Marxist historians have misled people : KK Muhammed (Former Director, Archaeological Survey of India)

Mr KK Muhammed

In the Shriram Janmabhoomi case, the archaeological and historical evidence overwhelmingly supported the Hindu claim. During the excavation and evidence collection in Ayodhya from 1976 to 1977, led by the esteemed senior archaeologist Prof. BB Lal, the team included the former Director of the Archaeology Department, Padmashri KK Muhammed, whose thoughts on the verdict in the Shriram Janmabhoomi case are given here.

1. References to Shriram Janmabhoomi in the Texts of various eras

Texts written in different eras helped us arrive at the verdict.

1A. The mosque already existed during Akbar’s reign from 1556 to 1605, when Abu Fazal authored ‘Ain-e-Akbari’. Fazal wrote that in the month of Chaitra, a significant number of Hindu devotees used to come to perform puja at Shriram Janmabhoomi.

1B. William Filch, a British traveller who came to Ayodhya during the reign of Jahangir (from 1605 to 1628) also wrote in his travelogue that devotees of Deity Vishnu used to come here to worship. Interestingly, his report makes no reference to a mosque at this location.

1C. Much later, in 1766, Father Joseph Tieffenthaler also mentions about Hindu worship at Shriram Janmabhoomi, but nothing is mentioned about offering of namaz.

2. Ayodhya is not related to the Prophet or Khalifa

No association between the Prophet and Ayodhya has been identified. The four Caliphs who succeeded him – Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Ali – also have no historical ties to Ayodhya. No connection with Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and Nizamuddin Auliya or any other Auliya was found. The name of only one Mughal king is associated with it, which cannot be as much an object of faith for Muslims as Prabhu Shriram is for Hindus. Just as Mecca and Medina are pivotal for Muslims, the birthplaces of Shriram and Shrikrishna hold similar importance for Hindus.

3. Shriram Janmabhoomi controversy was dragged on by the Marxist historians

The prolonging of the Shriram Janmabhoomi controversy is attributed to Marxist historians. KK Muhammed specifically implicates Irfan Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University, Romila Thapar of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and RS Sharma of the Delhi University for dragging on the dispute. According to KK Muhammed, the excavations in Ayodhya trace to 1200-1300 years ago, and exploring other sites might extend the period of human civilisation even further. This is why, Marxist historians attempted to assert that no evidence of human intervention was found in Ayodhya. Their misinformation led to the prolonged dispute. Subsequent excavations mandated by the Allahabad High Court in the 1970s, have revealed the remains of temples in Ayodhya, affirming the existence of a grand Temple dedicated to Deity Vishnu at the site.

4. Temple remains found during excavation

KK Muhammed says – “During the excavation, we discovered a brick base beneath the pillars of the Temple. Later when I went there, I saw pillars of the mosque which were made from Temple remains. In almost all the temples of the 12th and 13th centuries, you get ‘Purna Kalasha’ at the base. It is the structure of a ‘Ghada’ (Water pitcher) from which foliage would be coming out. This is a symbol of prosperity in Hindu Dharma and is known as ‘Ashta-mangala chinha’ – one of the eight auspicious symbols. We saw 14 such pillars before the mosque fell. The mosque was built by Babar’s General Mir Baqi using the already demolished or ruined materials. The previously mentioned stone pillars and the brick plinth were also evident on the mosque’s sides and back. Based on this, I had said that there was a Temple under the mosque. A ‘Vishnu Hari Sheela Phalak’ (Inscription) was also found in two pieces from the site. Written in Sanskrit using the Nagari script of the 11th-12th century, it confirms the dedication of the Temple to Shri Vishnu. Furthermore, clay Idols of Shiva and Parvati were discovered at the location”.

5. The verdict aligns with our expectation

“The verdict of Ayodhya High Court is as per our expectation. Based on archaeological and historical evidence, I had said that a Temple existed before the mosque in Ayodhya. I got an opportunity to work in Ayodhya during my archaeology studies. 52 out of 134 labourers were Muslims to keep the excavation fair. The 263 ruins found in the excavations confirmed that there was a Temple before the mosque in Ayodhya. For this, some people bad-mouthed me and even threatened me. Today, I feel vindicated”, said KK Muhammed.

Who is Karingamannu Kuzhiyil Muhammed ?

Renowned archaeologist Karingamannu Kuzhiyil Muhammed was born on 1st July 1952 in Calicut. He obtained his Master’s degree in history (1973-75) from Aligarh Muslim University and his postgraduate Diploma in Archaeology (1976-77) from the School of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.

He served as the Regional Director (North) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He has also worked on various projects of the Aga Khan Trust.

He conducted research at the site associated with Akbar’s establishment of the ‘Din-i-Ilahi’ religion. His diverse portfolio includes projects on the Christian Chapel constructed by Akbar, the Kesaria Stupa commissioned by Emperor Ashoka, Buddhist monuments at Vaishali, and numerous initiatives in Calicut and Malappuram.

Mr Durgesh Jaywant Parulkar

Ramayan : Nectar on Earth !

‘Ramayan is the nectar on Earth. It is the life story of Maryada Purushottam Shriram. It also has the life story of Seeta, who accomplished Her life. Seeta was as extraordinary as Shriram. This is why, Ramayan has become nectar on Earth’, says Justice Ram Keshav Ranade with great pride.

– Mr Durgesh Jaywant Parulkar