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)S
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' ó the alleged 50-pillar temple
ó 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 ó
the ASI's 'demolished' or 'disputed structure' ó 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 ó 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 ó 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 5? 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. 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.