the experts asked. They also point out that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or roof material of the supposed temple at the site where the brick pillar base stood. The mere presence of pillar bases does not make out a case for the existence of a temple.

Interestingly, pieces of glazed ware pottery were unearthed from the trenches above the floors associated with the brick-pillar base structure and immediately below the general floor of the Babri Masjid. It is an accepted fact that Islamic glazed-ware pottery has never been used in Hindu temple. The presence of the glazed pottery shows that as in other parts of Ayodhya, this site also was inhabited by Muslims around the thirteenth century, and the pillar structure could have been anything but a temple, had already fallen down and gone out of use before the Muslim habitation.

Now about the black basalt stone-pillars used in the four arches of the Masjid. VHP argues that they formed part of the temple which was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the graveyard nearby. All these differ in their style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules out the possibility of their being an integral part of any single structure. Such pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. Besides, the pillar bases existing at a distance of about 60 feet to the south of the Babri Masjid structure are in alignment with the pillars used in the Babri Masjid. They could have been part of a veranda or a dwelling place or an animal shed and are of no importance as such structures could be found in the area even now. Thus, archeological evidence so far suggests the existence of Muslim habitation proximal to the Masjid from the 13th century onwards. [Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992]
observer
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
I am amazed that it should still be deemed necessary to keep asserting that temple was destroyed at the site where the mosque was built. We may equally dispute the destruction of the Babri Masjid by Kar Sevaks on December 6, 1992. We can say no mosque ever existed there. The truths should be acknowledged before any negotiations can be conducted. We cannot have lasting peace on a foundation of lies. The destruction of truth is a greater crime than the destruction of any structure. So settle the truth before any negotiation. Shift the debate to the truth about temple destructions rather than focus on a single site and a single structure. Debate the ideology.
NSR
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
The whole system is thoroughly screwed up by Congies. If it were the other way, decision would have been there long back. With the evidence of temple underneath this structure, there should be no delay in decision or efforts of reconciliation or compromise. Hindus must continue to assert and fight for this, besides throwing out Congies out of power.
Kamal
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Postponement is clearly an act of Muslim appeasement. Any ruling not in favor of Hindus in the Ayodhya case, or a postponement of such, is the avoidance of the truth.
Om
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
It's final - I don't want to live specially as a Hindu if in Hindu
majority Hindusthan even after 500 years when Uzbekistani invader Babur from Farghana in Central Asia came and broke our beloved Ram Temple at Ayodhya, we can't rebuilt a descent Mandir. Who wants peace - we need respect for Hindus as wherever Hindus are minority there is separatism like in Kashmir, Punjab or Christian states of Northeast India. Hence, to save India as Country Hindu Nation must be preserved and maintain majority by hook or by crook. Bihar or Jharkhand inspite of being poorest states are not shouting Azadi as these are Hindu majority while per capita income in Kashmir & northeast is much higher than them.
Suraj
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Ramlala ke suno Pukar, Mandir nirman suru kar! Jai Sri Ram!
Jai Sri Ramjanmabhoomi! 500 sal bad kal ayi he nyay ke samayIse byarth na karna
Suraj
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Strangely Congress Party has applauded the Supreme Court intervention, which perhaps has been prompted and influenced by the ruling clique, to avoid unsettled conditions anticipated after the judgement
Kumar
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
B Lal findings clearly speaks pillars and scripted Hindu deities on those pillars, while our friend observers findings is purely based on pillars but no where he counters that pillars had Hindu deities scripted on it. So his article too accept B Lal's findings.

So from where observer has taken this article is utter fake and was created just to divert the findings of B Lal.

So Hindus are focusing on pillar with Hindu deities and not just pillar as mentioned in observer findings. Next time kar Sevak must destroy this mosque and as asked by another friend on this form let court take another 125 years to decide what this mosque was destroyed by Kar Sevak or what?
Jay Kumar
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
The postponed verdict is nothing but injustice in the name of justice. People come to courts for getting justice. Already this matter is delayed for more than sixty years. And to delay it further on the pretext of giving further time for reconciliation and that too on the request of a third party when the two parties to the dispute want judgment, is nothing but torturous and that too at a time when one of the judges is retiring on 1st October.
Vasant
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Excellent write. Thanks Vijayvaani, more of this needs to be brought out in the public domain.
The problem with observer is the problem with Muslims world wide. Mr? Ms Observer stick to Kabba and your religion do not dare try to encroach on Hindusism or try to tell us that it was a mosque, good idea is that you restrain yourself otherwise be ready to face the truth of the destruction that the Muslims caused.
You and your research is not weanted we Hindus surely want a Ram temple there. BJP has cheated the entire Hindu Samaaj on the issue still each Hindu will want only Ram Mandir followed by mathura, Kashi etc.
Instead of teaching your baked research learn what the Muslims had to face when the Spanish finally decided to teach them a lesson!!
India is ours you can vacate and go to pakistan or better still saudi Arabia.
Kamakshi S
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Prof Lals panoramic and deep work has been complemented by deep research on one hand and scientific dating on the other. The truth will not change just becuse Muslims stake claim or destroy temples in India from Kashmir to the South.
The edvent of Islam or the looter and maulder Mohd Gaznavi is recorded history. Islamic era and its tyranny on the Hindus. Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Teg Bhadur are witness to the fight against the barbaric muslim regies in India. Whether it was destrucytion of temples or killing of people, Hundreds of temples in Kashmir have been destroyed and thousands killed. It was then that Guru Saheb Teg Bhadur rose to fight the Muslims and attained matyrdoom.
In 1990's another 200 plus temples have been destroyed by the jehadi mentality in Kashmir Valley alone and now some observer will justify that that the sites are Muslim.
Arise and awake to the Islamic barbarism mr observer and the truth of destruction.
Not only one Ram Mandir, we want each temple each place.
Shiban Tiku
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkar announced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”

“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.”
So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.

When Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him with Judas. The writing was on the wall. The divide was evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims.

The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu & Kashmir.
observer
September 24, 2010
Report Abuse
"Thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays" Quiz, some one is doing like this now , with a different time table.
George
September 25, 2010
Report Abuse
Timely, informative piece. Thanks Shri B B Lal for your efforts and Vijayvani for sharing.
sanjeev nayyar
September 25, 2010
Report Abuse
Let us not forget what they did to "Golden Temple",probably that was also a hindu shrine in past? Like some people have already started to claim that "Taj Mahal" was a hindu temple,that is incredible....it beats all logic,its beyond funny!
observer
September 25, 2010
Report Abuse
Shri Ramchandraji, has been in the minds of Indians through generations and would rank No. 1 in popularity. Muslims should help the Hindu brothers to construct the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, which is a matter of faith and belief for millions of Indians.
In return a Mosque may be constructed. This could be located in the Shanti Van, forest of peace, near the memorial of India's great leader and first prime minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru, the father of institutional democracy of the country, who always advocated and worked for a secular, equal and free society. This would be a fitting tribute to Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru and what he stood for.
sarathy.amudhan
September 26, 2010
Report Abuse
What crap all these Babri Masjid and existence of temple. What the heck was there before the temple? Wasn't that place invaded and acquired from the earliest settlers by the Hindus? So, who should fight over this?
BAN THE RELIGION AND LET US ALL LIVE IN PEACE AND HARMONY. Else believe in some crap and fight, kill each other and think you will go to heaven!!!

None of us are worried about each of our taxpayer money is eaten by politicians, but fight for something which is absolutely unnecessary.
Atheist
September 26, 2010
Report Abuse
Babar had no business to come marauding into India in the first place. Having come in he arrogantly disrespected and denigrated evrything home grown - faith, language and culture. He tried to impose his symbols on the land and people of India. Muslims of India now must reject Babar as a part of their identity and teach aq lesson to their fanatic arabized clerics and mullahs
guru
September 27, 2010
Report Abuse
Jai Shriram, Consider this small case: Hagia Sophia is a mosque in Instanbul (basically Constantinople). But before it was a mosque, it was a christian basilica that was built by
the byzantine emperor Justinian. After the Islamic invasion, a
successful one, they added minarets to the basilica and called it a mosque, for whose beauty muslims take pride in (*falsely*), just as they changed the name of Constantinople to Istanbul.
This parallels the Islamic invasion and the subsequent changes they made to Hindu Architectures and Hindu Leitmotifs here.
The world knows and the global Islamic civilization acknowledges that Hagia Sophia is indeed a basilica and was as beautiful as it is now then too. The christian civilization is strong enough to make Islamics believe the truth as it is. But we Hindus? History always repeats, specially the episodes of Islamic conquests and the modifications they did to the local motifs always remain the same. They did not have even the basic creativity to deviate from the standard policy they clone at every place. Taj Mahal, Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, Golconda fort, ... all would stand as mute witnesses to dumb audiences.
Saint
September 29, 2010
Report Abuse
Whatever the case may be whether there existed a temple before the masjid or not, what % of the so called Hindus had access to the temple in the feudal cast system era of India? What was there before the temple? Who was the first settlers of the land? Was there anything demolished and constructed the temple? Who wants to fight over that? Who is going to win? The majority of poor or the middle class Indians? We loose a few days of job and our earnings. Some fundamentalists get richer and richer with political gains.

We don't need a temple or a masjid there. We should build a state of the art government owned hospital there with contributions from the GOD fearing Hindus or Muslims or any other community and give healthcare for free.

Otherwise, we will fight over that and divide our community and loose our friends and relatives either by communal violence or over the psychological war between us on some F#@%ing CRAP, none of us wanted to have. Ban all the religions and religious place, and let all of us do some productive work which can benefit all of us and live in harmony and peace.

--PeacelovingIndian
peacelovingindian
September 30, 2010
Report Abuse
Your article perfectly shows what I nedeed to know, thanks!
Taha
April 01, 2012
Report Abuse
9kUJ7H , [url=http://wwwechfvprrs.com/]wwwechfvprrs[/url], [link=http://mucvzqxjmuup.com/]mucvzqxjmuup[/link], http://xlgcraybtioz.com/
lbyddtykl
April 03, 2012
Report Abuse
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Name
E-Mail
Comments