May I refer to Dr. B.B. Lal's response to your editorial, in your issue of 1 July, 1998 regarding the Babari Masjid site.
I am not concerned with the historicity of Ayodhya nor with the field diaries of excavation in Ayodhya but I must say that the preliminary reports of the excavation, as published in the Indian Archaeology Annuals, said that there was no sign of human habitation in Ayodhya before the 6th-7th Century B.C. This does not conform to the age of Rama, as generally believed by the Hindu laity and clergy. But I have no quarrel with anyone, who despite this archaeological evidence, reveres Ayodhya as the city of Dasratha and Rama. However, permit to me say that Prof. Lal is being less than honest in not mentioning the basic fact of archaeological findings.
I am really concerned with the 3rd point, namely the archeological evidence for the existence of a temple under the Babari Masjid. Dr. Lal mentions his finding of pillar foundations but he does not mention how for below the floor level of the Babari Masjid they were found. He tries to associate the pillars, decoratively used in the Babari Masjid, with them but he does not compare the horizontal dimension and shape of the pillars with the openings in the foundation. He also does not mention the average height of the pillars which was 6'-7' only. One wonders whether such small pillars could carry the load of a 4-storey temple? Prof. Lal also does not say why no pillar has any trace of Vishnu in the carvings or anything to connect them with the story of Shri Rama Chandra.
Prof. Lal does not give his reasons for rejecting the alternative theory of the pillars having been taken from elsewhere, such as the ruins of the houses along the Sarju, as opined by an East India Company official in the early 19th Century. Nor does Dr. Lal enlighten us on any evidence of destruction, by physical assault supported by artillery fire, which should have been encountered by him, while digging the trench to the south of the Babari Masjid.
Dr. Lal then writes of the archaeological material said to have been discovered in the debris of the Babari Masjid after its demolition, specially of a stone-slab. Apart from the fact that an act of vandalism cannot be called 'excavation' which has its own ground rules to guard against pilferage or forgery or substitute, can Dr. Lal vouchsafe for the authenticity of all items taken over by the Government after demolition and stored in Ayodhya, many of which are in 'mint' condition?
Dr. Lal emphasises the largest stone slab with inscriptions but the description hardly squares with the claim that a monumental temple, marking the birth site of Shri Ram Chandraji, existed. Dr. Lal ignores the fact that several scholars have questioned the authenticity of the inscription. By comparing them to Goldsmith's school teacher, Dr. Lal cannot convince other academicians of his assertion.
Dr. Lal's own evidence disposed of the VHP's claim that the Ram Temple which had been demolished by Babar (or Mir Baqui) was constructed by Vikramaditya in 50 BC! And there is another pertinent question. Oudh was under repeated attack from the Turks and the Afghans during the 11th and the 12th century. Ayodhya would fall in the war zone. Will any ruler take the risk of constructing a 'monument' in a war-zone?
What is of special interest to me is Dr. Lal's conclusion that the presumed temple was constructed in the 11th Century (he gives no date though the slab should) Ayodhya was annexed by the Tureo-Afghans in 1192. Babar took Ayodhya in 1528 from the Afghans. This implies that for at least 336 years, the Afghans protected the Mandir, till Babar (or Mir Baqui) destroyed it. Or was it destroyed in 1192 or thereafter? Or did it fall into ruins with the passage of time and was converted into a mound
No doubt the mound on which Babari Masjid stood was and is a prominent, perhaps the highest, landmark in Ayodhya. Mir Baqui may have chosen the mound for situating the Masjid, simply because it was there unclaimed by anyone and, therefore, the property of the state.
I may add that the monumental Ram Janamasthan Mandir lies immediately to the north of the Babari Masjid. It is the second oldest Ram Mandir in the country built in the 18th Century and claims the honour of being situated on the birth site of Shri Ram Chandraji. If the Babari Masjid stood on the debris of the real Ram Janamasthan Mandir, did anyone ever question the authenticity of the "duplicate"? Did anyone, even Tulsidas, the greatest Ram-Bhakta of all times, or any Hindu noble, ever take it up during the reign of Akbar, Jahangir or Shahjahan that since the Masjid was built on the site of a standing temple after demolishing the latter, the Masjid should be demolished and the site restored to the Ram Bhatkas to reconstruct the temple? There is no such record.
Dr. Lal, finally, speaks of his own suggestion for excavation under the Masjid when it stood, to prove or dispose of the claim. There is no law in the country for the restoration of a site, occupied by a place of worship, to the "original occupants" of the site, without or after "scientific excavation". Will Dr. Lal make the same suggestion with regard to all places of worship which are claimed by some other religious groups on the basis of earlier or the earliest occupancy? Excavation does not and cannot mean vandalisation of living monuments.