It does seem peculiar that fifteen years after the excavation of a site adjoining the Babari Masjid and claimed as the site of the Ramjanambhoomi, new evidence should now be introduced as having been earlier excavated at the site. So far there has been no reference to this evidence in any of the excavation reports published after the excavation by the Director of the excavation, Prof. B.B. Lal in Indian Archaeology - a Review 1976-77 and 1979-80, nor in any of the subsequent papers presented by B.B. Lal at various academic seminars. One wonders why, if there was such evidence, B.B. Lal is only revealing it now? Could it be that because of the politics of the Ram Janambhumi, it is being claimed as fresh evidence?
In his excavation reports, B.B. Lal mentions those who excavated along with him and curiously, despite his insisting that he was part of the team, the name of Dr. S.P. Gupta, is conspicuously absent. B.B. Lal states that the site was first occupied in the seventh century B.C. and continued upto the third century A.D. A possible fortification wall, and what might have been a moat cut across the Janambhumi area. He then mentions that among the finds were half a dozen seals, seventy coins and over a hundred terracotta figurines. He makes special mention of pottery of the rouletted ware generally associated with the Roman trade of the early Christian era. He adds that it is rather remarkable that the Gupta period is not significantly indicated at this site, a fact also noticed in the first session's dig in 1975. He continues "After the early historic deposits there is a break in occupation, with considerable debris and pit formations before the site was again occupied around the eleventh century A.D. Several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been met with, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest."
These earlier statements contradict his present claim to having found the pillar-bases of what may have been a temple at the site, a claim made by him recently in the RSS Magazine Manthan (October, 1990). Could it be that the requirements of VHP politics have occasioned this new claim? This claim cannot now be examined by other scholars since the excavated site has been filled in. A re-excavation of the same site becomes extremely difficult given that the sequential layers have been disturbed by this covering up. Archaeological evidence is not self-explanatory; it has to be interpreted. The interpretations of the same data by different archaeologists can vary. This is why it is necessary preferably, to leave the excavated site open and at any rate to keep a meticulous and exact record of the excavation so that it can be made available to other archaeologists.
Contradictions
As regards the statement by Dr. S.P. Gupta, that too carries contradictions.
1. The fact of the pillar bases running behind the wall surrounding the mosque does not mean that they necessarily run under the mosque as well, as is claimed, since there is space between the wall and the mosque and the pillar bases may have terminated just behind the wall. It is equally possible that no more pillar bases will be found even if there were to be excavations below the mosque.
2. The debris associated with these bases is said to have contained glazed pot sherds of the blue-and-white Islamic style. This style of pottery first comes into use in Persia in the fifteenth century and therefore, cannot date to an earlier period in India. Thus the evidence of the pottery would point to the bases being constructed not earlier than the fifteenth century and possibly even a later period. Whatever the style of the stone pillars incorporated in the Babari Masjid, the pillar bases cannot be dated to the eleventh century. In his article in Manthan B.B. Lal has said that the pillar bases were found in the uppermost levels of the trench; this would certainly not make them as early as the eleventh century A.D. since the uppermost levels would be comparatively recent. If the contention is that these were pillar bases of the stone pillars used in building a temple then the temple cannot be dated to earlier than the fifteenth century since the debris in the bases would be of the earliest period. Therefore, the carved stone pillars which S.P. Gupta dates to the eleventh century clearly do not belong to this temple, if in fact, it was a temple.
3. Brick pillar bases do not in themselves indicate the presence of a temple. The structure supported by such a base could be of any kind. The pillar bases may well have held up a brick structure with arches, the kind of structure common in medieval times, which may have been a hall adjoining the mosque. The size and shape of bricks used in construction in India varied from time to time and a study of the actual bricks used would have been an additional factor in dating the pillar bases.
4. The photographs of the stone pillars and the doorjamb in the article by S.P. Gupta, come from sites, some as far as a kilometre away, and these can hardly be used to illustrate the supposed temple at the site of the Babari Masjid. The quotation in S.P. Gupta's article does not allow one to assume the existence of a unique temple at this site. The decorations on the pillars are not exclusive to temple architecture for even domestic architecture would have had the same decorative motifs. Load bearing pillars do not mean that they are necessarily in the position as when they were first used. It is feasible to bring pillars from elsewhere and use them as load bearing pillars in a new construction.
To sum up: There is no evidence that the brick pillar bases supported a temple and that this temple dedicated to Rama, was destroyed and replaced by the Masjid. It is quite plausible that there was a temple somewhere in the vicinity perhaps dating to the eleventh century A.D., which gradually fell into disrepair and disuse, as temples did, and that some of the material from this was picked up to be used in the construction of the mosque. What is being contested is the claim that the recently disclosed evidence of pillar bases at the site proves that there was a temple dedicated to Rama and meant to mark the birthplace of Rama, which was destroyed by Babar and a mosque built on the same site. The evidence does not support this claim. To that extent the evidence from archaeology bears out the evidence from other sources.
The VHP, which was earlier arguing that historical evidence did not matter as the site of the Ramjanmabhumi was a matter of faith, has once again shifted its ground and is now contending that the issue should be decided by archaeological evidence.
We would like to re-iterate that the Babari Masjid-Ram Janmabhumi dispute is not a question to be decided by historical or archaeological evidence. The fundamental aspect of this issue is that the destruction of the mosque and its replacement by a temple, as a means of getting even with Muslim rule, is a return to the politics of medieval times - and therefore an action which we cannot endorse, either as historians or as citizens of India.
(Source: The Indian Express, New Delhi, 5 Dec., 90)