[Reader-list] Fw: ayodhya

[vidya shah]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Parthiv Shah 
To: vidya at breakthrough.tv 
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: ayodhya






Statement on 
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA'S 
REPORT ON AYODHYA 
The report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) 
submitted to the Ramajanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Bench of 
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, on 22 September and 
released on 25 September 2003, is an absolutely 
unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, 
one-sided presentations of evidence, fraudulent 
falsifications and motivated inferences. Its only aim 
is to so ignore and twist the evidence as to make it 
suit its "conclusions" tailored to support the 
fictions of the Sangh Parivar about the previous 
existence of a temple. The following is a list of the 
ASI's major acts of omission and commission: 
FORGETTING THE BONES 
One decisive piece of evidence, which entirely negates 
the possibility of a temple, is that of animal bones. 
Bone fragments with cut marks are a sure sign of 
animals being eaten at the site, and, therefore, rule 
out a temple existing at the site at the time. The 
Report in its "Summary of Results" admits that "animal 
bones have been recovered from various levels of 
different periods" (Report, p.270). Any serious 
archaeological report would have tabulated the bones, 
by periods, levels and trenches, and identified the 
species of the animals (which in bulk seem to be of 
sheep and goats). There should, indeed, have been a 
chapter devoted to animal remains. But despite the 
statement in its "Summary", there is no word about the 
animal bones in the main text. This astonishing 
omission is patently due to the ASI's fear of the 
fatal implications held out by the animal bone 
evidence for the temple theory. 
GLAZED WARE 
The glazed ware, often called "Muslim" glazed ware, 
constitutes an equally definite piece of evidence, 
which militates against the presence or construction 
of a temple, since such glazed ware was not at all 
used in temples. The ware is all-pervasive till much 
below the level of "Floor No.4", that is falsely 
ascribed in the Report to the "huge" structure of a 
temple allegedly built in the 11th-12th centuries. The 
Report tells us that the glazed ware sherds only "make 
their appearance" "in the last phase of the (sic) 
period VII" (p.270). Here we directly encounter the 
"Period Fraud" of the Report (see below). On this page 
(270), Period VII is called "Medieval Sultanate", 
dated 12th-16th century A.D. But on 
1 
p.40 "Medieval-Sultanate" is the name for Period VI, 
dated 10th and 11th 
centuries. In Chapter V (Pottery), there is no 
statement made at all to the effect that the glazed 
ware appears in "the last phase of Period VII" as is 
asserted in the Summary. Rather, it is there 
definitely stated that "the pottery of 
Medieval-Sultanate, Mughal and Late-and-Post Mughal 
period (Periods VII to IX)... indicates that there is 
not much difference in pottery wares and shapes" and 
that "the distinctive pottery of the periods is glazed 
ware" (p.108). How the "Summary" obtained its "last 
phase" can only be guessed at: perhaps at some stage 
it had been conceded that the glazed ware was also 
found in Period VI (also "Medieval -Sultanate") and 
was then prudently put in its "last phase", because 
otherwise it would militate against a temple being 
built in that period. All this gross manipulation has 
been possible because not a single item of glazed 
pottery is attributed to its trench and stratum in the 
select list of 21 (out of hundreds of items actually 
obtained) items of glazed ware on pages 109-111. 
Seeing the importance of glazed ware as a factor for 
elementary dating (pre-or post-Muslim habitation at 
the site), a tabulation of all recorded glazed-ware 
sherds according to trench and stratum was essential. 
That this has been entirely disregarded shows that the 
glazed-ware evidence being totally incompatible with 
any temple construction activity in Period VI, could 
not simply be provided. 
Even as the Report stands (going not by its "Summary", 
but by the description in the main text, p.108), the 
presence of Glazed Ware throughout Period VII 
(Medieval, 12th-16th centuries) rules out what is 
asserted on page 41, that a "column-based structure" - 
the alleged 50-pillar temple - was built in this 
period. How could Muslims have been using glazed ware 
inside a temple? 
THE "PERIOD" FRAUD 
The ASI's Report is so lacking in elementary integrity 
that it tries to achieve its object by manipulating 
nomenclature. In Chapter III, "Stratigraphy and 
Chronology" it has names for Periods VI and VII that 
are coolly altered in the other Chapters in order 
simply to transfer inconvenient material of Period VI 
to Period VII and thus make Period VI levels purely 
"Hindu". On pages 30-41, the nomenclature for Periods 
V, VI and VII is given as follows: 
Period V: Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th to 10th Century 
Period VI: Medieval -Sultanate, 11th-12th Century 
Period VII: Medieval, 12th-16th Century 
Now let us turn to "Summary of Results" (pp.268-9). 
Here the nomenclature is altered as follows:- 
Period V: Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th-10th century AD 
Period VI: Early medieval, 11th-12th century 
Period VII: Medieval-Sultanate, 12th-16th century 
This transference of "Medieval-Sultanate" from Period 
VI to Period VII has the advantage of ignoring 
Islamic-period materials like Glazed ware or 
lime-mortar bonding by removing them arbitrarily from 
Period VI levels to those of Period VII so that their 
actual presence in those levels need not embarrass the 
ASI in its 
2 
placing the construction of a "massive" or "huge" 
temple in Period VI. The device is nothing but a 
manipulative fraud. 
THE "MASSIVE" FANTASY 
While digging up the Babri Masjid, the excavators 
found four floors were found, numbered, upper to 
lower, as Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, Floor No.4 being the 
lowest and so the oldest. Floor No.3 is linked to the 
foundation walls of the Babri Masjid - the ASI's 
"demolished" or "disputed structure" - built in 1528. 
Floor No.4 is described by the Report as "a floor of 
lime mixed with fine clay and brick crush", i.e. a 
typically Muslim style surkhi and lime-mortar bonded 
floor. It is obviously the floor of an earlier mosque 
(qanati or open mosque or an idgah); and a mihrab and 
taq were also found in the associated foundation wall 
(not, of course, mentioned in the ASI's report). Such 
a floor, totally Muslim on "stylistic grounds" (a 
favourite formula in the Report), is turned by the ASI 
into a temple floor, "over which a column-based 
structure was built". (On this latter assertion, see 
below: "Pillar-less Pillar Bases.") No single example 
is offered by the ASI of any temple of pre-Mughal 
times having such a lime-mortar surkhi floor, though 
one would think that this is an essential requirement 
when a purely Muslim structure is being appropriated 
as a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has occurred 
(page 41), we are then asked to imagine a "Massive 
Structure Below the Disputed Structure", the massive 
structure being a temple. It is supposed to have stood 
upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures 23, 
23A and 23B), it has been "reconstructed". (Though one 
may still feel that it was hardly "massive" when one 
compares Figure 23 (showing Babri Masjid before 
demolition) and Figure 23B (showing the reconstructed 
temple with 50 imaginary pillars!) Now, according to 
the ASI's Report, this massive structure with 46 of 
its alleged 50 pillars was built in Period VII, the 
Period of the Delhi Sultans, Sharqi rulers and Lodi 
Sultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the Grand 
Temple, to the "Muslim" period is not by choice, but 
because of the presence of "Muslim" style materials 
and techniques all through. This, given the Sangh's 
view of medieval Indian history, must have been a 
bitter pill for the ASI's mentors to accept; and, 
therefore, there is all the more reason for them to 
imagine a still earlier structure assignable to an 
earlier time. Of this structure, however, only four 
alleged "pillar bases", with "foundations" below Floor 
4, have been found; and it is astonishing that this 
should be sufficient to ascribe them to 10th -11th 
century and to assume that they all belong to one 
structure. That structure is proclaimed as "huge", 
extending nearly 50 metres separate the pillar-bases 
at the extremes. Four "pillar bases" can hardly have 
held such a long roof; and if any one tried it on them 
it is not surprising that the result was "short-lived" 
(p.269). All of this seems a part of the VHP kind of 
propagandist archaeology than a report from a body 
called the Archaeological Survey of India. 
Before we leave this matter, a small point. The four 
alleged pillar bases dated to 11th-12th centuries are 
said "to belong to this level with a brick crush 
floor". 
3 
Really! Surkhi in Gahadavala times! Any examples, 
please? None! Now one can see why it had been 
necessary to call this period (Period V) "Medieval 
-Sultanate" (p.40) though it is actually 
pre-Sultanate, being dated 11th-12th century. By 
clubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, 
the surkhi is sought to be explained; but if so, the 
"huge" structure too must come to a time after 1206, 
for, apparently unknown to ASI, the Delhi Sultanate 
was only established in that year. And so the earlier 
allegedly "huge" temple too must have been built when 
the Sultans ruled! 
Since the entire basis of the supposed "huge" and 
"massive" temple-structures preceding the demolished 
mosque lies in the alleged "pillar bases" it is time 
to consider what these really are and what they imply. 
PILLAR-LESS "PILLAR BASES" 
One must first remember that what are said by the ASI 
to be pillar bases are one or more calcrete stones 
resting upon brickbats, bonded with mud or just heaped 
up. In many the calcrete stones are not found at all. 
As one can see from the descriptive table on pages 
56-67 of the Report not a single one of these supposed 
"pillar bases" has been found in association with any 
pillar or even a fragment of it; and there are no 
marks or indentation or hollows on any of the calcrete 
stones to show that any pillar had rested on them. The 
ASI Report nowhere attempts to answer the questions 
(1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at the 
base, and (2) how mud-bonded brickbats could have 
possibly withstood the weight of roof-supporting 
pillars without themselves falling apart. 
Despite the claims of these "pillar bases" being in 
alignment and their being so shown in fancy drawings 
(Figures 23, 23A and 23B), the Report is curiously 
chary of giving a detailed grided plan showing each 
base in relation to a set of others on a scale 
sufficient for one to check whether their positions 
are in alignment. This was especially important since 
there were objections raised that the ASI was ignoring 
calcrete-topped brickbat heaps where these were not 
found in appropriate positions and selected only such 
brickbat heaps as were not too far-off from its 
imaginary grids. 
But the most astonishing thing that the ASI so 
casually brushes aside relates to the varying levels 
at which the "pillar-bases" stand. Even if we go by 
the ASI's own descriptive table, as many as seven of 
these 50 "bases" are definitely above Floor 2, and one 
is level with it. At least six rest on Floor 3, and 
one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since these are 
undisputedly floors of the Mosque, how come that so 
many pillars were erected after they had been laid out 
--- in order to sustain a temple structure over them! 
More, as many as nine "pillar bases" are shown as 
cutting through Floor No.3. So, are we to understand 
that when the Mosque floor was laid out, the pillar 
bases were not floored over? It is thus clear that 
what we have are simply not "pillar bases" at all, but 
some kind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits, which 
continued to be laid right from Floors 4 to Floor 1. 
Dr Ashok Dutta of Kolkata University, an 
archaeologist, who was among those who volunteered to 
watch the doings of the ASI during the excavations, 
has given 
4 
an explanation for these brick-bat deposits, which 
offers a clear and elegant explanation. When the 
surkhi- lime mortar bonded Floor No.4 was being laid 
out over the mound sometime during the Sultanate 
period, its builders must have had to level the mound 
properly. The hollows and depressions then had to be 
filled by brickbats topped by calcrete stones (often 
bonded with lime mortar) to fill them and enable the 
floor to be laid. When in time Floor 4 went out of 
repair, its holes had similarly to be filled up in 
order to lay out Floor 3. And so again when Floor 3 
decayed, similar deposits of brickbats had to be made 
to fill the holes in order to lay out Floor 2 (or, 
indeed, just to have a level surface). This explains 
why the "pillar bases" appear to "cut through" both 
Floors 3 and 4, at some places, and at others "cut 
through" Floor 3 or Floor 4 only. They are mere 
deposits to fill up holes in the floors. Since such 
repairs were needed in time all over the floors, these 
brickbat deposits are widely dispersed. Had not the 
ASI been so struck by the necessity of finding pillars 
and "pillar bases" to please its masters, which had to 
be in a proper alignment, it could have found 
scattered over the ground not just fifty but perhaps 
over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats. A 
real embarrassment of riches of "pillar bases", that 
is - only they are not pillar bases. 
THE CIRCULAR ILLUSION 
Much is made in the ASI's Report of the "Circular 
Shrine" (pages 70-71), again with fanciful figured 
interpretations of the existing debris (Figs.24 and 
24A). Comparisons with circular Shaivite and 
Vaishnavite shrines (Fig.18) are immediately made. The 
ASI had no thought, of course, of comparing it with 
circular walls and buildings of Muslim construction - 
a very suggestive omission. The surviving wall, even 
in ASI's own drawing makes only a quarter of circle, 
and such shapes are fairly popular in walls of Muslim 
construction. And then there are Muslim-built domed 
circular buildings. But even if we forget the 
curiously one-eyed nature of ASI's investigations, let 
us first consider the size of the alleged "shrine". 
Though there is no reason to complete the circle as 
the ASI does, the circular shrine, given the scale of 
the Plan (Figure 17 in the Report), would have an 
internal diameter of just160 cms. or barely 5½ feet! 
Such a small "shrine" can hardly be worth writing home 
about. It goes without saying that, as admitted by the 
ASI itself, nothing has been found in the structure 
that can justify it being called a shrine. 
STRAY "TEMPLE" FINDS 
No Vaishnavite images have been found. All finds are 
stray ones or, as with the black schist pillar, 
visible within it when the Masjid had stood but broken 
by the Karsevaks (who says they love temple remains!) 
and buried in the Masjid debris in 1992. Whatever 
little in stone has come out (as one decorated stone 
or inscribed slab-used in a wall), like stones with 
"foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapadi door jamb with 
semi-circular pilaster, lotus motif," (p.271), are in 
total very few, and all easily explicable as belonging 
to ruins elsewhere and 
5 
brought for re-use. The extremely short list that the 
ASI is able to compile shows that they did not come 
from any "massive" temple at the site, but brought 
randomly from different earlier ruins. 
SAFFRONISED ARCHAEOLOGY 
The bias, partisanship and saffronised outlook of the 
ASI's Report takes one's breath away. In almost 
everything the lack of elementary archaeological 
controls is manifest. The one-page carbon-date report, 
without any description of material, strata and 
comments by the laboratory, is meaningless, and open 
to much misuse. There has been no thermoluminescence 
(TL) dating of the pottery; no carbon-dating of the 
animal or human bones. No care has been exercised in 
chronology, and Period I "Northern Black Polished 
Ware" has been pushed back to 1000 BC in the "Summary 
of Results" (page 268), when even in Chapter II 
"Stratigraphy and Chronology", the earlier limit of 
the period is rightly placed at 6th century B.C. (page 
38). The urge is obviously to provide the maximum 
antiquity to habitation at Ayodhya, however absurd the 
claim. 
Quite obviously saffronization and professional 
integrity cannot go together. What all well-wishers of 
Indian Archaeology have to consider is how, with a 
Report of the calibre we have examined, there can be 
any credibility left in the Archaeological Survey of 
India, an organisation that has had such a 
distinguished past. Today there is no professional 
head of the ASI; a civil servant, completely subject 
to the desires of the Government of the day is in 
charge as Director-General. It cannot be overlooked 
that the occupant of the office of Director-General 
was changed almost simultaneously with the High 
Court's direction to the ASI to begin the excavations 
in early March. The signal given thereby was obvious; 
and the present Report should come as no surprise. 
Politicians gloating over it are precisely those who 
have got it written. 
National honour was deeply compromised when the Babri 
Masjid was demolished. Now the good repute of the 
Archaeological Survey of India has also suffered an 
irremediable blow. When will the list of 
Saffronization's victims end? 
6 
SAHMAT 
8, Vithalbhai Patel House 
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001 
Tel-23711276/ 23351424 
e-mail: sahmat at vsnl.com 
29.8.2003 
The Ayodhya Excavation 2002-3 
The excavation was ordered to find out if there 
existed any Hindu temple below the BabriMasjid. The 
GPR survey was also ordered to help find if there were 
anomalies indicating the possibility of architectural 
remains below the mosque. The GPR survey could have 
made the excavation economical both in time and money. 
But the excavation undertaken from 12th March, 2003 
came out to be an area excavation. The excavation has 
distorted the Mughal levels allover leaving no scope 
for cross checking the evidence collected by the 
present excavation or for taking up excavation in 
future with improved techniques and with better 
perspective. To that extent it is a loss to our 
cultural heritage. 
The report on the present excavation has also been 
submitted. It is infact a report on the total data 
collected and not specific to the problem at hand. It 
practically abides by the perspective of 'Rewriting of 
history' School. In doing so the date of the NBPW 
Period ( Early historic era) has been pushed back to 
at least 1000 B.C., (three to four centuries earlier 
than the established date). Secondly, it has tried to 
highlight in its attempt at periodisation the Sunga 
Period, Rajput Period etc. for no sound reason. 
Besides this, it has used the data selectively and 
ignored some crucial facts relating to the Babri 
masjid complex, the massive burnt brick structure 
found below the mosque (assumed to be a temple of the 
10th-11th centuries) and the base (for woodenposts) 
having bearing on the problem. 
It is well known that the temples are characterised by 
its architectural type i.e. its plan and the 
superstructure, etc. , the objects associated with its 
function and placed in their original position inside 
the temple. Important temples in the past were known 
for their styles. The Nagar style as known form the 
famous Khajuraho temples,became popular in North India 
between the 9th and 12th centuries. 
The excavation report has come out with a thesis that 
there have been found remains of an Early Medieval 
temple constructed in the 11th-12th century which 
continued to exist until the early 16th century (when 
the Babri Masjid was constructed over this complex). 
This thesis is based on the following assumptions: 
1. that the 'massive' burnt brick structure was 
constructed in the 11th-12th centuries. 
2. that there have been found at least 50 
Pillar-bases associated with this structure, 
particularly with its last floor. 
3. that a circular depression ( Ghata shaped), in due 
east of the centre of the central dome of the Babri 
Masjid and the central point of the western wall of 
the preceding 'massive' burnt brick structure, was cut 
into a brick pavement. 
4. that the site excavated was not inhabited after the 
Gupta period. It was put to public use only, thereby 
implying its use for religious purposes. 
The ASI has claimed the existence of a 'massive' burnt 
brick structure below the Babri Masjid complex or the 
existence of some genuine circular, rectangular or 
squarish constructions of brickbats or of stones 
termed in the report as 'pillar bases'. But the report 
has willfully ignored crucial evidence from the 
Ayodhya excavation. This is briefly discussed as under 
: 
1. The alleged alleged 'massive' burnt brick structure 
belongs to the Sultanate Period and not to the early 
medieval period ( 11th-12th centuries) as its floor 
as well as the plaster on the wall, are made of lime 
and surkhi mortar, used in the Sultanate and Mughal 
Periods. Lime mortar has also been used in the 
construction of the so called pillar bases assumed to 
be associated only with this structure. Moreover, an 
arch, 'Mehrab' so typical of the medieval period, was 
noticed by me on the inner face of the 'massive' burnt 
brick structure to the south of the make-shift temple 
when I visited the site in June. 
2. The plan of the alleged 'massive' burnt brick 
structure tallies with that of the Babri Masjid 
complex in its extent and construction of the central 
dome exactly over the central point of the western 
wall of the former and not with Burnt brick structure 
of the Post-Gupta period. Secondly the southern 
chamber of the Babri Masjid overlies the remnants of 
this pre-Babri Masjid burnt brick structure. 
3. The 'massive' burnt brick structure was not a 
Hindu temple complex is clear from the fact that it 
does not correspond with the typical by Hindu Nagar 
style of temple of the early medieval period. 
Secondly, the foundation of the western wall of the 
'massive' burnt brick structure has in it sculptured 
stones (like those found used in the temples) The 
Hindus immerse the temple remains ( when out of use) 
in water. They do not bury these under the earth or in 
the foundation walls. The southern hall of this 
'massive' structure is nearly as large as that of the 
mosque. Temples of the past neither had such large 
square halls nor a plan similar to it. No artifacts 
used in the temples such as the icons, conch shell, 
Aarti lamps, dhoopdan etc. were found inside this 
chamber or in any other context within the alleged 
massive structure. 
The above facts clearly points out that the 'massive' 
burnt brick structure belonged to the Sultanate period 
( 1206-1526) and not to the 11th-12th centuries: 
Secondly, its plan and architectural features exposed 
so far helps to infer that it was a mosque and not a 
temple. It is unfortunate that the report has not made 
us wiser on the problem. Rather it has stood behind 
the Hindutava viewpoint. 
Prof. Suraj Bhan 
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software 
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Hotmail from your mobile now. Click here. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20030901/89af8301/attachment.html