By: Historian R.S.Sharma
Did a temple of Rama or any other temple exist and if it did, was it destroyed by Mir Baqui? The original text of the Baburnama does not mention the destruction of any temple, and its missing pages cover only three days that fall in the Hizn year 935 (AD 152829) in which the mosque was constructed. It is incredible that the temple was destroyed and the mosque constructed in such a short period. Had Mir Baqui demolished the temple he would have boasted of his iconoclastic achievement in the inscription he recorded Pillars.
The 14 black basalt stone pillars embedded in the mosque are considered to be Paris of the temple which is supposed to have been destroyed and replaced by the mosque. But these pillars have not been found in situ, and their height of 5 1/2 ft. on an average cannot make them loadbearing. Evidently they belong to a period of 9th to 12th centuries, and have been brought from outside to decorate the mosque. Such examples are found elsewhere. The Chola Bohadishvara temple of Thanjavur has some pillars brought from a Nolamba temple in Karnataka, The Pala pillars are used in the doorframe of an early 17th century mosque in Gujri Mahallain Patna City. It is argued that the carvings of the pillars show Vaishnava affiliation, but how can we think of Vishnu without the representation of Shankha, chakra, gada and padma? The depiction of yanamala or garland does not specifically establish Vaishnava connections because it is used by several other deities. Pillar bases: The supporters of the temple theory argue that the five pillar bases found in a trench of 197677 constitute the part of a temple which was destroyed, though Professor B.B.Lal, the excavator, does not consider the pillar based structure to be a temple. The pillar bases are made of brickbats, and the floor on which the pillar base stand lies at a distance of 60 ft. towards the south from the mosque and is substantially lower than the floor of the mosque. The pillar bases suggest an independent structure, and the trench where they occur shows the glazed ware used by the Muslims in the 13th century.
It is argued that there were no Muslims in Ayodhya before the coming of Mir Baqui. But the find of Islamic pottery in this trench as well as in the neighboring areas clearly proves that the mosque was built to cater to the religious needs of the Muslims who had been living there from the 13th century onwards. Its construction was not a sudden event without any rhyme or reason.
In the summer of 1992 the champions of the temple theory claimed to have made new archacological discoveries’ in the course of the operation for the construction of achabutara. These have been illustrated in a lavishly produced pamphlet called Ramajanma Bhumi; Ayodhya, published by Prof. K.S.Lal. Chance finds are of value for his to nians though a site may not have been dug on scientific archacological lines. But here the case is entirely different. Disappointed by the results of explorations undertaken by the U.P. Archaeological Director, R.C.Singh, and excavations by Prof, A.K.Narain and B.B.Lal, the VHP protagonists deliberately dug up the controversial site. A proposal to dig below the mosque did not materialize and hence they took to indiscriminate PWD light excavation in the area outside the fencing of the mosque. Since archacological excavation requires academic and scientific rigor they feared that this would not serve their purpose. But how can we rely on antiquities supposed to have been discovered from a hotly disputed site, where the minimum scientific conditions for excavations were not observed and where neither the critics of the temple theory nor the archaeologists of the Central Government were asked to be present on the spot at the time of actual digging? How can we trust a photographic illustration of a debris in which stone pieces were neatly placed on a wooden plank in a pit for being photographed, Nothing is said about the strati graphical relationship of these pieces with the brick pillared structure exposed by Prof.B.B.Lal or black stone pillars used in the Babar Masjid.
Even if we condone the unpardonable act of violating the canons of field archaeology and take cognizance of the stone antiquities illustrated in the VHP: pamphlet, we nowhere come near the imaginary temple. The stone antiquities comprise two pieces of amalakas, a few pieces of comices and a decorative door frame. All these constitute a curious assortment of stone objects typical of various places, and of periods ranging from 7th to the 16th centuries. Some of them show Mughal influence.
The authenticity of the two pieces of amalaka, which adoms the spire of a temple, cannot be verified by any means because their exact location has not been given. Stone amalakas are neither typical of the brick temples in Eastern UP nor of those found anywhere else, In UP they appear only in the stone temples of the hilly areas of Garhwal, Kumaon, etc. Therefore the presence of stone amalakas in Ayodhya, which does not show any evidence of stone temples in the 11th12th centuries, is extremely puzzling. Similarly stone cornices, which are also. Always belong to stone temples and not to brick temples. But there is nothing to show by way of plinth or foundation trench that a stone temple ever existed. Dashavatara panel to support the presence of a temple only photographs of some sculptural and architectural pieces are being presented, Take the case of the so-called Dashayatara panel. We are not given any idea about its exact provenance. The panel is intriguing because it contains the figure of a woman which has no place in a tengod incarnation panel. One of the figures is identified as Pashurama, and it is argued that the figure of Parshurama was preceded by that of Rama Dasarathi which was removed. According to the texts as well as actual representations of the tengod panel Rama always follows Parshurama and never precedes him, Thus even if we take notice of the unverifiable VHP ‘new archaeological discoveries’ attributed to Ayodhya they do not prove the presence of a temple at the Babri site. Faith: When the VHP experts find that their arguments regarding the presence of the temple and the location of the birthplace of Rama are untenable historically and archacologically they advance the excuse of faith. The Hindus believes that the birthplace of Rama lay at the site of Babari Masjid, they argue. In support they cite the Skanda Purana which has been Subjected to interpolations annul the 18th century, Even then we may consider the Ayodhya mahatmya found in the Skanda Purana, The Ayodhya section is full of internal contradictions because it has been compiled by several hands at different times. It uses both Janmasthana and Janmabhumi for the birthplace of Rama. Even if the two are taken to be identical the Ayodhya Mahatmya information about the location of the birthplace does not take us to the Babri Masjid site, Both the Vrindabana and Bodelian versions of the Mahatmya mention compass directions and distances of Rama’s birthplace from a few Ayodhya sites which can be identified locally. The directions and distances have been checked, and’ it has been found that the Rama janmasthana site lies somewhere west between Rinamochanaghat and Brahmakunda, close to the bed of the Sarayu. It does not lie at the Babari Masjid site. Therefore the Hindu faith and belief as found in the Ayodhya Mahatmya of the Skanda Purana completely excludes the site of the Babri Masjid. It is significant that the Janmasthana if not mentioned ¢yen once in any itinerary of pilgrimage given in the Mahatmya, Really the Svargadwara tirtha. Associated with the passing away of Rama, was far more important in the eyes of the compilers of the Pilgrimage section than the Janmasthana, The Ayodhya mahalmya of the printed version of the Skanda Purana devotes 100 Verses to the description of the Svargadwara and gives only eight verses to the description of the Janmasthana. Therefore according to the Hindu belief held in the 18th and 19th centuries the Janmasthana was neither considered important nor assigned to the Babari Masjid site, : Since neither faith nor historical and archaeological grounds help the VHP, they demand digging below the Masjid. Historians and archaeologists would certainly oppose senseless. excavations which are Meant to exacerbate ethnic and religious passions, and destroy structures of cultural and historical importance, Courtesy of Muslim India.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 22, 1993
