So, friends, at the outset I would like to
thank and congratulate Srijan Foundation for organizing talks like this one. Because this expands your own comprehension
about our own culture, of which perhaps we know much little. So, we have to have this kind of talks and
we have to organize it and it should reach the common people. So, today I am going to talk about the excavations
at Ayodhya, and this excavation was carried out by Professor BB Lal, and I was a member
of the team. And when I say, I am a student of archaeology,
I have got my own limitations. A student of archaeology, he is not a student
of history, he is not a student of mythology, he is not a student of religion, he is not
a student of philosophy. He is purely an archaeologist and if he doesn't
have any kind of evidence, he is not going to substantiate that one. So that is his limitations. So, when an archaeologist, I mean whether
it is in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, when he speaks, he speaks on material facts. And whenever he goes to a place and especially
if it is a historical place, he goes to the place, he looks at the place and what a historian
sees, I mean he has got his own limitation because his view is not that way. It is not very penetrative. But an archaeologist, he could see through
things and if that is a potential area, he goes for excavation, and after the session
he comes out with certain substantive things. So he is in a position to put a tong on each
and every stone in each and every brick and each and every, I mean soil particles he would
be putting a tong into each of this one and they will talk to him in a tune and tone which
is quite conversant to him and people of his sight. So that is an archaeologist. So we have got religious people also because
while we were excavating at Ayodhya it was mainly at two places: one was near the Ram
Janmabhoomi, just behind the Ram janmabhoomi and the second was at Hanuman Garhi. So at Hanuman garhi because you know that,
since it, I mean there was a temple also, Hanuman's temple also, most of the people
then, who are the monks, who are the sannyasis, they would come to us and ask so many questions and their one question was why are you excavating this place. So we would say that we just wanted to see
the antiquity of the place. Then we would say in between if there is anything
related to around, we will see that one also. So they were of the opinion that we would
not be able to see or we would not be able to locate Ram or anything associated with him because he had lived lakhs and lakhs of years before. So that is the view of a religious man. But archaeology doesn't believe that Ram had
or even any other person had believed lakhs of years back because for him the human evolution
right from the next starting was 20 lakh years before. But that was, he calls it Australopithecus
because he could stand. I mean earlier he was standing on four legs,
but now he can stand erect, that is number one and then he has got his opposing power
of thumb and the cranial capacity that was also expanding in an ape, it would be 450
CC. But in the earliest man it would be 550 and
then it goes on increasing. So, I mean, but when if you talk about that
modern man, I took I'm talking about the civilized person as the civilization. So that is roughly around 3000 3500 or 4000
BC, not beyond that one. So we had to place Ram somewhere in the historical
period only because whenever we talk about Ram and this one also Mahabharata period,
Ramayana period, we have so many notions and all of them were small stories and some of
them, many of these incidents had taken place and after this one, there will be so many oriental hyperboles and also florid exaggerations will be there. So an archaeologist and historian would say,
‘no these are all cock and bull stories’. But what another archaeologist says is, ‘no
it is not a cock and bull story, there is a kernel of truth in all these things, but
at the same time we allowed to remove that exaggerated portion, there is a kernel of
truth in all these things, we'll have to remove that exaggerated portion’. I mean this one I mean the things from that
one and then you look at that core part of it, that is an archaeologists view and about
Pushpaka Vimana also, we say that I mean we had Pushpaka Vimana, but then archaeologists
would not contribute to that theory that we had Pushpaka Vimana and archaeologists would
not contribute to that theory, we had that kind of ‘we knew surgery and Ganesh ji is
the with the best example of it’ and archaeologists would not say so. What I am saying is I have got my own limitations
and the first excavation in this portion I mean about these things, it was carried out
they Professor BB Lal, you all know about Professor BB Lal and before that in 1870 somebody
one German archaeologist, his name is Heinrich Schliemann, he had excavated Hisarlik, that
is the city of Troy and after I mean we have got, we have Mahabharata and Ramayana and
Greek people, they have got this one Iliad and Odyssey and Gilgamesh is therefore the
Mesopotamian people Rostam and Sohrab is for the passion people. So there are so many mythologies, but this
man Heinrich Schliemann he was able to locate the Troy of this one. I mean Hisarlik in 1870, I know he followed
the description given by Homer and on the basis of that he would, I mean, he went and
excavated that Troy city of Troy and then he was able to excavate it and then he could
get all the material cultures which was described in Homer. So excavation I mean linking their heritage
with our mythology started from there. Then came up the biblical archaeology. In Bible we have got so many great prophets
like Abraham, Moses and then we have got this one Jacob many prophets said that Solomon,
David,s all these people were there. So following on the lines of this man, that
is Heinrich Schliemann, some of the American archaeologist also and some of this Israeli
archaeologists or so they depended on this one Old Testament and also New Testament and
then they started excavating it. So they also got so many things which was
really related to this one, that is Old Testament and New Testament and then they went on saying
I mean whatever has been described in Bible that is accurate but later on some of the
archaeologists came and they said no everything is not perfect, everything is not correct
I mean especially about the exodus of Moses they said everything is not correct, then
Moses Exodus is not there and many other thing they started pointing out so a correction
came and a balance also came. It was I mean against this background in 1947
onwards a lot of excavations were being carried out in India also and professor BB Lal, he
excavated the famous, in 1955, he excavated the famous Hastinapuram. So we'll just go to that Hastinapuram. This he has, Prosser BB Lal, he went to so many sites related with archaeology and also with Mahabharata. So in Mahabharata, of course, we held the
classical sites one is Hastinapur; second is Kurukshetra and many other sites also. But there are five villages which was mentioned
because you know they just wanted to avoid any kind of war between the two groups. So how to avoid it the question is as some
of the places should be handed over to Pandavas. So which are those places, we all know, Panipat,
Tilpat, Baghpat, Sonepat and the five villages that should be given to them and our Indrapat
of course here only. So in all these places at the lowest level,
he got a pottery which sees which he named as PGW, that is Painted Grey Ware. I'll show you the photographs also and then
when that was at Hastinapura. Then he went to Tilpat, Baghpat, Sonepat and
all the places associated with Mahabharata, there also at the lowest level this was the
pottery, PGW painted grey ware pottery and then he just wanted to correlate some of the
things which was mentioned in Bhagavata Purana and in Vayu Purana with the archaeological
excavations at this place Hastinapura. What are those things will just see Hastinapura
is here. Barnawa is there Baghpat, Tilpat, Delhi Indrapat
Sonepat all this thing. All of them are between Ganga and Yamuna and
we had two other rivers that is a Saraswati and Drishadvati all this land between Saraswati,
Drishadvati, Ganga, Yamuna. This is known as Brahma Desha or Aryavarta
and Aryadesha also. So in this land, it was of course ruled by
Pandavas and this is said, this is the land which was created by Gods ‘Tvam Deva Nirmitam
Desham Brahmavartam Prachikshate’. This land has been created by gods themselves
and because of that nothing untoward nothing illegal should take place that in this place. ‘Navartidavyam tadharmabandho dharmena nityena
chavartitavyam oh adharmabandho’. You don't stay here, this is not the land
meant for you, this has been created, this land has been created by gods and goddesses
by doing penance for several years., So you don't. So this is a very sacred land and we have
the Ayodhya also here and Hastinapura also here, in this particular land and river Ganga,
of course, the river Ganga is for the first time mentioned in Rigveda – “Imam me Gange
Yamune Saraswathi Shutudri Soma all the seven rivers have been mentioned. So this is a very holy land. So this is Hastinapura the place located by
Prof BB Lal. So whenever an archaeologist goes, I told
you that whenever there is a historical land, an archaeologist would go to the biggest,
I mean the tallest portion. Why the tallest portion because there you
will be having so many civilizations. These are not simple mounds, these are layers
and layers of civilization; one civilization that crumbled, then another civilization came
over, that one also crumble, then third civilization, fourth civilization… It goes on like this one and here we have
got that our pottery. Whenever we get the top portion that represents
the present day and the first layer beneath that one, that of course would be British
layer, then beneath that one Mughal layer, then certain Sultanate layer, then Rajput
layer, then Harsha, Gupta, Kushan… soon it goes on like that one then Ashoka, Maurya
period, it is like that one. So here also you have got layers and layers
of the civilization. So professor BB Lal excavated and at the lowest
level he got that particular pottery which has not been named till that time so he named
it as PGW painted grey ware pottery and in all this places. So he came to the conclusion, a kind of presumption,
not the conclusion, a kind of presumption that this would be the pottery which is associated
with Mahabharata people because all these places have been mentioned in Mahabharata. So it was here he had excavated this portion. So in Mahabharata, and in this one and Vayu
Purana there is a reference of a flood. What was that flood because once upon a time
when Nichakshu was ruling.., who was Nichakshu? I mean after the war of course Pandavas became
victorious and they have to rule now the country but the eldest one said – “no I don't
want to the rule now the country because for that I had to wade through the blood of my
own brothers and sisters, so I don't want to”. Then it was referred to a second man. He also said No. Third man, fourth man, everyone; but it is
your Dharma, Kshatriya Dharma, that you had to rule. So who would be the ruler of, I mean the youngest
man. Who was the youngest man? He was Parikshita. Parikshita was the son of Abhimanyu. So he was made the ruler and then when the
seventh one, that is Nichakshu was ruling, there was a great flood in Ganga and the whole
civilization, it was completed because of the flood everything was I mean completely
lost and then they shifted the capital, their capital from here to another place known as
Kausambi, is almost 120 kilometers from here. So this Vayu Purana says “Gangeya Apahrute
Nagaram Nagasaukahe, Gangeya Apahrute Nagaram Nagasaukahe, Yuktar Nichakshur Nagaram Kaushambeyam
Sanivatsayate”. So when the great flood occurred the entire
population, they migrated from here as a refugees into this one Kaushambi, Kaushambeyam Sanivatsayate
and then they rehabilitated that area. So when Professor BB Lal Saheb was excavating,
it here, he got that particular pottery, this is known as PGW, that is painted grey ware
pottery, its colour is grey, and here you can see that painting is and this painting
is, this pottery is available in all the places, that have been mentioned in Mahabharata. He got many pieces like this one and this
is the typical, this one, this is the typical painting, not only painting and you can find
this kind of, this one, I mean carvings also, yes, you can see the carving. So, this is what I said and he got a flood
line here just look at it. This is very obvious that this was a flood
line and then because an archaeologist, I mean, simply by seeing, he will not say, he
has to attest it because you know the soil has to be taken from here and it should be
sent to the lab and then they should give a verdict, “no, this is not” where this
and this is a flood material. So then, it was I mean it tested like that
one and they also gave the opinion - this is flood material. So he correlated that one, that is this one
from the Vayu purana “Gangeya Apahrute Nagaram Nagasaukahe, Tyuktar Nichakshur Nagarma aushambeyam
Sanivatsayate”, with this one. So this is how we came to the conclusion that
this was that flood which was mentioned and this is how he correlated with Mahabharata
also and then he got a number of iron tools from here. Till that time, we were having either we were
having that bronze culture. So bronze is not a very good material, it
is not a very hard material, if you are having simply bronze, you will not be able to clean
your forest, you will not be able to cut out huge stones. But once you have iron deposit, once you develop
this kind of iron technology, then you will be able to do so many things which you are
not able to do till that time and Krishna's Sudarshan chakra was such a tool because it
would create havoc with all kinds of enemies and in Mathura and in Fateh Pur Sikri in other
those parts and also another part was Bihar, if you go to Rajgir, if you go to Bodhgaya,
and all this places you have a very good deposit of iron. So, it was on the base, that is why I mean
that first second urbanization takes place in Rajgir, and in Samastipur and in all those
areas. So, he correlated with that one also and then
you had that kind of hand tools. This is the first kind of iron tools and after
this one discovery or development of the iron a kind of technology developed, technology
changed, the human situations also. They started, I mean, clearing the forest
at a very large scale and then the irrigation also started that gave rise to the second
urbanization. So this was how Professor BB Lal had correlated
the textual material with our archaeological evidences and he also got a number of ring
wells like this one. These are not wells actually, these are all
part of this one, I mean town planning because whatever I mean sewage is coming that will
go through this one. But it has been erroneously named as this
one, ring wells. So he want a number of things like this one. So whenever, again I should caution you, whenever
we handle this our mythology, we had to be very cautious. As I told you that, there will be so many
exaggerations. So you should be ready for that one you should
be ready to accept it especially from an archaeologist because you know others can say anything,
a religious person can say “no Ram was, I mean, in 1 lakh years before, said 2 lakh
years before, we had that Pushpaka Vimana or we had that, we knew that surgery’. All this thing other religious people and
other people can also say, but an archaeologist, he might be a religious person, but in the
context archaeology, he would not go with that kind of argument. Even over Mahabharata it was initially, it
was eight thousand verses. Then at that time it was known as Jaya, then
it became, it means 24 thousand verses. Now we have got more than one lakh. So this is, we all know the story of Arjuna
and he is looking, I mean, he went this one Draupadi is going to marry him, this with
the garlands because he was very successful. This is of course a late painting of Akbar's
time because Akbar was taking a lot of interest in all these things, he wanted to create,
I mean, he wanted to bring both Hindus, Muslims, Christians., all of them into one single unit
and for that we all know that he had set up that Ibadat Khana, where he had invited people
from Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jews, Jain and ultimately, he evolved a new religion
known as Din-e-ilahi. So he wanted, I mean, Muslims should also
know about the Hindu mythology, for that not only this one, it is known as Resmanama and
even Ramayana was also, it was translated and the translation was given to some of the
very good Persian scholars and then he also in order to make them, you see, to understand
he made paintings like this one. So this is Akbari painting. Here again you can see that, this one they
are going for Vanavasa and Draupadi's humiliation that particular scene has been depicted here
and you here, you have got that Pachisi game. Of course, we know that game was played with
this one and this is the discovery of Professor BB Lal at Hastinapura because this again because
this may look very simple for an ordinary man. But for an archaeologist it is pregnant with
a lot of meaning and because you are excavating this particular place, at the context of the
Hastinapura and in Hastinapura whenever it comes out from Hastinapura, at that particular
level, it is pregnant with a lot of meaning and again we had another very top archaeologist. He is, of course, he's known as Prof SR Rao
and he was not only a land archaeologist, but he was he a pioneer who introduced that
marine archaeology in India because he also wanted to see, what is the condition of our
mythology and how far it is correct. Prof BB Lal was doing the work here and he
wanted to see what is the condition of our Dwaraka, the mythical Dwaraka and many archaeologists
like Prof Sangalya, he excavated on the land portion and the antiquity after the excavation,
the antiquity of the place went only up to 1st century BC. So that was a problem because Prof Lal had
dated it to 1000, that is 1000 I was BC and it is almost contemporary, and the dating
of Prof Sangalya was only 100 BC. So what about that, I mean, there is a gap
of almost over 1000 years and then what Prof SR Rao did is, he said “no we'll have to
go and excavate it in the ocean itself” and at that time there was no marine archaeologists
in India. So he had to train because in Israel, it was
there in America, it was there French, were very ahead of it. So he had to have a kind of I mean he trained
people from oceanography Department of Goa and then he I mean these people should be
very expert and then he excavated Dwaraka and finally he was able to locate a city which
goes again back to 1200 BC and it is thus I mean he could prove it was almost contemporary
because he got a number of thing I mean the things which was associated with that one
and Prof Alok Tripathi and I had also accompanied him for that work and it was a kind of training
at various places. So, an archaeologist I mean he has to go down
because and he has to see things also and he has to feel it with his own hand, otherwise
just by the description in the literature, he's not going to accept. So, it was a team by this one Prof SR Rao
who had located the city, they went into the sea and then and that too on the basis of
the certain data provided by oceanographic department of Goa. They said that this one 10,000 years back
the ocean was of course very inside. At that time the city was there, and it was
very much inside and then the city was there. so it was at a depth of 30 meters, he had
our divers are to dive at a depth of 30 meters and then they were able to locate a city which
is almost 2 kilometer into 4 kilometers and you had the seal because you know this kind
of seal these are Mesopotamian seals, this Mesopotamian seal, was he was able to excavate
it from Dwaraka. So this gives you a very good definite dating
1200 BC. Earlier we did not know, I mean I am talking
about before 1927, we did not know that our heritage goes back to a period of Harappa
- Mohenjodaro and other places because we thought that our heritage goes back only up
to 4th century BC, 4 century BC mean Buddhist period and what was beyond that one nobody
knew. Then it was some of them persons like Alexander
Cunningham and then Alexander Cunningham had gone to Harappa in 1853. Earlier there was another man Charles Mason
and he had gone to that place in 1820, in 1823. But he could not recognize Harappa that time. Even when this man also Alexander Cunningham
that topmost historian went to that place, he also could not recognize, but he got two
seals from that place, two seals from Harappa and then after son and he just looked at it
this way, in that way he was not able to understand anything, what is it he did not know and he
had, he knew Brahmi. But it is not like Brahmi. It is something very different, some six letters
and that Machli and that bull and other things and then he said it looks, it appears to me
as a foreign one. Then after almost after 75 years this man,
that is John Marshall, he came and he saw another side and under him there was another
people, some more Indians. Also they saw another side, that is this one
Mohenjo-daro, which were four hundred miles apart and from there also they got two seals
like this one three, then became three seals and all these seals I mean they were having
almost roughly the same kind of seals and the writing also and then they saw the bricks,
the measurement of the brick, it is the same there also in Harappa also, in Mohenjo-daro
also, which is four hundred miles away from that place and then that town planning, it
is the same thing again. Then they had that the John Marshall he wrote
an article at that time… I think I am just going away from my.., with
this one topic and then he wrote an article at that time and he said because often archaeologists
are not as lucky as Henrich Leeman was in Troy because Henrich Leeman he had discovered
that Troy and he had excavated, I mean he had discovered the city or so so… he says
that often archaeologists have not as lucky as Heinrich Leeman was, but now it appears
that I'm on the threshold of such a very important discovery and then he says and they published
an article also ‘Illustrator London’ in which he said I have been able to get these
seals from Harappa also and from Mohenjo-daro also, which is roughly four hundred miles
apart from that one and if you know anything about this one, please enlighten me, and the
next week came a reply from that one, they said a similar seals have been excavated from
a place known as Kish at Mesopotamia. Till that time we did not know that our history
goes back to 2,400 years back, we knew that of our history goes back only to 400 BC, and
this established for the first time know our history goes because it was at even this one
antiquity of 2400 years because everything has been dated in Kish in Mesopotamia in or
in all these places everything has been dated whereas ours was not dated so. Then it was on the basis of that they said,
“no here it goes back to 2400 years back not only that we had even trade relations
also with them”. So if you have to have trade relation with
them then it is necessary that you should also have ships, then also you should be having
so many other technological knowledge, also technical knowledge, technology, technological knowledge, you will be having that marine knowledge also. So it was that I mean all of a sudden the
history of India was pushed back from 400 BC to 2400 BC and that was on the basis of
the seals which they had excavated from Harappa and from Mohenjo-daro also and similarly the
same kind of seals Prof SR Rao, he got it from there. So it was on the basis of this he had again
dated it to 1200 BC, that is this the period of Krishna and you can see this is the, this
one ruined portion of a bastion inside the sea, inside it is a ruin portion of a bastion,
so this kind of many bastion were there. You can see the walls going it was 2 kilometers
I mean the length was, I mean the length was 4 kilometers, and the width was 2 kilometers
and this is of course we now come to the I mean face of Ram and here so as I said because
it was on the basis of that he had a Prof BB Lal I mean this one came to the conclusion
that is roughly around 1000 BC or 1100 BC or 200 BC because in archaeology you cannot
come to an even if it is c-14 dating also, even if it is thermo luminescence dating also,
if even if it is oil cell dating also, there will be a margin of error which we call plus-minus. So whenever we call 1000 BC or 1200 BC there'll
be a margin of error, that is I mean we call it calibration, I mean sometimes 100 sometimes,
200 years. So I mean after this discovery, we the second
excavation of Prof BB Lal was at Ayodhya and we as a school student, school means, after
doing, completing our MA, we had taken admission in the school of archaeology which is a post
graduate diploma course and we went to the site and I was one of the members of the party
and before the excavation, we do the exploration part. We excavated the, I mean, explored the area. So, at that time, entry was prohibited inside
the mosque because it was under dispute, but we were from the research team. So, we were given free entry and exit also
I went into the site and I saw inside the Mosque. There were 12 pillars of Temple, pillars at
that time. Now the question comes how would you say these
are temple pillars. This is natural question how would you say
if you, I mean, see that temple pillars, that will be having Poorna Kalasha motif on the
lower part. What is a Poorna Kalasha? Poorna Kalasha is a vase or a pitcher from
which a foliation would be coming out. This is one of the Ashta Mangala Chihnas,
eight auspicious symbols in Hinduism. You go to any of the ancient temple and especially
10th, 11th, 12th century.., you will be finding this kind of Ashta Mangala Chihnas or this
one that small vases and we are all from Delhi and still if you have any doubt go to Qutub
Minar. Near Qutub Minar, you have a Mosque known
as Kuwwat-ul-Islam Masjid and there is an inscription also in Arabic, which says that
27 temples were destroyed for constructing this particular mosque, that is Kuwwat-ul-Islam,
which is the "might of Islam" and there is a description I mean just in front of it is
in Arabic. In Arabic there is a book known as the Taj-ul-Mahasir. It is written by a contemporary historian
Hasan Nizami, in which he also says that 27 temples, mostly Jain temples were destroyed
for constructing this one and look at the pillars of that place there you will be able
to see this Poorna Kalashas not one, 10 - 15 you will be finding in abundance. Similarly, you will be finding this kind of
things also, I mean this one many and this one Devi Devatas, thus you can find Ganesh
ji there, you can find Vishnu there, you can find Shiva there, and you will be finding
a number of gods and goddesses also and sometimes this Bharavahakas all of them will be looking
at you from the ceilings. So there is no problem in accepting that in
medieval period many, I mean, unwanted things, many of the temples were destroyed. But the problem with some of our historians,
that is mainly our Marxist historian is, they would not accept it, even if they find it. Also they will not accept it, “No no no,
because you know because the whole community, the whole Muslim community, the whole Hindu
community, there was an en mass conversion. That is why this has taken place”. So that is one of their argument and the second
argument is there, this was all the temples where I mean, if this was the storehouse of
all gold and silver and everything. So they wanted to take away all these things
and it was mainly because of that this attack had come. OK, if they want to take away this gold, silver
and everything let them take it out. We have no problem, but why did they destroy
the temple this again what happens is this provoked the Hindu community. So what a historian has to say is, what has
happened, this has happened, we should not argue anymore, that was a medieval period
and now we have to have a new beginning and we have to have a create a new India. So an approach of the historian should be
like that one, but I mean instead of that, these Marxist historians, they have got a
completely different attitude and this attitude of some Marxist historian says complicated
the end their issue of Sri Rama temple because I was in Aligarh Muslim university earlier
and I knew the temperament of Muslim because it became a problem from, I mean, from 1980
onwards and in 80’s Muslims were almost, many of the Muslims then, top leaders were
also almost ready to hand it over, so that a problem could be solved there. These historians, especially Prof. Irfan Habib,
Romila Thapar and other Marxist historian RS Sharma, Dr. Jha, they came forward. They were all historian, they were not archaeologists,
they came and they said, “No. It has been, the place has been excavated
by professor BB Lal and he did not find any material from there and so Muslims you should
not hand it over the place to Hindu community for constructing the temple”. So there, the muslim communities, they were
not that much educated. They thought these are all historians I mean
great historian, they were historians, of course, great eminent historian, but they
were not archaeologists. Then, Prof BB Lal, he had to come out again
say now, we have got number of things and then he started saying not only the pillars,
this one is the pillar, pillars were reused, extensively reused for the rebuilding the
mosque and not only that, we also got the brick basis on which the pillar was standing,
all these pillars were standing. So again, the same historians, they came forward
because they had a lot of connection with Times of India, with this paper, that paper
and they were very manipulative also, because of their extensive connections also, only
their news was carried by a number of people and Muslims were also misled by this group
of people. During those periods, I went to this, Oman,
I mean, because a German university had invited me for an excavation of a place. So there, any place, I am in a group of Muslim,
I mean, that is, if there is an organization known as SIMI, Students Islamic Movement,
that is a banned organization and they knew that I had come and I had got a different
opinion altogether about it because I had spoken about it in 1990 because at that day,
most of the attack by the Marxist historian, it was on Prof BB Lal. So I, in 1990, I had come out in Indian Express
on 15th of December 1990, saying that there was not only the temple pillars, there was
pillar bases also on which this pillars were standing, that was also excavated by Prof
BB Lal and we also got a number of terracotta items and many other items also from there,
which is associated with temples and then I further added I was the only one Muslim
who had participated in that excavation and then again I said that Ram Janmabhoomi and
Krishna Janmabhoomi these are as important for Hindus, as Mecca and Madina are for Muslims. So Muslim willingly hand it over to Hindus
for constructing a huge temple and instead of that this, one Hindu community should help
the Muslim community to build a temple wherever they are in majority in Lucknow or in some
other place. But these people that is the historians, who
did not know about archaeology they complicated the entire thing. Then some other people started saying, “so
if you say no there was no temple remain there and these people said, no there are temple remains there, why couldn't we have a second excavation. Let us see, let us do a second excavation
and then come to a certain conclusion and if there are any remains of the temple, then
also muslim community said if there are any remains of the temple below this one, then
we are ready to hand it over”. Many people like Syed Shahabuddin and people
they started saying it and after that it was on the basis of this thing, the second excavation
was carried out not by Prof BB Lal, but by Dr BR Mani, Dr BR Mani is now the director
general of National Museum. Earlier he was the joint director of Archaeological
Survey of India, a very meticulous excavator. So for an archaeologist, he would not be swayed
by kind of his religious feeling. So when he excavated, we had got only twelve
pillars, and now he got more than fifty pillar bases, and these people that these Marxist
historians had said, “no, there was no remains, nothing connected with the temple have been
excavated there and this mosque is standing on virgin soil”. That was their stand at that time. But now when more than temple, fifty pillar
bases started coming, then they had to shift their own argument also. So that was number one thin. So that means, 50 pillars, it was a huge temple, a very huge temple and then at the excavation, that is frozen. We have Prof Mani's excavation that yielded
this Magara Pranali. What is a Makara Pranali? In all the temples we will be having a kind
of Garba Gruha, where the main deity would be installed and that deity he has to be bathed
every day and that Abhisheka Jala, that will go out through a pranali, that is known as
Makara pranali, and it will be always like Makara, Makara means crocodile, and Makara
is a symbol of river Ganga also. So it will be going out through that Makara
Pranali. So that Makara Pranali was also excavated
from beneath the temple, from beneath the mosque. So this Makara Pranali, you cannot get it
in a residential area, you cannot get it in a bazaar area also. It would be exclusively part and parcel of
a temple only. So that was excavated from there and then
in northern Indian temples, we will be having on the top of it, just below the Kalasha,
you will be having a disc portion and this disc portion was also excavated from below
the mosque, which means this there was a huge temple at that time. Otherwise you will not be having the temple
architectural members, temple architectural members will be different from the residential
architecture members. So it is known as a Amalka. This Amalka was also excavated from there;
not only Amalka and then you will be having Chaadya jaala, that is whenever you have a
temple, these temples will be having a Shikhara portion and the Shikhara portion will be consisting
of many jaala apportion. Those jaala portions were also excavated from
there and then more than 263 objects which was associated with temples. I'll show you all those photographs which
was associated with temples like terracotta gods and goddesses that started coming out
from there. This if it is a Mosque portion, you will not
be having any kind of this, one living creatures there because living creatures worship of
living creatures or even depiction of living creatures that is prohibited in Islam. It is not twenty fifty hundred, it is two
hundred and sixty-three, you got all these kind of things and then finally you have the
Vishnuhari Shilaphalaka. What is the Vishnu Hari Shilaphalaka? Vishnu Hari Shilaphalaka is an inscription. It was not excavated it was, when the temple
was, when the mosque was destroyed, we are against destroying any monument as an archaeologist,
even if it was a mosque, and it was an illegally built mosque. As an archaeologist I am against destroying
this kind of monuments. So but anyhow that had taken place and from
at that time an inscription was also, this one obtained from there and that this inscription,
it consists of 20 lines in which, it very clearly says that this particular temple,
this huge temple that was built for the man who had defeated Bali and also defeated the
ten headed person, who is that man who had defeated this ten headed person? Of course, it was Sri Ram. So all these things goes to prove that there
was a huge temple below the mosque before the coming of Babar and this was what we could
excavate from there and it was on the basis of this discoveries, Archaeological Survey
of India, Dr Mani he had submitted a report, “Yes, there was a huge temple there before
the coming of the Masjid and on the basis of that the Allahabad High Court also took
a very very reasonable decision, but of course reasonable in the sense if you are handing
on. But now, what is the final solution? I mean solution. Their solution was two portions were given
to Hindu organization and one portion was given to a Muslim organization. Of course, that is not going to solve the
problem. You have to finally solve the problem because
unless and until you hand it over the entire structure for Hindu community and instead
of that for Muslim community in Lucknow in some other place a Muslim and Hindus should
help them to build a very prominent mosque there also. So but all these things, this was all these
things and all these kinds of attempt, a kind of reconciliation attempts, it was thwarted,
it was of course, it was given by this Marxist historian even now because they have been
shifting their own opinion also. When they got this inscription initially,
that this one, the reaction of this one Irfan Habib was that, this was a plant, this was
not an actual one, but it was planted by some group of people. Initially they said “no, it is a new thing”
and then they shifted their opinion “no, it is a not a new thing, it is an old thing
but at the same time it doesn't belong to this particular place, it was taken from the
Faizabad museum” and which was it was from Faizabad and then it was shifted to Lucknow
museum. It was brought from there and then Lucknow
Museum people said, “no, we have got the same material with us. It has not been lifted from here. it is a new discovery”. So they have been going on shifting their
own opinions. So finally we have to see what is the final
solution at which we can arrive because we have to find out some kind of solution. Otherwise it cannot even prolong, if it prolongs, that will be detrimental for the development of the country. So let us see of course this has nothing to
do with it. It goes with a Los Angeles, this one Museum. This is Lord Ram and this I mean again Lord
Ram connected with, associated with his own these stories and this is abduction of Sita
here, you can see this is Raavan he is abducting Sita and here you can see that Sita's ring
also because she just wanted to guide the, this one Rama. So that, it was from this particular place,
I was picked up. So it was on the basis of this one Hanuman
and all those people had gone traced her to Lanka, again the same ring it is being given
to Hanuman course. Prof BB Lal again the same thing all those
sites connected with Sringaveerapura because it was from Ayodhya. You can see from Ayodhya because not only
Ayodhya, Nandigram was also excavated because it is said that it was at Nandigram for some
time Bharata was living and then Sringaveerapura because it was here he had crossed river Ganga. So, this was also excavated then Bharadwaj
ashram, this was also excavated and then Chitrakoot. So in all these places what he got is something
associated. There is this another pottery, which this
pottery is particularly known as NBP, it is Northern Blackware Pottery. So that goes back to 1300 years back. This is that I told you because the temple
builders so these are the, this one temple parts and here also you can see, go to Qutub
Minar, you will be finding hundreds of pillars like this one. This is a black stone, Kasoti stone and there
here, there were a number of images also. Had it been an islamic building, there would
not have been any images like this one. If you have images that means it is misappropriated. So this kind of pillars were there, 12 pillars
were there. Totally there were 14 pillars ,but two pillars
are not here. but somewhere outside. There is a Makbara of Ashikan. It is those two pillars are there, we could
locate it there here. I told you about that Poorna Kalasha. This is that Poorna Kalasha and foliage’s
are coming out even now. If there is a Hindu prominent leader, who
is coming there, you are not going to receive him by garlanding, you are not going to give
him, I mean receive him by giving a shawl, but you will be giving a Poorna Kalasha. So that Poorna Kalasha is here when Lord Rama
came back from Ayodhya, from this one Sri Lanka, he was received by the local people
by giving Poorna Kalasha, Pragdvara vedi vinirveshita Poorna Kalasham. So people received him by that is, this is
a typical Ashta Mangala Chihna, one of the eight auspicious symbols in Hinduism and these
are those. Here you can see that brick bases, this big
bases have been made in order to level, not only level up in order to give a firm base
for the pillar, the pillar is the earlier one which I had shown you. Pillar is that, these are the pillars. So these pillars, I mean these are Kasoti
pillar, they should stand on a very firm ground for that, these pillar bases were made and
similarly a number of pillar bases were excavated. So at that time, they said, initially they
said that, Marxist historian said, these have not bases, for these are not fit for that
one. These are cow sheds. One group of Marxist historian said then and
there was one archaeologist Suraj Bhan in in those group. He said, “no, these are the pillar base
itself”. So there is a discrepancy and there is a difference
of opinion even among themselves because you know, some people will say, “no, what they
have discovered below, the mosque was”, some would say, “no, it is, say, this one,
they were Muslim structure”, some would say, “no, it is a Buddhist structure”
and some would say, “it is a Jain structure”. There is a discrepancy among themselves. So these kinds of pillars were excavated and
pillar basis were excavated. It was one of the bases of which I had given
that my statement in 1990, that many Temple faces a pillar basis, were excavated by Prof
BB Lal at that time, but they did not accept, the Marxist historians did not accept it. So the second excavation was carried out and
in the second excavation more than 50 pillars were excavated proving them wrong and similarly
Sharma ji, I think Sharma ji, you had participated in this excavation in the earlier excavation,
Yes, there is another, very important figure who had excavated with Prof BB Lal, who had shared them in with him in various, this one, excavations. So he was there and in the second excavation
you were there with a Prof, yeah, yes, yes and here also again, we got a number of things
like this one, which was for this, a pillar to stand and that this is that, this one,
just below the mosque. There was a wall also and this wall was the
temple wall, but they would say, “no, these are not the temple wall, the one would say,
one of this Marxist historian would say, ‘it is a mosque wall’ and second one would say
‘no this is a Buddhist wall’ and the third one say ‘it is a Jain wall’. They are not sure about themselves and this
is of course a diagram which was made by ‘India Today’ and what are the places which they
had excavated? At various places and what are the materials
which they have got because all these places where they got the pillar bases were excavated,
which means this was a very huge temple and number of things also and there was a ellipsoidal
temple also. This is not any kind of ellipsoidal temple
or a circular temple because that circular temples would be, even now, if you go to Bihar,
there is a temple known as Maniar math and some of that circular temples were here, that
was also beneath this, one beneath the mosque and this is a profusely ornamental Lady of
the Shunga period. Had it been a mosque you would not have got
even figures like this one. This is only in temples, sometimes if you
have got certain mannat, some kind of your wishes, if you are getting it fulfilled, you
will be dedicating such things even now in temples. So you had this kind of profusely ornamental
ladies, another thing and this is amazing, we are asked, awaited from there in profusion. Again another figure, it is a Gupta period
figure. Had it been a mosque why should they have
this kind of sculptures? Again a human, it is the leg portion of a
human figure. Had it been a mosque, there was no relevance
of a man in a mosque of having this kind of figures because any kind of depiction, even
the painting is also Haram, that is prohibited in Islam. But here you are having a number of idols
like this one, this is the breast portion, and this is that, this is the Uttareeya, that
is the upper vastra of a person. You have this kind of things and this is the
chest portion, and this is the hands. Again, human figures and in human figures,
you will not be getting in Hindu temples as in muslim mosques. Again, here you have another figure. Look at this one, she is a drum beater. Again, you will not be getting this kind of
things in an Islamic, even Muslim a baby, this one mosque and again a human a horse
head again, find this kind of things in Muslim mosque. So all this is hundreds of things were excavated
like this and this is what I said that Pranala, this is for Abhisheka Jala for going out,
it's a kind of a gargoyle for Abhisheka Jala to go out and this is that Makara Pranali
also. So it will be almost like crocodile, crocodile
of course is a symbol of this one river Ganga and this is that wall beneath the mosque,
the most portion is on the higher portion and these are the walls all the decorative,
the temple architectural features and that huge inscription which was carried out, it
is a not from the excavation but when the mosque was destroyed by the Karsevaks, at
that time this could be obtained and they are taking it to that makeshift temple and
this is the inscription which clearly, it goes back to 12th century AD and it very clearly
says that there was a huge temple and it was about this inscription initially, they said
it was a plant, it's a modern inscription. This has been created, this has been carved
and then it has been planted in that area. That was the initial statement of Prof Irfan
Habib. Then he himself shifted ‘no, this is an
original one’. At a later time he said ‘it's an original
one, but it doesn't belong to this place, it belongs to some other place and it was
in the Lucknow Museum, from there it was stolen from there and it was planted here’. But then the Lucknow Museum said, ‘no, whatever
we had, we have got it even now with us’ and the numbering and everything was correct
also. So again, they had to shift their own opinion and this is another inscription, that is Thakurwari inscription. So all this goes to say that there was a huge
temple and as I said earlier it is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Madina are for Muslims. So Hindu, I mean this one Muslims should willingly
hand it over. I had a lot of discussion, even yesterday
I was in Dubai, there also I had a lot of discussion with the Muslim community and before
that, I mean at various places. So Muslim as a group, there I mean I am NOT
talking about the leadership, but Muslim as a whole, they are ready to hand it over. But it's only this Marxist historian and some
few Muslim leadership that is creating this problem. I had a lot of discussion. I simply ask them one question after a lot
of discussion because it is a kind of discussion, they'll be having their own opinion also. I said that this, after the partition of the
country, Muslims were given a separate state, a Pakistan was given and after that I mean
Hindus could have of course they could have made it a Hindu state. It was very easy at that time, but Gandhi
ji and Nehru ji, Patel these were, I mean, it is some of the illustrious leaders of those
time, they did not convert it into a Hindu, this country. Then I asked them, I pointed question, do
you think if India was a Muslim majority country, do you think India would ever have been a
secular country? This was a very pointed question to some of
the, this one, I mean very vocal Muslim community. SIMI is a very vocal Muslim community organisation. I asked them. Then they said, ‘no, why don't you, what
you have said this correct because had it been a Muslim majority country India would
never have been a secular country’. So they themselves accept it, but now the
thing is, but I mean this, we should not allow the Marxist historian to meddle with it. If they are in between then again they would
be creating this problem. So that initiative should have been taken
by the Government of India. Of course then, another argument of this historians
were that, it was only, it became a problem only from 1857. Before that I mean 57-58, before that it was
not a problem, it was not known as Ayodhya. But here this is from the, this one from the
Ayodhya Mahatmyam. Ayodhya Mahatmyam was written in 1034 and
in which it speaks about Ayodhya also and Sarayu River also. But if you talk to this Marxist historian,
they would say, ‘no, there is no mention about it, Ayodhya before 1857’. This is Joannes De Laet. Joannes De Laet was someone, he had come to, he was a Dutch factory man and he was an ambassador also. He had come to India in 1631. 1631 was the death year of Mumtaz Mahal I
mean the construction of Taj Mahal. He had come to India and he has given a description
of Agra, Delhi and various other places also. So he went to Ayodhya also and he speaks how
people, I mean the, this religious groups of people, mendicants were going to Sarayu
River, how they were taking bath and then how they were going to this place, that is
this one, Ram Jamnabhoomi and how they were worshipping there. They don't speak about that Muslims offering
prayer there. Now all of them, all these people, I mean,
that is Joannes De Laety, he was not a VHP man. So all these people, they speak about how
Hindus were congregating there, especially on Ram Navami day and other days also and
how they were taking bath. So he was a Dutch man and before him, there
was William Finch. He had come during Jahangir's period in 1611. He had come, Akbar had passed away in 1605. Then it was taken over by Jahangir. He had come in 1611. He also gives a very good description about
Ayodhya. But this historian, they would say, I meant,
they would not mention about all this thing. They would say there was no mention about
Ayodhya and Ayodhya issue also before 1857. This is another man Thomas Herbert, that is
in 1634, he gives a very good description about again about Ayodhya. This is Joseph Tieffenthaler, he was at this
one I managed a Jesuit priest. Jesuit priest means he was a Catholic priest. He had again come to India and especially
in 1766, he had it, this is wrong, he had given it, come to 1763 and 64 he went to the
place. He saw hundreds of Hindus going there, I mean
worshipping at this place and then also he says that people are going to Sarayu River
and then they have a lot of description about that place and he also doesn't mention about
the Muslim worship at this place. Then the French scholar Mentelle. He had come here in 1801. Again, the description is about Ram Janmabhoomi,
not about Babri masjid and then the complaint, the first complaint was of course by Syed
Mohammed Khatib and he gives, I mean, a Masjid-e-Janamsthan, Janamsthan means because even the Muslims themselves were acknowledging it as Janamsthan of Lord Ram. So in all the description, that all the complained,
they had given it is known as Masjid of Janamsthan. Muslim or understand. Then the P. Carnegie is writing in 1870. He also again says about not the Muslim worship
of the place, but the Hindu worship of the place and especially the Ram Janmabhoomi and
here he has specifically mentioned about it Hindu and Muslim differences also he has specifically
mentioned and then Ayodhya Sanad also. This Sanad was given in 1723 by the Nawabs
in which also they have spoken about it. Then a number of Farmans, all these Farmans
are in Persian and this also speaks a masjid-e-janmasthan, which means Muslims also acknowledged it was
the janmasthan of of Lord Ram. Here the first Mughal, that is some of the
Akbar, he had given that land of Hanuman Garhi to a group of people up in the group of Hindu
sannyasis and in which also, the same thing is mentioned and this is Akbar's Ram-Siya
coins. Here you can see Lord Rama with his arrow
and followed by Sita. This is known as Irahi collection, Irahi collection
of Akbar. Of course, this is an Alamgiri mosque, there
was an issue for this Alamgiri mosque because it was handed over to Hanuman Garhi. But at that time, the Hindus were very tolerant
because it had come into repair in disuse and then the local Muslim approached the Hanuman
Garhi matthadhipati for repair work and offering them and allowing them to prayer. So what the mathadhipati did is, not only
he said that you can worship in this mosque, but also the repairing charges will be borne
by the us. That is the Hanuman Garhi temple. So that is the large heartedness of Hinduism. So, Muslims should understand all these things
and willingly hand it over the place in order to help the country to develop and all these
are, I mean, Sanads and also Farmans issued by various kings and all of them speaks very
specifically about masjid-e-janmasthan only. So that is the crux of the story and the excavation
proves it beyond any kind of doubt that there was a temple before that one. But now the question comes whether it was
a temple of Rama's time. Of course archaeology has not been able to
find any kind of answer there. Again archaeology is very correct because
we have not been able to find any temple of Rama's time because it should be if this one
Hastinapura is or if mahabharatha is dated to 1000 BC, Rama is before that one. So it should be 1200 BC. The excavation has proved that the antiquity
of the place goes up to 1300 BC, but at that time whether what there was any temple associated
with Lord Rama, we have not been able to find. But at the same time, we need this one, there
was a temple and it was for a long time right from the period of third century BC continuously,
this was considered as a holy land associated with Lord Rama. So on the basis of all these things the Archaeological
Survey of India had come to the conclusion that there was a big temple before the construction
of the mosque and then at Allahabad court came to the, again, they came to the conclusion
that we accept the opinion of Archaeological Survey of India and it was on the basis of
that the judgment was handed over by the, this one ,judiciary. But, now, the question is whether that is
going to solve the problem? Of course it is not going to solve the problem
because even if it is handed over to the Muslims also, because for a radius in a radius of
two kilometres, there are no Muslims and you don't have a Muslim to prayer also there and
in case it is handled over, that will be creating a continuous tension for the coming years. So in order to avoid that one, the best solution
would be number one, I mean, you keep away this kind of Marxist historian, have a kind
of dialogue with the Muslim community, with the general public and then hand over the
full place the entire thing to Hindus for the construction of the temple and instead
of that you give a proper, I mean, Hindu should help Muslims to construct a huge masjid in
Lucknow or in some of the other places. So that is the only solution appears to me. For the time being otherwise, there is no,
there is no other solution for the problem, otherwise it will go on, this problem will
continue to bother us. So thank you all, thank you very much for
a patient hearing.
