3768

32 Dr. Supria Varma claim to have made the complaint of

creation of pillar base by ASI people to the muslim parties. On

page 79, PW -32 Dr. Supriya Varma has said:

"These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me.

These complaints were handed over to muslim parties and

their counsels."

3704. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma was present at the site

on the following dates:

(a) 5th April, 2003 to 12th April, 2003, (b) 11th May, 2003

to 31st May, 2003, (c) 22nd June 2003 to 27th June, 2003

and (d) 8th July 2003 to 19th July, 2003

3705. PW 29 Jaya Menon has given the period when she

was present at the site, in para 2 of her affidavit, as under:

(a) 26th April, 2003 to 2nd May, 2003, (b) 20th May, 2003 to

31st May, 2003 (c) 22nd June, 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and

(d) 19th July, 2003 to 26th July, 2003

3706. Therefore, at Trench G2, between 16th May, 2003 to

19th May, 2003, according to the own admission, PW 29 was not

present. Similarly at trench ZF1, PW 32 was not present

(29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003). PW 29 in para 13M(i) of the

affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 has asserted that she

observed Trench ZF1 from 29th to 30th April, 2003, noticed

creation of pillar base and made a complaint.

3707. The Site Note Book no. 30 maintained by Sri

A.R.Siddiqui, Trench Supervisor show at page 24 that digging

of Trench ZF1 commenced on 29th April, 2003 and on that date

digging could be made up to the depth of 40 cm. The note on the

Site Note Book 30 dated 29th April, 2003 regarding Trench ZF1

is as under:

3769

"This trench ZF 1 is also measuring 4 x 4 Mtrs. But

its half of the part towards northern side is occupied by

the barbed wire fencing and flower trees. So the only

southern portion of the trench could be possible for

excavation i.e. 4 x 2 Mtrs.

After cleaning the debries and brushing the surface

the digging work in this trench has been started from the 0

cm depth up to the depth of 40 cms. At the same depth a

floor made of lime and surkhi exposed towards western

side of the trench. At the same time a brick wall exposed

running towards west-east attached with the southern

section of the trench resting on lime floor. The width of the

brick exposed wall was 40 cms.

Finding : a red sand stone piece showing lotus (sic)

a glazed tile piece of blue colour T.C. Red ware

and bones."

3708. On 30th April, 2003, the digging commenced at the

depth of 40 cms. and closed at 65 cms.. The note of the Trench

Supervisor Sri Siddiqui is as under:

"After digging up to the depth of 65 cms a brick structure

or so called pillar base foundation was exposed almost at

the centre of the trench measuring 100 x 100 cms. At the

same depth and same level a floor made of lime Surkhi was

also exposed on either side of the brick structure which is

the earlier one or if both these were constructed at the

same time so what was the purpose of building of both

these structure as there is no co-relation between the two

with each other.

Finding : glass bangle pieces

3770

Red ware T.C.

Bone pieces"

3709. We may note here the proceedings of 1st May, 2003,

2nd May, 2003 and 3rd May, 2003 of Trench ZF1 also, as under:

"Trench – ZF-1

Date – 01.05.03

Digging started – 65 cms.

Digging closed – 80 cms.

Digging again started in this trench at the depth of

65 cms. After reaching to the depth of 75 cms. again a

floor made of lime and Surkhi was also discovered on the

western side attached with the section upto the almost half

of the trench.

At the same time and same depth a wall made of

bricks also exposed in the northern section running from

west to east direction of about 200 x 55 cms. area.

However again the exposed floor removed for further

digging. The last depth of this trench was 80 cms.

thus the layer making in this trench could be

ascertained as under

A Layer (1) at the depth of 40 cms in the shape of lime

surkhi floor

B Layer (2) at the depth of 65 cms in the shape of lime

surkhi floor

C Layer (3) at the depth of 75 cms in the shape of lime

surkhi floor

Photo recording of this trench with layers and floor

completed.

One iron nail piece, red ware pottery pieces, bone pieces,

3771

and black slipped recovered at a depth 65-80 cms.

"Trench – ZF-1 and ZE-1

Date – 02.05.2003

Trench – Baulk removal between ZF-1 and ZE-1

Process of Baulk removal which was lying between

ZF1 and ZE-1 started to find out position under the boulk.

The size of this boulk was 200 x 100 x 60 cms.

After removal of baulk a floor made of lime and

surkhi exposed partly in ZF.1 and partly ZE-1 trenches

measuring 342 x 170 cms. the floor exposed running

towards west east direction attached with the southern

section at a depth of 75 cms.

The archeological finds were, Decorated Stone

piece, stone beading, a wooden beading containing

grove lining redware, bone pieces, and terracotta pottery

pieces. These were recovered during removal of above

baulk.

Photorecording done after removal of baulk and

exposed floor.

Two pits also received on either side of the brick

pillar base foundation.

"Date : 03.05.2003

Trench : ZF 1

Operation area : 4 x 2 Mtrs.

Digging Started : 80 cms. depth

Digging closed : 90 cms depth

Due to removal of baulk the further digging work

could not be continued. However, after a gap of one day,

again this trench taken into consideration. During the

3772

course of digging just at 08 cms below the lime floor at a

depth of 83 cms a brick wall with lime plaster exposed in

this trench extending up to the next trench i.e. ZE.1. The

wall was 55 cms wide while the length was 7.40 mtrs

resting on a brick bats.

Further digging was continued up to the depth of 90

cms where again Floor (4) made of brick exposed on

both the sides of the brick structure called pillar base

foundation. This earlier exposed pillar base structure is

measuring 118 x 102 cms. Thus in this trench No. ZF.1 the

stratigraphic context may be ascertained as under:

Layer (1) i.e. floor (1) at the depth of 40 cms.

Layer (2) i.e. floor (2) at the depth of 65 cms.

Layer (3) i.e. floor (3) at the depth of 75 cms.

Layer (4) i.e. at the depth of 90 cms.

3710. The day to day register mention following for the

same period, as above, regarding Trench no.ZF1:

"Trench ZF 1

Operation Area : 4 x 2 mt.

Digging started at 25 cm & closed at 40 cms.

A lime surkhi floor exposed on plan, partly damaged in the

central half. A brick wall towards south running east-west.

Pottery: Red ware, slipped black ware" (Page 110)

"Trench ZF 1

Operation Area : same

Digging started at 40 cm & closed at 65 cm

A lime surkhi floor exposed at western walls. Brick & stone

pillar base also exposed (1 mt x 1 mt) in the centre of the

trench.

3773

Pottery: Red ware, black slipped ware" (Page 115)

"Operation Area : Same

Digging started at 65 cm & closed at 80 cm.

Floor of lime surkhi at a depth of 72 cm and a brick wall

running E-W.

Pottery: Red ware, black slipped" (Page 118)

"ZF1-ZE1

Baulk removed

Intermediate baulk between ZE1 & ZF1 was removed down

to Floor 2 at the depth of 48 cm.

Pottery: Red ware, black ware etc." (Page 122)

"Trench ZF 1

Operation Area : 4 x 2 mt.

Digging started at 75 cm & closed at 90 cm.

A brickwall with lime plaster on outer face exposed upto 80

cm. The wall is 55 cm wide. A lime surkhi floor exposed on

both sides of brick & stone pillar at 90 cm.

Pottery: Red ware, black slipped ware" (Page 129)

3711. The day to day register on all the five days, as

above, has been signed by the parties or their representatives but

none of the above two witnesses have signed it. The two

witnesses did not remain at Ayodhya from 1st June to 21st June,

2003. Therefore, we do not find any occasion for them to play

any role in preparation of the complaint dated 7th June, 2003 or

that might have been prepared by them by 31st May, 2003 but

submitted on 7th June, 2003. We do not find anything on record

to show that besides these two, anyone else assisted the

complainants in preparing the objections since only these two

have claimed on it.

3774

3712. Now, the careless manner in which the complaints

are made may be seen. On internal page three, in last paragraph,

the complainants say that the depth recorded for trench F8 on

May 21, 2003 was 2.70 m. and on May 22, 2003, it was found

2.65 m. It is complained that instead of increasing, the depth has

gone decreasing. Had it been so, the complaint would have been

absolutely correct. However, from perusal of Site Note Book

No.44 maintained by Sameer Deewan, Trench Supervisor, on

page 39 we find that the digging of trench F8, on 21st May,

2003, started at 220 cm depth and closed at 260 cm. On 22nd

May, 2003, page 41 of the aforesaid site note book shows that

the digging started at 260 cm and closed at 265 cm. The

complainants instead of 260 cms. have mentioned 270 cm which

showed that either they have deliberately tried to misguide the

authorities or the complaint lack bona fide. This laxity is

strengthened from the fact that in para 8(A) of the affidavit, PW

29 has said that on 2nd May, 2003 in Trench ZH1 area covering 4

x 0.5 metre dug upto a depth of 0.5 metre and soil was thrown

without any sorting.

3713. PW 32 on page 212 of statement has said:

"The Trenches G-2 and F-3 were excavated in my

presence."

3714. The Site Note Book No.16 pertain to Trench F3

maintained by Sri Sujeet Nayan, Trench Supervisor, shows that

digging of Trench F3 started on 30th May, 2003 and continued

till 19th July, 2003. A pillar base was found on 5th June, 2003.

Page 25, site note book says:

"A squarish brick structure (and in a "middle

portion" scored out) seems to be a pillar base was noticed

3775

at the depth of 2.86 metre from surface and continued upto

3.03 to 3.08 metre resting on floor 3."

3715. Admittedly, PW 32 was not present at the site from

1st June, 2003 to 21st June, 2003 and therefore, her claim that the

excavation was made in her presence in Trench F3 as such is not

correct. The correct position is that excavation of Trench F3

started when she claims to be at the site but on the date when

pillar base was found, she was not present at the site. On page

211 about the objection dated 7th June, 2003 she said:

"I have clearly mentioned about the structural basis (which

was later prescribed as pillar bases) in my objections

dated 7th June, 2003, I do not know as to when the

trenches referred in para 3 of objections dated 7th June,

2003 were excavated. Since I was not present at the time of

excavation of above referred trenches, I cannot exactly

disclose as to when these trenches were excavated."

3716. PW 32 also said that the objection dated 21st May,

2002 was also her's, as is evident from page 212:

"It is wrong to suggest that except the objections dated May

21, 2003 and 7th June, 2003, I have not prepared any other

objection for the party I represented. It is correct to say

that my objections of May, 21, 2003 related to trench G-2

alone. It is completely wrong to say that no irregularity

had been committed as mentioned in the objection dated

21st May, 2003, vis-a-vis, the irregularity during excavation

in trench G-2 and it is also wrong to say that there was no

occasion to point out any irregularity."

3717. From the texture and the over all facts and

circumstances, some of which we have already discussed, it

3776

appears to us that as soon as underneath structures started

appearing, the complainants, in consultation with their alleged

experts, engaged in preparing a kind of anticipatory ground to

assail the ASI people, their proceedings and report. What was

submitted on spot do not show that it was a simultaneous

preparation of something which was actually observed and

found objectionable by the persons present thereat.

3718. PW 30, who claims to remain present at the site of

excavation from March to August 2003 (para 2 of the affidavit),

has said on page 118:

^;g lgh gS fd v;ks/;k dh [kqnkbZ esa vnkyr ds vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj lHkh

i{kdkj ,oa muds ukfeuh dh mifLFkfr esa gh dksbZ etnwj ;k ,

0,l0vkbZ0 Vhe dk dksbZ lnL; mR[kuu {ks= esa tk ldrk FkkA [kqnkbZ

ds le; vnkyr }kjk fu;qDr i;Zos{kd mifLFkr jgrs FksA ---- [kqnkbZ ds

le; esjs lkFk eqfLye i{k ds ,d] nks] rhu ,DliVZ & ukfeuh jgrs

FksA** ¼ist 118½

"It is true that in the Ayodhya excavation, under the

orders of the court, any labourer or any member of the ASI

team could go to the excavation site only in the presence of

all the parties or their nominees. Court-appointed

supervisors used to be present at the time of excavation. ...

At the time of excavation, I used to be accompanied with

one or two or three experts or nominees from the Muslim

side.” (E.T.C.)

3719. PW 16, Suraj Bhan, visited the site of excavation

for three days in June 2003 and has admitted that consistent with

the GPR survey anomalies, ASI has discovered certain walls,

pillars, flows:

^^th0ih0vkj0 losZ us tks ,ukeyht fgUV dh Fkh] muesa ls dqN ij

mR[kuu esa okYl] fiylZ vk S j Q ~ +yk sl Z rk s fey s Fk s]^^ ¼ist 153½

3777

“at some places in respect of which anomalies were hinted

in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors were

discovered in the excavation" (E.T.C.)

^^esjh nf"V esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa tk s vkyk spuk u fd, tku s

okyh pht + F k h ] og ;g Fkh fd mUgk s au s ckcjh efLtn d s uhp s

db Z nhokj s a] Q'k Z vk S j d qN fiyj c sl st + [k k st fudky s

g S a] ;g lk{; g SA** ¼ist 199½

“In my opinion, the ASI Report had a feature not

amenable to criticism. It was that they (the excavators)

have discovered many walls and floors and some pillar

bases beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute

evidence.” (E.T.C.)

3720. We find it a bit surprising that the two experienced

experts i.e. PW-16 and 24 of plaintiffs (Suit-4) visited the site in

June, 2003 yet they were not taken into confidence by disclosing

full facts pertaining to the alleged creation of pillar bases.

3721. Trench F10 was taken up for excavation on 18th

May 2003 by the Trench Supervisor Z. Ali. Site notebook no. 9

from pages 37 to 45 deals with Trench F10 which was excavated

on 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd May, 2003 Sri Z.Ali found floors and

brick structures which he mentioned in detail. The day to day

register dated 18th May 2003 at page 178 says:

"Trench: F10 New Trench Opposite Areas: Norther half

Digging closed at 10 cm.

Squarish brickbats alignments noticed on plan

Pottery: Red ware."

3722. Similarly further details of other three days are on

pages 183, 187 and 191. They are also duly signed by the

representatives of the parties which does not include either PW

29 or PW 32.

3778

3723. In the complaint, about Trench F10, the only

averment is:

"Brick bats do not only lie under the stone but even over as

in SB No. 11 and 12 and F7 and SB No. 2 in F10."

3724. This is the only reference of Trench F10 mentioned

in the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, in the concluding part it

has been included with the allegation that structural bases are

being sought to be created in trenches. The site notebook no. 9

on page 37 shows that after initial excavation a floor was

exposed and in order to go deep the floor was removed in the

north half. It is just below the floor, a single course brick

alignment partly squarish shape was noticed at 10 cm depth

which was below the floor. Then again further structure was

found on 20th May, 2003 going further deep, i.e., from 10 cm to

52 cm.

3725. We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the

above record. There does not exist any other reason to infer that

there could have been any occasion for the Trench Supervisor,

Sri Z. Ali to create any pillar base on his own and if so why.

3726. Trench F9 is mentioned in the complaint with a

general statement that brick bats have been removed from the

sections. Amongst other, Trench F9 is also mentioned.

3727. Site notebook no. 18 contains the details of

excavation of Trench No. F9 under the Trench Supervisor,

Sureet Narayan (Assistant Archaeologist). The work started on

8th April, 2003 and on the first day, digging made up to the depth

of 25 cm. Further digging was made on 9th April, 2003 from 25

cm to 55 cm, and on 17th April, 2003 from 55 cm to 80 cm. On

page 6 of the notebook, discovery of a pillar base at the depth of

3779

50 cm is mentioned on 9th April, 2003. PW 29 obviously was not

present when the above digging took place though PW 32 was

present at the site as claimed by her. No averment however by

her that she witnessed anything wrong in Trench F9.

3728. In the day to day register dated 9th April, 2003, brief

detail of the work of Trench F9 is mentioned at page 39 to 41.

The register has been signed by nine persons which included

Mohd. Abid, Mahfooz Ahmad, Khalid Ahmad Khan. We find no

reason as to why after almost two months this kind of complaint

was made when at the relevant time nothing of this sort was

found by any party particularly when nine persons have signed

day to day register showing that it was highly watched at that

time.

3729. Moreover GPR survey indicated anomaly at the

depth of 0.5 meter and ASI actually found pillar base in Trench

F9 at such depth which conform the said anomaly. PW 32 Dr.

Supriya Verma has admitted that she is totally unaware of the

GPR report and has not even gone through it. On page 133/134

she has shown her unawareness with GPR survey report. On

page 132 she said "such so called pillar bases appearing in the

section were not created in my presence but from the close study

of the section, I could say that there were created pillar bases."

This is purely imaginary and that too without giving reasons in

support of such an opinion.

3730. In order to give weight to her statement she says that

"pillar base shown in the baulk of F2 G2 was created in my

presence and I lodged complaint against ASI observations. It was

created between 16th to 20th May, 2003. Besides me, Mohd. Abid

was also present at the time of aforesaid pillar base being

3780

created. This pillar base and pillar base no. 21 was created

during aforesaid period of 5 years."

3731. Sri Abid on page 156 has said that he has seen only

one person creating pillar bases in respect to whom a joint

objection was given to observer though the complaint was not

signed by him. The person concerned was some Sharma. On his

complaint the observer also came to the site. His statement is:

^^eSaus vius tks c;ku esa dgk gS fd fiyj cslst+ dkVdj cuk;s

x;s gSa] og ,0,l0vkb Z 0 d s lHk h yk sx ugh a djr s Fk sA eSaus

viuh ekStwnxh esa ,d lkgc dk s cukr s g q, n s[ k k Fk k muds ckjs

esa TokbUVyh vkCtsD'ku vkCt+oZlZ dks fn;k FkkA ok s lkgc dk uke

'k k;n 'kek Z th Fk kA ml ,rjkt + ij gekj s nLr[k +r ugh a

g S aA cfYd og gkth egcwc lkgc ;k t+Q+j;kc thykuh lkgsc vkfn ds

nLr[kr ls nkf[+ky fd;k x;k FkkA ;g fiyj csl Vªsap ua0 th&2 ds

vkl&ikl Fkk] ij e q> s rkjh[k + vk S j le; vc ;kn ugh a g SA

eSaus vkCt+oZlZ dks tkdj crk;k Fkk fd ogkWa ij fiyjcsl cuk;s tk jgs

gSaA nksuksa vkCt+oZlZ psEcj esa cSBs jgrs Fks vkSj ogha tkdj nksuksa dks crk

fn;k djrk FkkA e sj h f' kdk;r ij vkCt +o Zl Z ek Sd s ij x; s

Fk sA ;g eq>s irk ugha fd vkCt+oZlZ lkgc us bl U;k;ky; dks bl

laca/k esa fjiksVZ nh Fkh ;k ughaA fiyj csl cukus ds nkSjku gh vFkkZr~

izklsl ds nkSjku gh eSa vkCt+oZlZ lkgc dks ogkaWa ys x;k vkSj fn[kk;k FkkA

eq>s ugha ekywe fd vkCt+oZlZ lkgc us ,0,l0vkbZ0 okyksa ls dqN

dgk ;k ughaA eSa tc vkCt+oZlZ lkgc ds lkFk ekSds ij x;k rks vkCt+oZlZ

lkgcku ogkWa [kM+s gks x;s vkSj ogha [kM+s jgsA** ¼ist 156½

"The fact stated by me in my statement that the pillar

bases have been carved out, was not done by all the ASI

people. I had seen one gentleman do the same in my

presence. I had given a joint objection to the observers

regarding him. That gentleman was probably known as

Mr. Sharma. Said objection does not bear my signature

and instead had been filed under the signature of either

3781

Hazi Mahboob or Zafaryab Jilani etc. This pillar base was

near the Trench No. G2, but I do not recollect the date

and time now. I had gone to the observers and told them

that pillar bases were being carved. Both the observers

used to remain seated in the chamber and I used to tell

both of them over there. The observers went to the spot on

my complaint. I do not know whether the observers had

submitted a report in this behalf to this Court, or not. I had

taken the observers to that place during the creation of

pillar bases, i.e., during the process and had shown it to

them. I do not know whether the observers told something

to the ASI people, or not. When I visited the spot alongwith

the observers, they stopped there and stood there." (E.T.C.)

3732. Now this statement of Sri Abid does not corroborate

statement of PW 32 inasmuch as she has not said anything about

such complaint to Observer and his coming to the concerned

place etc.

3733. The excavation of Trench F2 commenced on 24th

May 2003 under the Supervision of C.B. Patil vide site

notebook no. 8. Excavation of Trench G2 admittedly

commenced on 16th May 2003 under Sri S.K. Sharma Trench

Supervisor which we have already discussed above. Therefore,

this part of the complaint is also untrustworthy.

3734. Trench F6 was supervised by Gajanan L. Katade.

The excavation commenced on 29th April 2003 on which date

PW 32 was not present at site. It continued on 1st May 2003, 2nd

May 2003 and 3rd May 2003. the pillar base said to have

discovered on 01.05.2003. In day today register four persons

have signed the report on page 122. Nothing has been said

3782

against the above Trench Supervisor as is evident from the

statement of Mohd. Abid.

3735. Trench G9 though has been mentioned in the

complaint alleging that the same was created but on page 25

DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid has admitted that there was no

disturbance in the pillar base shown in plate 38, Vol. II, ASI

report, which is pillar base no. 45, Trench G9. He says:

^^iz'u%& D;k vki tc ekSds+ ij Fks rks IysV ua- 48 esa Nk;kafdr dfFkr

fiyjcsl ,st+ bZV bt+ Åij dh lrg [kksnus ds ckn fudykA

mRrj%& bl dfFkr fiyj csl ds Åij ykbe lq[k+hZ ekStwn Fkh vkSj blds

Åij Q+yksj Fkk blfy, fiyj csl ugha dgk tk ldrk gSa

;g dguk lgh gS fd ftl 'kDy esa ;g fn[kk;h iM+ jgk gS ,slk

gh Q~yksj gVkus ds ckn fn[kk;h iM+ jgk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd

ftrus Hkh dfFkr fiyjcsalst feys gSa] mu lcesa IysV 48 tSls gh dadjhv

;k lS.M LVksu dk csl feyk gksA Iy sV 48 e s a t Slk dfFkr

fiyjc sl fn[k k;h iM + jgk g S o Slk gh fudyk Fk k ] ble s a

dkV&Nk W aV ugh a fd;k x;k Fk kA* * ¼ist 25½

"Question:- Whether the alleged pillar base

appearing in Plate No. 48, had been recovered as it is on

excavation of the upper surface, in your presence at the

spot?

Ans. Lime-'Surkhi' were present over this alleged

pillar base and a floor existed above it, due to which it

cannot be called pillar base.

It is correct to say that after removal of the floor, it

was appearing similar to the one appearing here. It is

wrong to say that concrete or sand stone bases have been

found in all the alleged pillar bases, as found in plate 48.

The alleged pillar base appearing in plate 48, was found

in the same form and it had not been cut." (E.T.C.)

3783

3736. We may mention at this stage that there is a self

contradiction in the statement of expert witnesses of Sunni

Board and other muslim parties. While DW 6/1-2 on page 25

has not disputed the correctness of pillar base in Trench G9 as

shown in page 48, Vol. II of ASI report, PW 29 Jaya Menon on

page 230 has said:

"The Plate No. 48 shows some structure but the same is not

pillar base. I do not know what it is."

3737. Similarly in the complaint the pillar bases in Trench

ZF1, ZG1 and ZH1 have been alleged to be created by ASI

people but PW 32, Dr. Supriya Verma on page 120 has admitted

the pillar bases forming part of Z series:

"The pillar bases which are acceptable to me form part of

Z series of trenches. The area of the Z series of trenches

was surveyed by the GPR survey team but I am not hundred

percent sure as to whether they had covered that area or

not."

3738. The pillar base in Trench ZH1 has been admitted to

be there and correct by PW 29 on page 203 where she said:

"Plate no. 36, 37, 38 of the ASI report were shown to the

witness who stated that all these photographs are INSITU

photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases were found

in the north of dispute site. In my opinion these are the

pillar bases."

3739. Plate no. 36 is pillar base no. 13 Trench ZH1 while

plate No. 37 and 38 are pillar bases no. 1 and 5 of trenches ZH

3/ZH 2. The above discussion, therefore, shows that in respect

to most of the pillar bases which are mentioned in the above

complaint one or the other witnesses have said otherwise.

3784

3740. There are three complaints of 8th June 2003, two by

Sri A.A. Siddiqui and one by Sri R.L. Verma Advocates. The

two complaints of Sri Siddiqui are about omission of recording

of a glazed ware recovered from Trench F3 on 6th June, 2003 by

the Trench Supervisor, Sujeet Narayan Singh and rest one is

about some newspaper reports. Sri R.L. Verma had complained

against stoppage of excavation in Trench F4 and G4. Complaint

dated 05.06.2003 is by Sri Hazi Mahboob about the visit of Sri

S.P. Gupta at the site but non mention of his name at the entry

point. Complaint dated 07.06.2003 is by Sri Jilani for taking

protective measures. The complaint dated 10.06.2003 in fact is

not a complaint but a letter requesting the Observer asking ASI

to inform about the trenches where excavation has completed so

that his experts may enter the same and obtain necessary

information. Then again the complaints dated 11.06.2003,

28.05.2003, 28.05.2003 are in respect to some news paper

reports etc. The complaint dated 13.06.2003 is for arranging

water proof tents for protection of trenches. The letter dated

08.06.2003 is about an inquiry pertaining to samples sent to

various laboratories. Then letter/complaint dated 15.06.2003 of

Sri Jilani is for ensuring the observances of principles of

excavation by ASI team in preparation of report. It says:

"With reference to the orders of the court regarding

maintenance of Transparency of the excavation work and

digging to be done on the basis of the principals governing

excavation, it is submitted that setting up Section Labels,

indicating stratum numbers, on the key/important sections,

was imperative and in the initial stages of digging this

practice was even adopted but, for the reasons best known

3785

to the ASI Team, this practice was not only abandoned but

even the labels put earlier were removed making it almost

impossible for our Nominees and Experts to check and

observe the strata, specially with reference to the

numbering of layers vis-a-vis the pottery kept in the pottery

yard.

It may also be relevant to mention that sketch plans of the

features (walls etc.) uncovered during excavation and

sketch of sections of certain key trenches should also be

accompanied with any report filed by the ASI, whether

progress report or any other report, and in future this

essential component of the report should not be omitted.

It is therefore requested that the ASI Team Leader

may kindly be instructed to observe the aforementioned

principles of excavation so that transparency may also be

maintained in the excavation work and the

digging/excavation may be completed and report may be

submitted in accordance with the order/orders of the

Court."

3741. Thereupon the Observer has made the following

note, after obtaining views of Sri Hari Manjhi ASI team leader

at that time:

"The views of the ASI team leader Shri Hari Manjhi

on the objections raised in this application/objection are as

follows:

The ASI has been following the transparency in the

excavation work right from the beginning and the work is

being carried out strictly on the principle of excavations.

There is nothing known as section labels as mentioned in

3786

the application dated 15.06.03 by the learned advocate.

The layer labels and with them only the photograph of the

trenches and their section are taken. All the sectional

photographs contain layer labels and as such it is wrong to

say that layer labels have not been put up on the sections.

Due to wind, rains and other factors the labels have fallen

and damaged. They have not been removed. Any trained

excavator and archaeologist does not require the layer

labels for study the strata and he can study the

stratigraphy on the basis of his own knowledge. It is

strange that the experts nominated by the party are

finding it "almost impossible", "to check and observe

the strata". Relevant sketch plans of the features (walls

etc.) would be definitely included in the final report and to

far as periodic progress report is concerned they are not

required as essential feature of the report.

As the ASI team is following the principles of

excavation/perfectly and observing full transparency in the

work no instruction is required to be given to the team

leader in this regard."

3742. The complaint dated 21.06.2003 by Sri M.A.

Siddiqui is in respect to certain media reports. The complaint

dated 21.06.2003 by Sri M.A. Siddiqui is for requesting ASI

people to notice the existence of plaster on the walls in trench

F1, F6, F8 and F9. The letter dated 01.07.2003 of Sri R.L.

Verma is not a complaint but actually it is an objection against

the complaint dated 07.06.2003 and 29.06.2003 submitted on

behalf of muslim parties alleging that there is an attempt to put

barrier and hurdle in the free functioning of ASI whithout there

3787

being any substance.

3743. Next is the complaint dated 28.06.2003 signed by

several persons including Sri Jilani, Mohd. Afzal, Hazi

Mahboob etc. as a supplementary objection to that of dated

07.06.2003. It requests that apart from the pillar bases ZH2/ZJ2

baulk other reported structures be not labeled as pillar base and

be dismantled. Here complaint is in respect to Trenches G8, J1,

H9 and H10.

3744. There are three more complaints of the same date.

The second complaint dated 28.06.2003 by Sri Jilani and others

is in respect to pillar base G5 and next one is with respect to the

stratification in Trench G8.

3745. The complaint dated 02.08.2003 is for dismantling

of pillar bases in Trench G2 and F2/G2 baulk. It is alleged that

between 17.07.2003 to 26.07.2003 the excavation was made in

such a manner that a pillar base in the baulk F2/G2 was created.

3746. So these are the total complaints. The substantial

one are dated 21.05.2003, 07.06.2003 and 28.06.2003. Broadly

we have seen and considered the same by perusing record and

find no basis. It thus appear that these complaints were a

brainchild of two experts PW-29 and 32 who could not support

the same during cross examination. This is really unfortunate.

As admitted by these two witnesses, they were partisan and

interested, yet it was expected from the renowned Experts that

they shall tender opinion objectively but here we found it

lacking.

3747. Now we proceed to those which were filed before us

after ASI report. Such objections/additional objections/replies,

in brief, are :

3788

(a) Objection dated 8.10.2003 filed by plaintiff no.1

(Suit-4). The prayer made in the objection is to reject the

ASI report dated 22.08.2003.

(b) An additional objection dated 3.2.2004 was also

filed by plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4). It was filed on the ground

that initially, only four out of ten video cassettes were

displayed and unless all the video cassettes are displayed

to the parties alongwith other concerned material,

complete objection may not be filed. In the circumstances,

while permitting all the cassettes/C.Ds to be made

available to the party/parties concerned, they were also

permitted to file additional objections. The prayer for

rejection of ASI report was reiterated in the additional

objections.

(c) Objection dated 6/8th October 2003 filed on behalf

of defendant no.5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim praying for

rejection of ASI report and in particular, Chapter X

thereof, and further to direct ASI as under:

"(i) to make a tabulation of all the bone pieces,

glazedwares and glazed tiles found during excavation

in the manner the other finds have been tabulated,

indicating the layer, trench, pit or dump with a

comparative table of the other artefacts as well.

(ii) to place the whole situation of the entire spot

on one sheet at one surface by making use of different

inks as regards the structures, the floors, the walls

with other materials found/noticed by the ASI during

the course of excavation and if it is found difficult it

may be done on the 5 sheets as the ASI has itself

3789

indicated to have partitioned the area in 5 blocks and

below the same the necessary notes enabling the

reader to get whole thing at one look instead of

jumping through different chapters, figures, plates or

appendixes."

Defendant no.5 (Suit-5) also filed a supplementary

objection dated 16.2.2004.

(d) Plaintiff no.9 (Suit-4) filed objection dated

8/9thOctober 2004 praying for rejection of ASI report.

Plaintiff no.9 in para 2 of objection adopted objections

filed by other plaintiffs and raised his objection in addition

thereto. In para 8 of his additional objections, plaitniff

no.9 also adopted the additional objections filed by

plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4).

3748. There are several replies filed by other parties to the

objections/supplementary objections referred to above but we

find it unnecessary to refer in details at this stage.

The Nature, Status and Scope of challenge to ASI Report

3749. Order XXVI, Rule 10A of C.P.C. empowers the

Court to issue a commission where the question involving a

scientific investigation is involved and the Court is of the

opinion that it would be convenient to have a commissioner

appointed to enquire into such question and file report. The

procedure of commission, as contained in Order XXVI rule 10,

has been made applicable vide sub-rule 2 of Rule 10A. Order

XXVI, Rule 10 and 10A of C.P.C. read as under:

"Rule 10. Procedure of Commissioner- (1) The

Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems

necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken

3790

by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report

in writing signed by him, to the Court.

(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit- The

report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him

(but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence

in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court

or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to

the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open

Court touching any of the matters referred to him or

mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the

manner in which he has made the investigation.

(3) Commissioner may be examined in person-Where

the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the

proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further

inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.

Rule 10A. Commission for scientific investigation- (1)

Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific

investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be

conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if

it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice

so to do, issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit,

directing him to inquire into such question and report

thereon to the Court.

(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far

as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed

under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner

appointed under rule 9."

3750. A bare reading of Rule 10A of C.P.C. shows that a

discretion is vested in the Court to get any scientific

3791

investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient.

It is only when the Court is of the opinion that scientific

investigation may help it in extracting truth. The report of

Commissioner appointed to make investigation together with the

evidence enclosed therewith is an evidence in the suit. The

parties having grievance, have two kinds of remedies. Firstly,

they can file an objection to the report and secondly, they can

also lead evidence to show that what has been said in the report

is not correct.

3751. In Vembagounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder AIR

1996 Madras 347 the Court took the view that before asking

parties to lead evidence on merit, if an objection has been raised

to the report of Commissioner, it ought to be considered and

decided.

3752. In this case also parties have raised objections

against the report and were to be decided by this Court, but then

it was found that the nature of objection raised by the parties is

such that unless the parties are allowed to lead evidence, as

several factual aspects were involved, the decision on objection

cannot be taken. Therefore, a detailed order was passed on

03.02.2005 directing that ASI report shall be admitted as an

evidence but the objection raised by the parties shall be

considered and decided at the time of final hearing by which

time the evidence etc. would stand completed.

3753. In Amena Bibi Vs. S.K. Abdul Haque AIR 1997

Cal. 59 the Court said that acceptance of Commission's report as

an evidence does not mean that parties are precluded from

challenging the report. The report of the commissioner is not

binding on the Court. It may accept the facts arrived at by the

3792

commissioner or may not accept his conclusion or vice-versa as

held in Bibhuti Bhushan Vs. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965 Cal.

199 and Sankar Kumar Vs. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998

Orissa 117.

3754. There is no requirement in law nor the reading of

rule 10 or 10A C.P.C. shows that unless the Commissioner is

examined as a witness, his report cannot be treated to be a

substantive evidence. None of the parties in this case has opted

to examine the commissioner touching on any of the matter in

the report submitted by ASI. In fact the detailed objections filed

by the parties, particularly the plaintiffs (Suit-4), do not suggest

that the entire report and finding are incorrect or perverse but

what has been argued vehemently is that the conclusion drawn

by ASI in its report in the penultimate paragraphs and chapter is

wrong and should be ignored or rejected. However, allegations

of bias or mala fide are also levelled and in case those

allegations are found substantiated, it may result in vitiating the

entire report.

3755. Sri P.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant

no.20 (Suit-4) supporting ASI report contended:

A. The report of ASI is an elaborate document and the

persons comprising excavation team of ASI were working

directly under the control and direction of this Court.

Their integrity is unquestioned and as such the said report

is entitled to be accepted in its entirety as an expert

scientific report under Order XXVI Rule 9, 10 and 10A

read with Section 75 C.P.C. as well as Section 45 of the

Evidence Act.

B. Section 75(e) of C.P.C. is part and parcel of Part III

3793

titled as 'incidental proceedings' whereunder the order can

be passed by this Court to carry out excavation work and

submit report to this Court. The report having been

submitted in compliance thereof is a scientific report and

an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It

is reliable and admissible being valuable piece of

evidence.

C. The A.S.I. Report is result of incidental proceeding

which is in aid of the final proceedings. The report has to

be relied on to do complete and ultimate justice.

D. A.S.I. is a reputed institution. Integrity of its team

members cannot be questioned hence its report must be

accepted as it is.

E. There are only wild allegations that the ASI people

acted under the hands of the then BJP Government and

Minister concerned but the same has not been

substantiated by giving cogent evidence. The plaintiffs

had several opportunities to make applications before this

Court impeaching the integrity of the ASI but as the

opportunity has not been availed of and no such thing was

done. It is only when the report was submitted to this

Court which goes against the plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. some

of the defendants of other suits, the objections making

reckless allegations has been filed therefore are liable to

be rejected.

F. The plaintiffs, their experts, nominees, advocates

have participated in excavation proceedings and the

excavation proceedings was conducted in their presence

and observation. It was also supervised by the Observers

3794

appointed by this Court. In these circumstances any

challenge to the ASI report on the ground that the

excavation has not been done faithfully and correctly

cannot be accepted and the objections are liable to be

rejected.

G. Since no party made an application for examination

of ASI Archaeologist/Experts, there is no occasion for

them to assail the report since it amounts to acceptance.

3756. He has also relied on some of the authorities of the

Apex Court and High Courts which we may refer in brief since

the principles laid down therein cannot be doubted.

3757. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others Vs.

Chiman Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3 says that it is not safe

for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate

report of a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are

unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of task

was proved by his report and who had not blindly adopted the

assertions of either party.

3758. In Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese

2004(6) SCC 378 the Court said that "incidental" and "ancillary"

proceedings are taken recourse to in aid of the ultimate decision

of the suit and any order passed therein would have a bearing on

the merit of the matter. "Supplemental proceedings", however,

mean a separate proceeding in an original action in which the

court where the action is pending is called upon to exercise its

jurisdiction in the interest of justice. Supplemental proceedings

may not affect the ultimate result of suit and a supplemental

order can be passed even at the instance of the defendants.

3759. In G.L. Vijan Vs. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136

3795

in the context of incidental and ancillary power, the Court said:

“11. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a

view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.

Supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse to in

a routine manner but only when an exigency of situation

arises therefor. The orders passed in the supplemental

proceedings may sometimes cause hardships to the other

side and, thus, are required to be taken recourse to when it

is necessary in the interest of justice and not otherwise.

There are well defined parameters laid down by the Court

from time to time as regards the applicability of the

supplemental proceedings.

13. The expression “ancillary” means aiding; auxiliary;

subordinate; attendant upon; that which aids or promotes a

proceeding regarded as the principal.

14. The expression “incidental” may mean differently in

different contexts. While dealing with a procedural law, it

may mean proceedings which are procedural in nature but

when it is used in relation to an agreement or the delegated

legislation, it may mean something more; but the

distinction between an incidental proceeding and a

supplemental proceeding is evident.

3760. In Harihor Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah

AIR 1966 Orissa 121 in para 4 the Court said :

"Rule 10 of O. 26 does not make the report of the

Commissioner as concluding the question of valuation. On

the contrary, the rule gives clear indication that the report

of the Commissioner is only one of the pieces of evidence

amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for

3796

determination of the issue on valuation of the suit. When

the parties file no objection to the Commissioner's report,

the court rightly accepts the report. Its acceptance by itself

does not, however, mean that parties are precluded from

challenging the evidence of the Commissioner and the

witnesses examined by him or by giving any other evidence

to countermand the effect of the Commissioner's report. "

3761. Following the above decision, Calcutta High Court

in Amina Bibi (Supra) said:

"Thus, from the underlying principle emerging from

the above cases, it is manifest that the party objecting to

the Commissioner's report can lead best possible evidence

at the time of hearing to countermand the report even if the

same was accepted earlier. The Court on taking the

comprehensive view decide the point at issue and arrive at

right conclusion I do not find at this stage any justification

to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court order

accepting the Commissioner's report.”

3762. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India

AIR 1984 SC 802 in para 14 it was held:

"It would be entirely for the Court to consider what

weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the report of

the Commissioner and to what extent to act upon such facts

and data. But it would not be correct to say that the report

of the Commissioner has no evidentiary value at all, since

the statements made in it are not tested by cross-

examination."

3763. In para 81 of the said judgemnt the court said:

"Interference with the result of a detailed and careful

3797

report so submitted should be made only for cogent and

compelling reasons. In a case where an elaborate report is

filed by the Commissioner, whose integrity, credibility and

carefulness are not questioned, whose careful and

laborious execution of his task is proved by the report

itself, interference will be made only in exceptional

circumstances, in cases where convincing evidence contra

is available before Court."

3764. In Sharda Vs. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 the

Court held that the primary duty of the Court is to see that truth

is arrived at. It also held that in certain cases scientific

investigation by the experts in the field is not only found to be

leading to the truth of the matter, but may also lead to the

removal of misunderstanding between the parties.

3765. There are some other authorities which are basically

on the question that the report of the Commissioner cannot be

rejected or ignored only on the ground that the Commissioner

was not examined as witness or that in the absence of any

allegation against the integrity and impartiality of the

Commissioner the report must be admitted. These are not

relevant for our purposes for the reason that there is no

challenge to the ASI report on the ground that the members of

the team of ASI have not been examined. So far as the second

part is concerned, general allegations of bias have been levelled

and they have to be considered and investigated.

3766. Sri Jilani referred to one part of his objection i.e.,

bias and mala fide of ASI in order to buttress his submission for

rejection of the entire report but rest of his objections pertain to

individual findings/interpretation of finds and artefacts and,

3798

therefore, basically travel into the realm of credibility of the

evidence and not the mere procedural irregularity.

3767. The allegations of bias, lack of impartiality against

ASI have been made in general in the objections filed by the

plaintiffs (Suit-4), but perusal thereof makes it clear that no

individual in particular or the group of persons as such has been

named in respect of the said allegations. When an act of officials

is challenged on the ground of bias etc., certain well established

principles have to be observed.

3768. We may refer to State of Bihar and Anr. Vs.

P.P.Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. The Court in para 50, 51

and 52 said:

"50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias,

grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose.

The administrative action must be said to be done in good

faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done

negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have

been done in good faith. An administrative authority must,

therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act

for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to

the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the

circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly

exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The

determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions,

namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique

motive; and (ii) whether the administrative action is

contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a

valid exercise of administrative power.

51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have

3799

been made mala fide for such considerations Mere

assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It

must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts

and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is

established that the action has been taken mala fide for any

such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable

exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.

52. Public administration cannot be carried on in a spirit

of judicial detachment. There is a very wide range of

discretionary administrative acts not importing an implied

duty to act judicially though the act must be done in good

faith to which legal protection will be accorded. But the

administrative act dehors judicial flavour does not entail

compliance with the rule against interest and likelihood of

bias. It is implicit that a complainant when he lodges a

report to the Station House Officer accusing a person of

commission of an offence, often may be a person

aggrieved, but rarely a propone publico. Therefore,

inherent animosity is licit and by itself is not tended to

cloud the veracity of the accusation suspected to have been

committed, provided it is based on factual foundation."

3769. In CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar &

Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 56 the words "favoritism" or "partiality"

came to be considered. In para 11 to 16 the Court held:

"11. ....the Legislature has consciously used the words

'favoritism or partiality to one set of workers' and not

differential treatment. Thus, the mental element of bias was

necessary to be established by cogent evidence. No

evidence in that regard was led. On the contrary the

3800

approach of the Industrial Court and the High Court was

different. One proceeded on the basis of breach of

assurance and the other on the ground of discrimination.

There was no evidence brought on as regards the pre

requisite i.e. favoritism or partiality. favoritism means

showing favour in the matter of selection on circumstances

other than merit. (per Advanced Law Lexicon by

P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005). The expression

'favoritism' means partiality, bias. Partiality means

inclination to favour a particular person or thing.

Similarly, it has been sometimes equated with capricious,

not guided by steady judgment, intent or purpose.

favoritism as per the Websters' Encyclopedic Unabridged

Dictionary means the favouring of one person or group

over others having equal claims. Partiality is the state or

character being a partial, favourable, bias or prejudice.

12. According to Oxford English Dictionary "favoritism"

means - a deposition to show, or the practice of showing

favour or partiality to an individual or class, to the neglect

of others having equal or superior claims; under

preference. Similarly, "partiality" means the quality or

character of being partial, unequal state of judgment and

favour of one above the other, without just reason.

Prejudicial or undue favouring of one person or party: or

one side of a question; prejudice, unfairness, bias.

13. Bias may be generally defined as partiality or

preference. It is true that any person or authority required

to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter must act

impartially.

3801

"If however, 'bias' and 'partiality' be defined to mean

the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the

Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no

one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no

blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions

and the processes of education, formal and informal,

create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular

instances and which, therefore, by definition, are

prejudices." (per Frank, J. in Linahan, Re. F 2d at p

652).

14. It is not every kind of differential treatment which in

law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which

is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest -

whether pecuniary or personal.

15. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also

seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that

no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of

mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine.

Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is

sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by

establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving

circumstances from which the operation of influences

affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be

inferred.

16. As we have noted, every preference does not vitiate an

action. If it is rational and unaccompanied by

considerations of personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise,

it would not vitiate a decision.

3770. In a case where mala fide or bias is substantiated by

3802

cogent material the act of the authority howsoever high it may

be shall immediately get tainted and vitiated in law but mere

dissatisfaction or displeasure of an individual or group of

individual's perception about something cannot be a yardstick to

hold, an otherwise valid act or report of an authority, invalid.

3771. In People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. U.O.I.

2005(5) SCC 363 the Court in para 11 and 12 observed :

"11. ....if public displeasure or perception were to be the

yardstick to exclude people from holding constitutional or

statutory offices then many such posts in the country may

have to be kept vacant.

12. Then again what is the yardstick to measure public

perception. Admittedly, there is no barometer to gauge the

perception of the people. In a democracy there are many

people who get elected by a thumping majority to high

legislative offices. Many a times public perception of a

class of society in regard to such people may be that they

are not desirable to hold such post but can such a public

opinion deprive such people from occupying constitutional

or statutory offices without there being a law to the

contrary? There is vast qualitative difference between

public prejudice and judicial condemnation of an

institution based on public perception."

3772. In Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja

Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182 explaining the concept of bias

the Apex Court said:

“10. The word “bias” in popular English parlance stands

included within the attributes and broader purview of the

word “malice”, which in common acceptation means and

3803

implies “spite” or “ill-will” (Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,

5th Edn., Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general

statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of

indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence

available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether

in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the

miscarriage of justice.

32. Lord Hutton also in Pinochet case 16 observed:

“There could be cases where the interest of the Judge in the

subject-matter of the proceedings arising from his strong

commitment to some cause or belief or his association with

a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake

public confidence in the administration of justice as much

as a shareholding (which might be small) in a public

company involved in the litigation.”

33. Incidentally in Locabail [Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.

Bayfield Properties Ltd. 17 ] the Court of Appeal upon a

detail analysis of the oft-cited decision in R. v. Gough 18

together with the Dimes case 19 Pinochet case 16,

Australian High Court’s decision in the case of J.R.L., ex p

C.J.L., Re 20 as also the Federal Court in Ebner, Re 21 and

on the decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa

in President of the Republic of South Africa v. South

African Rugby Football Union22 stated that it would be

rather dangerous and futile to attempt to define or list the

factors which may or may not give rise to a real danger of

bias. The Court of Appeal continued to the effect that

everything will depend upon facts which may include the

nature of the issue to be decided. It further observed:

3804

“By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought

to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity

between the Judge and any member of the public involved

in the case; or if the Judge were closely acquainted with

any member of the public involved in the case, particularly

if the credibility of that individual could be significant in

the decision of the case; or if, in a case where the

credibility of any individual were an issue to be decided by

the Judge, he had in a previous case rejected the evidence

of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on

his ability to approach such person’s evidence with an open

mind on any later occasion; or if on any question at issue

in the proceedings before him the Judge had expressed

views, particularly in the course of the hearing, in such

extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his

ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind (see

Vakuta v. Kelly23); or if, for any other reason, there were

real ground for doubting the ability of the Judge to ignore

extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections

and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues

before him. The mere fact that a Judge, earlier in the same

case or in a previous case, had commented adversely on a

party-witness, or found the evidence of a party or witness

to be unreliable, would not without more found a

sustainable objection. In most cases, we think, the answer,

one way or the other, will be obvious. But if in any case

there is real ground for doubt, that doubt should be

resolved in favour of recusal. We repeat: every application

must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the

3805

individual case. The greater the passage of time between

the event relied on as showing a danger of bias and the

case in which the objection is raised, the weaker (other

things being equal) the objection will be.”

34. The Court of Appeal judgment in Locabail 17 though

apparently as noticed above sounded a different note but in

fact, in more occasions than one in the judgment itself, it

has been clarified that conceptually the issue of bias ought

to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the

individual case — a slight shift undoubtedly from the

original thinking pertaining to the concept of bias to the

effect that a mere apprehension of bias could otherwise be

sufficient.

35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere

apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias

and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances

must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion

drawn therefrom — in the event however the conclusion is

otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger

of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on

the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather

fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular court, Tribunal

or authority, question of declaring them to be

unsustainable would not arise. The requirement is

availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this

context that we do record our concurrence with the view

expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case17.”

3773. In State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna 2001 (2) SCC

330 it was decided that the test is whether there is a mere

3806

apprehension or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this

score that on the surrounding circumstances must and ought to

be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. The

court in para 8 and 8 said:

"5. Whereas fairness is synonymous with

reasonableness- bias stands included within the attributes

and broader purview of the word "malice" which in

common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill

will". One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing

bias or malice and is now well settled that mere general

statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of

indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence

available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether

in fact, there was existing a bias or a malafide move which

results in the miscarriage of justice....In almost all legal

enquiries, "intention as distinguished from motive is the

all- important factor" and in common parlance a malicious

act stands equated with an intentional act without just

cause or excuse."

"8. The test, therefore, is as to whether there is a mere

apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it

is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must

and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn

therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is

otherwise that there is existing a real danger of bias

administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other

hand allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in

administrative action, question of declaring them to be

unsustainable on the basis therefor, would not arise."

3807

3774. Since some general but serious allegations have

been levelled against ASI regarding manner of excavation,

interpretation and assessment, though not substantiated, but we

shall examine all these aspects minutely since it is not a matter

where we should leave even an iota of doubt in the mind of any

party. Rather we intend to consider all the possible angles in the

matter so that there may not remain a grievance that one or other

aspect, howsoever minor it is, has escaped consideration of the

Court.

3775. The origin, status, reputation and other credentials of

ASI would be a relevant factor for considering credibility and

reliability of its report, besides other aspects of the matter. The

facts about ASI's origin, development, status etc. have been

placed before us in the form of a computerized printout taken

from Internet site of Archaeological Survey of India and this has

not been doubted or objected by any of the parties. A perusal

thereof shows that the ASI traced back its origin to 15th January

1784 when Sir William Jones formed “Asiatic Society” at

Calcutta consisting of a group of antiquarians. This Society

started archaeological, historical, monumental, cultural and

religious researches in India and commenced its publication of

periodical journal “Asiatic Researches” in 1788. The objective

of the said research and publication was to make public aware of

the antiquarian wealth of India.

3776. Since William Jones is referred as the point of

commencement of ASI. Some facts throwing light on his profile

would be ancillary but important. Born on 28th September' 1746

in London, William Jones studied Arabic, Hebrew and also

acquainted himself with French and Italian. In 1764, he entered

3808

University College, Oxford and continued his study of oriental

literature. He learnt Persian and Arabic by the aid of one “Syrian

Mirza”, whom, it is said, he discovered and brought from

London. He added to his knowledge Spanish, Puertagese and

Chinese also. In 1766, he obtained a fellowship. When King

Christian VII of Denmark visited England in 1768 bringing with

him a “Light of Nadir Shah” in Persian, Jones was requested to

translate the manuscript in French. This translation appeared in

1770 with an introduction containing a description of Asia and

short history of Persia. In 1771, he published a Dissertation “Sur

Law Literature Orientale” defending Oxford scholars against the

criticism made by Anquetil du Perron in the introduction to his

translation of the “Zend Avesta”. In the same year, i.e. 1771

appeared his Crammer of Persian language. He then studied law

and was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1774.

Appointed Commissioner in Bankruptcy in 1776 made Judge of

Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, then “Fort William”

and was Knighted in 1783. He arrived in India sometimes in

1783 (probably in December) and founded in January' 1784, the

“Bengal Asiatic Society”. He remained its President till his

death. In India, he studied Sanskrit. In 1789, he completed his

translation of “Shakuntala” of Kalidasa. He also translated the

collection of fables titled as “Hitopadesa”, “Geet Govind” and

considerable portion of “Vedas”; besides editing the text of

Kalidasa's poem “Ritusamhara”. He undertook in 1788, task of

compiling a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan law, which he

could not complete since died on 27.4.1794, but got published

“Ordinance of Manu” and some items with respect to

Mohammedan laws of succession of property by intestate and

3809

inheritance.

3777. This biography apparently shows his mettle but

there existed something more. In “Asiatic Researches” Vol-I,

first published in 1788, recently republished in 1979, pages 234-

235, we find the following comments of Sir William Jones:

“As to the general extension of our pure faith in

Hindustan there are at present many sad obstacles to

it . . . . . We May assure ourselves that . . . . . Hindus will

never be converted by any mission from the Church of

Rome, or from any other Church; and the only human

mode perhaps, of causing so great revolution, will be to

translate it to Sanskrit . . . . . Such chapters of the

prophets, particularly of Isaiah, as are indisputably

evangelical together with one of the gospels, and a plain

prefatory discourse, containing full evidence of the very

distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the

history of the divine person (Jesus) predicted, were

severally made public; and then quietly to disperse the

work among the well educated natives.”

3778. He wrote an essay “On the Gods of Greece, Italy

and India” in 1784 running in about 47 pages, which had the

following comments:

“Since Gods of all shapes and dimensions may be

framed by the boundless powers of imaginations or by the

frauds and follies of men, in countries never corrected; but

when features of resemblance, too strong to have been

accidental, or observable in different systems of

polytheism, without fancy or prejudice to colour them and

improve the likeness . . . . . It is my design, in this assay, to

3810

point out such a resemblance between the popular

worships of the old Greeks and Italians and that of the

Hindus.”

“Rama and Crishna, must now be introduced, and

there several attributes distinctly explained. The first of

them, I believe, was the Dionysus of the Greeks.”

“The first poet of the Hindus was the great Valmic,

and his Ramayan is an Epick Poem . . . . . Comparison of

the two poems (the Dionysus and the Ramayan) would

prove Dionysus and Rama to have been the same person;

and I incline to think that he was Rama the son of Kush,

who might have established the first regular Government in

this part of Asia.” (emphasis added)

3779. About “Manu”, Jones writes:

“This epitome of the first Indian history . . . . . though

whimsically dressed up of a form of allegory, same to

prove a Primeval tradition in this country of the universal

deluge described by Moses and fixes consequently the time

when the genuine Hindu chronology actually begins.”

“We may suspect that all the 14 Menus are reducible

to one, who was called Nuh by the Arabs and probably by

the Hebrews; though we have disguised his name by an

improper pronunciation of it. Some mere relation between

the 7th Menu and Grecian Menos may be inferred.”

3780. He further said:

“The whole crowed of God and Goddess of ancient

Rome and modern Varanes (Varanasi of India) mean only

the powers of nature, expressed in a variety of males and a

multitude of fanciful names.”

3811

“Be all this as it may, I am persuaded that a

connection subsisted between the old idolatrous nations of

Egypt, India, Greece and Italy, long before they migrated to

their several settlements.”

3781. This shows the approach, real motive and attitude

with which the learned gentleman appears to give boost to the

Indian literature. However, one must feel indebted to him for the

reason that he and others like him gave birth to a local cadre of

historians, academicians etc. to explore and research with sheer

nationalistic instinct. Moreover, ultimately we got an institution

which has been able to protect commendably a lot of ancient

monuments and has also resulted in discovery of cultural wealth

of this country.

3782. Going back to our study about ASI, the research

work, it claimed, resulted in collection of a large number of

manuscripts of Hindu scriptures as also antiquities and other

remains in the office of Asiatic Researches. A museum was

established at Calcutta in 1814 where the above collection

housed. Similar Societies were also statrted at Bombay

(Mumbai) in 1804 and at Madras (Chennai) in 1818. In 1800

Dr. Francis Buchanan (a Physician) was appointed by Marquis

of Wellesley to survey Mysore. Dr. Buchanan was also required

to undergo a survey of Provinces subject to Presidency of

Bengal by the Governor General in Council in 1807. This area

of survey constituted parts of the present day Bihar and Uttar

Pradesh. He was engaged to survey the monuments and

antiquities in the area of survey. At that time it was East India

Company which had commenced its transmission into a Ruler

from its initial position of a Merchant. Dr. Buchanan was

3812

required to collect information upon the general topography of

each District; the conditions of the inhabitants, their religious

customs; the natural productions of the country; fisheries,

forests, mines and quarries; the state of agriculture; the

condition of landed property and tenures; the progress made in

the arts and manufactures; the operation of commerce, and

every particular that can be regarded as forming an element in

the prosperity or depression of the people.

3783. To provide protection to antiques, monuments etc.

the first legislation came in the form of Bengal Regulation, XIX

of 1810 which empowered the Government to intervene in case

of risks to monuments. In 1833 "James Prinsep" became

Secretary of Asiatic Society. He was assisted by "Alexander

Cunningham", a Second Lieutenant of the Bengal Engineers.

They planned for an organization “Indian Archaeological

Survey” and placed their proposal before the British

Government in 1848. However, this attempt failed. After take

over of reign by the British Government from East India

Company, it appears that a fresh proposal was submitted by

"Alexander Cunningham" which drew attention of Lord

Canning who sanctioned a scheme of survey in Northern India

and appointed "Alexander Cunningham" as the first

Archaeological Surveyor with effect from December 1861.

Cunningham’s survey stretched from Gaya in the East, to

Indus, in the northwest, and from Kalsi in the north to Narmada

in the south between 1861 to 1865. In this survey, it is said that

Cunningham proceeded in the footsteps of Chinese traveller

(pilgrim) Hieun Tsang and also submitted his report.

3784. In 1863, Act No. XX of 1863 was passed which

3813

empowered the Government to prevent injury to and preserve

buildings remarkable for their antiquity or for their historical or

archaeological value. Lord Lawrence, however, abolished the

archaeological survey in 1866 bringing to a sudden halt of the

archaeological survey in Indian Sub-continent. Some minor

work with respect to the state of archaeological style of India in

Bombay, Madras, Bengal and the Northwestern Provinces

continued but the revival of archaeological survey saw the light

of the day in 1871 when it was revived as a distinct department

of the Government. A. Cunningham was appointed as Director

who assumed charge in February 1871. He was provided with

three assistants J.D. Beglar, A.C. Carlleyle and H.B.W. Garrik.

A new journal “Indian Antiquary” was also started in 1872.

Cunningham got published “Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum”

which contains inscriptions of connected epigraphical material

and pursuant to his suggestion the Government appointed J.F.

Fleet as Government Epigraphist in January 1883 for

deciphering and interpreting the inscriptions.

3785. The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 was

promulgated to protect and preserve the treasure found

accidentally but had archaeological and historical value. This

legislation was treated to be a landmark for confiscation and

safety of treasures and antiquities found during chance digging.

In 1878 when Lytton observed that conservation of ancient

monuments be not left exclusively to the charge of the

Provincial Governments and should be brought under the

purview of the Government of India, it resulted in appointment

of Major H.H. Cole as Curator of ancient monuments in 1881

with an aim to assist the Provincial and Central Government in

3814

all matters related to conservation of monuments. A.

Cunningham retired in 1885 followed by Burgess who was

appointed Director in March 1886. Besides others, during his

period, a new publication “Epigraphica Indica” started in 1888

and he got 20 volumes published of which seven formed part of

Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series. He

suggested to abolish the post of Director General and to divide

the entire country into two Circles which caused a lot of chaos

and confusion. In 1895 the Government of India requested the

Asiatic Society to bear the responsibilities of publication of

survey report which it refused. Later on, a proposal was made

for creation of five Circles with an Archaeological Surveyor as

Head at Bombay with Sind and Berar ; Madras and Coorg ;

Punjab, Baluchistan and Ajmer; Northwestern Provinces and

central Provinces ; Bengal and Assam and to make provision for

pension to those who joined survey department before that date.

The said proposal was accepted in May 1899.

3786. John Marshall was appointed as the new Director

General in 1901 and the entire Survey Department was

centralized vesting power with the Director General of A.S.I.

by Lord Curzon. Marshall started new series of publication,

namely, Annual reports of the Director General which contained

the works and research activities carried out by the Survey

Department. A separate branch for Arabic and Persian in

Epigraphy was also created and Dr. Ross was appointed for this

purpose in 1904 Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904

(Act no. 7 of 1904) was promulgated to provide effective

preservation and authority over the monuments particularly

those which were in the custody of individual for private

3815

ownership. The strength of the organization thereafter continued

to increase by addition of Archaeological Chemist and Deputy

Director General in 1917 and 1918. John Marshall relinquished

the post of Director General in 1928 succeeded by H.

Hargreaves and since thereafter this organization has continued

with credit of making several discoveries, explorations and

excavations of National and International repute. After the

country achieved its independence in 1947, the Act no. 31 of

1947 “The Antiquities Export Control Act, 1947” was enacted

to regulate export of antiques through Director General, ASI.

Under the constitution which the people of India gave to

themselves on 26.1.1950, the Archaeology was given due

importance which is reflected from Entry 67 of List 1 ; Entry 12

of List 2 and Entry 40 of List 3 Seventh Schedule which read as

under :

List-1

“67. Ancient and historical monuments and records, and

archaeological sites and remains, declared by or under law

made by Parliament to be of national importance.”

List-2

“12. Libraries, museums and other similar institutions

controlled or financed by the State; ancient and historical

monuments and records other than those declared by or

under law made by Parliament to be of national

importance.”

List-3

“40. Archaeological sites and remains other than those

declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of

national importance.”

3816

3787. The Government of India also enacted “The Ancient

and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act” in 1951

(Act no. LXXI of 1951). All the protected ancient monuments

already notified under Act no. VII of 1904 were redeclared as

monuments and archaeological sites of national importance

under Act no. LXXI of 1951. Another 450 monuments and sites

of part B States were also added. Some more monuments and

archaeological sites were also declared as of national

importance under Section 126 of the States Reorganization Act

1956.

3788. Later on some more enactments came into existence,

i.e., Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

Act, 1958 and Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The

former repealed Act no. LXXI of 1951 and the later repealed

Act no. XXXI of 1947. Under the aforesaid legislations ASI and

its Director General and other Authorities have been entrusted

several statutory duties/obligations and powers besides the

power of granting license for private individuals (natural or

juristic) to undertake excavation work in the country.

3789. The above discussion beyond doubt shows that ASI

is an organization under the Government of India and satisfies

all the requisites to be termed as a “Department of the Central

Government”. Admittedly it is working under the Ministry of

Culture and Human Resources. By all means ASI therefore,

represents the Government of India being a Department thereof

and in law, can be presumed to be an expert body of the

Government on the subject.

3790. The disputed site or the disputed building was not

3817

notified/declared as a Protected or Preserved Monument under

the above enactments and the learned counsel for the parties

neither could dispute it nor could show otherwise.

3791. Sri P.R. Ganpati Ayer, senior Advocate referring to

the Act of 1904 and 1958 submitted that ASI and its officers

including the Director General are part and parcel of the

Government of India and a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution of India. No substantial objection thereto

could be raised by other learned counsels also. In view of

discussion made above, we find substance in it.

3792. Now back to the objections, the substantive

objections to the very credibility of ASI report and its

functioning are by the plaintiffs (Suit 4) and defendant no. 5

(Suit 5). These objections were considered by this Court but

vide order dated 3.2.2005. It held that objections can suitably be

considered and appreciated after giving liberty to the parties to

adduce relevant evidence and thereafter decide at the time of

hearing.

3793. We propose to refer ASI report as well as the

objections of the parties aforementioned and the relevant

evidence (favour and against) in order to appreciate the

genuineness thereof and to decide whether ASI report can be

relied upon as an evidence wholly or partly in consideration of

the aforesaid issues which are of prime importance to both the

sides.

3794. The first allegation is that the ASI has prepared its

report with prejudiced mind and one-sided presentation of

evidence. It is under the pressure of the then BJP Government at

the Centre (para-1 of the objection of plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4). The

3818

rest of the objections are under the headings "Archaeological

evidence of 'massive structure'"; "The pillar bases are real and

no myth as alleged"; "The alleged circular shrine"; "The Divine

Couple and other architectural Members"; "Inadequacies of the

stratigraphy"; "Terracotta figurines—Relevance of"; "Glazed

wares and Glazed Tiles "Pottery"; "Bones"; "inscriptions"; and

lastly "Other contradictions and discrepancies". We shall

reproduce details at the relevant stage.

3795. In the objections filed by defendant no.5 (Suit-5)

great stress has been laid on who wrote Chapter X. Para 2

thereof shows that he has proceeded by assuming that the

disputed structure “indisputably” was raised in 1528 though the

record shows that this fact itself is an issue and has to be

adjudicated upon by this Court. Therefore, the question that it is

an “indisputable fact” does not arise. About the identity of

figurines and artefacts, defendant no.5 (Suit-5) says that they are

not confined to only Hindus but Ayodhya was also an important

religious centre for Muslims known as “Khurd Mecca” having

graves of two sons of Adam i.e., Ayyub and Sheesh and also

that of Buddhist, Jains and Shaivites. The terracotta, human and

animal figurines are used and played by children of all

irrespective of religious inclination, particularly during festivals

like Diwali etc. but ASI has ignored this aspect. The divinity to

any such figurine would not come unless there is deification by

observing prescribed rituals i.e., Pran Pratishtha. Rest of the

objections are basically in line with what has been said by

plaintiff no.1 (Suit-5). Similar is the position to the objections

filed on behalf of plaintiff no.9 (Suit-4).

3796. One thing however is clear. Though the report of

3819

ASI on certain aspects including technical has been criticized by

the Experts of Muslim parties but in general, what emerges,

some undisputed facts, i.e. admission on the part of the objectors

on many aspects, which are :

(i) A lot of structural and construction acitivities

existed at the disputed site going back to the level of

Shunga and Kushan period.

(ii) The exact number of floors, pillar bases and walls

noted by ASI though objected but the very existence of

several floors, walls, and pillar bases beneath the disputed

stricture is not disputed.

(iii) The structure below the disputed structure sought to

be explained as Kanati mosque or Idgah. There is no

suggestion that the structure below the disputed building

was of non-religious nature.

(iv) Some of the constructions or artefacts are sought to

relate to Jains or Buddhist but here also it is not the case

that it was Islamic in nature or non religious.

(v) Though allegations of lack of independence in

professional style etc. is sought to be supported from the

alleged misinterpretation or wrong interpretation or

omission or contradictions and discrepancies in some part

of the report but no one of ASI team, individual or group

has been named or shown to have worked in a manner

lacking integrity, independence etc. (except where two

nominees of Muslim side i.e. Dr. Jaya Menon (PW 29)

and Dr. Supriya Verma (PW 32) reported creation of pillar

bases in Trench G2 vide complaints dated 21.5.2003 and

7.6.2003).

3820

3797. 28 witnesses, i.e., PW 1 to 28 on behalf of plaintiffs

(Suit-4) were examined between 24.07.1996 to 14.05.2005. The

rest of four witnesses, i.e., PW 29 to 32 were examined between

28.09.2005 to 27.03.2006, i.e., against ASI report. Two

witnesses were examined again i.e. PW 16 from 20.03.2006 to

28.07.2006 and PW 24 from 05.12.2005 to 04.01.2006 i.e. after

ASI report. Similarly, on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-5) 16

witnesses, i.e., OPW 1 to 16 were examined between 22.11.1999

to 21.07.2003. After the submission of ASI report three

witnesses, i.e., OPW 17 to 19 were examined between

17.08.2006 to 05.12.2006. Defendant no. 1 (Suit-4) got all his

three witnesses, i.e., DW 1/1 to 1/3 examined from 22.07.2003

to 21.08.2003 and did not produce any oral evidence after ASI

report. Plaintiff (Suit-3) got his 20 witnesses, i.e., DW 3/1 to

3/20 examined from 29.08.2003 to 30.11.2004 and he also did

not produce any witness either in support or against ASI report.

Defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) got three witnesses, i.e., DW 2/1-1 to

DW 2/1-3 examined from 01.12.2004 to 09.03.2005 and none

was in respect to ASI report. DW 13/1 (Suit-4) got examined

three witnesses, i.e., DW 13/1-1 to 13/1-3 from 10.03.2005 to

05.05.2005. Out of these three witnesses the statement of

Mahant Awadh Bihari Das Pathak, DW 13/1-2 remained

incomplete and, therefore, has to be excluded and cannot be

read in evidence. Similarly, defendant no. 17 (Suit-4) examined

sole witness DW 17/1 from 09.05.2005 to 17.05.2005;

defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) got examined four witnesses, i.e., DW

20/1 to 20/4 from 25.05.2005 to 23.11.2005. Its fifth witness

DW 20/5, Jayanti Prasad Srivastava deposed statement to

support ASI report and was examined from 15.01.2007 to

3821

23.03.2007. Defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) produced two witnesses,

i.e., DW 6/1-1 and 6/1-2 who were examined from 29.08.2005

to 29.09.2005.

3798. Thus plaintiffs (Suit-4) produced eight witnesses

called 'experts' (Archaeologist) to assail ASI proceedings,

observations interpretations and findings. Similarly, plaintiffs

(Suit 5) produced three witnesses, and defendant no.20

produced one witness in support of ASI report.

3799. We would refer hereat first that part of statements of

the plaintiffs (Suit-4)'s Experts where they have concurred with

ASI report and will find out the extent of consensus:

(a) PW 16, Surajbhan

^^esjh nf"V esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa tks vkykspuk u fd, tkus okyh

pht+ Fkh] og ;g Fkh fd mUgk s au s ckcjh efLtn d s uhp s db Z

nhokj s a] Q'k Z vk S j d qN fiyj c sl st + [k k st fudky s g S a] ;g

lk{; g S A ** ¼ist 199½

“In my opinion, the ASI Report had a feature not amenable

to criticism. It was that they (the excavators) have

discovered many walls and floors and some pillar bases

beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute

evidence.” (E.T.C.)

^^cfYd efLtn ds uhps lYrur dky ds bLykfed <kWaps gh jgs

FksA** ¼ist 267½

“Rather, only the Islamic structures of the Sultanate period

were beneath the mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^okY;we&1 ds ist&41 ij ihfj;M&7 ¼esfMoy ysfcy½ ds uhps nwljh

rhljh iafDr;ksa esa fy[kh x;h ckr ij lk{kh dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k x;kA

lk{kh us crk;k fd bl <kaps dks 12oha ls 16oha lnh ds chp j[kuk lgh

ugha gS] cfYd bldk fuekZ.k lYrur dky esa gh nhokj ua0&17 ds <kaps

ds ckn fd;k x;k FkkA bl <kaps dks fefMfo;y dguk czkM lsUl esa rks

3822

Bhd gS] ijUrq fefMfo;y dky ds Hkh dbZ Q+st+st+ ekus tkrs gSa vkSj

blfy, eSa bl <k ap s dk s lYrurdky d s ckn d s ikV Z e s a

j[k w ax kA **¼ist 287½

“When the attention of the witness was drawn to second

and third lines below period-7 (medieval level) on page 41

of volume-1, he stated – It is not correct to place this

structure between the 12th century and the 16th century;

rather its construction followed the structure of wall no. 17

in the Sultanate period itself. To attribute this structure to

the medieval period is certainly correct in a broad sense;

but since the medieval period is also taken to have many

phases, I will place this structure in the later part of the

Sultanate period” (E.T.C.)

^^, ljdqyj lcflfM;jh JkbZu --- Qhxj 24 o 24 , ij vkd"V fd;k]

lk{kh us crk;k fd ;g dguk Bhd gS fd ;gka mlh lseh ljdqyj

dkULV~D'ku dk mYys[k gqvk gS tks Åij bu Vª~sapt+ esa crkbZ x;h gSA eSa

czkMyh bl dky dks vyhZ fefMoy dguk mfpr le>rk gWw vkSj ;g

< W kpk ml dky e s a fLFkr gk su s d s fo:) e sj s ikl dk sb Z rdZ

ugh a g SA ** ¼ist 285½

“When the attention of the witness was attracted to a

circular subsidiary shrine … Figures 24 and 24A, he stated

– It is correct to say that the semi-circular construction

which is mentioned here is same as stated above to be in

these trenches. Broadly speaking, I think it proper to call

this period early medieval period. I do not have any

arguments contradicting this structure being attributed

to that period.” (E.T.C.)

^^fjiksVZ dh IysV la0 59 o 60 dks fn[kk;s tkus ij lk{kh us crk;k

fd ;g LV~Dpkj 5, ds lkFk mR[kuu ds le; feys gq, ljdqyj

Jkb Zu dk bulhV w Qk sV k sx z kQ + g S A ;g dguk lgh gS fd IysV la0

3823

60 esa ukFkZ vksfj;UVs'ku esa ,d ukyh fn[kk;h ns jgh gS ;g

dkULV ~D'ku bLykfed dky d s igy s dk g S ^ ^ ¼ist 482½

“On being shown plate nos. 59 & 60 of the report, the

witness stated that it was the in-situ photograph of the

circular shrine found along with structure 5A at time of

excavation. It is correct to say that a drain is visible in

north orientation of plate no.60. This construction is prior

to the Islamic period.” (E.T.C.)

^^ftl izdkj dh bZaVsa IysV la[;k 67 esa utj vk jgh gS] ml izdkj dh

bZaVksa dks eSaus mR[kuu LFky v;ks/;k esa ugha ns[kk FkkA mR[kuudrkZ bu

bZaVksa dks lYrurdky esa j[k jgs gSa] eq>s blesa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA**

¼ist 289½

“I had at the excavation site of Ayodhya seen such bricks

as are seen in plate no.67. The excavators have placed

these bricks in the Sultanate period to which I do not have

any objection.” (E.T.C.)

^^o ky u a0&16 e s a ,d M sdk sj sV sM fc zd jh&; wt dh xb Z g S A

bl i zdkj dh M sdk sj sV sM b ZV s a x q Irdky l s y sdj lYrur

ih fj;M d s igy s rd curh jgh g S aA IysV la0&29 esa ut+j vk

jgh nhokj bulhVw gSA tc eSaus bls ns[kk Fkk] rc 'kk;n ;g V~sp yxHkx

,d ehVj xgjkbZ rd [kksnh tk pqdh FkhA** ¼ist 383½

“One decorated brick has been re-used in wall no.16.

Such decorated stones were built from the Gupta period

to the Sultanate period. The wall visible in plate no. 29 is

in-situ. By the time I saw it, this trench had probably been

dug about one metre deep.” (E.T.C.)

^^mRrj dh rjQ dqN fiyjc sl st + lgh eky we n sr s g S a] ftu

ij LrEHk vk fn [kM + s jg s gk s ax s vk S j Nr Hk h jgh gk sx h A** ¼ist

301½

“There appear to have been some actual pillar bases on

3824

the north on which pillars etc. may have been standing

and the roof may also have been based.” (E.T.C.)

^^Iy sV l a0&48 dks fn[kk;s tkus ij lk{kh us crk;k fd bl IysV

esa ,d xk sy vkd ` fr dk dk alV ~D'ku utj vk jgk g S ] ftls

mR[kuudrkZ us fiyjc sl dgk g S A Q'kZ tgkWa ij VwVh gqbZ gs]

mles ;g dkUlV~D'ku fLFkr gSA bl IysV esa tks Q+'kZ utj vk jgh gS]

mldh eksVkbZ 2&3 lseh0 jgh gksxhA** ¼ist 387½

“On being shown Plate No.-48, the witness stated that a

round shaped construction is visible in this plate, which

has been termed as pillar base by the excavator. This

construction is situated on the floor where it is broken.

Thickness of the the floor visible in this plate might be 2-3

cm.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk iznf’kZr fiyj c sl st + e s a ,ykbue s aV rk s

fn[k kb Z n sr k g S ] ijUr q fQj Hk h bue s a vUrj rk s g S gh vkSj

fjiksVZ esa Hkh ;gh fy[kk x;k gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa ;g fy[kk

gqvk gS fd th0ih0vkj0 lo sZ e s a ikb Z xb Z d qN ,ukeyht d s

LFk ku ij ,0,l0vkb Z0 }kjk d qN fiyj c sl st + ik, x, Fk s]

ijUrq yxHkx 180 vkbM s aV hQkb ZM ,ukeyht e s a l s d soy 40 d s

djhc LV ~DplZ dk s H k k S frd :i e s a [k k stk x;k Fk k ] bl izdkj

dk mYys[k fjiksVZ esa fd;k x;k gSA dqN rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst+ lsD’kUl

esa Hkh ns[ks tk ldrs gSaA tk s fiyj c sl st + l sD’ k Ul e s a fey s g S a]

mue s a l s d qN dk s e S au s n s[ k k g SA ** ¼ist 464½

“Alignment is visible in pillar bases shown by ASI,

however, the difference is there and the same has been

written in the report. It has been mentioned in the ASI

report that the ASI had found few pillar bases instead of

the few anomalies found in GPR survey. The report

contains reference to the effect that out of approximately

180 identified anomalies, only about 40 structures had

been physically traced out. The sections of few alleged

3825

pillar bases can also be seen. Out of the pillar bases

sections found, I have seen few.” (E.T.C.)

^^tks rFkkdfFkr 50 fiyj c sl ,0,l0vkb Z0 u s fn[k k, g S a]

o s ,d gh Q +’ k Z ij ugh a g S a vk S j u ,d gh dky l s

lEcf U/ kr g S a aA ** ¼ist 465½

“The alleged 50 pillar bases shown by ASI, are not on

the same floor and are also not related to the same

period.” (E.T.C.)

^^mRrj dh rjQ efLtn dh ckmUM~h ls tks lS.M LVksu dk iz;ksx fd;s

gq, LV~DplZ gSa] os fiyj cslst+ fn[kkbZ nsrs gSaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us Lo;a Hkh

viuh fjiksVZ esa ;g fy[kk gS fd 12 d s djhc fiyj c sl st Li"V]

[k k sn s x; s g S aA ** ¼ist 467½

“The sand stone structures in north from the boundary of

the mosque, appear to be pillar bases. The ASI has also

mentioned in its report that it had clearly dug out about 12

pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we & 1 ds Q+hxj 3&, esa] ih0ch-1] ih0ch0&3]

ih0ch05] ih0ch0&6] ih0ch0&7] ihch0&8] ih0ch0&9] ih-ch- 13 vkSj 14

fiyj caslst ekywe nsrs gSa]** ¼ist 468½

“P.B.-1, P.B.-3, P.B.-5, P.B.-6, P.B.-7, P.B.-8, P.B.-9, P.B.-

13 & P.B.-14 of figure 3-A of ASI report Vol.-1, appear to

be pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)

^^lk{kh dk /;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 ds IysV la[;k 37]38] o

46 ij vkd`"V fd;k] lk{kh us bu IysVksa dks iz’u fd;s tkus ij crk;k

fd ;g lgh gS fd ;g dkaLV~D’ku ftUgsa fiyj cslst+ dgk x;k gS]

mR[kuu LFky ij bu&lh Vw fn[kk;h ns jgs gSaA e sj h n ` f "V e s a Iy sV

l a[;k 37 d s fiyj c sl u a0 1 o 5 rFk k Iy sV l a[;k 38 d s

fiyj c sl l a[;k 1 e q> s fjt +u sf cyh fiyj c sl st + eky we n sr s

g S aA” ¼ist 471½

“The attention of the witness was drawn towards plate nos.

37, 38 and 46 of ASI’s report Vol. II and on being

3826

questioned about these plates, the witness stated that it is

true that these constructions, which have been termed

pillar bases, are visible in- situ at the excavation site. The

pillar base nos. 1 & 5 of plate no.37 and the pillar base

no.1 of plate no.38, reasonably appear pillar bases to

me.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 oky ua0 16 ds LV~Dpj ds lcls Åij okys Q+'kZ ij 50

fiyj cslst+ crk jgh gSA ;g izkij byLVs~'ku }kjk iznf'kZr fd;k tkuk

pkfg,] rHkh mudh la[;k vkSj budk Q'kksZa ls laca/k Li"V gks ik;sxkA**

¼ist 473½

“The ASI is giving 50 pillar bases on the top floor of the

structure of wall no.16. It should have been shown by

proper illustration and it is only thereafter that the

relationship between their number and floors would be

established.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd nhokj ua0&16 ds QkmaMs'ku esa rFkk dqN Åij Hkh

fj;wTM eSVhfj;y feyk gS tk s vyh Z e sMh fo;y Vkbe dk gk su k

eky we gk sr k gS] ijUrq ;g r; ugha gks tkrk fd mlds Bhd uhps dksbZ

efUnj Fkk] ftls rksM+dj ;s iRFkj vkfn ds vo'ks"k nhokj ua0&16 esa

bLrseky fd, x,A** ¼ist 331½

“It is true that the reused material found in the foundation

of wall no. 16 as well as slightly above it, appears to be of

early medieval period but that does not go on to establish

that immediately below it lay any temple, which was

demolished and its remains like stone etc. were used in wall

no.16.” (E.T.C.)

^^nhokj u a0&16] ckcj dh cukb Z g qb Z ugh a g S ] ijUr q mle s a

tk s LdYipMZ LVk su yx s g S a] o s fuf'pr :i l s i q j ku s <k ap k s a

e s a bLr se ky g q, iRFkj g S a vkSj mu lHkh dkykssa esa tgkWa <kWapksa dks ubZ

lkexzh ls cukus dh vkfFkZd {kerk dk vHkko Fkk ;k ml fdLe ds

3827

LFksfVd lal dk vHkko Fkk] ogkWa tks Hkh miyC/k eSVhfj;y vklkuh ls vkSj

de [kpZ ls fey tkrk Fkk] mldk iz;ksx fd;k tkrk FkkA** ¼ist 331½

“The wall no. 16 has not been built by Babar however,

the sculptured stones used in it, are certainly the stones

used in old structures. During those periods where there

was lack of either financial means to build structures with

new materials or aesthetic sense of that kind, all such

materials were used, which were easily available at low

cost.” (E.T.C.)

^^Iy sV l a0&33 dks ns[kus ds ckn lk{kh us crk;k fd bl IysV esa ut+j

vk jgs Hkkx dks e S au s ek Sd s ij n s[ k k Fk kA bl Iy sV e s a oky &16

utj vk jgh g SA bl IysV dks ns[kus ls ;g irk pyrk gS fd oky

u a0&6] oky&16 d s Åij tk jgh g S vkSj blfy, ckn esa cuh

FkhA** ¼ist 385½

“After looking at plate no.33, the witness stated that the

portion visible in this plate had been seen by me on the

spot. The wall 16 is visible in this plate. On looking at this

plate it appears that the wall no.6 was moving above the

wall 16 and as such had been built subsequently . (E.T.C.)

^^o ky u a0 16 d s uhp s dk ik s' k Z u IykLVM Z g S A bll s Li"V

gk sr k g S fd ;g fdlh Hkou dh nhokj g SA oky ua0 16 dks oky

ua0 5 ds vk/kkj ds :i esa bLrseky fd;k x;k gSA oky ua0 5 dk if'pe

dh rjQ+ Lora= uhao Hkh ikVZyh jgh gS rFkk dqN V~saUpst+ esa oky ua0 16

oky ua0 5 dk vk/kkj fn[kk;h x;h gSA** ¼ist 477½

“The portion beneath wall no.16 is plastered. It shows

that it is the wall of some building. The wall no. 16 has

been used as foundation of wall no.5. There was a partly

independent foundation of wall no. 5 towards west and in

some of the trenches, the wall no.16 appears as foundation

of wall no. 5.” (E.T.C.)

3828

^^IysV la0 25 dks fn[kk;s tkus ij lk{kh us crk;k fd ;g oky ua0 16

dk vUnj dk Q+ksVksxzkQ+ gSA blesa fczDl ds 17 dkslsZt fn[kk;h ns jgs gSa

vkSj bu bZaVksa ds uhps iRFkj ds LySCl uhao esa fn[kk;h ns jgs gSaA ;g

iRFkj ds LySCl bl nhokj dh uhao ds :i esa gSaA^^ ¼ist 478½

“On being shown plate no.25, the witness stated that it is

the photograph of inside of wall no.16. Seventeen courses

of bricks are visible in it and stone slabs are also visible

beneath these bricks in the foundation. These stone slabs

are in form of foundation of this wall.” (E.T.C.)

^;g dguk lgh gS fd oky u a0 05 oky u a0 16 ij j sLV dj

jgh g SA ^^ ¼ist 477½

“It is correct to say that wall no. 05 is on rest against wall

no.16.” (E.T.C.)

^^ekSds ij oky ua0&16 vkSj oky ua0&17 dks eSaus ns[kk FkkA oky ua0&17

mRrj&nf{k.k fn'kk esa eksVs rkSj ij 50 ehVj ds yxHkx yEch crkbZ xbZ

gSA oky ua0&16 Hkh yxHkx bruh gh yEch crkbZ xbZ gSA ;s nksuksa oky

FkksM+s ls fMfo,'ku dks NksM+dj yxHkx ,d gh ,ykbuesaV esa Åij & uhps

py jgh gSA**¼ist 302&303½^^

“ On the site I saw wall no.16 and wall no.17. From the

north to the south wall no.17 is roughly stated to be nearly

50 metres in length. Wall no.16 is also stated to have nearly

the same length. Except for certain deviations these two

walls are in up and down positions nearly in the same

alignment.” (E.T.C.)

^^e S au s oky u a0& 23 yxk;r oky u a0&27 dh dkyx.kuk d s

lEcU/ k e s a Lo; a dk sb Z fjlp Z ;k v/;;u ugh a fd;k g SA bu

nhokjk s a dh tk s dkyx.kuk ,0,l0vkb Z }kjk dh xb Z g s]

mle s a e q>dk s fdlh i zdkj dh dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g SA ^^ ¼ist

476½

“I have not carried out any research or study on my own

regarding the period calculation of wall nos.23 to 27. I

3829

have no objection on the period calculation of these

walls, as made by ASI.” (E.T.C. )

^^o ky u a0&16 d s Åij ckcjh efLtn dh if'peh nhokj Fk hA

,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa bl s oky u a0 & 5 dgk x;k g S a nhokj

dh tks la[;k ,0,l0vkbZ }kjk Mkyh xbZ gS] ls e S a vlger ugh a

g wW aA** ¼ist 333½

“The western wall of the Babri mosque lay above the

wall no. 16. It has been termed as wall no. 5 in the ASI

report but I do not agree with the number assigned to the

wall by the ASI.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZz okY;we 1 ds Q+hxj pkj ¼i"B 51 ch½ ns[kdj

crk;k fd fook fnr LFky d s nf{ k.k h H k kx e s a ,d Q +kmUM s' ku

oky feyh g S tk s fdlh gky dh fn[k k;h n s jgh g SA bldh

yEckbZ 6-15 ehVj gks ldrh gS ijUrq bldh pkSM+kbZ bl le; ekywe ugha

gSA dadjhV Cykdl ds nks dkslsZt utj vk jgs gSaA bl Q+hxj esa tks

dkslsZt+ ut+j vk jgs gSa oks ekSds ij dadjhV LVksu ds FksA** ¼ist 380½

“After looking at figure-4 (page-51B) of ASI’s report vol.-1,

(the witness) stated that a foundation wall was found in

south of the disputed site, which appears to be of some

hall. Its length may be 6.15 metres but its breadth is not

known presently. Two courses of concrete blocks are

visible. The courses which appear in this figure, are of

concrete stone at the spot.” (E.T.C.)

^^o ky u a0 &1 yxk;r 15 fook fnr Hkou d s vgkr s dh

nhokj s g S a aA oky ua0&16 mRrj ls nf{k.k yEckbZ esa gS rFkk yxHkx 50

ehVj yEch gSA bldh pkSM+kbZ vanktu 1-77 ehVj gSA blh ds lkekukUrj

oky ua0 &17 gS] ;g Hkh yxHkx mlh yEckbZ dh gS] ftl yEckbZ dh

oky ua0 16 gSA oky ua0 17 esa nf{k.k dh rjQ if'pe fn'kk esa LykbV

Msfo,'ku gs] tslk fd mRrj esa ;g Msfo,'ku iwjc dh vksj gSA oky u a0

16 ckcjh efLtn d s fuek Z . k l s igy s d s H kou dh nhokj

g SA ;g nhokj ] ckcjh efLtn dh if'peh nhokj l s uhp s

3830

fLFkr g SA - - - oky u a0&18, ] 18ch ] 18 lh rFk k 18Mh &

oky u a0&16 d s ih fj;M dh g S rFk k ,d gh <k ap s dh nhokj s a

eky we n sr h g S a aA oky ua0 & 19 ch] LV~Dpj &5] ftls ldqZyj Jkbu

dgk x;k gS] ds if'pe esa gS vkSj oky ua0 & 19,] mlds iwoZ esa fLFkr

gSA oky ua0&20 LV~Dpj ua0&5 ds iwoZ esa n'kkZbZ xbZ gSA e q> s bl ckr

ij dk sb Z fookn ugh a g S fd oky u a0&20] oky u a0&19, dh

Qkm.M s' ku oky d s :i e s a i z; qDr g qb Z gk sx hA oky ua0 21

ldZqyj Jkbu ds mRrj iwoZ fn'kk esa fn[kkbZ x;h gSA Q+hxj&3, esa 'kk;n

oky ua0 21 Ms<+ nks ehVj yEch fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA^^ ¼ist 475&476½

“Wall nos. 1 to 15 are walls of the courtyard of the

disputed structure. The wall no.16 runs from north to

south and is about 50 meters long. Its breadth is

approximately 1.77 meters. The wall no.17 runs parallel to

it and is of almost the same length as that of wall no.16.

The is slight deviation towards west in south of wall no.17,

which deviation is eastwards in the north. The wall no.16

is a construction prior to the construction of Babri

mosque. This wall is situated beneath the western wall of

the Babri mosque. … The wall nos. 18A, 18B, 18C &

18D are of the period of wall no.16 and appear to be

walls of the same structure. The wall no. 19B is to the

west of structure-5, which has been stated termed circular

shrine, and the wall no. 19A is situated in its east. The wall

no.20 has been shown in east of structure no.5. I do not

dispute that wall no.20 may have been used as

foundation wall of wall no.19A. The wall no.21 has been

shown in north-east of the circular shrine. The wall no. 21

has possibly been shown about 1½-2 meters longer in

figure 3A.” (E.T.C.)

^^-oky ua0&23 dsoy vkaf'kd :i esa gh fn[kkbZ ns jgh gS] lEHkor% ;g

3831

mRrj&nf{k.k esa jgh gksxhA oky u a0&25 i wjc dh rjQ

mRrj&nf{k.k fn'k k e s a g S A ;g nhokj] V~sap ts&6 esa gSA eSa vdLekr~

fcuk lUnHkZ dks tkus gq, ;g ugha crk ldrk fd oky ua0&25 xqIrdky

dh gS] ijUrq e q> s ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk bl s x q Irdky dh crku s

ij dk sb Z vkifRr Hk h ugh a g S A oky u a0 26 Hkh oky ua0&25 ls

igys dh gS ;k ughaa] ;g bl Q+hxj ek= dks ns[kus ls Li"V ugha gS]

ysfdu ,slk lEHko g S fd ;g nhokj oky u a0&25 l s

i wo Zdk fyd gk s] D;k s afd e S au s ogk a ij V ~ s ap e s a vyh Z;j ih fj;M

dh nhokj n s[ k h Fk hA ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk bl s d q " k k. k ih fj;M

e s a j[k k x;k g S ] rk s e q> s ble s a dk sb Z vkif Rr ugh a g S A ^^ ¼ist

476½

“Wall no. 23 is visible only partially. Probably it may have

been in north-south. The wall no. 25 is eastwards in

north-south direction. This wall is in trench J-6. I can not

tell at the spur of moment without knowing the context, as

to whether the wall no. 25 is of the Gupta period. However,

I do not have any objection in ASI terming it to be of the

Gupta period. Whether the wall no.26 is older than wall

no.25 or not, is not clear only from perusal of this figure.

However, it is possible that this wall is earlier to wall

no.25, because I had seen wall of earlier period over

there in the trench. ASI has shown it to be of Kushana

period, and I have no objection in it.” (E.T.C.)

^^o ky u a0&28 V ~ s ap t s0&3 e s a g S A ;g d ad z hV LVk su oky

'k q ax ih fj;M dh g S ] , slk fjik sV Z e s a fy[k k g qvk g S A bl

i zdkj dh dkyx.kuk l s e q> s dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g SA ^ ^ ¼ist

477½

“The wall no.28 is in trench J-3. It is so mentioned in

the report that this concrete stone wall is of the Shunga

period. I have no objection about such period

calculation.” (E.T.C.)

3832

^^fjik sV Z z d s gh Iy sV l a0127 dks ns[kdj crk;k fd bl IysV ds

QksVksxzkQ+ esa ,d idh gqbZ feV ~Vh dh gkFk h dh V wV h g qb Z vkd ` fr

utj vk jgh g S A oSfnd /keZ esa gkFkh banz dk okgu Fkk ijUrq fgUnw

/keZ esa czg~ek] fo".kq] egs'k rhuksa izeq[k nsorkvksa ls gkFkh dk laca/k ugh gS

fQj Hkh fgUnw /keZ ,d fojkV /keZ gS vkSj bldh fofo/k 'kk[kk;sa gSa vkSj

bldk cM+k fodkl gqvk gS rks dgha u dgha fdlh u fdlh leqnk; esa

dksbZ i'kq ikS/kk vkfn egRoiw.kZ /kkfeZd fpUg ds :i esa ekStwn gks ldrs gSa

;g V sj kdk sV k H k h ckcjh efLtn l s i wo Z orh Z lYrurdky d s

<k ap k s a l s lEcfU / kr ugh a g SA** ¼ist 309&310½

“Looking at plate no.127 only of the report, the witness

stated – A broken figure of elephant made of baked soil

is visible in the photograph of this plate. In the Vedic

religion, elephant was a vehicle of Indra; but in Hinduism,

three main deities – Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh – are not

associated with elephant. Nevertheless, Hinduism is a vast

religion and it has various branches, and as it has

developed considerably, animals, plants etc. may be found

as important religious emblems somewhere or the other or

in some community or the other. This terracotta is not

associated with the structures of the Sultanate period

prior to the Babri masjid.” (E.T.C.)

^ ^;g dguk lgh g S fd fgUn w / ke Z l s l ac af / kr vu sd vo'k s" k

v;k s/;k d s fo'k s" k Lrjk s a d s mR[kuu l s i z k Ir g q, g S aA * * ¼i st

310½

“ It is correct to say that several remains associated with

Hinduism have been discovered from the excavations of

particular strata of Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^ ^ ftruk Hk h mR[kuudrk Zvk s a u s fn[k k;k g S ] og

fuf’pr :i l s mR[kuu e s a gh ek St wn Fk kA vFk k Zr ~ mruk

ik s’ k Z u bu&lh&V w eky we n sr k g SA ^ ^ ¼i st 471½

“Whatever has been shown by the excavators, was

3833

definitely present in the excavation i.e. that portion

appears to be in-situ.” (E.T.C.)

^ ^ef Unj d s ckj s e s a ,0,l0vkb Z0 u s ftu vo'k s" k k s a dk s viuh

fjik sV Z e s a crk;k g S ] mul s e S a bl :i e s a db Z txg lger

g wW a fd o s vo'k s" k fdlh efUnj d s jg s gk s ax sA ^ ^ ¼i st 337½

“I agree with the report of ASI about the remains of

temple, to the extent that these remains may have been

of some temple” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd nsoukxjh fyfi dk ,d

bafLdzI'ku [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku feyk FkkA tgkWa ij vkSa/ksa eqWag iM+k FkkA**

¼ist 338½

“It has been mentioned in ASI’s report that an inscription

in Devnagari script was found during excavation, where it

was lying upside down.” (E.T.C.)

^^vkS/ksa eqag iM+s gq, f'kykys[k dk QksVksxzkQ Vs~ap ds vUnj ls gh fy;k

x;k gksxkA vkS/ksa eqg ls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd f'kykys[k dh fy[kkoV

uhps dh rjQ Fkh rFkk og Hkkx ftl ij ugha fy[kk Fkk] og Åij dh

rjQ FkkA ftl le; eS V~sUp ds vUnj x;k Fkk] ml le; f'kykys[k

uhps dh rjQ FkhA eSaus dsoy bl iRFkj dks osjhQkbZ djus dh dksf'k'k

dh Fkh fd bl ij dqN fy[kk gS vFkok ughaA** ¼ist 339½

“The photograph of the inscription lying upside down,

must have been taken inside the trench. By ‘upside down’ I

mean that the writing of the inscription was towards the

lower part and the unwritten part was upwards. When I

entered the trench, the inscription was facing the lower

side. I had only tried to verify whether anything had been

inscribed over this stone or not.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd ykbe ekVZj dk iz;ksx FkMZ lsapjh ,0Mh0 esa

r{kf'kyk vkSj ikfdLrku esa gksuk dq"kk.kdky esa ik;k x;k gS ijUrq ;g

cgqr lhfer ek=k esa FkkA*^ ¼ist 341½

“It is correct to say that lime mortar was found to have

3834

been used in the 3rd century AD during the Kushana period

in Takshshila and Pakistan, but its use was very limited.”

(E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 dh IysV ua0&22 o 23 ns[kdj crk;k fd

nksuksa QksVksxzkQ~l esa MsdksjsVsM LVksu fj;wt fd;k x;k fn[kkbZ ns jgk

gSA ;g Qkm.Ms'ku ds mijh Hkkx esa oky&5 esa fj;wt fd;k x;k gSA IysV

la0 &22 esa IykLVj ut+j vk jgk gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk bldk uke

edj i z . k kyh fn; s tku s e s a e q> s dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g SA blh

fjiksVZ dh IysV l a0&24 dks fn[kk;s tkus ij lk{kh us crk;k fd bl

IysV esa iRFkj dh nhokj ] tk s nhokj u a0&5 l s lEcfU/ kr g S ]

b Z aV k s a dh nhokj u a0& 16 d s Åij tkrh fn[k kb Z n s jgh

g SA **¼ist 382½

“After looking at plate nos. 22 & 23 of ASI report Vol.-2,

(the witness) stated that in both the photographs decorated

stones can be seen to have been re-used. They have been

used in the upper part of the foundation of wall-5. Plaster

is visible in plate no.-22. I have no objection in ASI

naming it as Makar system. On being shown plate no.-24

of said report, the witness stated that in this plate the stone

wall related to wall no.-5, can be seen going above the

stone wall no.-16.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus bl V~sap dks ekSds ij ns[kk FkkA bl Vsa~p esa uhps dh rjQ ,d

MsdksjsVsM jh&;wTM LVksu LySc ut+j vk jgk gSA Åij ls ns[kus ij ;g

iRFkj czSdsV lk utj vk jgk gSA bl iRFkj dks fudkydj ns[kus ds ckn

gh crk;k tk ldrk gS fd ;g fiyj dk fgLlk gS ;k ughaA** ¼ist 387½

“I had seen this trench at the spot. A re-used stone slab is

visible in this trench towards bottom. If seen from above

this stone appears like a bracket. Only after taking out this

stone, can it be said whether it is a part of the pillar or

not.” (E.T.C.)

3835

^^iz0& cgqr ls vkfdZVsDpjy esEcj ftudh fMtkbu mijksDr IysV la0

86 rFkk 87 esa ut+j vk jgh gS] LVsafly dV okyh fMt+kbu ls feyrh

tqyrh Fkh] oky&16 esa fj;wt+ fd;s gq, ik;s x;s FksA D;k vkius mudks

ns[kk Fkk\

m0& th gkWaA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus mudks ns[kk Fkk vkSj ,sls dqN

MsdksjsVsM LVksu LySCl] oky ua0&16 dh QkmaMs'ku oky esa yxs FksA ;g

dksbZ cgqr T;knk fn[kkbZ ugha ns jgs Fks vkSj ;g lHkh vyhZfeMhfo;y

ihfj;M ds Fks vkSj ;g Hkh lHkh MsdksjsVsM vkfdZVsDpjy esEcj gSa] tks

vyh Z feMh fo;y dky dh jpuk g S a] ijUr q mUg s a lYrurdky

dh oky u a0&16 dh Qkm aM s' ku oky e s a fj; wt fd;k x;k

g SA ** ¼ist 424&425½

“Question- Many architectural members, whose designs

were appearing in aforesaid plate nos. 86 &87 and were

resembling the stencil cut design, were found to have been

re-used in wall-16. Did you see them?

Answer- Yes. It is correct that I had seen them and few such

decorated stone slabs were used in the foundation wall of

wall no.16. They were not much in number and were of

early medieval period. There are all decorated

architectural member, which are works of early medieval

period, but have been re-used in the foundation wall of

wall no.16 of the Sultanate period.” (E.T.C.)

“,0,l0vkbZ0 us flDl ihfj;M dks 11oha o 12oha lnh esa j[kkA eq>s ,0

,l0 vkbZ0 }kjk I l s V dh dky dze dh x.kuk d s fu/k k Z j. k

d s l ac a/ k e s a dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g S ] D;k s a fd bldk bl

leL;k l s dk sb Z l ac a/ k ugh a g SA ** ¼ist 455½

“The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11th & 12th century.

I have no objection in determination of period

calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related

to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.)

3836

^^esjs fglkc ls VII ihfj;M lYrur dky esa ihfj;M VI ds ckn

fuf’pr gksuk pkfg,A gkyk afd lYrur d s bu nk su k s a dkyk s a dh

dk sb Z fuf’pr frfFk vHk h rd miyC/k ugh a g S A esjs v/;;u ds

vuqlkj mRrj Hkkjr esa lYrur dky 13oh a lnh l s ekuk tkrk

g SA esjs vuqlkj VI ihfj;M lyrur dky esa igys vk;k vkSj ihfj;M

VII mlds cknA ;g lEHko gS fd ihfj;M VI 13oha lnh ls 'kq: gqvk

gks vkSj ihfj;M VII 16oha lnh ls ’kq: rd jgk gksA --- okLro esa

budks nks dky dguk Hkh xyr gksxkA ;g dsoy nks Hkouksa ds <kWapsa gSa]

tks lYrur dky esa cuk;s x;s vkSj lekIr Hkh gks x;sA buesa oky ua0

17 okyk <kWapk vFkkZr~ dky VI ls lacaf/kr dgk tkus okyk <kWapk igys

dk gS vkSj dsoy dky VII dk <kWapk ckn dk gS] lYrur dky dkA

buds lkFk ik;s x;s Mk;XuksfLVd vo’ks"kksa rFkk budh nhokj o Q+’kZ rFkk

Iyku vkfn dh lekurk ls ns[kk tk ldrk gS tks ihfj;M V ds

iqjkrkfRod vo’ks"kksa vkSj Hkou fuekZ.k 'kSyh ls ,dne fHkUu gSaA** ¼ist

456&457½

“I feel that the VII period should be fixed during the

Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed date

of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so far.

According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north

India is considered from the 13th century. According to

me, the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the

period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started

in the 13th century and the period VII in the 16th

century. . . . Actually it be wrong to term them as two

periods. They are only the remains of two buildings, which

were built and saw their end during the Sultanate period.

The structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI,

is a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is of

subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in the

similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan

3837

etc., which is entirely different from archaeological remains

and house construction pattern of period V.” (E.T.C.)

^^e q> s oky u a0&16 o 17 d s ih fj;M dh dkyx.kuk ij

vkif Rr g S ] e S a ml s xyr ekurk g wW aA bll s igy s okyh

nhokjk s a dh dkyx.kuk d s lEcU/ k e s a e q> s dk sb Z vkif Rr ugh a

g SA ^ ^ ¼ist 477½

“I have objection regarding the period of wall nos.16

and 17, as worked out in the period calculation. I

consider it to be wrong. I had no objection about the

period calculation in respect of the other walls.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz0& oky ua0&1 rk 15 o 18 rk 28 ds lEcU/k esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk

dh x;h dkyx.kuk ds lEcU/k esa vkidks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS] tslk fd

vkids mRrj ls Li"V gSA bl lEcU/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\

m0& e q> s ih fj;M &6 o ih fj;M 7 d s ckn dh dkyx.kuk

vFkok mll s lEcfU / kr LV ~DplZ dh dkyx.kuk dk s Nk sM +dj

mld s igy s oky s LV ~DplZ vFkok nhokjk s a dh dkyx.kuk e s a

dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g SA ^ ^ ¼ist 477½

“Question- From your reply it is clear that you have no

objection about the period calculation made by ASI in

respect of wall nos. 1 to 15 and 18 to 28. What you have to

say in this behalf?

Answer- I have no objection regarding the period

calculation of structures and walls except for the period

calculation made in respect of structures subsequent to

period 6 & 7.” (E.T.C.)

^^okY;we dh Qhxj 3, ¼ist 48,½ ns[kus ds ckn crk;k fd bl Q+hxj esa

LV~DplZ dk Iyku fn[kk;k x;k gSA

bl Q+hxj esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku fofHkUu dkyksa ds LV~DplZ] okYl]

rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst vkfn ds Iyku fn[kk;s x, gSaA bl Iyku esa tgkWa

rd eSa ns[k ik jgk gwWa 28 nhokjsa fn[kkbZ xbZ gSaA mR[kuu e s a bl dh

Iyku d s vu qlkj 28 nhokjk s a d s v a’ k i z k Ir g q,A e S a igy s

3838

dg p qdk g wW a fd e S a d soy rhu fnu mR[kuu d s nk S j ku ogk W a

x;k F k k vkSj ;s lc dh lc nhokjsa ml le; rd mR[kfur ugha gqbZ

FkhaA dqN nhokjsa gh mR[kfur gqbZ FkhaA esjs fujh{k.k rd tks nhokjsa ogkWa

Li"V fn[kkbZ nha] muesa nhokj ua0&5] 16] 17] 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] 3] 25]

2 vkSj dqN vU; nhokjsa gSaA bl Iyku esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk 50 rFkkdfFkr

fiyj cslst+ fn[kk, x, gSaA - - - -p W w afd e S au s bu lHk h rFk kdfF kr

fiyj c sl st + dk s LFky ij ugh a n s[ k k Fk k ] d qN dk s gh n s[ k k

Fk k ] blfy, budk s lR;k fir djuk e sj s fy, lEHko ugh a

g SA ** ¼ist 460½

“After looking at figure 3A (page 48A) of the volume, (the

witness) stated that the plan of structures has been shown

in this figure.

This figure shows the plan of structures, walls, alleged

pillar bases etc. of different periods found during

excavation. To the best of my ability, I can see that 28 walls

have been shown in this plan. According to this plan,

remains of 28 walls have been found in the excavation. I

have already stated that during the excavation I had

gone there on only three days and all these walls had not

been excavated by that time and only few walls had been

excavated. At time of my inspection, the walls clearly

visible were wall nos.5]16]17]6]7]8]9]10]11] 3] 25] 2 and few

other walls. The ASI has shown 50 alleged pillar bases in

this plan. . . . . . Since I had not seen all these alleged

pillar bases on the spot and had seen only few, as such it

is not possible for me to verify them.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd Ms&Vw&Ms jftLVj ¼ist 255½ rkjh[k 13-6-2003 esa XysTM

os;j dh fMVsy fy[kh gqbZ gSa vkSj ist 256 ij Jh t+Q+j;kc thykuh ds

nLr[kr gSaA** ¼ist 514½

“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned in

3839

the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255) and

page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab

Jilani.”(E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd lYrur dky l s igy s H k h H k kjr e s a

Xy sTM o s;j o Xy sTM Vkb Z Yl curh jgh g S a] ijUrq cgqr de

ek=k esa gS vkSj lYrur o eqxydky dh XysTM os;j o VkbZYl fHkUu

izdkj ds gSaA^^ ¼ist 526½

“It is true that glazed ware & glazed tiles were being

made in India even prior to the Sultanate period, but they

were very less in number and different from the glazed

ware & tiles of the Sultanate and Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)

^^IysV ua0&59 vkSj 60 esa tks v)Zxksykdkj LV~Dpj cuk gS] og ckcjh

efLtn ds esu LV~Dpj ls FkksM+h nwjh ij gSA bu IysV~l esa fczd oky Hkh

fn[kkbZ ns jgh gSaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ us bu nksuksa phtksa dks ,d gh

dky ;kuh ihfj;M & 5 esa j[kk gSA e S a ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk fn, x,

ih fj;M dk i z frokn ugh a dj ik jgk g wW a] D;k s afd e S au s bll s

lEcf U/ kr lk{; ugh a n s[ k k g S A - - - -bu Iy sV k s a dk s n s[ ku s l s

, slk fofnr gk sr k g S fd fook fnr LFky ij lDl sflo

d aLV ~ D'kuy ,fDVfoVh jgh gk s ax h ] ;fn budh frfF k;k W a Bhd

gk s aA bu rLohjksa dks ns[kus ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd fczd oky ^^bu lh Vw**

;kuh vius ewy LFkku ij gSA** ¼ist 535½

“The semi-circular structure in plate nos. 59 & 60, is a bit

after the main structure of Babri mosque. Brick wall is

also visible in these plates. Both of them have been marked

in the same period-5, in the ASI report. I am unable to

dispute the period given by ASI, because I have not seen

the evidence related to it. … From perusal of these

plates it appears that successive constructional activity

must have existed at the disputed site, if their dates are

correct. From perusal of these photographs, it is also clear

3840

that the brick wall is in-situ i.e. at its original

place.”(E.T.C.)

(b) PW 24, D. Mandal:

^^;g lgh gS fd mR[kuu ds le; fLFkj QksVksxzkQh rFkk

ohfM;ksxzkQh nksuksa gh gksrh jgh gSA [k qnkb Z d s le; fook fnr LFky

ij tk s vk fV ZQ SDV tgk W a ij feyk mld s lEcU/ k e s a

M ~ kQ ~Ve S au mldh fLFk fr ;k fu og fdl LFk ku ij fdru s

, afxy rFk k fdruh xgjkb Z ij g S ] ;g cukrk jgk g SA

M~kQ~VeSu [kqnkbZ gksus okys LFkku dk losZ{k.k djds ;g fu/kkZj.k djrk gS

fd dgkWa ij [kqnkbZ gksxh rFkk dgkWa&dgkWa ij fdrus lkbZt+ dh V~sap cusxh

rFkk ml ij uEcj MkysxkA orZeku ekeys esa Hkh blh izdkj dk;Zokgh

gqbZ] ijUrq dgkWa vkSj fdruh V~sap fdrus lkbZt dh cusxh ;g M~kQ~VeSu us

ugh r; fd;k] cfYd [kqnkbZ djus okys vkfdZ;ksykftLV tks Vhe dk

yhMj Fkk mlus r; fd;k FkkA** ¼ist 157½

"It is true that both still-photography and

videography were carried out at time of excavation. The

drafts-man had been maintaining the location i.e. the

place, angle and depth of the place where artefact was

found during excavation at the disputed site. The drafts-

man surveys the site to be excavated and determines the

place to be excavated, the place & size of the trenches to be

dug up and numbers them. In the present matter also,

similar action was taken but the drafts-man did not

determine the place, number and size of the trenches to be

dug up and instead it was decided by the archaeologist

carrying out the excavation, who was also the team

leader."(E.T.C.)

^^[kqnkbZ ds igys [kqnkbZ LFky ds Åij dh lrg dh QksVksxzkQh

Hkh dh tkrh gSA** ¼ist 157½

"Prior to excavation, photography is also done of the

3841

upper surface of the excavation site." (E.T.C.)

^ ^e sj s viu s :du s d s nk S j ku e S a ugh a le>rk fd

i qj krRoo sRrkvk s a u s fdlh fiyj vkfn dk fuek Z . k fd;k gk sA

e sj s lkeu s , slk d qN ugh a g qvk fd mDr i q j krRoo sr kvk s a u s

fNikdj ;k t +cjnLrh d qN cuk;k gk sA [k qnkb Z d s nk S j ku

e S au s ;g n s[ k k Fk k fd mR[kuu d s nk S j ku feyh lkefx z;k s a

dk s vyx&vyx fd;k tkrk F k kA ^ ^ ¼ist 161½

"I do not think that during my stay, the

archaeologists had built any pillar etc. In my presence,

nothing took place such as the said archaeologists

building something secretly or forcibly. During the

excavation, I had seen that the articles found in

excavation were separated." (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd 9 ehVj ckbZ 9 ehVj dk ,d dadjhV

Q+'kZ dk fuekZ.k ts&5] ts&6] th&5] th&6 ds uhps feyk FkkA mlh Q+'kZ

dk ,DlVsa'ku th&7 V~sap esa feyk FkkA** ¼ist 161½

"It is true that a concrete floor construction of 9

metre x 9 metre size was found beneath J-5, J-6, G-5, G-6.

The extension of that very floor was found in Trench G-7."

(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ dk v/;;u LV~sVhxzkQh dh nf"V ls

xgu v/;;u fd;k gS vkSj LV~sVhxzkQ+h fdlh Hkh mR[kuu dk cSd cksu

gksrk gSA** ¼ist 186½

"I have carefully studied the A.S.I. Report from the

angle of stratigraphy. Stratigraphy is the backbone of any

excavation." (E.T.C.)

^^NBh 'krk Cnh b Z Loh d s ckn dk dky ik sLV x q Irk

ih fj;M dgk tkrk g S A e/; dky Hk kjr d s bfrgkl d s

dky e s a 12oh a 'krk Cnh d s v ar l s o 13oh a ' krk Cnh d s

'k q#vkr l s ekuk tkrk g SA lYrur ih fj;M dh 'k q#vkr

1206 b Z Loh l s ekuh tkrh g S A ** ¼ist 242½

3842

"The post 6th BC period, is called post-Gupta

period. The Medieval period of Indian History is

considered to be from last of 12th century to the

beginning of 13th century. The beginning of Sultanate

period is considered to be 1206 AD." (E.T.C.)

^^mR[kuu esa ihjh;MkbZts+'ku ds nks rjhds gSa] igyk Lrjhdj.k

nwljk izkIr vo'ks"k dk Lrjhdj.k ls ikjLifjd laca/kA eSa ,slk le>rk gwWa

fd ;g nksuksa fof/k;kWa ihjh;MkbZts'ku dk vk/kkj Hkh gSa vkSj fof/k Hkh gSaA

iqjkrRo esa Mk;usLVh ds vk/kkj ij Hkh dky fu/kkZj.k gksrk gS ;fn

izklafxd vo'ks"k izkIr gq, gksaA ;g dguk lgh g S fd i qj krRo e s a

ihjh;Mkb Zt s' ku d s fy, rhu rjhd s g S a igyk y s;j okbt +]

n wljk Mk;u sLVh okbt +] rhljk l sUp q j h okbt +A ;g dguk lghgS

fd lsUpqjh okbZt+ ihjh;MkbZts'ku iqjkrRo esa ekU;rk izkIr o oSKkfud

fof/k gSA eSa ,d iqjkrRoosRrk ds #i esa bl ckr ls lger gwWa fd

lsUpqjhokbt+ ihjh;MkbZts+'ku ds laca/k esa ,d psIVj j[kk gSA bl pSIVj

dk eSaus v/;;u fd;k gSA ,0,l0vkb Z 0 fjik sV Z e s a rhuk s a fof / k;k s a

vFk k Z r ~ y s;j okbt +] l sUp q j h okbt + rFk k Mkbu sLVhokgt +

ihjh;M] d s vk/ k kj ij ihjh;Mkbt + s' ku fd;k g S A ,slk ugha gS

fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 us dky x.kuk esa bu rhuksa fof/k;ksa dk mYys[k

vyx&vyx fd;k gksA** ¼ist 269&270½

"There are two methods of periodization in

excavation. The first is stratification, the second is the

mutual relation of the remains found with the stratification.

I am of the view that both these methods form basis of

periodization as also the methods. In archaeology, period

determination is also made on basis of dynasties, if

relevant remains are found. It is correct to say that there

are three methods of periodization in archaeology. The

first is layer-wise, second is dynasty-wise and third is

century-wise. It is correct to say that century-wise

periodization is a recognised and scientific method of

3843

archaeology. As an archaeologist, I agree that there is a

chapter related to century-wise periodization. I have

studied this chapter. Periodization has been done in the

A.S.I. Report on basis of all the three methods i.e. layer-

wise, century-wise and dynasty-wise period. It is not that

in period determination, the A.S.I. has mentioned all the

three methods separately." (E.T.C.)

^^ys;j] Mk;usLVh rFkk lsapqjh fof/k;ksa dks iqjkrRo dh nf"V ls nks

Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA igyk jsysfVo MsfVax eSFkM

nwljk ,clksywV MsfVax eSFkMA^^ ¼ist 271½

"From archaeological point of view the layer, dynasty

and century methods can be divided in two parts. The first

being relative dating method and the other being absolute

dating method." (E.T.C.)

^^-,ClksY;wV MsfVax ds vUrxZr dkcZu MsfVax rFkk vU; fof/k;kWa

vkrh gSaA dkcZu MsfVax ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku dk ,d oSKkfud rjhdk gSA

lkekU;r% dkcZu MsfVax ls tks frfFk vkrh gS] mldks lgh ekurs gSaA^^

¼ist 271&272½

"Carbon dating and other methods fall under

absolute dating. Carbon dating is a scientific method of

periodization. Usually the date determined by Carbon

dating, is considered correct." (E.T.C.)

^^jsysfVo MsfVax rFkk ,ClksY;wV MsfVax esa eSa rqyukRed :i ls

,ClksY;wV MsfVax vf/kd izekf.kr ekuwWaxkA dkc Zu M s af V ax d s vk/ k kj

ij tk s dky fu/k k Z j. k fd;k tkrk g S ] ogh i zek f. kr g S A ;g

dguk lgh gSA** ¼ist 272½

"Comparatively I would consider absolute dating to

be more authentic between relative dating and absolute

dating. It is correct to say that the period determined on

basis of Carbon dating is authentic." (E.T.C.)

3844

^^iz'uxr mR[kuu esa ,0,l0vkb Z 0 u s M s&V w&M s jftLVj]

lkbVuk sV c qd rFk k , aV hD; wV h jftLVj&rhuk s a dk s e sUV su

fd;k Fk kA Ms&Vw&Ms jftLVj esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku izfrfnu fd;s x;s

dk;Z dk fooj.k rFkk mR[kuu ds nkSjku izkIr lkefxz;ksa dk C;kSjk izFke

n"V;k vafdr fd;k tkrk FkkA ,aVhD;wVh jftLVj esa ,aVhD;wVh izFke

n"V;k tSlh yxrh gS] mldk fooj.k uksV fd;k tkrk gSA lkbV uksV

cqd Vsa~pokbt esUVsu dh tkrh gSA** ¼ist 284½

"In the excavation in question, the A.S.I. had

maintained all three–Day-to-day Register, Site Notebook

and Antiquity Register. The details of work done on each

day of excavation and the prima facie description of

articles found during excavation, were entered in the Day-

to-day Register. The details of antiquities, as they appeared

prima facie, were entered in the Antiquity Register. The Site

Notebook was maintained trench-wise." (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk

vuqjf{kr Ms&Vw&Ms jftLVj dks Hkh vk/kkj ekuk gSA eSaus lkbV uksVcqd

rFkk ,aVhD;qVh jftLVj] tks mR[kuu ds vko';d fjdkMZ gSa] dks ns[kus

dh vko';drk ugha le>h] D;ksafd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ rFkk Ms&Vq&Ms

jftLVj esa v/;;u ds fy, i;kZIr lkexzh miyC/k gks xbZ FkhA**

¼ist 285½

"In the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, I have

also taken the Day-to-day Register maintained by A.S.I. as

a basis. I did not deem it necessary to peruse the Site

Notebook and Antiquity Register, which are essential

records of excavation, because sufficient material was

available for study from the A.S.I. Report and Day-to-day

Register." (E.T.C.)

^^eSa ts&3 Vsap esa fdlh Hkh ys;j dk vanj tkdj fujh{k.k ugha dj

ik;k] d soy Åij l s gh n s[ kdj vkct +jo s' ku fd;k Fk kA eSaus

ts&4 vkSj ts&5 V~saupst dk Hkh fujh{k.k fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ts&3]

3845

ts&4 o ts&5 ds cjkcj i wjc dh vk sj b ZVk s a dk Q'k Z feyk Fk k

tk s [k qnkb Z okyh txg ij Åijh lrg l s djhc lok ehVj

uhp s Fk kA eSaus bu pkSdksj bZaVksa dk v/;;u ugha fd;kA blh lrg ij

ts&1] ts&2 o ds&1] ds&2 V~saUpst tks ;kf=;ksa ds xSaxos ds mRrj esa gS]

ds uhps mlh xgjkbZ ij Bhd mlh rjg ds bZVksa dk Q'kZ feyk FkkA vc

eq>s ;g ;kn ugha gS fd ts&3 V~sap esa [kqnkbZ uspqjy Lok;y rd gqbZ Fkh

vFkok ughaA ¼ist 160½

"I was not able to go inside and inspect any layer of

Trench J-3, and had carried out observation from outside.

I had inspected Trenches J-4 and J-5 as well. It is true that

a brick floor was found towards east in front of J-3, J-4

and J-5, which was about 1¼ metre below the upper

surface of the excavation site. I did not study these square

bricks. A similar brick floor was found at the same depth

below Trenches J-1, J-2 & K-1, K-2, which are in north of

traveler's gangway. I do not recollect as of now whether the

excavation in Trench J-3 had been carried out upto the

natural soil or not." (E.T.C.)

^^fook fnr LFky d s mRrjh Hk kx e s a ,d e S flo oky

ikb Z xb Z F k h ] tk s mRrj&nf{k.k fn'k k e s a F k hA ml oky dh

yEckbZ 'kk;n 50 ehVj gS rFkk mldh pkSM+kbZ eq>s Bhd ls ;kn ugha gS]

ysfdu ;g nhokj dkQ+h pkSM+h Fkh rFkk yxHkx 1-60 ehVj ds yxHkx

pkSM+kbZ esa FkhA bl eSflo oky ds uhps ,d vkSj nhokj ikbZ xbZ Fkh] tks

mRrj&nf{k.k esa FkhA** ¼ist 194½

"A massive wall was found in the northern part of

the disputed site, which was in the north-south direction.

The length of that wall was probably 50 metres and I do not

properly remember its breadth. However, this wall was very

thick, and was about 1.60 metres in thickness. Another wall

was found under this massive wall, which was in north-

3846

south." (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ rFkk Lo;a ds LFky fujh{k.k ds vk/kkj

ij e S a bl fu"d"k Z ij ig q W ap k g wW a fd fook fnr LFky ij

dq " k k . k dky e s a rFk k x q Ir dky e s a cM + s i Seku s ij

LV ~Dpjy , sDVh foVh g qb Z g S A ^^ ¼ist 274½

"On basis of the A.S.I. Report and my own spot

inspection, I have arrived at the conclusion that large

scale structural activities were carried out at the disputed

site during the Kushana period and Gupta

period."(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky ij tks LV~Dpj ik;s x;s gSa] mudk fooj.k ,

0,l0vkbZ0 us vius fjiksVZ okY;we ds Q+hxj 3 vkSj 3, esa fn;k gSA

fook fnr LFky ij ik; s x; s ftu LV ~DpjlZ dk mYy s[ k

Q +hxj 3 rFk k 3, e s a fd;k x;k g S ] o s fook fnr LFky ij g S a]

bll s e S a lger g wW aA ,0,l0vkb Z0 u s viuh fjik sV Z e s a 4

Q ~yk sl Z dk mYy s[k fd;k g S ] ftll s e S a lger g wW aA ^^ ¼ist

275½

"The details of structures found at the disputed site,

have been given by the A.S.I. in Figure 3 & 3A of its report

volume. I agree that the structures found at the disputed

site and mentioned in Figure 3 & 3A, are at the disputed

site. The A.S.I. has mentioned four floors in its report,

with which I agree." (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ oSY;we 1 ds i"B 27 &, ij fn;s x;s

pkVZ esa n'kkZ;h x;h V ~ s ap th&7 d s y s;j u a0 3 o 4 dk dky

vjyh feMhoy lYrur lgh n'k k Z;k x;k g S A e S a bll s

lger g wW aA ^^ ¼ist 170½

"The period of Layer Nos. 3 & 4 of Trench G-7

shown in the chart at page 27A of A.S.I. Report volume-

1, has been correctly shown as early medieval Sultanate.

3847

I agree with it." (E.T.C.)

^^th&5 V ~ sUp e s a y s;j 5 o 6 dk dky Hk h vjyh

fefMoy lYrur lgh fn;k x;k g S A ;g dguk lgh gksxk fd

th&7 dh ys;j 3 o 4 rFkk ts&5 V~sap dh ys;j 5 o 6 dh ledkyhu

FkhA ts&5] th&7 ds Q~yksj ua0 4 o 3 dze'k% ,d gh lrg ij gSaA^^

¼ist 170&171½

"The period of Layer 5 & 6 of Trench G-5 has also

been given correctly as early medieval Sultanate. It

would be correct to say that Layers 3 & 4 of G-7 and

Layers 5 & 6 of Trench J-5, were contemporary. The Floor

Nos. 4 & 3 of J-5, J-7 were of the same level." (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0 vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ okY;we &1 fQ+xj &1 i"B &13, ,d

d aV wj e Si g SA e S bll s lger g wW aA** ¼ist 176½

"Figure-1 at page 13A of Volume-1 of A.S.I. Report,

is a contour map. I agree with the same." (E.T.C.)

^^e sj s fopkj e s a ;g ldq Zyj Jkbu] x q Irdky dk

gk sx kA * * ¼ist 177½

"In my view, this circular shrine would be of the

Gupta period." (E.T.C.)

^^xokg us ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we &2 dh Iy sV &15 dk s

n s[ kdj dgk fd ble s a ik W ap fof H k Uu LV ~Dpjy Q + st s +t

fn[k kb Z n s jg s g S aA ;g dguk lgh gS fd IysV &15 ds uhps

jkepcwrjs dk iwohZ n'; fn[kkbZ iM+uk fy[kk gSA^^ ¼ist 187½

" After looking at Plate-15 of A.S.I. Report Volume-

2, the witness stated that five different structural phases

appear in it. It is correct to say that visibility of eastern

view of Ramchabutra, is written below Plate-15." (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk Bhd gS fd Åijh lrg ls csl dh lrg rd dbZ

ysfcy fo|eku FksA IysV 15 esa tSlk fd fn[kkbZ iM+ jgk gS] Åijh lrg

dks NksM+dj pkj fofHkUu ysfoYl gSaA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd gj lrg

esa lq[khZ ykbe dk ekVZj gS vkSj dSydzhV ds Cykd Hkjs gSaA ;g dguk

3848

lgh ugha gS fd lsds.M ysfoy esa ,d pkSdksj iRFkj dk VqdM+k fn[kkbZ ns

jgk gSA IysV ua0&15 esa Åij ls uhps nwljh lrg ij xzkm.M ysfoy

ij ,d pkSdksj lQ+sn NksVk lk IysVQ+keZ fn[kkbZ ns jgk gS] tks eq[; :i

ls pwus ls fufeZr gSA bldh eksVkbZ rd+jhcu 4&5 bap gksxhA eq>s ;g

Kku ugha gS fd bl pkSdksj txg dk bLrseky ;K'kkyk esa osnh ds :i

esa fd;k tkrk FkkA bl lEcU/k esa eSa ;g dguk pkgwWaxk fd bl txg dk

dksbZ iqjkrkfRod izek.k ;K dh osnh gksus dk ugha feyk gSA e S a u

rk s ;K dk eryc tkurk g wW a vk S j u gh o sn h dkA** ¼ist 187½

"It is correct to say that many levels existed from the

upper surface to the surface of the base. As appearing in

Plate-15, there are four different levels besides the upper

surface. It is also correct to say that each layer has lime-

surkhi mortar and are full of calcrete blocks. It is not

correct to say that a square stone piece is visible in the

second level. From top to bottom in Plate No.15, a small

square shaped platform, made-up mainly of lime, is visible

in the ground level of second layer. Its thickness would be

about 4-5 inches. I have no knowledge that this square

place was used as 'Vedi' of 'Yagyashala' (altar). In this

behalf I would like to say that no archaeological evidence

has been found about this place being the 'Vedi' of 'Yagya'

(altar). I neither know the meaning of 'Yagya' nor of

'Vedi'." (E.T.C.)

^^e S a 10 t wu ] 2003 l s 15 t wu 2003 rd mR[kuu

LFky ij jgk Fk kA ml le; T;knkrj mR[kuu dk;Z lekIr gksus dh

volFkk esa FkkA ml le; rd T;knkrj egRoiw.kZ LV~Dpj ,Dlikst gks

pqdk Fkk vkSj T;knkrj lsD'kUl Hkh mR?kkfVr gks pqds FksA esjs mR[kuu

LFky ij jgus ds nkSjku LV~DplZ gh ,Dlikst+ gq, Fks] dksbZ py iqjko'ks"k

esjs mifLFkr jgus ds nkSjku ogka ij izkIr ugha gq, FksA** ¼ist 198½

"I remained at the excavation site from 10th June,

3849

2003 to 15th June, 2003. At that time, most of the

excavation work was in conclusion stage. By that time most

of the important structures had been exposed and most of

the sections had been explored. Only structures had been

exposed during my stay at the excavation site, and no

movable archaeological remain had been found over there

during my stay." (E.T.C.)

^^chjcy lkguh bULVhV ~; wV ] dkc Zu M sfV ax dh ,d

i zek f. kd l aLF k k g SA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa ,u-ch0ih0MCyw0

dk dky tks ihjh;M 1 ds #i esa NBh 'krkCnh ch0lh0 ls rhljh 'krkCnh

ch0lh0 fn[kk;k gS] mll s e S a lger g wW aA** ¼ist 272½

"Birbal Sahni Institute is a recognised institution

of Carbon-Dating. I agree with the period of NBPW given

by A.S.I. in its report as Period-1 from 6th BC to 3rd BC."

(E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa i"B 39 ij ihfj;M 3 ds #i esa

dq"kk.k ysfoy dh vof/k igyh ls rhljh 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 fu/kkZfjr dh x;h

gS] ftlls eSa lger gwWaA blh ds uhps ihfj;M 4 ds #i esa xqIrk ysfoy

dk mYys[k gS rFkk bldk dky pkSFkh ls NBh ,0Mh0 fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k

gS ftlls eSa lger gwWaA** ¼ist 273½

"At page-39 of the A.S.I. Report, the period of

Kushana level has been determined from first to third

century AD as Period-3, with which I agree. The Gupta

level is mentioned under it as Period-4 and its period has

been determined from 4th to 6th AD, with which I agree."

(E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fn;s x;s bu vkblksesfVd O;w esa nf'kZr

fiyjoslst+ dk lR;kiu eSaus fookfnr LFky ls ugha fd;k gSA^^ ¼ist 275½

"The pillar bases visible in these isometric view given

by A.S.I., have not been verified by me from the disputed

3850

site." (E.T.C.)

^^Q ~yk sj 1 fMLi qV sM LV ~Dpj dh Q~yk sj g S A Q ~yk sj 2 ]

Q ~yk sj 1 l s i wo Z orh Z Q ~yk sj g S ] ftle s a fjik sV Z e s a lH k h

fiyjc sl st + o LV ~DplZ dk s fn[k k;k x;k g SA . . . .oky d s

l ac a/ k e s a e sj h vlgefr ugh a g S ijUrq Q~yksj 3 ls vVSp tks fiyj

fn[kk;s x;s gSa] mlls eSa lger ugha gwWaA Q~yksj 4] 3 dh iwoZorhZ Q~yksj

gS] ftlls vVSPM oky rFkk LV~Dpj ls eSa lger gwWaA** ¼ist 275&276½

"Floor-1, is the floor of the disputed structure. The

Floor-2 lies to east of Floor-1, in which all the pillar

bases and structures have been shown in the report. . . . .

My disagreement is not regarding the wall, but I do not

agree with the pillars shown attached to Floor-3. Floor-4

lies to east of three, and I agree with the wall and

structures attached to it." (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus oky ua0 16] 18,] 18ch] 18 lh] 18Mh ds ckjs esa v/;;u

fd;k gSA oky la0 18,] 18ch] 18lh] 18 Mh] oky la0 16 ds ledkfyd

ugha gSaA oky l a0 16 dk s e S a lYrur dky dh oky ekurk

g wW aA bldk i z kjE H k 13oh a ,0Mh0 l s g qvk F k kA** ¼ist 278½

"I have studied about Wall Nos. 16, 18A, 18B, 18C

and 18D. Wall Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D are not

contemporary of Wall No. 16. I consider the Wall No. 16

to be of the Sultanate period. It began in 13 AD."

(E.T.C.)

^^oky la0 5 dk vfLrRo esdf'kQ~V LV~Dpj ds mRrj esa FkksM+k

vkSj blh izdkj esdf'kQ~V LV~Dpj ds nf{k.k esa gSA** ¼ist 279½

"The existence of Wall No. 5 is partly in north of the

makeshift structure and similarly in south of the makeshift

structure." (E.T.C.)

^^oky l a0 17 e s a ,d M sdk sj sV sM LVk su yxk g S A ;g

M sdk sj sV sM LVk su Q ~yk sjyek sfVQ g SA bldk i z;k sx fgUn w

3851

e afnj k s a e s a gk sr k g S A oky l a0 17 x q Ir dky dh g SA ;g

pk S F k h 'krk Cnh l s NBh 'krk Cnh ,0Mh0 d s chp dh vof/ k dh

g SA ^ ^ ¼ist 282½

"A decorated stone has been fixed in Wall No. 17.

This decorated stone is floral motif. It is used in Hindu

temples. Wall No. 17 is of the Gupta period. It is of the

period between 4th to 6th AD." (E.T.C.)

^^IysV la0 22 esa fMlI;wVsM LV~Dpj dh if'pe fn'kk dh vkmVj

oky ut+j vk jgh gSA ;g ekSds dk bu&lh&Vw Q+ksVksxzkQ gSA eSa ;g ugha

crk ldrk fd blh oky dks oky la0 5 ds #i esa tkuk tkrk gS vFkok

ughaA bl nhokj e s a ,d vy ad `r iRF kj dk V qdM +k ut +j vk

jgk g S ] ftle s a edj dh vkd ` fr cuh g SA ;g Hk h fgUn w

e afnj k s a e s a i z; q Dr gk sr k g SA ** ¼ist 283½

"The outer wall in western side of the disputed

structure, is visible in Plate No. 22. It is in-situ photograph

of the spot. I cannot tell whether this wall is known as Wall

No. 5 or not. A piece of decorated stone is visible in this

wall, which has a crocodile figurine over it. It is also

used in Hindu temples." (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa ys;j &5, dk tks mYys[k fd;k x;k

gS] mlls eSa lger gwWaA ;g uku & bLykfed LV ~Dpj g S A Lr wi

e s a ijukyk l aH kor% ugh a gk sr k g SA fQj dgk fd eq>s bl ckr dh

tkudkjh ugha gS fd Lrwi esa ijukyk gksrk gS fd ughaA** ¼ist 294&295½

"I agree with the layer 5A mentioned in A.S.I. Report.

It is non-Islamic structure. A 'Parnala' (gargoyle) is

possibly not there in Stupa. Then stated that I do not have

knowledge of the fact whether there is a 'Parnala'

(gargoyle) or not in a Stupa." (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd e qxy dky d s igy s H k h fook fnr LFky

ij fuek Z . k dk; Z dh xfrfof / k;k a g q b Z Fk h aA^^ ¼ist 254½

"It is correct to say that construction activities had

3852

been carried out at the disputed site even before the

Mughal period." (E.T.C.)

^^,d i qj krRofon ~ d s :i e s a fook fnr <k ap s d s uhp s mR[kuu

e s a LV ªDpj d s feyu s dh ckr e S Lohdkj djrk g w aA^^¼ist 266½

"As an archaeologist, I admit discovery of

structures beneath the disputed structure during

excavation." (E.T.C.)

(c) P.W. 29, Dr. Jaya Menon :

" I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post

Mughal periods" (Page 71)

"The contour map given at page 13-A is correct. To

make a contour map Theodolite, tapes, and measuring staff

are required and now a days a total station is used.”

(Page 71)

" After going through page no.1 of this site note book

the witness stated that the location mentioned there, is

correct.” (Page 92)

“..the caption for plate 62, is correct." (Page 111)

"Plate no. 36,37,38 of the ASI report were shown to

the witness who stated that all these photographs are

INSITU photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases

were found in the north of dispute site. In my opinion

these are the pillar bases." (Page 203)

"Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were associated with the

pre Babri Masjid structure. . . . . . . . . These floors may be

dated from the end of the 12th century to the 16th century

AD. According to me walls and structures prior to 12th

century were found in excavation but no floor prior to

12th century was found at the site. According to me the

3853

oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third

century AD and the oldest structure found would be

structure 5 which may be of 6th century AD." (Page 205-

206)

“I agree with the observation of Prof. H.C.

Bharadwaj at page 73 of his article that gypsum

mortar/plaster was used in the Harappan period. I agree

with the observation in the latter part of this para that

gypsum was used as mortar in the Kalibangan period

also. . . . . .Lime mortar was definitely used from Neolithic

period." (Page 224)

3800. PW 30 Dr. R.C.Thakran (student of Prf. Surj Bhan

PW 16) also deposed as an Archaeologist. He admits that he is

not a field archaeologist and do not possess enough knowledge

of architecture. He, however, admits of having no proof which

may justify any doubt on the integrity of ASI people and said:

^e q> s vk fd ZV sDpj dk cg qr Kku rk s ugh a g S ] ysfdu iqjkrRo o

bfrgkl dk fo|kFkhZ gksus ds ukrs Fk k sM +h & cg qr tkudkjh rk s g S A **

¼ist 41½

“I do not have a good knowledge of architecture but I do

have some knowledge of it as a student of archaeology

and history." (E.T.C.)

^^e S au s dHk h dk sb Z mR[kuu Lo; a fdlh QhYM e s a ugh a fd;kA

eq[; rkSj ij vkfdZ;ksykth dks QhYM vkfdZ;ksykth o Vsfcy

vkfdZ;ksykth es foHkkftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g dguk xyr gksxk fd

e S a QhYM vkfd Z;k sy kth ugh a g wW A cfYd dsoy Vsfcy

vkfdZ;ksykftLV gh gwWaA --- eSa vius vki dks QhYM vkfdZ;ksykftLV ekurk

gwWa] D;ksfd eSa QhYM vkfdZ;ksykftLV dk dke djrk jgk gwWaA** ¼ist

136½

“I myself never did any excavation in any field.

3854

Archaeology can be divided mainly into field archaeology

and table archaeology. It will be wrong to say that I am

not a field archaeologist; rather, I am just a table

archaeologist. I consider myself to be a field archaeologist

because I have been doing the job of field

archaeologist.”(E.T.C.)

^^esjs bl fo"k; dk Kku LFkkiR; dyk ,oa okLrq dyk ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj

vU; ckrksa ls Hkh tqMk gqvk gSA vU; ckrksa esa TysTm&os;j] XysTM VkbYl

rFkk lacaf/kr eSVhfj;y esa 'kkfey gSaA eSaus bu lHkh ckrksa dk v/;;u

fd;k gSA esjk ;g Kku fofHkUu ys[kksa ds va'kksa ek= ij gh vk/kkfjr ugha

gS] cfYd Lo;a esjs vuqHko ij Hkh vk/kkfjr gSA ;g dguk lEiw.kZ :i ls

Bhd ugha gksxk fd eSa Hkouksa esa iz;qDr mijksDr lanfHkZr eSVhfj;y ,oa

LVkbYl dk fo'ks"kK ugha gwWaA eSa lEiw.kZ Kku ds 'kCn dk izfr'kr rks ugha

crk ldrk] ijUrq eSa ;g dg ldrk gwWa fd eq>s fo'ks"k Kku mijksDr dk

gS] tks esjs v/;;u ds vk/kkj ij vk/kkfjr gSA e S au s bl fo" k; ij

dk sb Z [k kl i q Lrd ugh a i< +h g SA e S au s fdlh foKku&

i z;k sx' k kyk e s a H k h bldk v/;;u vft Zr ugh a fd;k g S ]

ijUr q e q> s vu q H ko ,o a v/;;u d s vk/ k kj ij ;g Kku

g SA * * ¼ist 167½

“My knowledge of this subject is related to sculpture and

architecture and also to other things. Other things include

glazed ware, glazed tiles and concerned materials. I have

made study on all these things. This knowledge of mine is

based not only on some portions of several articles but also

on my own experience. It would not be fully proper to say

that I am not a specialist in the above referred materials

and styles applied to buildings. I cannot quantify the word

'complete knowledge' in percentage but can say that I have

special knowledge of the afore-said facts which is based on

my study. I have not studied any particular book on this

3855

subject. I have not gained knowledge of it in any science

laboratory too but I have this knowledge on the basis of

my experience and study.” (E.T.C.)

^^e S a ,d i qj krRo fo'k s" kK d s :i e s a ;gk W a ij mifLFkr g qvk

g wW a A^^¼ist 187½

“I am present here as an expert in archaeology".

(E.T.C.)

^^eSa iqjkrRo 'kkL= dh lHkh fo/kkvksa ds fo'ks"kK ds :i esa c;ku ns jgk

gwWaA^^ ¼ist 151½

“I am giving statement as a specialist in all branches of

archaeology." (E.T.C.)

^^H k kjrh;] bfrgkl dk s i z k s0 l wjtHk ku i< +kr s F k sA izks0 lwjt

Hkku foxr nl o"kksZ ls fjVk;j gks pqds gSaa izks0 lwjtHkku ogha gSa] ftudk

c;ku bl U;k;ky; esa gks pqdk gSA^^ ¼ist 31½

“Prof. Suraj Bhan taught Indian history. 10 years has

passed since Prof. Suraj retired. Prof. Suraj Bhan is the

same person that has given his statement in this

court."(E.T.C.)

^^e sj h tkudkjh e s a , slk dk sb Z bl fLFk fr e s a i zek.k ugh a g S ]

ftll s ;g lkfcr gk s ld s fd budh , aV h fx zVh ¼lR;fu"Bk ½

ij l an sg fd;k x;k gk sA * *¼ist 52½

“To my knowledge, there is no proof capable of

establishing that their integrity has been

doubted.”(E.T.C.)

3801. PW 30 also make it clear that it was not possible for

anyone to take anything inside the area due to the security

reasons.

^^mR[kuu LFky ij dk sb Z c Sx vFkok vU; fdlh i zdkj dk

^ ^yx st* * y sdj ugh a tku s ikr s Fk sA bl s y s tkuk l aH ko gh

ugh a Fk kA dsoy ek= ge yksx viuk isu] isafly o jkbZfVax iSM ysdj

3856

ogkWa ij tkrs FksA** ¼ist 50½

"None was allowed to go to the excavation side along

with any bag or any other type of luggage. It was not

possible to take it along. Only we went there taking along

our pens, pencils and writing pads.” (E.T.C.)

3802. The parts of his statement which shows agreement

on some aspects of ASI report are:

^^esjs vuqlkj ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we & 2 ¼IysV~l½ esa tks pcwrjk

fn[kk;k x;k gS] og LV~Dpj gSA ;g pcwrjk Q'kZ ij fVdk gqvk gSA Q+'kZ

oSls gh NksM+ nh xbZ gSA Q+'kZ rd lsD'ku Hkh dk;e gSA bl Lrj rd

blesa dksbZ xyrh ugha gSA^* ¼ist 120½

“The Chabutra shown in plates of the ASI report volume-2,

is, in my opinion, are structure. This chabutra is based on

the floor. The floor has been left as it is. The section also

exists up to the floor. Up to this level it has no

flaw.”(E.T.C.)

^^bl vkbZlkseSfV~d O;w esa tks ,d ls pkj rd Q~yksj fn[kk;s x;s gSa ;k

mudh tks x.kuk dh x;h gS] og lgh gSA ysfdu ftl rjg ls pkjks

Q+yksj dks ;gkWa ij iznf'kZr djus dh dksf'k'k dh x;h gS] og mfpr ugha

gSA** ¼ist 127½

“Showing of floors from one to four in the isometric view

or whatsoever calculation of them has been done, is true.

But the way in which an endeavour has been made to show

the four floors here, is not proper.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ okY;we & 1 ds i"B & 70, ij Q+hxj &

17 ds uhps okys fp= esa nkfguh vksj ,d iryh lh ukyh fn[kkbZ iM+

jgh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl Q+hxj & 17 ds vuqlkj ;g ukyh

mRrj dh vksj tk jgh gSA ;g Hk h dguk lgh g S fd mRrj dh

vk sj tkrh g qb Z , slh ukyh ck S) Lr wi e s ugh a gk sr h g S A ---;g

dguk lgh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ okY;we&2 ds IysV la[;k&60

es ckbZ vksj ,d rhj dk fu'kku cuk gqvk gSA bl IysV esa ,d iryh lh

3857

ukyh ut+j vk jgh gSA** ¼ist 150½

"A slender drain is visible to me on the north side in the

picture below figure 17 on page 70-A of the ASI report

volume-1. It is correct to say that as per this figure 70, this

drain is going northwards. It is also correct to say that the

Buddhist stupas do not have such north- bound

drains. ..It is true to say that there is an arrow mark on the

left side in plate no.60 of the ASI report, volume-2. A

narrow drain is seen in this plate.” (E.T.C.)

^^fook fnr LFky ij LV ªDpjy ,DvhfoVht dh 'k q:vkr e sj h

tkudkjh d s vu qlkj d q " k k. k dky l s i z k jE H k gk sr h g S vk S j

mld s ckn d s dkyk s e s a fdlh u fdlh :i e s a pyrh jgh

g S aA fuf'pr rk S j ij fook fnr LFky ij tk s ^ ^ fook fnr

Hkou* * Fk k ml s ^ ^oft Zu y S.M* * ij ugh a cuk;k x;k Fk kA

tSlk fd eSaus igys Åij crk;k gS fookfnr Hkou ftl LFkku ij cuk;k

x;k ml Hkou ds LFky ij fuekZ.k xfrfof/k;kWA dq"kk.k dky ls izkjEHk

gksdj ik'pkr~ ds dkyksa esa fdlh u fdlh :i esa pyrh jgh gSaA ik'pkr~

dky ls esjk rkRi;z xqIr dky] vyhZ fefMoy ihfj;M] lYrur vkSj

eqxy ihfj;M o ckn ds dkyksa ls gSA eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk gwWa fd

fookfnr LFky ij tks fuekZ.k ;k Hkou jgs gksaxs mUgsa rksM+k Hkh x;k gksxk]

D;ksafd [k qnkb Z d s nk S j ku fdlh Hk h i wo Z dkyhu LV ~Dpj d s

fo/o al d s dk sb Z vo'k s" k ugh a fey s g S aA** ¼ist 218½

“In my knowledge, the structural activities at the

disputed site started from the Kushana period and

continued in the subsequent periods in one form or the

other. Certainly the disputed site, which was the

‘disputed structure’, had not been built over ‘virgin

land’. As already stated by me, the site where the disputed

structure had been built, had seen structural activities

beginning from the Kushana period and continuing

3858

periods, in one form or the other. By subsequent periods, I

mean the Gupta period, early medieval period, Sultanate

period, Mughal period and subsequent periods. I cannot

tell that the constructions or buildings existing at the

disputed site, must have been demolished because during

the excavation, no remains were found of demolition of

any earlier period structure.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr LFky ij eSaus Q+'kZ ns[kh gSA e S au s fook fnr LFky ij

mR[kuu d s nk S j ku pkj Q~yk sj n s[ k s F k sA pkSFkh Q~yksj dk

ihfj;M esjs vuqlkj fefMfo;y ihfj;M gSA Q~yksj Fkzh Hkh fefMfo;y

ihfj;M dh gSA blh izdkj Q~yksj &Vw Hkh fefMfo;y ihfj;M dh Fkh]

ijUrq Q~yksj & ou bl ihfj;M dh ugha FkhA Q~yksj ou vk/kqfud dky

dh gSA pkSFkh Q~yksj esa Q'kZ dks cukus ds fy, ykbe rFkk ,d [kkl rjg

dh cf<+;k feV~Vh vkSj bZaVksa ds ikmMj dk iz;ksx gqvk gS] ftldks aykbe

&lq[kh dgk tkrk gSA** ¼ist 263½

“I have seen floors at the disputed site. During the

excavation, I had seen four floors at the disputed site.

According to me, the fourth floor is of the medieval period.

The floor-three was also of the medieval period. Similarly,

the floor-two was also of the medieval period, but the floor-

one was not contemporary. The floor-one is of modern

period. Lime and a special type of good quality earth and

brick powder, called lime- surkhi, has been used in laying

down the fourth floor.” (E.T.C)

^^lk{kh dk /;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 ds IysV la[;k 49] 50

rFkk 55 ij vkd`"V fd;k x;k] lk{kh us bu IysV~l dks ns[kdj crk;k

fd IysV la[;k 50 o 55 esa Q~yksj la[;k 1 o Q~yksj la[;k&2 fn[kkbZ ns

jgs gSaA bu IysV~l dks ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;gk W a ij

lDl sflo LV ~Dpjy ,DVh foVht jghA** ¼ist 264½

“The attention of witness was drawn towards plate nos.49,

3859

50 & 55 of the A.S.I report vol.-2. After looking at these

plates, the witness stated that floor no.1 & floor no.2 are

visible in plate nos.50 & 55. By looking at these plates, it

transpires that successive structural activities existed

over here.” (E.T.C)

iz0&D;k Q~yksj la[;k &2 o 3 ledkyhu Q~yksj gS\

m0&nksuksa Q~ykslZ gw&c&gw ledkyhu ugha gSA

m0 mlls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd nksuksa Q~ykslZ ,d le; dh cuh gqbZ ugha

gks ldrh gSaA Q~yksj la[;k&2 o 4 dh Hkh ;gh fLFkfr gSA** ¼ist 265½

“Question:- Are floor nos.2 & 3, contemporary floors?

Answer:- Both the floors are not exactly contemporary.

Answer:- By it, I mean that both the floors cannot be

contemporary. The position of floor nos.2 & 4, is also the

same.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus fookfnr LFky ij Q~ykslZ dh tks fLFkfr ns[kh Fkh] mlds vuqlkj

Q~yksj &2 o &3 dks fookfnr Hkou ls tksM+k tk ldrk gS vkSj mlh

rjg ls Q~yksj u0&1 dks Hkh fookfnr Hkou ds LV~Dpj ds lkFk tksM+k tk

ldrk gSA Q~yksj ua0&1] 2 rFkk 3 Hkh ledkyhu ugha FksA Lo;a dgk fd

ledkyhu gksus dk ;gka ij fo'ks"k vFkZ gS] bldk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd ftl

le; Q~yksj ua0&3 cuk;k x;k gksxk] mlh le; Q~yksj ua0&2 Hkh cuk;k

x;k gksA Q~yksj ua0&3] izhfo;l LV~Dpj dk Q~yksj gSA ;g ml LV~Dpj

dk Q~yksj gS] tks fookfnr Hkou ds uhps feykAQ~yksj ua0 1 o 2 fookfnr

Hkou ds gh Q~yksj gSaA eq>s ,slk ugha yxrk gS fd Q~yksj ua0&2 fdlh

izhfo;l LV~Dpj dk Q~yksj gSA** ¼ist 267&268½

“According to the situation of floors seen by me at the

disputed site, the floor nos.2 & 3 can be linked to the

disputed structure and similarly the floor no.1 can also be

linked to the structure of the disputed building. Floor nos.-

1, 2 & 3 are not contemporary. The floor nos.2 & 3 were

also not contemporary. Stated on his own that

3860

contemporary has a special meaning over here. It implies

that when the floor-3 was laid, at the same time floor-2

must also have been laid. Floor no.-3 is a floor of previous

structure. It is the floor of that structure, which was

discovered beneath the disputed structure. Floor nos.1 & 2

are floors of the disputed structure. It does not appear to

me that the floor no.2, was the floor of any previous

structure.” (E.T.C)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 dh IysV la[;k&26 dks fn[kk;s tkus ij

lk{kh us crk;k fd bl IysV esa Hkh nks iRFkj ds MsdksjsVsM ihlst+ dk

iz;kx gqvk gSA IysV la[;k&25 rFkk IysV la0 26 esa ftu MsdksjsVsM

ihlst ds ckjs esa eSaus vHkh crk;k gS] dks fj;wt+ fd;k x;k gSA ;g

iRFkj fuf'pr rk S j ij fdlh u fdlh LV ~Dpj d s dgh a u

dgh a fgLlk jg s gk s ax s vk S j ml LV ~Dpj d s [k f.Mr gk su s d s

ckn gh budk nk sc kj k i z;k sx bl uh ao e s a fd;k x;k gk sx kA

bu nksuksa IysVksa dks ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gS fd blesa fczd rFkk iRFkjksa

nksuksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk yx jgk gSA** ¼ist 302½

“On plate no. 26 of ASI Report, Volume-2 being shown the

witness stated – Two decorated stone pieces are used in

this plate as well. The decorated pieces in plate nos. 25 and

26 – about which I have just stated – have been reused.

These stones must have been somewhere parts of some

structure or the other, and only after that structure

having been demolished, they may have been reused in

this foundation. At the sight of these two plates it is clear

that there is use of both bricks and stones in them.”(E.T.C.)

^^lk{kh dk /;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we 2 ds IysV la0&59 o 60 dh

vksj vkd`"V fd;k rFkk fuEu iz'u iwNk%&

iz'u& D;k IysV la0 &59 rFkk 60 esa ljdqyj LV~Dpj ds fdukjs tks

fnokj ut+j vk jgh gS] og mlh ihfj;M dh gS ftl ihfj;M dk

3861

ljdqyj LV~Dpj gS\

mRrj& ;g laHko gS fd ljdqyj LV~Dpj rFkk nhokj ,d gh ihjh;M dh

gksA ljdqyj LV ~Dpj rFk k nhokj x q Ir ihjh;M dh gk su k

l aH ko g S A

iz'u& D;k mijksDr IysVksa dks ns[kdj vki crk ldrs gSa fd bl LFkku

ij xqIr ihjh;M ds ckn Hkh LV~Dpjy ,DVhfoVht+ jgh gS\*

mRrj& bu IysVksa dks ns[k dj bl ckjs essa crk ikuk lEHko ughsa gSa fd

ml LFkku ij ckn esa LVz~dpjy ,fDVfoVht gqbZ ;k ughaA** ¼ist 329½

“The attention of the witness was drawn to plate nos. 59

and 60 of ASI report, volume-2 and the following question

was asked:-

Question:- Is the wall, visible on the edge of the circular

structure seen in Plate nos. 59 and 60, is of the same

period as that of the circular structure?

Answer:- The circular structure and the wall may be of the

same period. The circular structure and the wall are

possibly of the Gupta period.

Question:- Can you, by looking at the aforesaid plates, tell

whether structural activities have been witnessed at this

place even after the Gupta period?

Answer:- By looking at these plates it not possible to tell

whether structural activities were later seen or not at that

place.” (E.T.C.)

^^i"B 37 ,s ij tks dYpjy fMikftV dks fn[kkus ds fy, rkfydk cuk;h

x;h gS rFkk ftldk 'kh"kZd ^^VsUVsfVo ihjh;MkbZts'ku vkQ+ fn fMLiqVsM

lkbZV ,sV v;ks/;k** gS] dks ns[kdj ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd V~sap ua0&7

esa xqIrk o iksLV xqIrk ihjh;M ds fMikftV~l gSa tcfd V~sap ua0 ts0 3 esa

bu nksuksa gh dkyksa ds vo'ks"k ugha fn[kk;s x;s gSaA blds lkFk&lkFk bl

Q+hxj dks ns[kdj ;g Hkh dgk tk ldrk gS fd V~sap ua0 th & 7 esa

ys;j la[;k 9]10]11]12 dq"kk.k dky ds fMikftV dks n'kkZrh gS vkSj blh

rjg ls V~sUp ua0 ts0 3 esa ys;j la0&7 o 8 dq"kk.k dky ds dYpjy

3862

fMikftV dks n'kkZrh gSA** ¼ist 330&331½

“Looking at the table on page 37A, showing cultural

deposits and having the caption ‘Tentative Periodization of

the Disputed Site at Ayodhya’, it can be said that there are

deposits of the Gupta and the post-Gupta period in Trench

no. 7; whereas remains of both of these periods are not

shown in Trench no. J-3. Besides by looking at this figure it

can also be said that Layer nos. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Trench

no. G-7 show the deposits of the Kushana period; and in

this very manner, Layer nos. 7 & 8 of Trench no. J-3 show

cultural deposits of the Kushana period.” (E.T.C.)

^^mR[kfur LFky ij ;fn mijksDr dkyksa dh oLrqvksa ds ckjs esa iwNk tk

jgk gS rks ml laca/k esa e S a d soy ;gh dg ldrk g W w fd

ftu&ftu V s~ Up st + e s a d q " k k. k ] x q Irk ] ik sLV x q Irk o jkti wr

dkyk s a d s dYpjy fMik ftV ~l flyfly so kj mifLFkr g S a]

ogk W a ij bu dkyk s a dh ikVjh rk s vo'; feyh g SA ** ¼ist

331½

“If I am asked about the things of the aforesaid periods

present on the excavation site, I can only say that potteries

of the Kushana, Gupta, post-Gupta and Rajput periods

have certainly been discovered in the Trenches where

cultural deposits of the said periods are serially

present.”(E.T.C.)

^^;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd 12oha 'krkCnh ds igys Hkh bl LFky ij ekuo

cfLr;ksa ds vo'ks"k miyC/k gSaA

t+kfgj gS fd vxj ljdqyj LV~Dpj vkSj mlds vkl&ikl ds

vU; LV~Dpjy vo'ks"k xqIr dky ls lacaf/kr gSa] rks 12oh a ' krk Cnh l s

i wo Z ;gk W a ij LV ~Dpjy ,DvhfoVht d s gk su s dh i q f "V djr s

g S aA ** ¼ist 331½

“It gets clear that remains of human settlements, even prior

3863

to the 12th century, are there on the site.

It is clear that if the remains of the circular structure

and other structures adjoining it, are related to the

Gupta period, that establishes the presence of structural

activities there prior to 12th century.” (E.T.C.)

^^bl ckr dh iwjh lEHkkouk gS fd Q+km.Ms'ku ds Åij tks bZaVksa dh

nhokj gS] mldks vkxs py djds Q+km.Ms'ku ds #i esa Hkh iz;ksx fd;k

gksA

iz0& vkius ;g dgk fd ,slk gks ldrk gS fd bZVksa okyh nhokj dk

iz;ksx Q+km.Ms'ku esa fd;k x;k gks] rks ;g LV~Dpj dh nhokj ugha gks

ldrh gSA D;k vki bl ckr ls lger gSa\

m0& ;gka ij ;g lEHko g S fd iRFkjk s a d s Q +km.M s' ku d s Åij

tk s b ZVk s a dh nhokj g S ] og igy s LV ~Dpj dk fgLlk jgh

gk sA ** ¼ist 335½

“There is every possibility that the brick wall above the

foundation, may also have been used as the foundation

afterwards.

Question:- You stated that the brick wall might have been

used as the foundation; then it cannot be the wall of the

structure. Do you agree on this point?

Answer:- Here it is possible that the brick wall above the

stone foundation may have earlier been the part of the

structure.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjs vuqlkj bl Q+hxj 1 esa tks estjesaV fn[kk;k x;k gS] og Bhd gSA -

---e sj h tkudkjh d s e qrk fcd mR[kuu d s nk S j ku th0ih0vkj0

e s a fn[k kb Z xb Z d qN ,uk feyht dh i q f "V g qb Z A ** ¼ist 344½

“The measurement shown in figure no. 1 is, in my opinion,

correct. … As per my knowledge, the presence of some

anomalies in the GPR got confirmed in course of the

excavation.” (E.T.C.)

3864

^^Q ~yk sj u a0 3 o Q~yk sj u a0 4 l s t qM +h g qb Z nhokj s a fook fnr

Hkou d s le; l s i wo Z dh Fk h aA - ---esjs fopkj ls Q+hxj &23 esa

fookfnr LFky dh tks fLFkfr fn[kk;h x;h gS] og lgh gSA** ¼ist 359½

“The walls connected with Floor No. 3 and Floor No. 4

were prior to the time of the disputed structure. In my

opinion, the position in which the disputed structure is

shown in Figure 23 is correct.” (E.T.C.)

3803. PW 31, Dr. Ashok Dutta has assailed the ASI report

only in respect to pillar bases by means of his affidavit dated

20.1.2006. However, while agreeing that underneath the

disputed structure there exist earlier structure, he said in para 19

and 20 of the affidavit that the periphery region of the mound

was inhabited by Islamic cultured people and the site was

continuously occupied by Islamic cultured people right from the

time of Sultanat period and the structure associated with this

level belong to Islamic culture. Regarding the affidavit, he says

on page 67:

“I have gone through the report submitted by ASI, and on

the basis of my personal observation I filed my affidavit in

examination in chief in the court. The affidavit filed by me

is my observation report.” (Page 67)

3804. The following aspects in the proceeding and report

of ASI has not been disputed by him:

“Human animal figurines in terracotta and stones were

found from disputed site also. … It is correct to say that

terracotta figurine were recovered during excavation and

have been shown in the report of the ASI. ” (Page 75)

“The floors which have been shown in this figure are

correct as four floors were found from excavation and the

floors as shown in figure 23-A may be similar as this figure

3865

is the replica of floors found in the excavation" (Page 90)

“On the basis of these floors an archaeologist can draw

conclusion that these floor represent structure of

different periods. It is very difficult to infer on the basis of

these floors that it was an open space.” (Page 92)

“The floors which have been shown in this figure are

correct as four floors were found from excavation and the

floors as shown in figure 23-A may be similar as this figure

is the replica of floors found in the excavation” (Page 96)

“I agree with the opinion of ASI that there lie a number

of structure in the forms of walls and floors beneath the

disputed structure. Wall number 1-15 may be related to the

disputed structure. Walls number 16 onwards are walls

belonging to a period before the construction of disputed

structure. (Page 249)

“Figure 3B … shown to the witness. The witness stated that

it appears from this figure that it has used 3 different

colours for structures belonging to 3 different periods 6,7

and 8. It is correct to say that in this figure walls and

structures found during excavation are shown. I can

identify wall no.16 and 17 in this figure 3B. Wall number

16 is a bit larger than wall no. 17. Wall no. 16 appears to

be about 50 meters in length, where as wall no. 17 is

approximately 35-40 meters if the measurement as done by

ASI is correct. I have seen wall no. 17 on spot but I have

not taken its measurement. The measurement shown by ASI

in this figure 3B appears to be correct because it will be

presumed that them measurement given by ASI is correct.”

(Page 249)

3866

“The structures which were found beneath the structure,

belong to earlier than 1528 AD.” (Page 253)

3805. In cross examination, PW 31 has concurred with the

periodization of ASI except that of period VI :

“I agree with the suggestion that the stratigraphy is it self

a scientific mode of periodization. I agree with the

periodization given by the ASI of period 1 from 6th to 3rd

century B.C., period 2 is from 2nd to 1st century B.C., period

third is from 1st to 3rd century A.D. and period 4 from 4th to

6th century A.D. The ASI has fixed period 5 from 7th to 10th

century A.D. and period 6 has been fixed by ASI from 11th-

12th century and period 7 is from 12th to the beginning of

the 16th century A.D. It is true that in chapter 3 the ASI has

given periodization on the basis of dynasty, Stratigraphy as

well as on the basis of century wise but no stratigraphical

sequence has been followed by the ASI. Moreover they have

used both centurywise as well as dynasty wise

periodization. Volunteered that gross mistake of

periodization is in the period 6 which is shown as

medieval sultanate-period starting from 11th- 12th century

A.D. when they were non existent. This shows that the

Stratigraphy was not followed properly. The ASI people

had not done the carbon dating of different samples found

from different level to support their periodization.” (Page

254)

3806. The parts of statement of PW 32 Supriya Verma,

which shows agreement on some aspects of ASI report are:

"It is correct that the ASI in its report has shown it as a

Ram Chabutara because a larger platform on the top of it

3867

was existing and known as Ram Chabutara. The ASI has

also in its report said that this platform was a Vedi.” (Page

97)

“It is correct to say that from the findings of ASI, it is

established that there was some structure beneath the floor

of disputed site and I also concede that there was some

structure beneath the site in dispute.” (Page 131/132)

"However, I agree that the three floors were found.”

(Page 134)

“All the three floors no. 2 to 4 are attached with wall no.

16. Wall no. 16 is the same wall which is just below the

wall no. 5. Undisputedly, wall no. 5 was that of the

disputed structure. It is correct to say that below wall no.

16 is there wall no. 17. Yes, it is correct to say that ASI has

shown a circular shrine which according to me is Buddhist

Stoop.” (Page 135-136)

“It is correct to say that this wall 22 lies below the

foundation of wall 16 in west-side. This goes to show that

wall no. 22 is earlier to wall 16. Wall no. 25 runs in north

south direction which is situated in the east of the disputed

structure. Wall No. 26 is earlier to wall no. 25. Just below

wall no. 26 is wall no. 27 which is running in north south

direction with a slight angle. The period of wall no. 27 has

been indicated by ASI as Kushan period. I also date this

wall to Kushan period. Huge calcrete blocks are attached

to wall no. 28. It is in trench J-3. ASI has dated it to

Shunga period and I agree with this conclusion. Shunga

period can be dated between 2nd B.C. and 1st B.C. century.

Kushan can be dated between 1st century A.D. to 3rd century

3868

A.D. Wall no. 16, 18-A, 18-B and 18-C are more or less

contemporary.” (Page 146)

“I agree with the finding of the ASI regarding

existence of the structure underneath the disputed

structure but I disagree with the interpretation arrived at

by ASI. I do not agree with the procedure followed by ASI. I

think, very categorically it is very difficult to say that some

of the finds of ASI relate to Hindu religion structures

because these finds could well have been a part of palaces

Budhist structure, Jain structure and Islamic

structure.”(Page 147)

“As far as plans are concerned except those concerning

the pillar bases I agree with the rest of the plans given in

the ASI report.” (Page 151)

“It is true that ASI has given concordance of some of

the trenches showing relationship of different areas of

the excavations. I agree with this chart.” (Page 153)

“It is true that plate 129 of ASI report is of cobra head.

Similarly, plate 130 of the report is of bull head.” (Page

162)

“Plate 133 of ASI report is of bull figurine.” (Page 162)

“These animal figurines which are shown in plates 129 to

135 were recovered during excavation by the ASI.” (Page

162)

“I agree with the ASI report in regard to the pillar bases

1 and 5 shown in plate 37 Vol II of the ASI report.”

(Page 167)

“It is correct to say that the disputed structure was not

constructed on the virgin land.” (Page 168)

3869

“Yes, in the foundation of the disputed structure, a few

decorated stones were used which were found during

excavation.”(Page 171)

“From walls 16 to 28, except wall 18-D are the walls

underneath the disputed structure." (Page 137)

3807. PW 24 though had disputed the several artefacts

found at different level by ASI stating that they were not found

thereform, but PW 32 has contradicted on page 107 and said :

“I have no doubt about the depths of the antiquities

mentioned in ASI report.”

3808. Now we start with our journey of adjudicating the

objections raised against the ASI's report and findings, in the

light of the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments

of learned counsels.

3809. Initially the case set up by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) was

that the building in dispute was constructed at a place where

neither there existed any Hindu religious structure nor the place

in dispute was place of worship nor there exist any evidence to

show birth of Lord Rama thereat. However, with the excavation

proceedings progressed, a marked change in the approach of

plaintiffs (Suit-4) becomes evident. Some of the Archaeologist,

who also deposed later in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4), against

ASI report, tried to set up a new case that there appears to be an

Islamic religious structure existing beneath the disputed building

or that there existed an Islamic religious structure when the

disputed building was constructed. The suggestion was that it

could be either an Idgah or a Kanati Masjid wherein only one

long wall on the western side was constructed with a niche. The

consensus appears to be amongst the eight experts of Muslim

3870

parties, more or less accepting the existence of a structure

beneath the disputed structure. The above approach that the

earlier structure was a Islamic religious structure excludes the

possibility of a non religious structure at the disputed site

beneath the disputed structure. It narrows down our enquiry to

the question whether such structure could be an Islamic

religious structure or non Islamic structure i.e. a Hindu

Religious Structure.

3810. In the pleadings, specific case of the plaintiffs (Suit-

4) was about non existence of any temple or building on the

disputed site when the building in dispute was constructed.

Subsequently, parties have not sought for any amendment in the

pleadings and there is no case or suggestion even till date, in the

pleadings that there could have been or there was any possibility

of existence of an Islamic religious structure at the time when

the disputed structure was constructed and it is after demolition

of such earlier structure the subsequent one was constructed.

3811. On the contrary, besides plaintiffs (Suit 5),

defendant no.13 (Suit 4) had also pleaded that there existed a

temple which was demolished and thereafter the disputed

structure was constructed and the structure of the earlier

demolished temple can be found beneath the disputed structure.

It is in this context the OPW-9 had deposed that on excavation

of the disputed site these facts can be fortified.

3812. The entire process of excavation and submission of

report has been completed by ASI in a record period of about

six months and ten days’. It commenced its work on 12th March

2003 and submitted report on 22nd August 2003. The report is in

two Volumes. First consists of text of report and Second

3871

contains various plates (photographs) of the finds, excavated

site, trenches etc. The report has been submitted by Sri Hari

Manjhi and B.R. Mani with contribution from M/S Shubhra

Pramanik, P.K. Trivedi, P. Venkatesan, L.S. Rao, C.B. Misra,

A.R. Siddqui, T.S. Ravishankar, C.B. Patil, S.K. Sharma, M.V.

Vishweshwara, G.S. Khwaja, Vishnu Kant, N.C. Prakash, D.K.

Singh, Niraj Sinha, A.A. Hashmi, Bhuvan Vikrama, Sujeet

Nayan, Gajanan L. Katade, Prabash Sahu, Zulfeqar Ali and S.K.

Tewari.

3813. Volume I of the Report is in 10 Chapters as under:

A. Chapter 1 - "Introduction" written by B.R.Mani

(Page 1-12)

B. Chapter II – "Cuttings" written by B.R. Mani,C.B.

Misra,C.B. Patil, A.A. Hashmi (Page 13-36)

C. Chapter III - "Stratigraphy and Chronology"

written by L.S. Rao, Bhuvan Vikrama, N.C. Prakash,

Zulfeqar Ali (Page 37-47)

D. Chapter IV – "Structure" written by B.R. Mani, D.K.

Singh, Bhuvan Vikrama, Gajanan L. Katade, Prabhash

Sahu, Zulfeqar Ali (Page 48-72)

E. Chapter V – "Pottery" written by B.R. Mani, P.

Venkateshan, Vishnu Kant, Prabhu Sahu (Page 73 – 120)

F. Chapter VI - "Architectural Fragments" written by

L.S. Rao, A.R. Siddiqui, Sujeet Nayan, (Page 121 – 173)

G. Chapter VII - "Terracotta Figurines" written by P.K.

Trivedi, C.B. Patil, Gajanan L. Katade (Page 174 – 203)

H. Chapter VIII - "Inscriptions, Seal, Sealings &

Coins" written by T.S. Ravishankar, G.S. Khwaja (Page

204 – 218)

3872

I. Chapter IX - "Miscellaneous Objects" written by

Shubhra Pramanik, S.K. Sharma, Prabhash Sahu (219 –

267)

J. Chapter X – "Summary of Result" (Page 268 - 272)

3814. Besides, there are five Appendices (though

numbered as Appendix I, IIA IIB, III and IV) and the contents

thereof in summary are as under:

Appendix Contents Page No.

Appendix I C14 Dating of Charcoal Samples from Ayodhya-excavation

273

Appendix IIA Report on the Chemical Analysis of Floor Samples pertaining to different trenches collected from Ayodhya

274-277

Appendix IIB Report on the Chemical Analysis of Floor Samples pertaining to different trenches collected from Ayodhya

278-285

Appendix III On-Site Chemical Treatment and Preservation of Excavated Artefacts

286-290

Appendix IV Information on the Data-Form as per direction of Special Full Bench, Lucknow of the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad.

291-309

3815. The complex nature of the job, time constraint,

functioning constraint, continuous observance by a huge

number of persons, disrupted peace and calm atmosphere of

functioning in a matter which requires serious concentration,

were some of the feature in which this body, not habitual of, but

worked. This is admitted by ASI as is evident from Chapter I,

“Introduction”, under the heading “Objections and

Methodology” and “Constraints” which reads as under :

“Objectives and Methodology

The High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of

India to excavate the site attesting the statement of the GPR

3873

Survey that the exact nature of anomalies/objects has to be

confirmed by systematic truthing such as provided by

archaeological trench. Thus excavations at the disputed

site were taken up with this objective only.

The excavation at the disputed site of Ayodhya is of a

very special nature though with the limited but defined

objective. All precautions by the Archaeological Survey of

India under the High Court’s direction were taken to plan it

in such a way that the work could be taken up and

completed as per the directions of the High Court. In

planning the excavation, it was decided to adopt the latest

technique of layout of trenches where limited spaces are

available and therefore in place of general practice of lay

out of 10x10 m. squares divided into four quadrants of

4.25x4.25 m. separated by 0.50 m. baulk all around, the

change in the practice was made by fixing pegs at a

distance of every 5 m in both north-south and east-west

directions with cutting area of 4x4 m in leaving 0.5 m baulk

all around which in contiguous trenches effectively left a

space of 1.0 m in between two cuttings for the easy

movement of archaeologists and labourers. One meter wide

baulk was specially provided, considering the fact that due

to modern fillings and debris the trench may not collapse

due to earth pressure in a most sensitive area.

To avoid any confusion and for better understanding

by even laymen, instead of the X, Y and Z areas of

traditional layout, it was decided to put the initial reference

peg Al at the north-west corner of the site and accordingly

A, B, C, D etc. letters were put to denote trenches in the

3874

west to east direction and numerals 1,2,3 4 etc. attached

with them in the north to south direction. Only at later

stage to expand the excavated area in the north the Z area

was included with this setup and layout of trenches. The

entire area under excavation was designated as AYD-1 to

differentiate it with other mounds in the nearby localities.

Full attention was given to the report and GPR

Survey drawing submitted by the Tojo-Vikas International

(Pvt.) Ltd and accordingly decision was taken to start

excavation at first to the north of Ram Chabutra and also

to its adjoining area where greater signals had been

detected by the GPR Survey. As the work of excavation

required to be completed at a time bound programme, the

archaeological documentation including drawing and

photography of the structural remains, pottery and

antiquities were arranged to be done simultaneously.

Samples of plaster, floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-

botanical remains were also collected for scientific studies

and analysis. Trenches were also laid in the entire disputed

area on all sides excepting the area of the makeshift

structure where Ram Lala is enshrined along with its

periphery at a distance of 10 feet from Ram Lala as

specified by the High Court. The excavation work was

planned in phased manner in particular areas as per

significant signals for anomalies pointed out by the GPR

Survey.

The entire proceedings of excavation and recording

of structures and antiquities were documented by still and

video cameras as per the directions of the Hon’ble High

3875

Court.

Constraints

On the directions of the Hon’ble High Court,

Archaeological Survey of India has excavated ninety

trenches in a limited time of five months, soon after which

the excavation report in required to be submitted within

fifteen days. This is an unprecedented event in the history

of one hundred and forty two years of the existence of the

Survey. All through the period of excavations at the

disputed site favourable as well as adverse criticism has

been encountered in the press and the media. In view of the

very sensitive and important issue involved, Archaeological

Survey of India did not react or clarify the position as per

the orders of the Hon’ble Court.

Throughout the period of excavation the team had to

work under close presence of advocates, parties and their

nominees involved in the title suit. As per the instructions

of the High Court in order to maintain transparency, all the

excavated material including antiquities, objects of

interests, glazed pottery and tile and bones recovered from

the trenches were sealed in the presence of advocates,

parties and nominees and kept on the same day of their

recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised

Person (The Commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the

excavation team for the specific purpose which again was

locked and sealed everyday when it was opened. Thus the

time available for their documentation, study, photography,

drawing and chemical preservations was limited to just a

few hours only and that too not in the case of material

3876

recovered from the trenches towards closing of the work for

the day. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the study,

documentation and preservation of the material after

opening the seals in the presence of advocates, parties or

their nominees and again putting them under seal in their

presence. Work was often affected and delayed due to

formalities involved in securities checks and such other

administrative requirements.

Working condition worsened at the onslaught of the

monsoon from June onwards when the entire site was

covered with multi-coloured waterproof sheets creating

heat and humidity besides total darkness in a number of

deep trenches. Monkeys started damaging the sheets as a

result of which several layers of the sheets were spread

over bamboo and wooden poles. They created further

darkness. Photography was also affected due to bad light

and natural colours were not easily obtained as the multi-

coloured sheets reflected their colours on the surface and

sections. Much difficulty was felt for the stratigraphical

observations particularly for determining layers. These

factors slowed the process of ongoing work. However, the

Authorised Person was asked by the High Court to provide

sufficient light and air in the covered area for further work.

The excavation team had to lower electric lights several

meters deep in the trenches where work was continuing at

further deep levels. Grill barricading and poles fixed on

baulks of traenches throughout the area made normal

movements difficult. One team member fell down and

fractured his hand and leg while others including some

3877

casual labourers received electric shocks by touching

pedestal fans fixed on baulks. In spite of all such

constraints the team of the Archaelogical Survey of India

worked vigorously with full devotion and spirit.

In the task of synthesizing and analyzing the

enormous data that excavation produced every care has

been taken to avoid mistakes, however, due to voluminous

data coupled with time constraint some typing errors may

have inadvertently crept in the report.”

3816. It is also mentioned at page 12 of the report that

initially, excavation team of ASI consisted of 14 Members but

it was enlarged at later stages to a total of 53 Members including

two team leaders. Since ASI in this particular case proceeded on

the report of GPR survey, carried out under the orders of this

Court, it had the benefit of site information to some extent

which obviously made it convenient to decide the working

stretch with better certainty than that of a case of unknown

excavation site. This is what has been said in Chapter II

(Cuttings):

"The benchmark denoting 108.48 m above the Mean

Sea level was fixed at the spot on the stone slab, which

represents the place where the outer eastern gateway of

the disputed structure once stood. The 108.0 m contour at

the site clearly suggests the region, which covered the core

area of structural activity (Fig.1). Though the surrounding

ground level still contains the cultural deposits and debris

accumulated for centuries, the contour map itself suggests

that the deposits at the site are no less than 8.0 m. Radar

signatures of foundation and the different levels of

3878

stratigraphy shown in the GPR Survey had already

suggested that anomalies mapped are not all

contemporaneous and they appear in different

stratigraphic contexts noticed between the depths of 0.5

to 5 m (Fig.2)

In view of the above indications from GPR Survey

followed by the contour survey, full precautions were taken

for archaeological investigations through excavations

planned in such a way that most of the area of strong

amplitude and ringy signals, strong dipping reflectors,

discontinuous anomaly alignments and scattered

anomalies could be covered in the excavation trenches

which were laid out in the form of 5 x 5 m grids with 4 x

4 m of cutting line instead of larger trenches as already

explained in the previous chapter. This was planned to take

up excavations to be completed in accordance with the time

bound programme with the intention to cover maximum

GPR indications as per the directions of the High Court

and also in order to simplify the layout with lesser chances

of erosion of sections and easy movement on baulks.

The area covered under GPR Survey comprises 132

trenches, which were all laid out, though many of them do

not contain anomalies. Trenches having no anomalies

were avoided and they were taken up for excavation only

when some structural alignments were found to be traced

in them. Five trenches in the northern area were excavated

though that area was not covered by the GPR survey but

was essential for excavation for exposing the buried

structural remains. In total a number of 90 trenches were

3879

partly or fully excavated.

The entire site was divided into five areas – a) the

eastern area, b) the southern area, c) the western area, d)

the northern area and e) the raised platform. Excavations

in all these five areas were taken up in phased manner

(Fig.3) for better understanding the nature of structures

and cultural deposits.

The Eastern Area

Excavations were taken up first in the eastern area

where the eastern enclosure wall alongwith remnants of a

gateway was noticed below whtich lie floors and walls of

earlier phases (Pls. 1-2). The central part of the platform,

locally called Ram Chabutra was noticed in this area

constructed in five stages. The area is presently enclosed

by barricaded gangway from three sides through which the

visitors move. Seventeen trenches fully or partly, twelve

within the above area and five outside the gangway within

outer barricade towards east were taken up for

excavation in J,K and L series. The main features exposed

in this area include fourteen extant courses of reused

brickbats and calcrete stone blocks in the enclosure wall

with a part of 2.12 m in the middle of the wall suggesting

the entrance doorway which was topped by marble slabs

and the floor levels consisting of lime and cement floors by

marble dedicatory slabs of the second half of the twentieth

century. Some elongated hearths and a furnace of late

Mughal period were found (Pl.3). The enclosure wall

was constructed over the lime floor connected with the

disputed structure and therefore, it seems to be a later

3880

addition. The lime floor has a platform, sloping towards

east and a step to descend on the floor. Below the lime floor

a brick paved floor having large squarish burnt bricks was

encountered running further to the north beyond the outer

barricade. Towards west of the brick floor another

pavement attached to it divided by a brick-on-edge pattern

was found which is composed of brickbats. Another lime

floor has been noticed below this pavement. These floors

were damaged during construction or enlargement of the

Ram Chabutra which is located abutting them on the

southern side. In trench J3 excavations were conducted

upto the depth of 10.85 m when natural soil was found.

The Southern Area

Twenty-three trenches were partly or fully

excavated towards the south of the raised platform, party

covering it (Pl.4). This area covered the southern part of

the disputed structure alongwith its southern enclosure

wall moving towards west. Towards east the extended part

of the Ram Chabutra was encountered abutting the floor of

the courtyard of the disputed structure. Parts of the

northern and western walls and their foundation and the

foundation of the southern and eastern sides built of

calcrete stone blocks of the disputed structure were exposed

which were found resting directly in the west over a 1.77 m

wide brick wall of earlier period, the lower part of which

has decorated stone blocks and calcrete stone foundation

and over 50 pillar bases arranged at regular intervals

connected with the lime plastered brick wall through a

floor. The core of the wall of the disputed structure was

3881

filled with brickbats. The pillar bases comprise some

courses of brick bats in squarish or circular formations

over which two to five calcrete stone blocks are kept,

possibly below sand stone blocks as found in the northern

area, though only one decorated sand stone block was

found in this area. Further below the above mentioned

brick wall another brick wall was noticed on the top of

which decorated stone blocks were found used. In the

levels further down brick structures were noticed in

trenches E8 and F8, though their full plan could not be

exposed. At two points, below the pillar bases, traces of

earlier pillar bases were also found in trenches F8 and

F9 which were connected with the second floor below

the floor with which most of the other pillar bases were

connected. The brick wall mentioned above was found

badly damaged on the southern side, possibly for taking

out its bricks. This wall was found extending in the

northern side of the raised platform. A brick shrine,

circular on its outer and squarish on its inner plan with a

rectangular projection for entrance in the east and a chute

on its northern side was found below the levels of above

mentioned walls. Due to steep slope in the area further

south of the trenches, it was not possible to excavate there.

The natural soil was reached in G7 at the depth of 10.84

m, which was confirmed by digging further upto the

depth of 13.20 m (Pl.5).

The Western Area

Trenches laid out towards west of the raised

platform on the slope represented by B and C series of

3882

trenches fall under the western area. During 1976-77

excavation in a trench gave the chronological sequence of

the site. The area was covered with fallen masonry blocks

and stones of the disputed structure. In order to have a

thorough probing to locate and study the anomalies

indicated in the GPR Survey, the area was first of all

cleared of the accumulated fallen material, the huge chunks

of which weighing several tones were lifted with the help of

a crane and stalked in the closeby area with out breaking

them as emotions of many people are attached with them

(Pl. 6). After cleaning the area (Pl.7), excavations in parts

of nineteen trenches were conducted mainly to verify the

anomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey. At some places

remains of a brick wall having nearly fifty courses were

seen, particularly in the northern side. In the rest of the

trenches mostly accumulated debris was found resting

over earlier levels or structures (Pl.8).

The Northern Area

The area towards norths of the raised platform has

the barricade with gate and is more often used by the

priests and the security forces (Pl.9) Twenty-one trenches

were fully or partly excavated in this area. The massive

brick wall located in the southern area was noticed running

in north-south direction in this area and below its level

another wall was also found as seen earlier in the

southern area. The top three floors and pillar bases

attached with the top floor were exposed (Pl.10). The

interesting feature of the pillar bases in this area was that

over the calcrete stone blocks these bases were given

3883

proper finishing by providing squarish stone blocks of sand

stone encased with four upright stone pieces placed on the

four sides for giving support to the pillar at the base in

order to avoid any movement. The stone blocks project a

little above the floor.

The squarish brick pavement noticed in a number

of trenches in the eastern area was found extended in

the northern area in northeastern part in trenches K1,

ZK1 and ZL1 below the lime floor connected with the

disputed structure. The eastern enclosure wall was traced

in this area in K1 and was found turning towards west in

ZK1. A drain of recent origin was noticed alongwith flight

of steps leading to the site from the northern road, which is

no longer in use at present.

The Raised Platform

After the demolition of the disputed structure, nearly

1.5 m to 2.0 m of structural debris has accumulated over

central and northern part of the erstwhile structure. The

makeshift structure is also located on it. The High Court

allowed excavations by order dated 05 March 2003 on this

raised platform with the condition that archaeologists shall

not disturb any area where the idol of Shir Ram Lala is

existing and approximately 10 feet around it and they shall

not affect the worship of Shri Ram Lala and thus, status

quo as regards His Puja and worshippers’ right of Darshan

shall be maintained.

Excavation partly in ten trenches on the raised

platform was taken up besides part of the four trenches

of southern area, which fall under the raised platform. It

3884

was feared that if the excavation in the trenches on raised

platform was done, the modern brick walls enclosing the

makeshift structure already having cracks may collapse

(Pl.11) and the mound on which Shri Ram Lal is existing

may also be damaged. In view of taking all the required

precautions the High Court on 22 May 2003 directed the

Chief Engineer, P.W.D. to remain present at the time of

excavation and to ensure and make necessary

arrangements so that no structure is affected. While

excavations the P.W.D. provided G.I. sheets and wooden

planks against the exposed sections to avoid erosion of

debris and stones and packed the cavities with sand bags.

Brick structures, floors and pillar bases were found

below the floors and the walls of the disputed structure

on the raised platform as well.

Confirmation of G.P.R. Survey

As ordered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, the Archaeological Survey of

India invited the Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.) Limited,

New Delhi to undertake the G.P.R. Survey at the disputed

site at Ayodhya. The final report on GPR Survey submitted

on 17 Feb 2003 concluded that the ‘GPR Survey reflects in

general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5

meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and

contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations

walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the

site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be

confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided

by archaeological trenching.

3885

The report further mentions that the accuracy of

depth is normally within # 5%, 10% for homogeneous

strata while X-Y accuracy could be and the measurements

of Georadar are based on the returning signals by a

dielectric constant change in addition to other limitations

of the GPR Survey. The report also mentions that the

anomalies are of different types like discrete anomaly such

as pillar or wall foundation ; ringy signal indicating some

kind of floor or platform structure made of concrete, bricks

or stone slabs; rubbles of heterogeneous material or

reworked materials from its original stratigraphy; the

mounds containing the buried collapsed dwellings etc.

A word of caution was also included in the report

that not all hyperbolas shaped radar anomalies correspond

to pillars and wall foundation.

Keeping in view these parameters, the

Archaeological Survey of India conducted the excavation

at the disputed site at Ayodhya between 12th March 2003

to 07th August 2003 to verify the anomalies. Spread over

the disputed site, 184 anomalies indicated by the GPR

Survey fell in 82 trenches. For the sake of convenience,

these anomalies were numbered in the ascending order

depending on their depth in each trench where they were

indicated and the anomalies shown in between the baulks

were also included to the nearest excavation trenches.

Among 184 anomalies, 39 of them were confirmed

during excavation at the specified depth and location

where they were shown and 74 were not found in spite of

digging up to the required depth. In view of the

3886

importance of the structures found at the upper levels than

the depths indicated in GPR Survey, another 27 anomalies

could not be located. It was not possible to verify the

remaining 44 anomalies as their location restricted the

probing due to either non availability of sufficient space

like raised platform or the presence of gangways,

barricades, pathways and trees etc. for conducting the

excavation.

3817. In the trenches no. B1 to B9, C1 to C9, L1 and L2

no anomaly was found though indicated in GPR survey.

Trenches no. D3, D10, E3, E5, F5, G3, G4, H3, H8, J10, K9,

K11 and L11 were not excavated due to area restriction on

account of various reasons namely, gangway, pathway, fencing,

barricading stone post and raised platform (make shift

structure). In several other trenches excavation to some extent

was made, but not proceeded further due to area restriction or

for the safety of make shift structures etc. despite finding one or

more anomalies as indicated by GPR survey.

3818. The details of the trenches where the anomalies

were found (completely or partly) as as under:

Sl No 20. Trench No. D6: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 3.20 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 1.80 m.

However, the excavation was not conducted in

the area where the anomaly was shown due to

the presence of barricade.

Sl No 21. Trench No. D7: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 4.0 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 1.70 m.

3887

However, the excavation was not conducted in

the area where the anomaly was shown due to

the presence of barricade.

SI No. 23. Trench No. ZE1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 0.6 and 2.0 m.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 2.55

m. The first anomaly was not found at the

specified depth and location. A step like

structure of stone and brick at 0.45 m that goes

down to 1.90 m. was found where the second

anomaly was shown.

Sl No 24. Trench No.E1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 0.5 m. and 1.0

m. The first anomaly was not found at the

specified depth and location. However, a wall

oriented north south was found at a depth 0.95

m. where the first anomaly was shown. The

second anomaly was also not found at the

specified depth and location. However, a

brickbat pavment was found at a depth of 1.32

m. where the second anomaly was shown.

Sl No. 25. Trench No. E2: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 1.50 and at 2.50

m and another anomaly in the form of an

alignment at the depth of 2.50 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 2.70 m. The first

anomaly was not found at the specified depth

and location. However, a rectangular stone

pillar base was found at a depth of 1.80 m

3888

where the first anomaly was shown. The second

anomaly and the other anomaly of an

alignment were not found at the specified depth

and location. However, a stone pavement was

found at a depth of 1.60 m where the alignment

was shown. In view of the importance of the

exposed structure, further excavation was not

conducted to the required depth were the

alignment was shown.

Sl No 28. Trench No. E8: The GPR Survey indicated

anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 5.2 m. The

trench was excavated upto a depth of 3.54 m.

The first anomaly was not found at the

specified depth and location. However, a lime

surkhi floor and a wall oriented east west were

found respectively at the depths at 0.80 and

2.15 m where the first anomaly was shown. An

important structure was found where the

second anomaly was shown. In view of the

importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted to the required

depth where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 29. Trench No. E9: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 1.0 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 1.44 m. A floor

with a pillar base was found at a depth of 0.60

m where the anomaly was shown. In view of the

importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted up to the

3889

required depth where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 30. Trench No. ZF1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 3.0 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 1.14 m. A lime

surkhi floor was found a t a depth of 0.60 m

where the anomaly was shown. In view of the

importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted up to the

required depth where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 31. Trench No. F2: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies in the form of alignments at the

depths of 2.3-2.5 m. A wall oriented cast west

was found at the depth of 1.50 m where the

alignment was shown. In view of the

importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted up to the

required depth where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 32. Trench No. F3: The GPR Survey indicated

anomalies at the depths of 1.50, 1.80, 2.0, 2.80

and 4.30 and 4.50 m and one more anomaly in

the form of an alignment at the depths of 2.7-

3.9-4.1 m. The trench was excavated up to a

depth of 4.60 m. An ‘L’ shaped wall from 0.18

m down to a depth of 2.85 m and another

structure at 3.95 m were found where second

and third anomalies were shown. The

excavation was not conducted in the area

where the remaining anomalies and alignment

were shown due to area restriction on raised

3890

platform.

Sl No 33. Trench No. F4: The GPR Survey indicated

anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.2, 2.4 and 4.5

m. The trench was excavated up to a depth of

4.70 m. The architectural members were found

from the debris where the first and second

anomalies were shown. A calcrete stoner

structure was found at the depth of 2.37 m

where the third anomaly was shown. The fourth

anomaly was not found at the specified depth

and location.

Sl No 35. Trench No. F6: The GPR Survey indicated

anomalies at the depths of 0.70, 1.0 and 2.70

m. The trench was excavated up to a depth of

1.70 m. A pillar base was found at the depth of

0.70 m where the first anomaly was shown.

Another pillar base and a floor were found

respectively at the depths of 0.55 m and 1.06 m

where the second anomaly was shown. The

third anomaly was not found at the specified

depth and location. However, a pillar base was

found at the depth of 1.60 m where the third

anomaly was shown. In view of the importance

of the exposed structures, further excavation

was not conducted up to the required depth

where the third anomaly was shown.

Sl No 36. Trench No. F8: The GPR Survey indicated

anomalies at the depths of 1.5 and 2.0 m. The

trench was excavated upto a depth of 2.65 m. A

3891

pillar base was found at a depth of 0.70 m

where the first anomaly was shown. In view of

the importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted up to the

required depth where the first anomaly was

shown. The second anomaly was not found at

the specified depth and location. However, a

wall running east west was found at the depth

of 2.65 m where the second anomaly was

shown.

Sl No 37. Trench No. F9: The GPR Survey indicated

anomaly at the depth of 0.5 m. The trench was

excavated upto a depth of 2.18 m. A pillar base

was found on a floor at a depth of 0.50 m

where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 38. Trench No. ZG1: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.6 and

3.0 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth

of 1.75 m. A lime floor and a pillar base were

found respectively at the depths of 0.48 and

0.50 m where the first and second anomalies

were shown. A brickbat structure was found at

a depth of 1.75 m where the third anomaly was

shown. In view of the importance of the

exposed structures, further excavation was not

conducted up to the required depth where the

anomalies were shown.

Sl No 39. Trench No. G2: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly in the form of an alignment at the

3892

depths of 2.0-2.01 m. The trench was excavated

up to a depth of 2.62 m. No such alignment was

found at the specified depth and location.

However, two pillar bases on a floor were

found at a depth of 2.20 m where the anomaly

was shown.

Sl No 42. Trench No. G5: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 2.5 and 3.5 m

and another in the form of an alignment at the

depths of 2-2-2.5 m. The trench was excavated

up to a depth of 3.56 m. No such alignment was

found at the specified depth and location.

However, a pillar base and a calcrete stone

block structure were found respectively at the

depths of 2.05 and 2.70 m. The excavation was

not conducted in the area where the remaining

anomalies were shown due to area restrictions

on raised platform.

Sl No 43. Trench No. G6: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at the depth of 0.5 m. The trench

was excavated up to a depth of 1.60 m. No

anomaly was found at the specified depth and

location. However, successive floors were

found at the depths of 0.38, .082, 1.09 and 1.60

m where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 44. Trench No. G7: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 1.5 and another

anomaly in the form of alignment at a depth of

2.5 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth

3893

of 13.45 m. Neither the anomalies nor the

alignment were found at the specified depths

and locations. However, a brick structure and a

wall running east west were found respectively

at the depths of 1.75 and 2.85 m where the

anomalies were shown.

Sl No 45. Trench no. G8: The GPR Survey indicated the

anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 2.0 and another

anomaly in the form of an alignment at 2.2 m.

The trench was excavated upto the depth of

2.37 m. A retaining wall of Ram Chabutra from

surface and a pillar base underneath were

found at a depth of 0.90 m where the first

anomaly was shown. In view of the importance

of the exposed structure, further excavation

was not conducted up to the required depth

where the anomaly was shown. The second

anomaly was not found at the specified depth

and location. The area where the third anomaly

ringing signal was shown was not excavated

upto the required depth because of the existing

Ram Chabutara.

Sl No 46. Trench No. G9: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies at the depth of 0.50 m each.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.55

m. A pillar base, and a floor were found

respectively at the depths of 0.20 and 0.57 m

where the first and second anomalies were

shown. The third anomaly was not found at

3894

the specified depth and location. However, a

brick structure was found at a depth of 1.15 m

where the third anomaly was shown.

Sl No 47. Trench No. ZH1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 1.0 and 3.0 m.

the trench was excavated up to a depth of 0.80

m. A floor and a pillar base were found

respectively at the depths 0.70 and 0.55 m

where the anomalies were shown. In view of the

importance of the exposed structure, further

excavation was not conducted up to the

required depth where the anomalies were

shown.

Sl No 48. Trench No. H1: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies at the depths of 0.4, 0.5 and

1.6 m. The trench was excavated upto a depth

of 1.20 m. The first and second anomalies were

not found at the specified locations and

depths. However, two pillar bases were found

respectively at the depths of 1.50 and 0.70 m

where the first and the second anomalies were

shown. A brickbat floor was found at a depth of

1.15 m where the third shown. A brickbat floor

was found at a depth of 1.15 m where the third

anomaly was shown. In view of the importance

of the exposed structure, further excavation

was not conducted up to the required depth,

where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 49. Trench No. H2: The GPR Survey indicated

3895

the anomaly at the depth of 2.8 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 0.95 m. The area

where the anomaly was shown was not

excavated due to area restriction of barricade

and pathway.

Sl No. 51. Trench No. H4: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 2.2 m and another

anomaly in the form of an alignment at 2.0 m.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.18

m. A lime floor was found at the depth of 1.15

m where the first anomaly was shown. In view

of the importance of the exposed structure,

further excavation was not conducted up to the

required depth where the anomaly was shown.

The excavation was not conducted in the area

where the alignment was shown due to area

restrictions of gangway and pathway.

Sl No 52. Trench No. H5: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies at the depths of 1.0, 1.7, and

3.0 m and another anomaly in the form of

alignment at 1.18 m. The trench was excavated

upto a depth of 1.15 m. A wall oriented north

south was found at a depth of 0.60 m where the

first anomaly was shown. A lime surkhi floor

was found at the depth of 0.85 m where the

second anomaly was shown. Another lime floor

was found at the depth of 1.15 m where the

third anomaly was shown. A pillar base was

found at a depth of 0.82 m where the alignment

3896

was shown. In view of the importance of the

exposed structure, further excavation was not

conducted up to the required depth where the

anomaly was shown.

Sl No 53. Trench No. H6: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 2.0 m.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 0.80

m. No anomalies were found at the specified

location and depth. However, a floor and a

wall were found respectively at the depths of

0.80 and 0.58 m where the first anomaly was

shown. The excavation was not conducted in

the area where the second anomaly was shown

due to existing Ram Chabutra.

Sl No 54. Trench No. H7: The GPR Survey indicated at

the depth of 2.0 m. The trench was excavated

up to a depth of 0.75 m. The excavation was

not conducted in the area where the anomaly

was shown due to existing Ram Chabutra.

Sl No 56. Trench No. H9: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies at the depths of 0.5 m each.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 0.76

m. No anomalies were found at the specified

locations and depths. However, a lime surkhi

floor was found at a depth of 0.76 m

respectively where the first two anomalies were

shown. The third anomaly was not found at the

specified and location.

Sl No 57. Trench No. H10: The GPR Survey indicated

3897

the anomaly at a depth of 0.5 m. The trench

was excavated upto a depth of 0.66 m. No

anomaly was found at the specified location

and depth. However, a floor was found at a

depth of 0.60 m where the first anomaly was

shown.

Sl No 58. Trench No. ZJ1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 0.6 m. The trench

was excavated up to a depth of 1.63 m. A brick

wall oriented north south was found at a depth

of 0.30 m. In view of the importance of the

exposed structure, further excavation was not

conducted up to the required depth where the

anomaly was shown.

Sl No 59. Trench No. J1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 0.50 and 1.0 m.

The trench was excavated upto a depth of 1.54

m. No anomaly was found at the specified

depth and location where the first anomaly was

shown. A lime floor and a large brick floor

were found respectively at the depths of 0.90

and 0.95 m where the second anomaly was

shown.

SI No 60. Trench No. J2: The GPR Survey indicated

four anomalies, two at a depth of 0.50 m each,

the third at 0.70 and the last at 2.0 m. The

trench was excavated up to a depth of 0.95 m.

A wall was found at a depth of 0.50 to 0.95 m

where the third anomaly was shown. The

3898

excavation was not conducted in the area

where the remaining three anomalies were

shown due to area restrictions of gangway and

pathway.

Sl No 61. Trench No. J3: The GPR Survey indicated

seven anomalies, two at a depth of 0.5 m each,

one at 0.6 and the remaining four at 1.0 m

each. The trench was excavated up to a depth

of 108.5 m. The first five anomalies were not

found at the specified depth and location.

However, a lime floor was found at a depth of

0.70 m where these three anomalies were

shown. The fourth anomaly was not found at

the specified depth and location. The

excavation was not conducted in the area

where the fifth anomaly was shown due to area

restrictions of the presence of tree.

Sl No 62. Trench No. J4: The GPR Survey indicated

six anomalies, two at the depths of 1.0 m each,

1.5, 1.8, 2.5 and 3.2 m. The trench was

excavated up to a depth of 2.55 m. A brick floor

was found at a depth of 0.95 m where the first

and second anomalies were shown. The third

anomaly was not found at the specified depth

and location. However, a brickbat paving was

found at a depth of 1.70 m where this anomaly

was shown. A brick floor was found at a depth

of 0.95 m where the fourth anomaly was

shown. In view of the importance of the

3899

structure found further excavation was not

conducted. The remaining two anomalies were

not found at the specified depth and location.

Sl No 63. Trench No. J5: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 1.0 m and an

arrow shaped alignment at the depths of 1.5-

2.0-2.01 m. The trench was excavated up to a

depth of 5.45 m. a large sized brick floor was

found at a depth of 0.95 m where the first

anomaly was shown. No such alignment was

found at the specified depth and location.

Sl No 64. Trench No. J6: The GPR Survey indicated

four anomalies, three at the depths of 1.5 m

each the fourth at 2.0 m. The trench was

excavated up to a depth of 5.45 m. The

successive levels alternating with calcrete

stone blocks run from surface down to a depth

of.

Sl No 65. Trench No. J7: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly at a depth of 2.0 m. The trench

was excavated at a depth of 5.12 m. The

successive levels alternating with calcrete

stone blocks run from surface down to a depth

of 7.45 m.

Sl No 66. Trench No. J8: The GPR Survey indicated

six anomalies, one at a depth of 1.0, two at 1.5

m each, one more at 2.0 and the remaining two

respectively at 2.2 and 2.8 m. The trench was

excavated upto a depth of 5.12 m. The area

3900

where the first, second, and sixth anomalies

were shown was not excavated due to the

presence of the Ram Chabutra. The successive

levels alternating with calcrete stone blocks

run from surface down to a depth of 7.45 m

where third, fourth and fifth anomalies were

shown.

Sl No 68. Trench No. K1: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomalies at the depths of 0.7 and 2.2 m.

The trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.45

m. A lime floor and large sized brick floor were

found respectively at the depths of 0.95 and 1.0

m where the first anomaly was shown. The

second anomaly was not found at the specified

depth and location.

Sl No 69. Trench No. K3: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly in the form of an alignment at the

depth of 0.5 m. The trench was excavated up to

a depth of 0.93 m. No such alignment was

found at the specified depth, and location. A

lime surkhi floor was found at a depth of 0.73

m where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 70. Trench No. K4: The GPR Survey indicated

five anomalies, at the depths of 0.7, and two at

2.0 m. each and another anomaly in the form of

an alignment at the depths of 1-1.5 m. The

trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.30 m.

A lime surkhi floor and a large size brick floor

were found respectively at the depths of 0.73

3901

and 0.95 m where the first and third anomalies

were shown. No such alignment was found at

the specified depth and location. However, a

large size brick floor was found at these depths.

In view of the importance of the structure found

further excavation was not conducted. The

remaining two anomalies were not found at the

specified depth and location.

Sl No 71. Trench No. K5: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly in the form of alignment at the

depths of 1.3-1.5-1.7-2.0 m. The trench was

excavated up to a depth of 1.70 m. No such

alignment was found at the specified depths

and locations. However, a large brick wall

oriented north-south runs from surface to a

depth of 0.95 m where the alignment was

shown. In view of the importance of the

structure found further excavation was not

conducted. The second and third anomalies

were not found at the specified depth and

location.

Sl No 72. Trench No. K6: The GPR Survey indicated

three anomalies, two at the depths of 2.0 and

the third at 2.3 m and one more anomaly in the

form of an alignment at the depths of 1-1.5 m.

The trench was excavated up to a depth of 5.40

m. No such alignment was found at the

specified depths and locations. However, a

large sized brick floor was found at a depth of .

3902

95 m where this alignment was shown. In view

of the importance of the structure found further

excavation was not conducted. The area where

first and second anomalies were shown was not

excavated due to the presence of Ram

Chabutra, which runs to a depth of more than

2.0 m. The third anomaly was found at the

specified depth and location. However, a wall

running east-west at a depth of 3.5 m was

found where this anomaly was shown.

Sl No 73. Trench No. K7: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly in the form of a floor in the

western part of the trench. The trench was

excavated up to a depth of 7.45 m. Successive

levels alternating with calcrete stone blocks

run from surface to a depth of 7.40 m where the

anomaly was shown.

SI No 74. Trench No. K8: The GPR Survey indicated

the anomaly in the form of a floor in the

western part of a floor in the western part of

the trench. The trench was excavated up to a

depth of 7.45 m. Successive floors alternating

with calcrete stone blocks run from surface to a

depth of 7.45 m where the anomaly was shown.

Sl No 79. Trench No. L3: The GPR Survey indicated

four anomalies at the depths of 1.80, 2.20, 2.40

and 3.20 m in the northern portion of the

trench. The trench was excavated up to a depth

of 2.70 m. A pavement of brickbats was found

3903

at the depth of 2.40 m where the third anomaly

was shown. The second anomaly was not found

at the specified depth and location. The

excavation was not conducted in the area

where the remaining two anomalies were

shown due to area restrictions of gangway and

barricade.

Sl No 80. Trench No. L4: The GPR Survey indicated

two anomalies at the depths of 1.9 and 2.4 m.

The trench was excavated up to a depth of 2.65

m. A single coursed L shaped structure of the

brickbats was found at the depth of 1.98 m

where the first anomaly was shown. The second

anomaly was not found at the specified depth

and location.

SI No 81. Trench No. L7: The GPR Survey indicated

two anomalies at the depths of 1.4 and 4.0 m.

The trench was excavated up to a depth of 4.40

m. The first anomaly was not found at the

specified depth and location. The stone

platform was found at the depth of 4.40 m

where the second anomaly was shown.

3819. Next comes the stratigraphy and chronology for

periodization of site/trenches with respect to layers, finds,

artefacts etc. ASI has divided the deposits into nine cultural

periods based on the strength of combined and corroborative

evidence of pottery sequence, structural remains and other

datable finds etc. Chapter III Vol.I, of the Report deals with it,

and says:

3904

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Excavation at the disputed site of Ayodhya has

yielded a continuous cultural sequence contained in the

total deposition of about 10.80 m. Although the 10.80 m

thick deposit can be divided into 9 cultural periods on the

strength of combined and corroborated evidences of

pottery sequences, structural remains and other datable

finds, several disturbances cannot be discounted. It,

therefore, becomes pertinent to refer to the nature and

behaviour of the mound and the processes of accumulation

of deposits, before venturing into the details of the

stratigraphy of the site.

Excavations have made it amply clear that the site

had seen successive structural activities which began from

the middle of the Kushan level at the site. The brick and

stone structures that were raised in Kushan and the

succeeding periods of Gupta and post-Gupta times have

added heights to the mound. To build further structures

upon the earlier debris the later people added a deposit of

earth excavated from the periphery of the mound, which

belonged to the much earlier cultural periods. This is true

for the rest of the structural phases also.

Existence of different structures at the site at different

levels, in different orientation and in different formations,

which has been evidenced from the excavation, has resulted

in the differences of layers in different pockets of the site.

The C14 determination of the charcoal samples from

the early levels (Periods I to III) provide dates which start

from the last centuries of the second millennium B.C.,

3905

which do not conform to the evidence gleaned from

stratigraphy and ceramic tradition. However, they indicate

early settlement of the site, which was not found in the two

trenches sunk down to the natural soil (see Appendix-I)

Based on the act of correlating and synthesizing of

various layers identified at different depths of all the

excavated trenches, an account of the stratigraphy and

chronology, as ascertained, is detailed below (Figs. 19, 20

and 22).

Period – 1( Northern Black Polished Ware Level)

The earliest people to settle at the site used Northern

Black Polished Ware (NBP ware) and other associated

ware (Grey ware, Black slipped ware and Red ware) which

are diagnostic ceramics of a period from sixth to third

century B.C. In the limited operation areas in this level no

structural activity of the period was noticed except reed

impressions on burnt clay. The total accumulation of

deposit of this period is about 1.00 m in trench G7

represented by layer 17 and 18 and a pit sealed by layer 18

(however, the material from this pit has been registered as

those from layers 19, 20 and 21) and about 1.70 m in

trench J3 represented by layers 12, 13 and 14. Besides the

pottery, this level yielded broken weights, fragments of

votive tanks, ear-studs, discs, hopscotches, a wheel made

on disc, a broken animal figurine ( all in terracotta), an

iron knife (broken), glass beads, bone point etc. However,

the most significant find from the level is a round bezel in

greenish glass with legend ‘sidhe’ in high relief in Asokan

Brahmi on the obverse while the reverse is plain (Rg. No.

3906

778).

Period – II (Sunga Level)

Frequency of NBP sherds, however, decreases

considerably in the upper levels of the period and finally it

almost disappears from the horizon in layer 16 of G7 and

layer 11 of J3, which marks the beginning of the Sunga

level (circa second-first century B.C.) at the site. This

level attests its presence with a deposit averaging in

thickness to 1.60 m represented by layers 13, 14, 15 and 16

in trench G7 and by layers 9, 10 and 11 in trench J3. It is

in this period that the site witnessed first structural activity

in stone and brick, as noticed in J3. The level is

represented by terracotta objects comprising human and

animal figurines, bangle fragment, ball, wheel and a

broken sealing with only ‘sa’ letter in Brahmi extant (Rg.

No. 701), a saddle quern and part of a lid in stone, a glass

bead, a hairpin and an engraver on bone and an ivory dice,

besides the period pottery of the level.

Period – III (Kushan Level)

Pottery of the previous period continues in the

deposit of Kushan level (circa first-third century A.D.)

which accounts for an average total thickness of 1.50 m

recorded in layers 9, 10, 11 and 12, and in layers 7 and 8 in

trenches G7 and J3 respectively. Period-III is rich in

pottery, typical of the period, however, in the number of

antiquities the period is deficient. In trench J3 a huge kiln

was noticed in the lower levels which accounted for

much of Kushan deposit in this particular trench as well

as for the deficiency of other artifacts. In trench G7,

3907

however, the limited area yielded animal and human

figurines, bangle fragment and a portion of votive tank all

in terracotta, a hairpin in bone, a bead in glass and an

antimony rod in copper. In trench J5, though the regular

stratified deposit was not encountered in the operation

area, the eastern section yielded a record of regular

deposition and almost all the structural activity at the site.

A massive brick construction, running into 22 courses

above excavated surface, is noticed at the bottom of J5-

J6 which belongs to this period. The Kushan period

certainly gave a spurt to construction of structures of

large dimensions which attest to their public status.

Besides, the same trench provided evidence for a stone

structure, nature of which is not very clear.

From this period onward, tradition of stone and

brick constructions is very much in vogue at the site and

each successive period added some structures to the site

increasing the height of the mound.

Period – IV (Gupta Level)

Almost 2 m thick deposit, represented by layer 7 and

8 in G7, by layers 9 and 10 in J5-J6 and layers 7 and 8

in trenches E8 and F8, above the remains of the preceding

period belong to Gupta times (circa fourth-sixth century

A.D.), the presence of which is attested mostly by

terracotta figurines typical of the period and of course by a

copper coin (3.75 m, layer 8, G7, Rg. No. 1030) bearing

image of king on the obverse and garuda standard in

upper register and legend ‘sri chandra(gupta)’ in lower

register on the reverse. The structures which appear above

3908

those of Kushan, some times using the Kushan wall itself,

as in J5-J6, belong to this period. Structures of this period

have been exposed in trenches E8, F8, G7, J5, J6 and

K6. It is interesting to note that the deposits that go with

these structures contain earlier material as well. It appears

that to raise the level plain, earth excavated from the

nearby area of the mound is utilized at this level. Among

the pottery too majority of wares and shapes belong to

earlier periods, only a few sherds are of the period

concerned.

Period – V (Post Gupta – Rajput Level)

The period is marked by the appearance of the knife-

edge bowls and other types which belong to the period

from seventh to tenth century A.D. In this period also

structural activities were witnessed in numerous phases

in trench E8 and F8. A circular subsidiary shrine

belonging to the late level of this period was exposed in

trench E8-F8 (Fig 24 and 24A). Among the pottery

assemblage Kushan type is more frequent than the period

pottery. Other finds also include earlier material like

Kushan pestles and terracotta figurines of Sunga-Kushan

type. The total deposit assignable to this period is about 90

cm represented by layers 5 and 6 in trench G7, by layers 7

and 8 in trenches J5-J6 and by layers 5, 5A and 6 in

trenches E8-F8.

Period – VI (Medieval-Sultanete Level)

A thick floor made of brick-crush floor appears, on

the circumstantial evidence, to have been attached to a

wide and massive looking north-sourth oriented brick

3909

wall (No.17) markedly inclined to east (noticed in

trenches D7 and E2-E1, F1 and ZF1) which was the major

structural activity of the period (circa eleventh-twelfth

century A.D.). Another wall in same orientation has

been noticed in G2 and ZG1 at a depth of 180 cm which

is sealed by layer 6A in G2. The red brick-crush floor is

noticed extending in a large area of the mound covering

trenches E8, F8, G7, J5 & J6 with varying thickness. At the

same level, in trench G5, calcrete stone blocks have been

noticed in formation which may be of large dimension.

Since not many trenches have been excavated to that depth,

it would be premature to speak about the nature and

behaviour of the structure, however, the structural activity

appears to have lived a short life. In trench G2 from the

same level (layer 6) were collected several knife-edge

lipped lamps in red ware with soot/burnt marks at the

lips. Total deposit of this period, as ascertained in trench

G7, is 70-74 cm belonging to layers 3, 3A and 4, layers 5

and 6 in J5-J6, layers 3 and 4 in E8-F8 and layers 5, 6 and

7 in tr. G2.

Period – VII (Medieval Level)

Period VII is marked by structural activities in three

sub-periods A, B & C which together lasted from the end

of the twelfth to the beginning of the sixteenth century

A.D. In sub-period-A, a massive wall (no. 16) in north-

sourth orientation was constructed, the foundation trench

of which cuts the red brick-crush floor of the previous

period. A new style of construction is noticed in this period,

however, in a limited area. Level of the mound was raised

3910

considerably by the material excavated from the vicinity to

lay a floor of lime mixed with fine clay and brick-crush,

over which a column-based structure was built (evidence

of pillar bases are available in trenches F9, F8 and G7).

This floor is traced within a thin wall enclosed area with

N/S wall forming the back and covering trenches ZE1 to

ZH1 in the northern area to E6 and to H5-H6, which in the

second phase, was extended southwards up to G10 at a

slightly elevated level out side the wall.

In the sub-period B, the area enclosed by the thin

wall is found earth filled and is over-laid with a brick-bat

paving on top of which is laid a layer of rammed brick jelly

as bedding to the 4-5 cm. thick floor of lime mixed with grit

and fine brick nodules which runs over the broken/leveled

wall. The finished surface is leveled at par with the

southward extension of the earlier floor. Another thin wall

which is erected resting over the earlier floor makes an

enclosure which is slightly smaller. This floor also extended

in the eastern area in trenches J4-J5-J6 and in the northern

area it is found to the limits of the mound itself is found cut

attached to this floor must have been some brick structure

within the raised platform area as the deposit above it

contains a lot of brick debris in the central part which can

be witnessed in the northern section of E6 and in the

western section of H4-H5. In the same period, to the east of

J4-J5-J6 where the floor was bound by a flat row of bricks-

on-edge, pavement of large square bricks was provided as

an open court-yard to the floored complex, which extended

upto the junction of trenches of K-series and L-series in the

3911

east and in the north upto ZK1 beyond which it is stopped

by a lime floor. There is a circular depression specially

made by cutting the large brick pavement (Pl.67), having

the diameter of 1.05 m with a rectangular projection of

0.46 x 0.32 m towards west. It is interesting to note that the

circular depression comes in the centre of the pavement

if the central part is calculated on the basis of extant

length of wall 16 or wall 17 and longitudinal length of

the alignment of pillar bases from north to south. Thus,

suggesting it as a place of importance. Besides, the

circular depression faces the central part of the disputed

structure over which ‘Ram Lalla’ is enshrined. Bricks

measuring 50x50x8 to 10 cm, 50x47x8 cm and 40x40x6 cm

were used in the pavement as specially made floor titles.

In sub-Period C, when the surface of the earlier floor

(Floor No.) is weathered enough (as witnessed in the

combined trenches H4-H5) to be replaced, debris of the

brick (and stone) structures was leveled to attain height. In

this deposit foundations to support pillars or columns were

sunk which were overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor which

had a grid of square sandstone bases for pillars

projecting out, only a few still survive. Floor around most

of the pillar bases is found broken with pillar base

foundations in much disturbed condition. This floor is the

most extensive on the mound, which is found spreading

from the north-south wall of the sub-Period A in the

west and is found broken with the mound towards north

as well as south, while in the eastern part it has been

damaged by the later structural activities. (Fig. 23 and

3912

23A).

Total deposit of the period is approximately 50 to 60

cm thick which includes layers 1 and 2 in almost all the

trenches except those in the eastern area where the deposit

was disturbed by the construction in the later periods and

in the northern area where the floor of the period VII-C

remained exposed and under use till late. In the northern

area layers 2 and 3 belong to this period. The three floors

of this period were not found in all the trenches uniformly.

At some places due to differential coverage area of the

floor itself while at some other places due to destruction or

decadence one of these was found missing. During

excavation in different trenches they were named according

to their occurrence from 1 onwards. The relative levels can

be seen in the cross sections of the mound and in the

schematic cross section of the mound.

Period – VIII (Mughal Level)

Structural activities of this period are limited only

to the raised platform and the area immediately adjacent

to it particularly in the south and the eastern area

covering trenches E2 – G2 in the north to E7 – G7 in the

south. This period through two successive floors, which

account for total thickness of about 23 to 25 cm, not only

registers the two continuous phases of the structure but

also document at least two horizontal expansion of the

fore-court from the simple apron flooring to terraced

platform towards the eastern side.

The floor of the previous (Period VII-C) is found cut

by the stone block (mostly calcrete) foundations of the

3913

disputed structure (mosque). However, the north-south wall

of the Period VII-A is retained as foundation for the back

wall. Inside the foundation and in the immediate from part

a layer of rammed earth is laid which is then overlaid with

rammed deposit of grey coloured kankars and a thin layer

of ashy deposit which contains riverine shells burnt white.

The total deposit accounts for a thickness of about 20-25

cm, which acts as soling for the first floor of the Mughal

period inside as well as out side of the structure to a short

distance to the east forming an apron floor. The apron floor

which extends out to the east for 4.45 cm is provided with

an edge-wall of brick to withstand the stress of stepping.

The edge wall rests on the floor of the Period VII-C.

In the next phase another floor of lime mixed with

brick nodules and some grit is laid over the earlier floor

after it was duly chiseled for grip. This floor extends from

inside the structure out to the east. In this phase the apron

wall is converted into an extended platform, which exceeds

the apron by almost 4.00 m. An edge-wall is provided on

north, east and south which uses chiseled calcrete stone

blocks and some carved sandstone blocks as well.

An interesting feature of the layer sandwiched

between the floors of this period and the last floor of the

preceding period is that it contained least amount of

pottery and other material, apparently much care and

effort was taken for leveling the deposits before laying

the floor and sinking the foundation of the structure. No

deposit, definitely contemporary to this period, exists on

the mound presently.

3914

Period – IX (Late and Post Mughal Level)

In this period two successive floors were laid,

another platform was added to the east forming a terrace

and subsequently two successive enclosure walls were

erected, one around the first platform of the structure and

the other encompassing the second terrace and adjoining

areas to the north and south of the structure covering an

area under trenches ZE1-ZK1 in the north to E8/E9-K8/K9

in the south.

In this period to attache a terraced platform to the

east of the existing one, deposits of the earlier periods were

excavated and removed, in which the floor of the period

VII-C was cut and destroyed from the eastern area. Slightly

later, a partition wall was added attached to the first

terrace platform along with a small step in the centre.

And then was added another floor inside the structure

which ran out on the now enclosed platform and abutted to

the partition wall. Some times later an enclosure wall

was added to the entire complex without any foundation

which rested over the existing floor, which was provided

with two gates, larger one to the north and a smaller one

to the east. Sometimes around this period dead bodies were

buried in the north and south of the disputed structure

which have cut the top floors and which are sealed by layer

1.

This period has not been very fortunate in preserving

the representative deposits of the period in primary context,

as immediately after or even during this period the site was

subjected to various damaging digging activities. Whatever

3915

contemporary material is shown in the plates has been

gleaned from the deposits dumped in the various large pits.

The accumulation above the floor of the period VII-C in the

northern area is a very recent one and so is the deposit in

the eastern area below the modern brick paving.

Finally a floor of cement was laid inside the structure

which was painted over with arch-patterned blocks in

bichrome. A brick paving was laid in the eastern part over

which were laid inscribed (in Devanagri script) memorial

marble slabs.

After the construction of the disputed structure at the

site, practically no deposition, except that of floors, was

allowed to settle. Most of the deposit in the northern area is

post 1992. The site, thus, has stratified cultural material

only from the first seven periods, while the last two periods

are only represented by structural activities.”

3820. For determining stratigraphy/periodization, ASI has

given due credit to the disturbances in strata and has also

explained its recording method :

“Disturbances in Strata

After the construction of the structures of Mughal

period directly above the Floor of the Period VII-C, much

disturbances have taken place at the site, some of which

were for accommodating fresh construction while others

were apparently aimless destruction to either retrieve

bricks and other material or for no reason at all, which not

only have disturbed the deposits but also have raised

problems in understanding the site.

Huge pits have been excavated at different locations

3916

of the site, the purpose of some could be discerned while

some others still remain a mystery.

Multiple pits in J5-J6 are understood as dug for the

construction of the enigmatic structure at the place

remembered in tradition as ‘Ram Chabutra’, but the

successive digging of pits in the same spot has

obliterated the earliest pit line that could have dated the

construction of the first phase of this structure. Similarly,

another huge pit was excavated in J3-J4, the purpose of

which could not be discerned by the data available at

hands. During excavation in trench J3, however, the same

could not be identified, as the pit was larger than the

operation area and the pit line was not available, which

was later confirmed in trench J4, and the material,

therefore, from the trench has been marked as those from

layers 1 to 6 but in effect it belongs to the pit and the layers

are superficial.

It becomes important to note that both the pits in

trenches J3-J4 and J5-J6 respectively are excavated down

to some what equal depth and filled I with similar material.

It may not be surprising at all if some of the potsherds and

other finds from the two pits match to the broken ends.

Another huge pit was excavated damaging lower

strata down to the depth of 1.70 m in trenches G6, G7, G8,

G9 and H6 (confirmed and many more) for constructing

the last and extended phase of the ‘Ram Chabutra’. Several

smaller pits were dug into the floor of the Period VII-C,

where it remained open to the surface or was covered with

a superficially thin accumulated deposit. These, pits are

3917

filled back by simple earth and the purpose of them

becomes difficult to explore. In the northern area the

deposition above this floor was used as a burial ground.

Several graves, of course without any grave stones to

indicate, were encountered during excavation. Similarly

in the south, the same floor which is found repaired by

overlaying it with a new one in Period IX, probably during

the construction of the second terrace in the eastern area,

is found to have been used for burying the dead, apparently

in this period only. Pits for all these graves have been cut

into the top soil and are found seal by only humus. In the

northern area these graves have disturbed the floor of the

Pd. VII-C.

Trench E8 and E8 have been badly damaged by pits

dug in the last period and also by burrowing creatures. In

trench E8 some amount of wall robbing has also been

noticed in the south-western corner. There has been

some digging activity in and along the baulk between

trenches E8 and F8.

Another huge digging exercise is witnessed in area

falling in trenches K6-L6 to K8-L8 and beyond to south,

which was taken up some times in the Late/Post Mughal

period with certain vengeance and resolution that

propelled the diggers to cut and remove the layered

structure built of lime concrete and calcrete stone blocks.

In trenches K7 and K8, which fell in the centre of the pit,

the material from the deposit were labeled as those of

layers from 1 to 8, which fell in the centre of the pit, the

material from the deposit were labeled as those of layers

3918

from 1 to 8. The pit later was confirmed, on the basis of the

combined evidences gathered from tenches J5-J6, K6, K7

and K8, to have been sealed by layer 3. The material

already registered as those from layers 4 to 8 is actually

from the pit and has been treated in the same way. Similar

is the case with the material from layers 2 to 6 in trench J3.

During the excavation several objects were

encountered with though of recent origin were documented

and recorded among antiquities with equal details and

definitions like the camera lens from trench ZE1 and the

pendants in whitish metal from D6 and D7.

Recording Method

Northern area, eastern area and the southern area

being more or less in the same level plain showing

marginal difference of about 10 to 15 cm, all the recordings

in the excavation were made taking the surface as the

zero level in the areas where the floor of the disputed

structure were not found. While in the raised platform

area all depths were recorded from the floor of the disputed

area.”

3821. Criticising this periodisation, Plaintiffs (Suit-4) in its

objection dated 08.10.2003 in para 8, has said:

"8. INADEQUACIES OF THE STRATIGRAPHY :-

8.1. That an essential requirement in an excavation report

is a chapter that describes, one after the other, the main

strata or levels found in the excavation, their nature (soil

texture, colour, etc.) and contents. For example in H.D.

Sankalia and S.B. Deo, Report on the Excavations at Nasik

and Jorwe, Poona: Deccan College, 1951, Chapter Two,

3919

entitled "Strata and Structures" contains on pp. 9-19 a

description of all the strata in the different excavated areas

of the site. Earth colours, textures, the presence of charcoal

or ash, the slope of the strata, their depth, etc. are

described. So also, in M.K. Dhavalikar et al., Excavations

at Inamgagaon, Pune: Deccan College, 1988, Chapter 7 on

"Cuttings and Stratigraphy" describes the 16 layers of the

site (pp. 121-125). Even through Inamgaon was occupied

only in the chalcolithic period and is not a multi-period site

like Ayodhya, there is information on each of the 16 layers

of the mound in this chapter. Veerapuram is a site on the

Krishna river in Andhra Pradesh, with neolithic,

megalithic (iron age), early historic, and early medieval

(AD 300-400) levels. For this site too, the excavators have

given a description of each of the 15 strata. See T.V.G.

Sastri, M. Kasturi Bai, and J.V. Prasada Rao, Veerapuram:

A type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna Valley,

Hyderabad: Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research

Institute, 1984, pp. 15-19. But there is no such section,

leave alone a chapter, in the Ayodya report. There are

serious consequences of this lacuna in basic excavation

and recording procedure. Moreover, the descriptions in

Chapters II (Cuttings), III (Stratigraphy and Cuttings) and

IV (Structures) very rarely allude to the drawn sections

presented in the report while Sections present, in a sense,

an "X-ray" of the history of a mound. It is on the basis of

sections that the sequence and history of a mound is

constructed.

8.2. That it may also be pointed out that, the descriptions

3920

given in the report are not always matched by the sections.

The reverse is also true. The text does not state the periods

to which the following layers belong:

(i) Trench J3: layer 6 with the inscribed stone

(Figure 22):

(ii) Trenches ZE1-ZF1: Layers 4 to 6 (Section

Facing South, West- East (K-L); and

(iii) Trench E7: Layers 3 to 6 (Section Facing

South, West- East (E-F).

8.3. That the text mentions (p.40, pp. 68-69) a red brick

crush floor of Period VI, attached to Wall 17, and states

(p.40) that this floor can be traced in Trenches E8 and F8,

G7, J5 and J6 and ZF 1. It is seen in the east section of G1.

As regards trench G7, we see this red floor in Photograph

No. V, and we find a floor marked "Floor 4" in the Section

Facing South, West-East (E-F). But as regards E8, the

Section Facing South, West-East (C-D) marks (or numbers)

Floors "1" and "2" only: which, the text indicates, belong

to later periods, layers 3 and 4, below "Floor 2", are

assigned to Period VI on p. 41. As for J5 and J6, the

Section Facing South, West East (E-F) indicates, "Floor 2"

below layer 4, at a lower level, a very thick layer or

flooring of brickbats.

The same problem is faced as regards ZF1: the

Section Facing South, West-East (K-L), does not mark or

number or floors in the layers 1 to 6. Layers 4 to 6, are not

assigned to any of the periods of the sequence. ZF 1, was

found to have been dug down 1 m against the north section,

in which some broken bricks can be seen, but these are not

3921

the same as the red brick-crush floor. Thus the numbering

of floors and other details are not according to the

stratigraphy and the report is full of confusion.

8.4. That chapters, II, III, and IV mention the actual layer

numbers, in specific trenches, assigned to Periods I to VI.

For instance, to Period VI, which lies below the "massive

structure", belong the following (pp. 40-41).

layers 5, 6, 7 in Trench G2;

layers 3, 3A, 4 in Trench G7;

layers 5, 6 in Trench J5 and J6; and

layers 3, 4 in Trench E8 and F8.

However, the text fails to mention which particular

layers, in these and other trenches, pertain to Period VII

(pp. 41-43), which very stratum is claimed to represent the

alleged massive pillared hall. We could assume that in the

published sections either one or two layers above those

listed for Period VI would pertain to the so called "massive

structure". Also, on page 42 is given the confusing

information that the period is represented by

"... layers 1 and 2 in almost all the trenches except

those in the eastern area where the deposit was

disturbed ... and in the northern area where the floor of the

period VII-C remained exposed and under use till late. In

the northern areas layers 2 and 3 belong to this period. The

three floors of this period were not found in all the trenches

uniformly."

We can only assume that in the southern area it is

layers 1 and 2 (with Floors "2" and "3" as marked on the

Section Facing South, West-East (E-F) that represent this

3922

allegedly significant period, and, by default, that noting but

the mosque floor lies over it. Significantly, and as stated

above, we are not told the periods to which layers 3, 4, 5

and 6 of Trench E7 are assigned.

If G2 whose layers 5, 6 and 7 belong to Period VI, is

counted as one of the "northern" trenches and layers 2 and

3 belong to Period VII as the paragraph quoted above

indicates, to which period can we assign its layer 4? If it is

counted as one of the "southern" trenches (where, the para

quoted above says, layers 1 and 2 belong to Period VII, to

which period do layers 4 and 3 belong? With no section

drawing of G2 available, we are none the wiser. In the

Schematic Cross Section of the Disputed Mound and the

Tentative Periodization of the Disputed Site, in fact, no

layer below layer 3 is mentioned in the relevant column.

Thus we see the consequences of the serious

inadequacy of the report, mentioned above. Nowhere does

the report tell us the content / colour / texture of the

northern layers 2 and 3, or the southern layers 1 and 2. No

evidence is cited to show that layers 1 and 2 in the south of

the mound are contemporary with layers 2 and 3 in the

north of the mound. The paragraph on P. 42 of the report,

quoted above, remains without substance.

8.5. That below "Floor 1", obviously belonging to the

mosque, we except to see, in the sections and plans of the

various trenches, a sequence of 3 floors, presumably from

"Floor 2" downwards to a "Floor 4" of Period VII with a

Floor 5 belonging to Period VI. But nowhere is there any

section showing Floors numbered "4" (which we expect,

3923

from the text, to be the lowest floor of the alleged "massive

structure" of Period VII) or "5" (which we would expect to

be of the Period VI below), and no section shown a

sequence of floors numbered "1" to "5".

On p. 42 the text mentions the most extensive floor of

the mound, assigned to Phase C of Period VII, but fails to

state what number has been assigned to it in the relevant

trenches.

In Photograph 24 of Trench E7, we see a floor

marked "Floor 3" at the bottom of the trench, uniformly

touching the remnant plaster on the east face of the western

wall, within the South Chamber of the mosque. The

acceptable inference would be that this "Floor 3", about 1

m below surface, belonging to the so called "massive

structure", is actually in functional relationship with the

brick-course levels of the north-south wall on the west.

Below Floor 3, which is very approximately 1 m

below surface in various trenches (as seen in several

sections), a floor is marked "4" in the Section Facing

South, West-East (E-F), as also in Trench G7 (see also

Photograph 5). This floor 4, however, is shown as lying

between layers 4 and 3A in the section (between layers 3

and 4 in the photograph). These layers 3 and 4, the text

tells us (p.41), belong to the earlier Period VI. Thus

"Floor 4" in this section cannot belong to Period VII or the

"massive structure". Moreover, this floor is quite different

from the floors that lay above it in the west section of G7,

as evident in Photograph # 5. Thus it would be "Floor 3"

that belonged to Period VII, which means that in this

3924

trench only two floors, 3 and 2, may possibly be assigned to

that Period.

In Photograph # 53, "Floor 4" is mentioned in the

caption as the "first" floor associated with the north-south

wall. It is shown at the base of the excavation. The trench is

without number in both photograph and caption. The floor

at the base of the trench lies several (30-40?) centimeters

below what is marked "Floor 1" on the section. Moreover,

the section labels above this floor mark only layers 3 and 2,

with "Floor 1" between these layers.

The only other mention of "Floor 4" is in the

hypothetical isometric reconstruction of the mosque and

'temple' in Figure 23A. This is only a suggested

reconstruction.

True, it is said (pp. 42-43) that the numbering of the

floors of Period VII differs from trench to trench. Yet the

question still remains as to which section in the report

shows phases A to C of Period VII and their three floors,

whatever the numbers assigned to them. As pointed out

earlier, the report nowhere states the nature and content of

the layers distinguished as VIIA, VIIB and VIIC.

In stratigraphic terms, then, the characteristics and

content of the 3 phases of "Period" VII as given in the text

of the report, are thrown in doubt by lacunae and

inconsistencies. Lacunae include not only an absence of 3

sequential floors in the sections of the relevant layers, but

also the absence of information as to the content of the

strata below those assigned to Period VII in Trench E7, one

of the more important on the mound as it contains an

3925

undisputed part of the mosque, the South Chamber.

8.6. That a simple stratigraphic principle is that no

wall can be accurately dated vis-a-vis floors, unless we can

see from which level the foundation trench for the western

wall was cut, and which floor seals (or runs over) that

vertical foundation cut (running close along the wall). A

wall can be used, even raised higher, in periods after it was

originally built. If a floor runs right up to a wall, with no

gap or interruption between them, we assume that the wall

and floor are functionally related, i.e. that they belong to

the same building; it may be that the floor was laid after

the wall was built, but not vice versa. The stratum to which

the first construction of the wall dates, is indicated by the

level from which the cut was made for its foundation. That

cut, in its turn, will be dated by the floor or surface that lies

immediately above the cut, or, in the jorgon, the

floor/surface that seals the cut. The report does not state

which layer or floor seals the so-called foundation trench

mentioned on p. 41 and p. 69.

Photograph no. 52 (Trench E8) purports to show a

cut, indicating the date of the massive west wall, in the

north face of the trench, but (a) this face or section

(technically, the "Section Facing South") shows an animal

burrow sloping away from the west wall towards the east.

The burrow cuts the second floor from the top, and also the

red crush floor below it. From the level of the latter, the red

stratum, a cut goes down vertically, but is too far (about 75

cm) from the west wall to be appreciated as its foundation

trench cut.

3926

Besides, (b) there is no "proof" because in the

photograph the cut in the floor at the bottom of the trench

(this floor lies several centimeters below what is marked

"Floor 2" on the section in the photograph) is neither

close to, nor parallel to, the line of the wall, and does not

therefore indicate the edge of a trench dug to make a wall.

In Photograph 55 of Trench ZE1 we see labels

marking "Floor 1" and Floor 2" in the section, and a floor

(without number) at the base of the excavated area below,

but there is no cut visible in the trench section close to the

east face of the north-south running wall. The upper and

lower floors run right up to the east face of the wall. Thus

we cannot say that either of these floors was earlier than,

and cut to make room for, the upper courses of the north-

south wall. The same observation follows from the Section

Facing South, West-East (K-L), pertaining to Trench ZE1,

east of Wall # 5A.

So too no cut is visible in the Section E-F, Facing

South, in E7 inside the South Chamber of the mosque. All

that we have in this is a sequence of surfaces or strata

below "Floor 3" coming straight up to the western wall in

E7. There is no cut line, vertical or sloping, near the

vertical edge of the wall."

3822. The periodization/stratification made by ASI has

also been criticized by some of the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit

4). Real criticism has come from PW 16 Prof. Surajbhan, PW 24

Prof. D.Mandal, PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon, PW 30 Dr. R.C.

Thakran, PW 31 Dr. Ashok Dutta and PW 32 Dr. Supriya

Verma. Some others who have supported the

3927

stratification/periodization by ASI are OPW 18 Sri Arun Kumar

Sharma; OPW 19 Rakesh Dutt Dwivedi and DW 20/5 Sri

Jayanti Prasad Srivastava.

3823. P.W. 16, Prof. Surajbhan, in his third appearance,

has deposed in the matter of ASI report and the said statement is

contained in Parts 3 and 4 (paras no. 135 to 556) of his oral

deposition. He claim to have actually visited the site of

excavation for a period of three days in June, 2003 when the

excavation was continuing:

^^ftl le; v;ks/;k esa fookfnr LFky ij mR[kuu dk dk;Z py

jgk Fkk] ml le; eSa rhu fnuksa ds fy, mR[kuu LFky ij mldk

fujh{k.k djus x;k FkkA** ¼ist 135&136½

“ When excavation was going on at the disputed site

in Ayodhya. I went to the site of excavation for three days.”

(E.T.C.)

^^tc eSa twu 2003 esa fookfnr LFky ij x;k Fkk rc esjs lkFk

Mk0 eaMy] Mk0 f'kjhu jRukxj] ,oa iVuk ls vk;s gq, iqjkrRo ds ,d

vodk'k izkIr Mk;jsDVj Mk0 lhrkjke jk; x;s FksA** ¼ist 145&146½

“When I went to the disputed site in June 2003, I was

accompanied by Dr.Mandal, Dr.Shireen Ratnagar and Dr.

Sita Ram Rai, a retired director of archaeology, who had

come from Patna.” (E.T.C.)

^^Vª~sap ts&3 esa eSa fdl rkjh[k dks mrjk Fkk] ;g ;kn ugha gS]

ijUrq twu ekg ds e/; Hkkx ds vkl&ikl eSa mR[kuu LFky ij x;k

gksÅWaxk] ijUrq blds ckjs esa eSa fuf'pr frfFk ugha crk ikWÅxkA**

¼ist 239½

“ I do not remember on which date I had descended

into Trench J-3. However, I may have gone to the

excavation site nearly in the middle of June but I cannot

tell any definite date in this respect.” (E.T.C.)

3928

^^eSa ;gkWa ij vke O;fDr dh gSfl;r ls xokgh u nsdj i q j krRo

d s fo'k s" kK dh g S fl;r l s xokgh n s jgk g wW aA ** ¼ist 315½

“I am giving testimony here as a specialist in

archaeology, not as a layman.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g Hkh lp gS fd eSa viuh xokgh esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZz o

mlds foHkkx dks frjLd`r djus vFkok mls [kf.Mr djus ds fy,

mifLFkr gqvk gwWaA^^ ¼ist 336½

“It is also true that I have appeared to discard or

reject the report of ASI and its department, through my

evidence.” (E.T.C.)

^^bl urhts ij igqWapk gwWa fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dk duDywtu xyr

gSA** ¼ist 337½

“I have drawn the conclusion that the conclusion of

ASI is wrong.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa v;ks/;k ds bl mR[kuu fjiksVZ ds ckjs esa viuk vkadyu nsus

vk;k gwWa vkSj ;g crkus vk;k gwWa fd bl fjiksVZ ds fu"d"kZ ckcjh efLtn

ds uhps fdlh eafnj ds gksus ds ckjs esa fujk/kkj gSaA** ¼ist 343½

“I have come to give my estimate about this

excavation report of Ayodhya and also to tell that the

conclusion of this report regarding existence of any temple

beneath the Babri mosque, is baseless.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz'u& igyh ckj tc vki bl U;k;ky; ds le{k xokgh nsus mifLFkr

gq, Fks tc vki ,d iqjkrRoosRrk dh gSfl;r ls vk;s Fks ;k ,d

bfrgkldkj dh gSfl;r ls vk;s Fks\

mRrj& eSa iqjkrRoosRrk gksrs gq, bfrgkldkj Hkh gwWa D;ksafd iqjkrRo ,d

,sfrgkfld foKku gS blfy, eSa tc dksVZ ds lkeus is'k gqvk] bl fo"k;

ij lexzrk ls viuh xokgh nsus ds fy, is'k gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 352½

“Question- Your first appearance in this court to give

evidence was as a archaeologist or historian?

Answer- Besides being an Archaeologist, I am also a

3929

historian because archaeology is a historical science and

as such when I appeared before this court, I appeared to

give my evidence on this topic in entirety.” (E.T.C.)

^^gj oFkZOgkby vkfdZ;ksykftLV ¼iqjkrRoosRrk½ bfrgkldkj Hkh

gksrk gS vkSj bfrgkl ,d O;kid foKku gS iqjkrRo ftldk vax gS] eSa

tc bfrgkldkj ds :i esa xokgh nsus vk;k mldk ;g rkRi;Z ugha gS

fd eSa iqjkrRo ds Kku o fof/k ls oafpr gksdj vk;k FkkA** ¼ist 353½

“Every worthwhile archaeologist is also a historian.

History is a detailed science with archaeology being its

branch. When I came to give evidence as a historian, it did

not mean that I had come without the knowledge and

method of archaeology.” (E.T.C.)

^^lkbV ij eSa tc x;k] ml le; izks0 'khjhu jRukxj] izks0 e.My rFkk

dqN vkCtoZlZ] ftuds uke eq>s bl le; ;kn ugha gSa] ekStwn Fks vkSj

mR[kuu ds ckjs esa ogka ls miyC/k lkexzh ds ckjs esa muds lkFk ppkZ

gksrh jgrh FkhA ;g nksuksa O;fDr v;ks/;k esa ml le; ekStwn Fks] tc eSa

ogka x;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 391½

“When I visited the site, Prof. Shirin Ratnagar, Prof.

Mandal and few Observers, whose names I do not

remember, were present and I had discussions with them

about the excavation and the materials available there.

Both these persons were present in Ayodhya, when I had

gone there.” (E.T.C.)

^**;s nksuksa O;fDr oDQ~ cksMZ dh rjQ ls mR[kuu LFky ij x;s

FksA** ¼ist 391½

“Both these persons had been to the excavation site

on behalf of Waqf Board.” (E.T.C.)

^^ftl le; dkQh mR[kuu gks pqdk Fkk ml le; eSa ogkWa x;k

Fkk ijUrq ml le; dqN mR[kuu u;s V~sapsst esa fd;k Hkh tk jgk FkkA

ftl le; eSa ogka ij x;k] V~sUp ua0 th&7 esa mR[kuu py jgk FkkA bZ

3930

vkSj ,Q+ lhjht dh V~saUpst esa Hkh dgha&dgha mR[kuu py jgk FkkA iwoZ

esa Hkh ts] ds] lhjht esa tgkWa rgkWa mR[kuu py jgk FkkA^^ ¼ist 443½

“I went there, when much excavation had taken

place. However, at that time excavation was being carried

out in few new trenches. When I went there, excavation was

being carried out in trench no. G-7. Excavation in E & F

series trenches was also being carried out at places.

Earlier also the excavation was being carried out at places

in J, K series.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ,DliVZ ds :i esa rhu fnu rd gq, mR[kuu ds lSEiy dks

ns[kk] muds ikVWQjh;kMZ dks ns[kk]** ¼ist 446½

“As an expert, I examined the sample of three days

excavation, their pottery yard,” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa dksVZ dh btktr ls fookfnr LFky ij mR[kuu dk;Z ns[kus

ds fy, x;k FkkA bl gsrq U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk i= odhy lkgc us fn;k

gksxkA izkFkZuk i= bl laca/k esa vo'; fn;k x;k gksxkA - --bl laca/k esa

esjh okrkZ Jh thykuh lkgc odhy lkgc ls gqbZ Fkh] ftUgksaus eq>ls ;g

crk;k Fkk fd esjs mR[kuu LFky ij tkus laca/kh btktr izkIr gks x;h

gSA^^ ¼ist 501½

“I had gone to the disputed site to inspect the

excavation, under court permission. The advocate must

have moved an application before the court in this behalf.

Application must have been moved in this behalf. . . . I had

a discussion in this behalf with Mr. Jilani, the advocate,

who told that permission had been accorded for my visit to

the excavation site.” (E.T.C.)

^^-esjs lkFk dbZ vkSj fo}ku yksx Hkh Fks] ftuds lkFk eSa iqjko'ks"kksa dks

ns[kus x;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 502½

“Many other scholars had accompanied me, when I had

gone to inspect the archaeological remains.” (E.T.C.)

3931

^^iqfLrdk ^^vxsULV dE;quykbts'ku vkQ+ vkfdZ;ksykth & ,&

fdzfVd vkQ+ fn ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ esa tks^^ lger** uked laLFkk ls

izdkf'kr gS] esjk Hkh ys[k gSA bldk 'kh"kZd ^^cSM eSFkM] iqvj fjt+YV

& ,& fdzfVd vkQ+ ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVzaZ gSA^^ ¼ist 504½

“My article is also included in the magazine

‘Against Communalisation of Archaeology- A Critic of the

ASI Report’, published by institution named Sahmat. Its

title is ‘Bad Method, Poor Result-A Critic of ASI Report’.”

(E.T.C.)

^^lQ+nj gk'keh eseksfj;y V~LV gS] ftls bu 'kkVZ ^^lger** dgrs

gSaA eSa ^^lger** dk lnL; rks ugha gwWa] ij muds vusd dk;ksZ esa fgLlk

ysrk jgk gwWaA^^ ¼ist 520½

“Safdar Hashmi Memorial is a trust, which is called

Sahmat in brief. I am not a member of Sahmat, but I do

take part in many of its activities.” (E.T.C.)

^^lger** eSxthu Hkh izdkf'kr djrk gS] ij ml eSxthu dk uke bl

le; ;kn ugha vk jgk gSA bl eSxthu esa esjs Hkh dqN vkfVZfdYl Nis

gSaA** ¼ist 520½

“Sahmat also publishes a magazine, whose name I am not

able to recollect at present. Few articles of mine have been

published in this magazine as well.” (E.T.C.)

^^laHkor% eSa fookfnr LFky ij 11] 12] rFkk 13 twu 2003 dks x;k FkkA^^

¼ist 534½

“I had been to the disputed site possibly on 11th , 12th and

13th June, 2003.” (E.T.C.)

3824. In respect to certain fields he also clearly admitted

his lack of expertise and experience as under:

^^vkfdZVsDpjy lkbUl ij esjh dksbZ ,dsMsfed DokyhfQds'ku ugha gS]

cfYd ;g esjs vuqHko vkSj tujy LVMh ij vk/kkfjr gSA^^ ¼ist 518½

“I have no academic qualification in architectural science

3932

and instead it is based on my experience and general

study.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa U;wfeleSfVDl ¼eqnzk 'kkL=½ dk ,DliVZ ugha gwWa ^ ¼ist 522½

“I am not an expert in numismatics.” (E.T.C.)

^^ blh izdkj eSa ,ihxzkQh dk Hkh ,DliVZ ugha gwWa]^^

“Similarly I am not an expert in epigraphy,” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus mR[kuu LFky ls izkIr gqbZ XysTM VkbZYl o XysTM os;j lk{kkr~

ugha ns[ks gSa]^^ ¼ist 526½

“I have not actually seen the glazed tiles & glazed ware

found from the excavation site,” (E.T.C.)

3825. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan filed his affidavit dated

20.03.2006 in support of the objections filed on behalf of

plaintiff 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. He says that the ASI has

misrepresented the true nature of the structure, floors and pillar

bases underlying the Babri-Masjid ruins. With respect to

stratification, PW 16 in para 5 says that though the stratigraphy

of each trench is claimed to be finally co-related with the

general sequence of culture at the site, the ASI having failed to

give a list of layers and periods trench-wise for facilitating the

testing of the conclusions of the excavators has distorted the

facts and gave wrong findings with regard to structure 3 and 2.

PW 16 asserted that a concordance ought to have been provided

in the report. The conclusions drawn by ASI alleged to be bound

and it says that they have adopted a defective methodology and

biased assumption (vide para 4 of the affidavit). Then general

allegations in para 14 has been made that the report, on the

whole, lacks scientific rigour, objectivity and professional

integrity and such trend and tendency in Indian Archaeology

may pose a serious challenge not only to the world of historians

but also to those citizens who are interested in truth and nothing

3933

but the truth. In his cross-examination PW 16, however, said:

^^fookfnr LFky ij ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk tks mR[kuu dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk]

mldh fjdkfMZax vkSj Lrjhdj.k Bhd <ax ls ugha fd;k x;k FkkA blfy,

,0,l0vkbZ0dh fjiksVZ esa tks xSIl gSa] mudks MsVk ;k fjdkMZ ls fcuk

lR;kfir fd;k dksbZ vafre er ugha O;Dr fd;k tk ldrkA**

¼ist 145½

“ In case of the excavation done by A.S.I. at the disputed

site, its recording as well as stratification was not properly

done. That is why a final opinion cannot be given without

verifying the gaps(wide divergences) of the A.S.I. report

from the data or record.” (E.T.C.)

^^vkerkSj ij fo}ku dqN ,d VeZ ls lger gSa] tSls ,u0ch0ih0MCyw0]

'kaqx] dq"kk.k] xqIrA ijUrq ^^iksLV xqIr& jktiwr dky** izpfyr ugha gSA

^^vyhZ fefMfo;y&lqYtkusV** Hkh izpfyr ugha gSA fefMfo;y dky ls

eqxy dky dks mijksDr pkVZ esa vyx fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh izpfyr

ugha gS] D;ksafd eqxy dky Hkh ehfMfo;y dky dk gh fgLlk gSA**

¼ist 149½

“Generally, scholars are in agreement on the use of some

terms such as N.B.P.W., Shunga, Kushan, Gupta. But the

term like 'post-Gupta-Rajpoot era' is not in vogue. The

term 'Early Medieval – Sultanate' is also not in use. In the

afore-said chart, the Mughal period is shown separately

from the medieval period. It is also not in vogue because

the Mughal period is only a part of the Medieval Period.”

(E.T.C.)

^^dqN frfFk;ksa ds fy, dkcZu&14] flDdksa vkSj ikVjht+ dk Hkh bLrseky

fd;k gSA** ¼ist 155½

“ In determination of some dates, Carbon-14, coins and

potteries have been used.” (E.T.C.)

^^ijUrq tks bl fjiksVZ esa =qfV utj vk jgh gS] og ;g gS fd mUgksaus dqN

dzwf'k;y lk{; dks izkIr djus vFkok mldk fo'ys"k.k djus es detksjh

3934

fn[kkbZ gS rFkk xyr fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, dqN lk{;ksa dks t:jr ls

T;knk egRo fn;k gS vkSj mudk fdzfVdy ,ukfyfll ugha fd;k gSA

nwljh rjQ+ dqN vU; egRoiw.kZ lkexzh dks] tks bl leL;k ij fo'ks"k

egRo j[krh gS] bXuksj fd;k x;k gS o lizsl fd;k x;k gS] rkfd vius

iwoZdfYir fu"d"kZ dks fl) fd;k tk ldsA bUgha rjhdksa dks eSa xyr

ekurk gwWa vkSj bu fiztEi'kl dks eSa ck;LM dgrk gwWaA** ¼199&200½

“But an error perceptible in this report is that they have

shown weakness in obtaining some crucial evidences or in

analysing them and have given too much stress on some

evidences so as to infer wrong findings and have not made

any critical analysis of them. On the other hand, some

other vital materials, which hold special significance to

this problem, have been either ignored or suppressed, so

that they may be able to establish their preconceived

findings. I take these very methods to be faulty and term

these presumptions as biased.” (E.T.C.)

^^Lrj dks ekdZ djus ds fy, dbZ lk{;ksa dk vk/kkj ysuk iM+rk gS] D;ksafd

dbZ ckj fLFkfr cgqr dkEiysDl gksrh gSA** ¼ist 236½

“Several pieces of evidence have to be relied upon so as to

mark the level because the situation gets very complex

many times.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd dbZ ckj ,d gh dky esa dbZ Lrj gks ldrs gSa

vkSj vU; le; esa vyx&vyx Lrj vyx&vyx dkyksa ds gh lwpd gks

ldrs gSaA lkaLdfrd dky x.kuk ds fy, HkkSfrd vo'ks"kksa dk gh vk/kkj

gksrk gSA** ¼ist 236½

“It is correct to say that many a time a single period may

have various strata and at other times different periods

may be indicative of different strata. Only the physical

remains provide a base for the reckoning of a cultural

period.” (E.T.C.)

3935

;g dguk lgh gS fd jks'kuh dh ekStwnxh esa gh izk;% Lrjksa dh igpku

csgrj gks ikrh gSA blds vykok ut+nhd ls Lrjksa dks ns[kus ls vkSj Lo;a

mlds igpkuus ds fy, vius iqjkrkfRod pkdw ¼vkfdZ;ksyksftdy ukbQ+½

dk iz;ksx djds csgrj fd;k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq nwj ls ns[kdj Hkh vkSj

Q+ksVksxzkQ+ rFkk lsD'kuy M~kbax dks ns[kdj Hkh Lrjksa dh fHkUurk dk

vkHkkl gks ldrk gSA QksVksxzkQ dks ns[kdj ;g vusd ckj igpku fy;k

tkrk gS fd veqd mR[kuu esa Lrjhdj.k esa fdruk vkSfpR; vkSj fdruh

xfYr;kWa gSaA izk;% Q+ksVksxzkQ+ esa Lrjksa dh feV~Vh ds VSDlpj] mlds jax dh

Nk;k Hkh iM+rh gSA Lo;a dgk fd fiV vkfn dks cgqr ljyrk ls igpkuk

tk ldrk gSA** ¼ist 237½

“ It is correct to say that stratum is often better identified

only in the presence of light. Besides, it can be better done

by looking at the strata from a close range and by using

one's archaeological knife for their identification. But one

may have an impression as to difference in strata even by

looking from a distance and also by looking at photograph

and sectional drawing. From the sight of a photograph,

many times it is known how much propriety and how many

lacuna are there in the stratification done in a particular

excavation. The soil texture of strata and their colour often

gets reflected in the photograph too. (Himself stated) A pit

etc. can be identified very easily.” (E.T.C.)

^^m0&v;ks/;k ds mR[kuu esa lsD'ku dk rjk'kuk cgqr lQkbZ ls fd;k

x;k gS] pkgs Lrjhdj.k esa dbZ txg nks"k gksaA** ¼ist 237½

“Answer:- The section cutting has been done in a very fine

manner in the excavation of Ayodhya, though there may be

lacuna at several places in stratification.” (E.T.C.)

^^v/;;u dju s d s ckn gh ;g irk py sxk fd o s fu"d"k Z

lgh g S a vFkok ugh aA ** ¼ist 238½

“Only after study it will be known whether those

3936

findings are correct or not.” (E.T.C.)

^^c sgrj ;gh jgrk g S fd l a[;k Red < ax l s vk S j jktu S frd]

vk fF k Zd vk/ k kj ij dky&fu.k Z; fd;k tk; sA fofHkUu

Mk;usLVht+ fofHkUu jktoa'k bl dky&dze esa vk tk;saxs] ijUrq fofHkUu

jktoa'kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;s x;s dky&dze dh dbZ lhek,a gksrh gSaA ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 u s viuh fjik sV Z l s d soy jkto a' k d s vk / k kj ij

gh dky&x.kuk ugh a dh g SA mle s a i q j krk f Rod lkex z h d s

vk/ k kj ij] t Sl s ,u0ch0ih0 MCy w0 ih fj;M rFk k

, sfrgk fld vk/k kj ij] t Sl s& e/; dky] mRrj o ik sLV

e qx +y dky vkfn Hk h uke fn; s g S aA bl fjiksVZ esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 us

dq"kk.k dky] 'kqaxdky] xqIrdky] vkSj jktiwr dky rFkk eqx+ydky

vo'; fn;s gSa] tks Mk;usLVht+ ;k jktoa'kksa ls lEcfU/kr gSa ;k mudks

lesVrs gSa] ijUrq dqN ,sls dUDywtu Hkh fjiksVZ esa fn[kkbZ ns jgs gSa] ftuesa

iwoZ e/;dky vkSj lYrur ihfj;M dh foHkktu js[kk ugha igpkuh xbZ

gSA lkaLdfrd dkydze esa V~saM ,.M dkelZ] tujy lkekftd lajpuk dk

cax gh vius vki esa fdlh vyx dky dk vFkok jktuSfrd] vkfFkZd

O;oLFkk dk lwpd ugha gSA**¼ist 244½

“It is better that periodization is done numerically and

on political and economic grounds. Several dynasties and

several royal lineages will be covered in this chronological

order. But periodization based on several royal lineages

has many limitations. The ASI in its report has not

proceeded with the reckoning of time merely on the basis

of royal lineages. It has given the name of NBPW period

on the basis of archaeological materials and those of

medieval period, later or post Mughal periods etc., on

historical basis. The ASI, in this report, have certainly

given the names of Kushan period, Shunga period, Gupta

period, later Gupta period, Rajpoot period and Mughal

period, which are related to dynasties/royal lineages or

cover such dynasties/royal lineages. But the report contains

3937

certain conclusions in which no line of separation is seen

between the early medieval period and the Sultanate

period. In cultural chronology, trade & commerce and

general social structure by themselves are not indicative of

any separate period or of any political and economic

system.” (E.T.C.)

^^i wj s mR[kuu vof/ k e a s e S a rhu fnu rd ogk W a ij jgkA ......

,0,l0vkbZ0 us mR[kuu ds nkSjku fjdkfMZax V~sUpst esa dh x;h gksxh

ijUrq esjh tks tkudkjh gS mlds vuqlkj mR[kuu 'kq: gksus ds

yxHkx ,d eghus rd vkSj dksVZ ds vkns'k rd XysTM os;j] XysTM

VkbZyl rFkk gfM~M;ksa dh Bhd ls fjdkfMZax ugha dh x;h FkhA eSaus dsoy

V~sUpst esa LV~sVhxzkQh rFkk vkdhZVsDpjy fjesUl dk v/;;u fd;k Fkk]

ogkWa cuk;h tk jgh M~kbZx dks vkaf'kd :i ls ns[kk Fkk] V~sUpst uksV cqd

vkSj Msyh jftLVj ugha ns[kk FkkA eq>s dksbZ mR[kuudrkZ LFky ij

lkbZV uksVcqd fy[krk Hkh fn[kkbZ ugha fn;kA eq>s ;g irk gS fd

lqijoktj dh uksVcqd rFkk ,UVhfDoVh ds jftLVj vkfn cuk;s x;s gSa

ijUrq D;k lqijokbtj us lkbZV ij mR[kuu djrs le; Mk;jh fy[kh gS]

bl ckjs esa eq>s ’kd gSA ,UVhfDoVh jftLVj ij Hkh eq>s 'kd gS fd og

ml <ax ls ugha fy[kk gS ftl <ax ls fy[kk tkuk pkfg,] ckn esa dksbZ

dksVZ dh t:jr ds vuqlkj rS;kj dj fn;k yxrk gSA esjk ;g 'kd esjs

Lo;a dk Hkh gS rFkk bl ckjs esa eSaus tkudkjh Hkh izkIr dh gSA ;g

tkudkjh eq>s Mk0 e.My lkgc us] Bkdjku lkgc us f’kjhu jRukxj

rFkk vkSj Hkh dbZ yksx tks ogkWa ij Fks] us fn;k FkkA tc eSaus bldks ns[kk

rks ;g ik;k fd ;g ml <ax ls fjdkfMZax gh ugha gS] tSls lkekU;

mR[kuu esa dh tkrh gSA tgkWa rd eq>s ekywe gS fd mijksDr rhuksa

O;fDr;ksa ftuls eq>s tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ muesa Bkdjku lkgc dkQ+h le;

rd fookfnr LFky ij jgs gksaxsA ….... ftrus fnuksa rd eSa mR[kuu

LFky ij jgk] eq>s ;g irk pyk fd mR[kuu ds ckn ’kke dks

,UVhDohVht Msyh jftLVj esa p<+kbZ tkrh Fkh vkSj 'kk;n yksxksa ds

nLr[kr Hkh fy;s tkrs FksA lqijokbZtj dh uksV cqd tks V~sUp ij

lqijokbZtj fy[krk gS] og eSaus fy[krs gq, ugha ns[kk cfYsd eSaus dqN

3938

lqijokbZtj dks tc eSa V~sUp ns[kus tkrk Fkk] rc og ogkWa ls vyx

tkdj cSB tkus dks Hkh ns[kk FkkA blls eq>s yxrk Fkk fd lHkh

lqijokbZtlZ ,d tSls lhfj;l mR[kuudrkZ ugha FksA** ¼ist 443&444½

“In the total excavation period, I stayed there for three

days. . . . . ASI may have carried out recording in the

trenches during the excavation. However, to the best of my

knowledge recording of glazed ware, glazed tiles & bones

was not carried out properly for about one month from the

beginning of excavation till the order of court. I had only

studied the stratography of trenches and archaeological

remains and had partially seen the drawing being made

there but had not seen the trenches note book & daily

register. I did not see any excavator writing the site note

book at the site. I know that Supervisor’s note book &

antiquity register etc. have been prepared but I have doubt

that the Supervisor has written the dairy at time of

excavation. I also have doubts about the antiquity register

that it has not been written in the manner it should have

been written and appears to have been prepared

subsequently according to requirement of court. This doubt

is my own and I have also gathered information in this

behalf. This information was given to me by Dr. Mandal,

Mr. Thakran, Shirin Ratnagar and many other persons who

were present there. When I looked at it, I found that the

recording was not in the manner, as is done in usual

excavation. To the best of my knowledge, out of the said

three persons from whom I received the information, Mr.

Thakran must have stayed at the disputed site for a long

duration. . . . . . . . In the period of my stay at the

excavation site, I came to know that after the excavation,

3939

the antiquities were entered in the evening in the daily

register and probably signatures were also obtained. I did

not see the Supervisor’s note book being written, which is

written by the Supervisor at the trench and instead at time

of my visit to the trench I used to find some of the

Supervisors sitting a side the trench. From this, it appeared

to me that all the Supervisors were not equally serious

excavators.” (E.T.C.)

^^fjiksVZ ls ,slk gh irk pyrk gS ijUrq esjh O;fDrxr tkudkjh ds

vuqlkj V~sUpst esa ljQ+sl ls MsIFk yh tkrh Fkh u fd fdlh u LVS.MMZ

MsVe ykbu ls] ,slk eq>s v’kksd nRrk th ls Hkh irk pykA** ¼ist 445½

“It appears so from the report but as per my personal

knowledge the depth of trenches is measured from the

surface and not from any standard datum line. I came to

know the same from Mr. Ashok Dutta as well.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s ;g tkudkjh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ ds lkFk ohfM;ksa

dSlsV~l rFkk Q+ksVksxzkQ~l nkf[ky fd;s gSaaA ---,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ

ds lkFk tks QksVksxzkQ~l nkf[ky fd;s x;s gS] mlds vfrfjDr tks vU;

Q+ksVksxzkQ~l tks ,0,l0vkbZ0 us nkf[ky fd;s gSa] mudks ’kk;n eSaus ugha

ns[kk gSA eSaus 10&20 lh0Mh0 ns[kh gksxhA eSaus 'kk;n ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk

nkf[ky V~sUp uksV cqd ugha ns[kh gSA eq>s ;g irk pyk Fkk fd V~sUp uksV

cqd ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk nkf[k+y dh x;h gSA** ^^eSa vius bl er ij igqWapk

gwWa fd fjiksVZ dh detksfj;kWa LVkd esa j[ks Q+ksVksxzkQ~+l] lh0Mh0] Mk;fj;kWa

vFkok ,sUVhDohVht+ jftLVj vkfn ls iwjh ugha dh tk ldrh gSA**

¼ist 445&446½

“I have the knowledge that along with its report, ASI

has also filed video cassettes and photographs. . .. . . .The

photographs filed by ASI in addition to the photographs

filed along with its report, have probably not been seen by

me. I may have seen 10-12 CD. I have probably not seen

3940

the trench note book filed by ASI. I had come to know that

ASI had filed trench note book.

I have arrived at the conclusion that the

shortcomings of report can not be made good by

photographs kept in stock, CD, diaries or antiquities

register.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh g S fd LFky ij mR[kuu ofV Zdy vk S j

g sj htUVy nk su k s a fof / k l s fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk

ikyu djus ds fy, ftruk gksjht+UVy vkSj ofVZdy mR[kuu vko';d

Fkk mlls dgha T;knk mR[kuu fd;k x;k gSA - - - - - ijUrq V~sUp ts 3

vkSj th 7 esa uspqjy Lok;y rd igqWapuk vkSj dkcZu 14 fof/k loZs

vfyZ;j ihjh;M 1000 ch0lh0 ls Hkh iqjkuk eux<ar :i ls cuk nsuk ;g

dksVZ dh vis{kk ugha FkhA nwljh rjQ 100 V~sUpst dks [kksndj iqjkLFky

dh lkjh ml lkexzh dks u"V dj nsuk ftldks Hkfo"; esa csgrj rduhd

ds vkus ij vkSj csgrj le>k tk ldrk Fkk] bldh Hkh vko';drk ugha

FkhA** ¼ist 446&447½

“It is correct that the excavation at the site has been

carried out by both vertical and horizontal methods. The

horizontal and vertical excavation was carried out in

excess of the required excavation, in order to comply with

the court order. . . . . . .However, it was not the intention of

the court to go deep to natural soil in trench J-3 & G-7 and

arbitrarily making the survey older than the earlier period

1000 BC by Carbon-14 method. Further, there was no

necessity to dig up 100 trenches and destroy all its

archaeological materials, which could have been better

appreciated on advent of improved technology.” (E.T.C.)

^^mR[kuu Åij ls uhps dks gksrk gSA vkt dy dky fu/kkZj.k

uhps ls Åij dh vksj fd;k tkrk gSA- --- dkcZuMsfVAx dks ,ClksywV

MsfVax dh ,d oSKkfud rduhd ekuk tkrk gS] ijUrq bldh lhek,a gksrh

3941

gSaA** ¼ist 450½

“The excavation takes place from top to bottom.

These days the period determination takes place from

bottom to top. ...The carbon dating is considered a

scientific technique of absolute dating, but it has its

limitation.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz0& eSaus vkils Li"V :i ls ;g iwNk Fkk fd iwjkrRo esa lsapqjhokbt

dkyx.kuk dks izkekf.kd ekuk x;k gS ;k ugha] ftldk vkius Li"V

tokc ugha fn;k\

mRrj& lsapqjhokbt dkyx.kuk ;fn lkaLdfrd dkyx.kuk vFkok

lksf’k;ksbdksukfed ,oa lkaLd`frd lajpuk dh x.kuk ls esy ugha [kkrk]

rks ge bldk mi;ksx ugha djsaxsA

,slh dksbZ iqjkrRo esa QkflfLVd dkyx.kuk dh ;kMZfLVd ugha

gksrhA** ¼ist 453½

“Question- I had specifically asked whether in archeology,

the century wise period calculation has been considered to

be reliable or not, which has not been clearly replied by

you?

Answer- If the century wise period calculation does not

match with cultural period calculation or the calculation of

socio-economic & cultural structure, then we do not use it.

In archaeology, there is no yardstick for fossistic

period calculation.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ dks 'kq: ls vUr rd i<+k gSA ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 u s bu rhuk s a vFk k Z r Mk;u sLVh ] 'krk Cnh rFk k

y s;j d s vu qlkj dkyx.kuk crk;h g S ] ijUr q dkyx.kuk dk

d qN dkyk s a e s a e wy&vk/k kj gh u sxy sDV dj fn;k g S ] t Sl s

dky l a0 &6 o 7 ,dne rF;k s a l s vyx tkdj i z hd alh OM

vkbfM;kt + d s rgr r; fd; s x; s g S a vkSj mudh frfFk ihNs

<dsyh xbZ gS] tks iqjkrRo ds fo"k; esa vule>h ¼vKku½ dks fn[kkrk gS

;k muds eksfVo dh rjQ+ b'kkjk djrk gSA

3942

,0,l0vkbZ0 us dkyx.kuk d s fy, lh&14 fof/ k dk

bLr se ky fd;k g S ] ijUr q db Z txg ;g xyr g S vkSj dbZ

txg ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa dkcZuMsfVax lSEiqYl rFkk muds

fu"d"kksZ ds ckjs esa ,d pkVZ fn;k gSA

,0,l0vkbZ0 okY;we&1 ds ist&273 ds visafMDl&1 - - - -rFkk

lSEiqy ua0&2]3 4 ch rFkk 5 ch ds ckjs esa ;g iwNk fd buds vUrxZr tks

dkcZuMsfVax gqbZ rFkk tks fu"d"kZ fn;s x;s gSa] mlls lk{kh lger gS ;k

ughaA lk{kh us crk;k fd ;g iz’u ,0,l0vkbZ0 ls iwNk tkuk pkfg,]

D;ksafd ;gka ij u fdlh lkaLdfrd dky dk ftdz gS vkSj u fdlh

fo’ks"k V~sap ds fo’ks"k Lrj dk ftdz gS] ftlls ;g lSEiqy fy, x;s Fks]

blfy, mR[kuudrkZ ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh bl v/kwjs ,isafMDl ls D;k

vFkZ yxk;sxkA

iz0& mijksDr pkjksa lSEiqYl] ftudk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ds ckjs esa ,

0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k gS vFkok ugha\

m0& bldk mYys[k rks fd;k gksxk] ijUrq bl ,isafMDl esa ;g vo’;

fy[kk tkuk pkfg, FkkA

iz0& bl ,isafMDl esa fn;s x;s lSEiqYl ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa

dgka&dgka fdl V~sap o fdl ys;j ls lEcfU/kr gSa] bldk vkius fjiksVZ esa

dksbZ v/;;u ugha fd;k] blh dkj.k vki lh&14 ds fjtYV ds lEcU/k esa

dksbZ Li"V mRrj u nsdj dsoy ,isafMDl viw.kZ gksus dk c;ku ns jgs gSaA

bl lEcU/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\

m0& , slk dguk i q j krRo d s mR[kuu dh fjik sV Z ~l dk s d Sl s

l qxe o Li"V cuk;k tk; s] bll s e q W ag ek sM +u k g S A okLro e s a

tc Hk h dk sb Z i q j krRoo sRrk viu s mR[kuu ij dk sb Z fjik sV Z

fy[krk g s] og bl s if Cy’k dju s d s fy, gk sr h g S ] rk fd

yk sx k s a dk s ub Z tkudkjh vFkok u; s Kku dk irk yx ld s]

ijUr q bl fjik sV Z e s a d soy blh ,i s af MDl e s a ugh a] vk S j H k h

db Z txgk s a ij ] tgk a , sV hD; qVht dh fyLV nh xb Z g S ] ogk a

ij Hk h ;g bUQke sZ ’ ku ugh a nh xb Z g S fd ve qd , s aV hD; qVh

fdl dky l s g S vk S j fdl Lrj l s g S A QksVksxzkQ~l o M~kbax esa

Hkh ;g deh lkQ ns[kh tk ldrh gSA eSa ugha tkurk fd eSa bl fjiksVZ

dks izekf.kd dSls ekuwWA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus fjiksVZ dk v/;;u

3943

ugha fd;k gSA

iz0& ,0,l0vkb Z 0 dh fjik sV Z e s a bl ckr dk mYy s[k fd;k

g S fd ; s l S Ei qy dgk W a&dgk W a vk S j fdl y s;j l s lEcf U/ kr

g S aA bl lEcU/ k e s a vkidk s D;k dguk g S\

m0& bu frfFk;k s a dk mYy s[ k rk s tgk W a rgk W a ,0,l0vkb Z0 u s

ftruk Bhd le>k gk sx k ] fd;k gk sx kA

,0,l0vkb Z 0 u s flDl ih fj;M dk s 11oh a o 12oh a lnh

e s a j[k kA e q> s ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk I l s V dh dky dze dh

x.kuk d s fu/k k Z j. k d s l ac a/ k e s a dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a g S ] D;ksafd

bldk bl leL;k ls dksbZ laca/k ugha gSA** ¼ist 454&455½

“I have read the complete ASI report. The ASI has

made the period calculation on basis of these three viz.

dynasty, century and layer. However, the main basis of

period calculation has been neglected in few periods

such as the period nos. 6 & 7 have been decided contrary

to facts on basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been

ante-dated, which only reflects on lack of knowledge in

archaeology or the motive.

The ASI has used the C-14 technique for period

calculation. However, it is incorrect at many places. In its

report, the ASI has given a chart at many places regarding

the carbon dating samples and its conclusion thereon.

The witness was asked whether he agreed or not with

the carbon dating and conclusions contained in Appendix 1

page 273 ASI Vol. 1. … and sample no. 2, 3, 4B and 5B.

The witness stated that this question should be put to ASI

because there is no mention of any cultural period or any

particular layer of any particular trench, from where these

samples had been taken and as such none other than the

excavator would be able to decipher this incomplete

3944

appendix.

Question- Has the ASI made any mention about the said

four samples in its report or not?

Answer- It must have been mentioned, but it should have

been written in appendix.

Question- You have not studied the trench and layer, with

which the samples given in this appendix are related to,

due to which you are unable to give a specific reply

regarding the result of C-14 and are only stating about the

appendix being incomplete. What you have to say in this

behalf?

Answer- The suggestion on making the archaeological

excavation reports clear and comprehend-able, amounts

to avoiding the issue. Actually whenever any

archaeologists prepares report on his excavation, it is

meant for publication so that people may get new

information or knowledge. However, not only in the

appendix of this report but at many other places as well,

where the list of antiquities has been given, the

information about the period and level of any particular

antiquity has not been given. This deficiency is clearly

visible in photographs and drawing. I do not know how to

accept this report as authentic. It is wrong to say that I

have not studied the report.

Question- It has been mentioned in the ASI report as to

from where the samples were taken and to which layer

were they related to. What you have to say in this

behalf?

Answer- These dates must have been mentioned at

3945

appropriate places by ASI, according to its wisdom.

The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11th & 12th

century. I have no objection in determination of period

calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related

to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.)

^^e sj s fglkc l s VII ih fj;M lYrur dky e s a ih fj;M

VI d s ckn fuf’pr gk su k pk fg,A gkyk afd lYrur d s bu

nk su k s a dkyk s a dh dk sb Z fuf’pr frfFk vHk h rd miyC/k ugh a

g SA esjs v/;;u ds vuqlkj mRrj Hkkjr esa lYrur dky 13oha lnh ls

ekuk tkrk gSA esjs vuqlkj VI ihfj;M lyrur dky esa igys vk;k vkSj

ihfj;M VII mlds cknA ;g lEHko gS fd ihfj;M VI 13oha lnh ls

'kq: gqvk gks vkSj ihfj;M VII 16oha lnh ls ‘’kq: rd jgk gksA ---

okLro esa budks nks dky dguk Hkh xyr gksxkA ;g d soy nk s H kouk s a

d s <k W ap s a g S a] tk s lYrur dky e s a cuk; s x; s vk S j lek Ir Hk h

gk s x; sA bue s a oky u a0 17 okyk <k W ap k vFk k Zr ~ dky VI l s

l ac af / kr dgk tku s okyk <k W ap k igy s dk g S vk S j d soy dky

VII dk <k W ap k ckn dk g S ] lYrur dky dkA buds lkFk ik;s

x;s Mk;XuksfLVd vo’ks"kksa rFkk budh nhokj o Q+’kZ rFkk Iyku vkfn dh

lekurk ls ns[kk tk ldrk gS tk s ih fj;M V d s i q j krk f Rod

vo’k s" k k s a vk S j H kou fuek Z . k 'k Syh l s ,dne fH k Uu g S aA * * ¼ist

456&457½

“I feel that the VII period should be fixed during

the Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed

date of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so

far. According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north

India is considered from the 13th century. According to me,

the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the

period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started

in the 13th century and the period VII in the 16th

century. ...Actually it be wrong to term them as two periods.

3946

They are only the remains of two buildings, which were

built and saw their end during the Sultanate period. The

structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI, is

a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is

of subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in

the similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan

etc., which is entirely different from archaeological

remains and house construction pattern of period V.”

(E.T.C.)

^ ^lYrur dky dk le; bfrgkldkjk s a u s igy s gh r;

dj j[k k g S ] ftl s lu ~ 1206 b Z Loh l s 1526 b Z Loh d s chp

e s a j[k k tkrk g S A ;g esjs 'kks/k dk fo"k; ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 457½

“The period of Sultanate period has already been

determined by the historians, as falling between 1206

AD to 1526 AD. It is not a topic of my research” (E.T.C.)

^^tks vkfdZVsDpj dh fgLV~h dk fo"k; gSA …... okLro esa ;g

iz’u vkfdZVsDpj dh dEijsfVo LVMh dk loky gSa ml ; qx fo’ k s" k d s

vk fd ZV sDpj dh ;fn tkudkjh g S ] rk s ;g crk;k tk ldrk

g S fd mR[kuu l s i z k Ir <k ap s fiyj c sl st + gk s ldr s Fk s ;k

ugh a a e sj s bl mRrj l s mijk sDr i wN s x, rhuk s a i z ’uk s a dk

mRrj i w. k Z gk s tkrk g S A ^* ¼ist 463½

“Which is the subject matter of history of

architecture... Actually it is a matter of comparative study

of architecture. If information is available regarding the

architecture of that particular period, then it can be told

whether the structures found in excavation were pillar

bases or not. This reply of mine is good enough for the

aforesaid three questions.” (E.T.C.)

3826. About periodization PW 16 has made a very vague

statement and failed to provide any proper reason to challenge

3947

the same. On page 244, PW-16 has simply said that there are

some conclusions in the report which do not give any clear cut

line of separation between the early Mughal period and Sultenat

period. Regarding the allegations of lack of professional

integrity, objectivity, scientific rigor, pursuing defective

methodology and biased assumption, we find on the contrary,

predetermined attitude of the witness against ASI which he has

admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having

been seen by the witness, he formed opinion and expressed his

views against ASI. He said:

“;g lgh gS fd dqN b’; wt + ij e S au s viu s fopkj ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 dh fjik sV Z d s U;k;ky; e s a i z Lr qr gk su s d s igy s

viuh tkudkjh d s vk / k kj ij viu s fu"d"k Z fudky s vk S j

fopkj O;Dr fd; sA * * ¼ist 446½

“It is true that my conclusions and views on certain

issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the

submission of ASI’s report in court.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 dh bl ekeys esa fjiksVZ vkus ds i'pkr~ eSaus rFkk

izks0 bjQ+ku gchc us ;g ckr vkus ij fd fookfnr LFky ij efUnj ds

vo'ks"k feys gSa] ;g oDrO; fn;k Fkk fd fookfnr LFky ij uhps iqjkuh

efLtn ;k bZnxkg ds vo'ks"k feys gSa u fd efUnj dsA vxj ;g

izksiksxS.Mk u gksrk fd fookfrn LFky ij efUnj ds vo'ks"k feys gSa] rks

eq>s o izks0 bjQ+ku gchc dks mijksDr oDrO; nsus dh vko';drk ugha

FkhA** ¼ist 521½

“Consequent to submission of ASI’s report in the

matter and the claim that remains of temple were found at

the disputed site, I and Prof. Irfan Habib had given this

statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been

found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If

this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the

3948

disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been

no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above

statement.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa ckcjh efLtn ij gq, mR[kuu rFkk

ml ij fy[ks x, ys[kksa vkfn ij viuh fVIi.kh djrk jgk gwWa rFkk er

tkfgj djrk jgk gwWaA ;g lgh gS fd ^^lger** laLFkk us eq>s fjdXukbt

fd;k rFkk dbZ ckj eq>s bl lEcU/k esa fVIi.kh djus ds fy, vkeaf=r

fd;kA** ¼ist 525½

“It is true that I have been making comments and

expressing my opinion over excavation of Babri mosque

and the articles etc. written over it. It is true that the

institution Sahmat had recognized me and had invited me

on number of occasions to comment in this behalf.”(E.T.C.)

^^esjs [;ky esa vxLr ds vUr ;k flrEcj lu~ 2003 'kq: esa ;g

fjiksVZ ikVhZt+ dks nh xbZ FkhA eq>s ,d & Ms<+ gQ~rs ckn ;g fjiksVZ i<+us

dks feyhA

e S au s ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk i z Lr qr fjik sV Z flrEcj 2003

e s a i< +h Fk hA fookfnr LFky ls lacaf/kr dqN elyksa ij iwNs tkus ij

e S au s ,0,l0vkb Z dh fjik sV Z vku s d s igy s H k h viuk er

fn;k g SA - ---;g lgh g S fd ,0,l0vkb Z0 dh fjik sV Z vku s d s

igy s e S a viuk er cuk p qdk Fk kA eSa o"kZ 1990 ls fookfnr LFky

ds laca/k esa viuk er O;Dr djrk jgk gwWaA eSaus viuk ;g er [kqnkbZ ls

igys O;Dr fd;k Fkk fd [kqnkbZ djus dh vko';drk fookn dks lqy>kus

ds fy, vko';d ugha gSA** ¼ist 547½

“In my view, this report had been given to the parties

in last of August or beginning of September, 2003. I got to

read the report after about 1-1½ weeks.

I had read ASI’s report in September, 2003. Prior

to submission of ASI’s report I had given my opinion on

few issues related to the disputed site. ...It is true that I

had formed my opinion prior to submission of ASI’s

3949

report. I have been expressing my opinion regarding the

disputed site, since the year 1990. This opinion of mine that

there was no requirement of excavation to resolve the

dispute, had been expressed by me earlier.” (E.T.C.)

3827. He also admitted to have made statement on the

request of a party, i.e., plaintiff-1 (Suit-4) as under:

^^eSaus igys ftl ikVhZ ds i{k esa c;ku fn;k gS] mUgha dh rjQ ls eSa

fookfnr LFky ij x;k FkkA** ¼ist 138½

“ I went to the disputed site on behalf of the party in favour

of which I have earlier given statement.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa thykuh lkgc dh ekQZr ls ogkWa x;k FkkA** ¼ist 139½

“ I went there through Gilani Sahib.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g vkaf'kd :i ls lgh gS fd eSa lqUuh oDQ+ cksMZ dh izkFkZuk ij

iqjkrRo ds fo"k; ij lkbZV ij x;k gwWa vksj vius fopkj fn;s gSaA**

¼ist 547½

“It is partially correct that I had been to the site in

connection with archaeology on the prayer of Sunni Waqf

Board and had given my views.” (E.T.C.)

3828. He visited excavation site during the course of

excavation only for three days but even during that period did

not make any proper study of the finds, but has tried to blame

ASI. It is evident from his own statement:

^^fookfnr LFky ij mR[kuu ds nkSjku eSa twu 2003 esa x;k FkkA** ist

138½

“I went to the disputed site in June 2003 in course of the

excavation.” (E.T.C.)

^^tks MsVk FkSfy;ksa esa iSd Fkk] rFkk ftlds fy, dksVZ dh Hkh vuqefr Fkh]

og eSa ugha ns[k ik;k D;ksafd bl laca/k esa lqfo/kk ugha fey ikbZA lqfo/kk

u feyus ls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd dqN Vªsapksa dk eSVhfj;y ge yksx

ns[kuk pkgrs Fks] ijUrq ,0,l0vkbZ0 o nwljs i{k ds yksxksa dk ;g dguk

3950

Fkk fd og ,d fljs ls gh bu eSVhfj;y dks fn[kk ldrs gSa ftld s

fy, e sj s ikl le; ugh a Fk kA bl l anH k Z e s a e S au s viuk

vkCt sD' ku fyf[kr :i l s ugh a fn;k ijUr q bl l ac a/ k e s a

ogk a ppk Z g q b Z Fk hA* * ¼ist 146½

“I could not see the data which was packed in packets and

access to which was permitted even by the court, inasmuch

as I could not get the facility in this respect. By the

expression 'not getting the facility', I mean that we wanted

to see the materials of some trenches but the A.S.I. and

people of other side insisted that they can show the

materials only from an end; for which I did not have time.

In this respect I did not give my objection in writing but

held discussion there.” (E.T.C.)

^^Lo;a dgk fd ikVjh ;kMZ esa eSa esVhfj;y dks blfy, ugha ns[k ik;k

D;ksafd mlesa iqjkuk o ckn ds dky dk eSVhfj;y cgqr lh V~sapst+ dk

feDlM :i ls iM+k Fkk mudks vyx&vyx DyklhQkbZM ugha fd;k x;k

Fkk vkSj u gh bl ckj s e s a dk sb Z crku s okyk Fk kA bl lanHkZ esa

Hkh eSaus viuh dksbZ fyf[kr vkifRr izLrqr ugha dhA** ¼ist 146½

“ (Himself stated) I could not see the materials in the

pottery yard because old materials and those of a

subsequent period were lying in mixed forms in several

trenches. They were not distinctly classified, nor was there

anybody to tell us in this regard. I did not make any

objection of mine in writing in this respect also.” (E.T.C.)

^ ^p w afd e S a d soy rhu fnu d s fy, mR[kuu LFky ij x;k

Fk k blfy, e S au s Lo; a dk sb Z vkifRr i z Lr qr ugh a dhA* * ¼ist

147½

“Since I was at the disputed site for only three days, I

myself did not move any objection.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fookfnr LFky ij mR[kuu ds i'pkr fjiksVZ dks

3951

U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj fn;s tkus ds ckn] eSaus dHkh fookfnr LFky dk

iqu% fujh{k.k ugha fd;kA esjs fy, bl LFky ij fjiksVZ ds izLrqr gksus ds

ckn fujh{k.k djuk laHko ugha gks ldk vkSj i q j krRo dh Vhe u s e q> s

vke af=r Hk h ugh a fd;kA* * ¼ist 193½

“On a report being submitted to the court after excavation

had been carried out by the ASI at the disputed site, I never

went to the disputed site for re-inspection. After the

production of the report on this site, it could not be possible

for me to make inspection of this site, nor did the

archaeological team invite me for this.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ckn esa Hkh V~sap th&7 rFkk V~sap ts&3 ds mR[kuu ls izkIr iqjko'ks"kksa

dks ugha ns[kkA eSa budks ns[kuk pkgrk Fkk] ijUrq ;g eq>s fn[kk;s ugha

x;sA blds ckjs esa eSa igys Hkh vius c;ku esa crk pqdk gwWaA V~sap th&7

rFkk V~sap ts&3 ds mR[kuu ls fdl Lrj ls dkSu ls iqjko'ks"k feys]

;g ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa Hkh of.kZr ugha gSA** ¼ist 221½

“I did not see the antiquities discovered from Trench G-7

and Trench J-3 even later. I wanted to see them but they

were not shown to me. In my statement, I have already

stated in this regard. It is also not noted in the ASI report

as to which antiquities were discovered from Trench G-7

and Trench J-3 and from which strata.” (E.T.C.)

^^e S au s M s&V w M s jftLV ~j ] tk s or Zeku mR[kuu l s l ac af / kr g S ]

ugh a n s[ k kA esjh lwpuk ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ ij - - - gS rFkk eSaus

ogka ij tks vius rhu fnu ds :dus ds nkSjku v/;;u fd;k Fkk] ml

ij vk/kkfjr gSA** ¼ist 222½

“I did not see the day- to-day register, which pertains to

the present excavation. My knowledge is based on the ASI

report and on the study which I had done during my three-

day-stay there.” (E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ds bl dh&Iyku esa iwjs lkbV dh fofHkUu dkyksa ds LV~DplZ ds

Iyku bDV~Bh dj nh xbZ gS] ftldh u rks mR[kuu ds y{; dh iwfrZ ds

3952

fy, vko';drk Fkh vkSj u gh mls ml y{; dks bl Iyku esa vf/kd

Li"V djus dh dksf'k'k gSA mR[kuu djus okys vkSj Iyku cukus okys

fo'ks"kK] gks ldrk gS fd bls Bhd le>rs gksa vkSj mUgsa bldh lR;rk esa

Hkh fo'okl gksA ekSds+ ij eqvkbuk djuk mruk egRoiw.kZ ugha gksrk gS]

ftruk mR[kuu djuk vkSj mldh fjiksVZ fy[kuk vkSj ml fjiksVZ ds

fu"d"kksZ dks Li"V :i ls rdZlaxr fn[kkus ds fy, byLV~sª'ku nsukA

iz0 esjk ;g lk/kkj.k loky gS fd v;ks/;k ds mR[kuu LFky dks ekSds ij

eqvkbuk djus ds ckn vxj vki mijksDr Q+hxj 3, ¼ist 48½ dks ns[kus

ds ckn D;k ;g le>k tk ldrk gS fd ;g dh&Iyku vPNh rjg ls

cuk gS vkSj bldks le>k tk ldrk gS\

m0&ekSds+ ij mR[kuu esa foLrr v/;;u ds ckn bl Iyku dks le>k tk

ldrk gS vkSj ;fn blesa dksbZ =qfV;ka gSa] os Hkh idM+h tk ldrh gSaA**

¼ist 295½

“In this key plan of Ayodhya, plan of structures of different

periods has been collected from the whole of the site which

was not needed for the fulfilment of objective of the

excavation, nor does this plan make any attempt to make

this objective clearer. The excavators and the plan makers

may be considering it to be correct and they may be having

belief in its veracity. To make inspection of the site is not so

important as to make excavation, to write its report and to

give illustrations to clearly show the findings of such report

to be logical.

Question:- Supposing that you have an on-the-spot

inspection of the excavation site of Ayodhya and you are

shown the afore-said figure-3A (page 48), a plain question

I would like to ask you is whether you can say that this key

plan is properly prepared and can be understood?

Answer:- After making an on-the-spot extensive study in

regard to the excavation this plan can be understood and

3953

its mistakes, if there be any, may also be detected.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa ikVjh ;kMZ esa tc ikVjht+ dk v/;;u djus x;k rks ogkWa

DyklhQkbZM <ax ls ikVjh ugha j[kh gqbZ Fkh feDl ikVjht+ ogkWa ij Fkh

blfy, lhfer le; esa mldk v/;;u laHko ugha FkkA ikVjh ;kM Z e s a

ikVjh dk s n s[ ku s l s fdlh u s e q> s jk sdk ugh a Fk k ijUr q ogk W a

dk sb Z i q j krRoo sRrk H k h ugh a vk;k Fk k tk s bl v/;;u e s a

e sj h enn dj ldrkA .......ogkWa ,UVhDohVht ds lkFk ns[kus dh

dksf'k'k dh Fkh ijUrq ogkWa vo'ks"kksa dks gesa ugha fn[kk;k x;kA ;g eSa

igys Hkh crk pqdk gwWaA** ¼ist 306&307½

“When I went to the pottery yard to make study on

potteries, I did not find potteries arranged in a classified

manner. Potteries were lying there in a mixed form, hence it

was not possible to make their study in a limited period.

Nobody forbade me from observing the potteries in the

pottery yard but no archaeologist was also there to help

me in my study. …... I had tried to see them along with

antiquities but remains were not shown to us. I have

already stated about it.” (E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ds mR[kuu esa izkIr XysTM os;jlZ dks eq>s fn[kk;k gh ugha x;k]

blfy, mlds ijh{k.k ;k vkCt+osZ'ku dk volj gh eq>s izkIr ugha gqvkA

mR[kuu LFky ij tc eSa rhu fnuksa rd jgk] rc eq>s dksbZ XysTM os;j

u rks lkbV ij fn[kk;k x;k vkSj u gh ,aVhD;qVh lsD'ku esa gh eq>s

fn[kk;k x;k] tcfd bldks eSa ns[kuk pkgrk FkkA eq>s bl ckjs esa fdlh

lqijokbt+j us dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nh fd esjs rhu fnuksa rd mR[kuu

LFky ij jgus dh vof/k esa dksbZ XysTM os;j mR[kuu LFky ls izkIr gqvk

;k ughaA e sj s lkF k mR[kuu LFky ij tk s e sj s rhu vk S j

lg;k sx h Fk s] og Hk h fo}ku Fk s] mul s 'k k;n bl fo" k; e s a

e sj h ppk Z ugh a g q b Z Fk h fd e sj s mR[kuu LFky ij jgu s d s

nk S j ku Xy sTM o s;j i z k Ir g q, ;k ugh a] ijUrq ge lc dqN V~sapst

XysTM os;j o ,aVhD;qVht+ ns[kuk pkgrs Fks vkSj mls ns[kus ds fy, ogka

x;s Hkh] ijUrq ge yksxksa dks bls fn[kk;k ugha x;kA** ¼ist 512½

3954

“The glazed wares found in the excavation at Ayodhya,

were not shown to me and as such I did not get the

opportunity to examine or observe them. When I remained

at the excavation site for three days, no glazed ware was

shown to me either at the site or in the antiquity section

despite the fact that I wanted to see them. No Supervisor

informed me whether during the period of my three days

stay at the excavation site, any glazed ware was found at

the excavation site or not. My three other associates at the

excavation site, were also learned. I possibly did not

have any discussion with them as to whether glazed

wares were found or not during my stay at the

excavation site. However, we all wanted to see some

trenches, glazed ware and antiquities and we even went

there to see them, but they were not shown to us.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd 13 twu] 2003 dks tc eSa ogkWa

ekStwn Fkk] XysTMos;j [kqnkbZ esa fudyk Fkk ;k ugha] cfYd esjh ftKklk

Fkh fd ;fn dksbZ XysTM os;j fudyk gks] rks eSa mldks ns[k ysaA - - -

ge yksxksa us XysTM os;j ns[kus dh ekax dh FkhA mR[kuu LFky ij

p w afd e S a V ª s ap st + dk e qvk;uk dju s e s a yxk Fk k blfy, ml

txg ij Xy sTM o s;j dh ek W ax e S au s ugh a dh Fk hA eq>s ml

LFkku ij fdlh us XysTM os;j ml fnu ik;s tkus dh lwpuk Hkh ugha

nhA 13 twu] 2003 dks u rks esjh ekStwnxh esa Ms&Vw&Ms jftLVj rS;kj

fd;k x;kA** ¼ist 514½

“I have no knowledge whether glazed ware was found or

not in the excavation on 13th June, 2003, when I was

present there, and on the contrary it was my curiosity to see

the glazed ware found there, if any. . . . . . . We had

demanded to see the glazed ware. Since I was involved in

inspection of trenches at the excavation site, I did not

3955

demand the glazed ware over there. Nobody intimated me

on that day about discovery of any glazed ware at that

place. The day-to-day register was not prepared in my

presence on 13th June, 2003.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh g S fd M s&V w&M s jftLVj ¼i st 255½ rkjh[k 13-6 -

2003 e s a Xy sTM o s;j dh fMV sy fy[k h g qb Z g S a vk S j i st 256

ij Jh t +Q +j;kc thykuh d s nLr[kr g S aA ** ¼ist 514½

“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned

in the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255)

and page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab

Jilani.” (E.T.C.)

3829. He repeatedly said that he has come to assail the

conclusion given by ASI in its report:

^^eSa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk v;ks/;k esa fd, x, mR[kuu rFkk ml ij rS;kj

dh xbZ fjiksVZ ds fu"d"kksZ ds lEcU/k esa tkap dj ;g c;ku n su s

vk;k g wW a fd bl fjik sV Z e s a ;g fu"d"k Z rF;k s a d s vk/ k kj ij

lgh ugh a g S ] cfYd efLtn d s uhp s lYrur dky d s

bLykfed <k W ap s gh jg s Fk sA * * ¼ist 267½

“ With regard to the excavation carried out by the ASI in

Ayodhya and the findings contained in the report prepared

thereon, I, after examining facts, I have come here to state

that this finding in the report is not factually correct.

Rather, only the Islamic structures of the Sultanate

period were beneath the mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g Hkh lp gS fd e S a viuh xokgh e s a ,0,l0vkb Z0 dh fjik sV Z

o mld s foHk kx dk s frjLd`r dju s vFkok ml s [k f.Mr

dju s d s fy, mifLFkr g qvk g wW aA okLro esa eSaus bl fjiksVZ dk

v/;;u fd;k gS vkSj blhfy, eSaus tks mi;qDr rF; ns[ks gSa] mudk

fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh mR[kuu fof/k rFkk muds

,Dt+kfeus'ku dk Hkh vlslesaV fd;k gS vkSj rc bl urhts ij igqWapk gwWa

fd ,0,l0vkb Z0 dk duDy wtu xyr g SA* * ¼ist 336&337½

3956

“It is also true that I have appeared to discard or reject

the report of ASI and its department, through my

evidence. Actually I have studied the said report and after

seeing the aforesaid facts as well as carrying out the

assessment of excavation method & its examination by ASI,

I have drawn the conclusion that the conclusion of ASI is

wrong.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa v;ks/;k ds bl mR[kuu fjiksVZ ds ckjs esa viuk vkadyu nsus vk;k gwWa

vkSj ;g crkus vk;k gwWa fd bl fjik sV Z d s fu"d"k Z ckcjh efLtn

d s uhp s fdlh e afnj d s gk su s d s ckj s e s a fujk / k kj g S aA ** ¼ist

343½

“I have come to give my estimate about this excavation

report of Ayodhya and also to tell that the conclusion of

this report regarding existence of any temple beneath the

Babri mosque, is baseless." (E.T.C.)

3830. Prof. D. Mandal, P.W. 24, while commenting upon

the ASI report, has said that the form in which ASI has

excavated the site at Ayodhya does not appear to be justified for

the reason that only vertical excavation in some of the trenches

was sufficient for achieving the object and horizontal excavation

at such a large scale was not only unrequited but misuse of the

available resources. He has made comments based upon the

information, which he received from the personal visit at the site

of excavation firstly from 10.6.2003 to 15.6.2003 and thereafter

from 27.9.2003 to 29.9.2003; the ASI report containing two

volumes and day to day register maintained by the ASI officials

during the course of excavation.

3831. Sri Mandal's comments in his affidavit pertaining to

stratigraphy/periodisation are:

^^6- ;g fd ,0 ,l0 vkbZ0 fjiksVZ esa izfrikfnr Lrjhdj.k ,oa dkydze

3957

ls eSa lger ugha gWwaA bl lEcU/k esa vfHklk{kh fuEu rF; izLrqr djrk gS

%&

A& bl fo"k; ds nks igyw gSaA nksuksa egRoiw.kZ gSaA

¼i½ igyk Lrjhdj.k] nwljk dkydzeA nksuksa esa igys dk egRo vf/kd

gSA D;kasfd dkydze dk fu/kkZj.k iz/kkur% Lrjhdj.k ij fuHkZj

djrk gS] u fd blds foijhrA ,0 ,l0 vkbZ0 fjiksVZ esa

“Stratigraphy and chronology” uked v/;k; esa

Lrjhdj.k ls lEcfU/kr rF;ksa dk furkUr vHkko gSA iwjk dk iwjk

v/;k; dkydze ds C;ksjs ls Hkjk gSA og Hkh izekf.kr rF;ksa ij

vk/kkfjr ughaA mYys[kuh; gS fd mR[kuu ls izdk'k esa vk;s Lrjksa

dh la[;k rFkk muds ukedj.k ek= ls gh Lrjhdj.k dk

okLrfod vFkZ esa fu/kkZj.k ugha gks tkrkA

¼ii½ lkjxfHkZr Lrjhdj.k ds fy, lEc) Lrjksa ds izkdfrd fo'ks"krkvksa

(physical features) rFkk vUroZLrqvks (contents) dk fof/kor

o.kZu ,oa O;k[;k vR;Ur vko';d gSA blesa izR;sd Lrj dk jax

(Colour) xBu (texsture), lajpuk (composition) rFkk

vUroZLrqvksa dk foLrr fooj.k furkUr visf{kr gSA bUgha rF;ksa dh

O;k[;k ds vk/kkj ij fdlh iqjkLFky ds teko ds bfrgkl

(depositional history) dh jpuk dh tkrh gSA blls dbZ xw<+

rF;ksa ij izdk'k iM+rk gSA tSls D;k veqd iqjkLFky ds lHkh

teko iqjkrkfRod gS? vFkok D;k muesa ls dqN izkd`frd teko

(natural deposit) Hkh gSa \ ;fn muesa ls dqN izkd`frd gSa rks

mudk izdkj D;k gS\ tSls] D;k os ty fufeZr gS (water

borne) ;k ok;q fufeZr (air borne) vkfn vkfnA fjiksVZ esa bu

rF;ksa dk iw.kZ vHkko gSA Lrjhdj.k ds lUnHkZ esa muds fdlh Hkh

Lrj ds jax] xBu] lajpuk vkfn ds fo"k; esa dksbZ lwpuk ugha gSA

teko ds bfrgkl dh rks dksbZ ppkZ gh ughaA

B- ¼i½ eq>s viuh fujh{k.k vof/k ds njfe;ku mR[kuu ls izdk'k esa

vk;s lsD'ku (Section) dk] teko ds bfrgkl dh nf"V ls]

v/;;u djus dk volj feykA i q j krRo dk fo|kFk h Z gk su s

3958

d s ukr s G7 Vª s ap dk s J)k i wo Zd ueu djrk g W w aA bl

V ª sUp dk l sD' ku bl i qj kLFky dh i wj h dgkuh dgrk

g S A ;g ,d [k qyh fdrkc g S aA bldk gj ijr fdrkc ds

iUuksa dh rjg gSA tk s i< + ld s i< + y sA lhfer le; es geus

viuh lk/kkj.k {kerkuqlkj tks dqN i<+k mls izLrqr djrk gWwaA

¼ii½ Lrjhdj.k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ;gkWa dqy feykdj 18 ijrksa dk

teko izdk'k esa vk;k gSA lkFk esa dqN ijrksa ls tqM+s gq, fiV

(Pit) Hkh gSaA 18 ijrksa dk ;g teko izkdfrd feV~Vh (natural

soil) ij fLFkr gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 ds fo}kuksa us iwjs teko dks

iqjkrkfRod teko (archaeological deposit) ekuk gSA ;g

rF; fjiksVZ ds bl dFku ls Li"V “Excavation at the

disputed site of Ayodhya has yielded a continuous

cultural sequence contained in the total deposition of

about 10.80 m.” (ASI Report, Vol.I p.37) bl fu"d"kZ ls

gekjk erHksn gSA ge bl teko dks eq[;r% nks dksfV esa foHkkftr

djrs gSa%& iqjkrkfRod (archaeological) ,oa izkdfrd

(natural)A lqfo/kk ds fy, iqjkrkfRod iqu% nks Hkkxksa eas foHkkftr

fd;k tk ldrk gS& (a) clkoVh (habitational) rFkk (b)

xSj clkoVh (non-habitational)A ;gkWa xSj clkoVh dk rkRi;Z

Hkjrh&teko (filling deposit) ls gSA

¼iii½ jax] xBu rFkk lajpuk (colour, texture and composition)

ds vk/kkj ij 18 ijrksa esa nks izkdfrd teko (natural

deposit) dh dkssfV esa vkrs gSaA G7 uked Vªsap ¼ftls lqfo/kk ds

fy, Index trench dgk tk ldrk gS½ esa bu ijrksa dk

izfrfuf/kRo Layer No. 4 dk mijh fgLlk rFkk Layer No. 6

djrs gSaA ;gkaW bl ckr dk mYys[k dj nsuk vko';d gS fd

fjiksVZ es Layer 4 dh lgh igpku ugha dh x;h gSA oLrqr% bl

ijr esa nks fofHkUu izdkj ds teko feys gq, gSaA bldk mijh Hkkx

izkd`frd (natural) rFkk fupyk Hkkx iqjkrkfRod

3959

(archaeological) teko gSA

¼iv½ aLayer 4 dk mijh Hkkx rFkk aLayer 6, nksukas eq[;r% ty fufeZr

(water borne) teko gSaA jax] xBu rFkk ljapuk ds vk/kkj ij

os flYV (silt) dksfV ds teko izrhr gksrs gSA flYV dk fuekZ.k

ty izfdz;k ij vkfJr gSA aLayer 6 dk jax gYdk /kwlj xBu

fpduk fdUrq l[r rFkk lajpuk esa ckyw rFkk dhpM+ (sand and

mud) dk lfeJ.k izrhr gksrk gS] blesa ;nk dnk lhi (shell)

rFkk lEHkor%?kks?kk (snail) vkfn ds vo'ks"k Hkh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSaA

¼mYys[kuh; gS fd riverine shell feyus dk mYys[k fjiksVZ ds

i"B la[;k 43 ij Hkh gSA ;g Period VIII ds Hkjrh teko

(filling deposit) ds lUnHkZ esa gSA Hkjrh teko esa iwoZ dkyhu

feV~Vh dk mi;ksx gqvk gS½A mYys[kuh; gS fd bl teko esa

clkoVh lkefxz;ksa dk furkUr vHkko gSA ;g lk{; Hkh bl rF;

dk |ksrd gS fd ;g iqjkrkfRod teko ugha gSA

¼v½ Layer 4 dk mijh Hkkx okyk teko] jax] xBu ,oa lajpuk dh

nf"V ls iqu% nks Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr izrhr gksrk gS& mijh rFkk

fupyk HkkxA fupyk Hkkx jax] xBu] ,o lajpuk esa Layer 6 ds

yxHkx leku gSA fdUrq mijh Hkkx esa dqN egRoiw.kZ vUrj

fn[kkbZ nsrk gSA ;g xgjs /kwlj jax dk gSA bldh xBu vis{kkdr

<hyh (loose) gSA bldk xgjs /wklj jax dk gksuk lEHkor% bl

rF; dk |ksrd gS fd blds fuekZ.k esa ouLifr (vigtation) dh

fo'ks"k Hkwfedk jgh gSA bl catj&lrg (sterile level) dks izkphu

g;wel (ancient humus) uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fdlh lrg ij bl izdkj dk teko ml lrg dk yEcs vlsZ rd

ohjku jgus ds i'pkr gh gksrk gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bu nks

ijrksa dk teko bl iqjkLFky ds mu lHkh Vªsap esa feys gSa ftuesa

bu Lrjksa rd mR[kuu fd;k x;k gSA

¼vi½ miyC/k rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij blesa nks jk; ugha fd flYV teko

okys nksuksa ijrksa dk fuekZ.k ck<+ ds QyLo#i gqvkA Layer 6

okys ck<+ ds rRdky i'pkr ;gkWa vkcknh dk izek.k miyC/k gS

3960

fdUrq Layer 4 okys ck<+ ds i'pkr bl bl LFky ij ,d yEcs

vlsZ rd vkcknh ugha gksus dk Li"V izek.k feyrk gSA

¼vii½ 18 ijrksa okys bl teko esa bu nks ijrksa dks NksM+dj (Layer 4

dk Åijh fgLlk rFkk Layer 6) 'ks"k vU; lHkh ijrsa iqjkrkfRod

dksfV esa vkrh gSaA izkphu g;wel (ancient humus) teko ds

mij fLFkr lHkh ijrsa rFkk g;wel ds uhps dh ijr la[;k 7 rFkk

8 Hkjrh&teko (filling deposit) dksfV ds gSaA blds uhps dh

'ks"k lHkh ijrsa ¼ijr la[;k 9 ls 18½ fu;fer vkoklh;

(regular habitation) teko dh Js.kh esa vkrh gSaA

¼viii½ izklafxd iqjkLFky dks Hkjrh teko (filling deposit) }kjk Åapk

djus dk Li"V izek.k feyk gSA ;g izek.k bl rF; esa fufgr gS

fd lEc) Lrjksa ls fofHkUu dkyksa dh feyh tqyh lkefxz;kWa izkIr

gqbZ gSaA iqjkrRo esa bl fLFkfr dks Lrj ÅWapk djus ds lk{; ds

#i es ekuk tkrk gSA miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vuqlkj bl LFky dks

ÅWapk djus dh izfdz;k Layer 8 ls gh izkjEHk gks tkrh gSA ;g

izfdz;k nks ijrksa dks NksM+dj (Layer 6 rFkk Layer 4 dk mijh

Hkkx½ Layer 1 rd pyrh jgrh gSA fjiksVZ esa Hkh lrg dks dbZ

ckj ÅWapk djus dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA fdUrq mlds dkj.k ij dksbZ

izdk'k ugha Mkyk x;k gSA bl iqjkLFky dks ckj ckj ÅWapk djus

dh vko';drk D;ksa iM+h\ ;g ,d egRoiw.kZ iz'u gSA

¼ix½ esjs v/;;u ds vuqlkj bldk eq[; dkj.k iqjkLFky dks ck<+ ls

lqj{kk iznku djuk izrhr gksrk gSA izkIr lk{;ksa ls ;g fofnr

gksrk gS fd iqjkLFky izkjEHk ls gh ck<+ izoRr (flood prone) jgk

gSA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd bl LFky ds if'pe esa Jh

B.B.Lal egksn; }kjk dh xbZ [kqnkbZ esa izkjfEHkd ,sfrgkfld

dky ls “unhd`r ckyaw teko “ (fluviatile sand bed) dk

vo'ks"k izkIr gqvk gS (Indian Archaeology-A Review,

1976-77, p. 52)A LFkykd`fr lEcU/kh lk{; (topographical

evidence) ls Hkh bl leL;k ij izdk'k iM+rk gSA mYys[kuh; gS

fd bl nf"V ls izklafxd {ks= Q~yM Iysu (flood plain) ds

3961

vUrxZr vkrk gSA fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj “...the region around

Ayodhya along the river comes under its flood plain

….” (ASI Report, Vol.I, p.1)A yky egksn; dh [kqnkbZ

esa ;gkWa ls izkjfEHkd ,srgkfld dky esa fufeZr jSEiVZ

(Rampart) rFkk Q +k sV h Z fQ +d s' ku oky (fortification

wall) dk Hk h vo'k s" k feyk g SA ;g lk{; Hkh ck<+ lqj{kk dh

nf"V ls vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gSA ;s lHkh lk{; ck<+ lqj{kk (flood

protection) dh vksj Li"V ladsr djrs gSaA bu lcksa esa lokZf/kd

egRoiw.kZ lk{; rks ;gkWa ls tyks<+ teko dk izek.k izkIr gksuk gSA

;gkaW ls nks ckj Hkh"k.k ck<+ vkus dk Li"V izek.k feyrk gSA

miyC/k rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa bl ckr dh i wj h lEH k kouk g S fd

ck< + i zdk si l s l qj{ k k i znku dju s g sr q gh bl LFky

dk s ckj&ckj ÅW ap k dju s dh vko';drk iM +h A bl

ÄVukdze esa ,d le; ,slk Hkh vk;k fd ck<+ ds dkj.k ;gkWa ds

yksxksa dks ck/; gksdj ,d YkEcs le; ds fy, ;g LFkku gh R;kx

nsuk iM+kA ;g rF; ck<+ ds i'pkr g;wel teko ds lk{; ls

izekf.kr gksrk gSA

C-

¼i½ dkydze @ izklafxd fo"k; dk ;g nwljk igyw gSA fjiksVZ esa 18

ijrksa ds teko dks fuEu ukS dkyksa esa foHkkftr fd;k x;k gS%&

NBPW, Sunga, Kushana, Gupta, Post Gupta-Rajput,

Early Medieval-Sultanate, Medieval, Mughal rFkk

Late and Post Mughal.

¼ii½ dkydze esa lUnHkz esa fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj lHkh dkyksa esa lkaLdfrd

fujUrjrk (cultural continuity) gS (ASI Report Vol.I,

p.37)A iqjkrRo dh nf"V ls ;g ,d vR;Ur gh egRoiw.kZ

fu"d"kZ gSA fjik sV Z d s bl fu"d"k Z l s ge lger ugh a

g S aA

¼iii½ gekj s v/;;u d s vu qlkj i z F ke pkj dkyk s a d s i'pkr

;g i q j kLFky ,d yEc s le; d s fy, ohjku gk s x;kA

3962

dkyksa dh fujUrjrk Hkax gqbZaA bl lEcU/k esa lkaLdfrd vUrjky

dk Li"V izek.k miyC/k gSA dkydze dk pkSFkk dky xqIr dky

gSA fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj bl dky dh frfFk 4th-6th Century AD

fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA esjs v/;;u ds vuqlkj bl dky esa nks ckj

ck<+ vkus dk izek.k feyrk gSA nwljh ckj ds ck<+ ds i'pkr

yksxksa us bl LFkku dks ,d yEcs le; ds fy, R;kx fn;kA ;g

rF; bl lk{; ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd bl ck<+ teko ds mij

g;wel teko dk Ikzek.k mifLFkr gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd g; wel

teko d s ckn ftl l aLd ` fr d s vo'k s" k feyr s g S a o s

Islamic dky d s g S aA g; wel teko d s mij d s ijrk s a

l s Xy sT +M o s;j (glazed ware), Xy sT +M VkbYl (glazed

tiles)] tkuojk s a dh gfM ~M;k a rFk k p wu k ,o a l wj[k h

(lime and surkhi) l s fufe Zr Q +' k k sZ a d s vo'k s" k dk

feyuk bl rF; d s vdkV ~; i zek.k g S aA Day to Day

Register ls izkIr lwpukvksa ds fo'ys"k.k ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS

fd g;wel ds Åij ds lHkh ijrksa ls XysT+M os;j rFkk tkuojksa

dh gfM~M;ksa ds vo'ks"k feys gSa ftudk mYys[k Appendix I o

II esa fn;k tk jgk gSA blh izdkj fjiksVZ ds Chaper VI (pp.

164-172) esa miyC/k XysT+M VkbYl ds VqdM+ksa dh lwph ls izkIr

lwpukvksa ds fo'ys"k.k ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd g;wel teko

ds mij fLFkr lHkh izklafxd ijrksa ls XysT+M VkbYl ds vo'ks"k

feys gSa ftldk mYys[k Appendix III esa fn;k tk jgk gSA a

¼iv½ ;gka eqfLye laLdfr ls lEc) XysT+M os;j dk vo'ks"k lYrur

dky ls feyuk izkjEHk gks tkrk gSA bl dky dk i z kj EH k

yxHkx r sjgoh a lnh d s i z kjE H k l s ekuk x;k g S A ;gkWa

pkSFsk dky ¼xqIr dky½ dk vUr NBh 'krkCnh bloh fu/kkZfjr dh

xbZ gSA bl dky ds nwljs ck<+ teko ds i'pkr gh gw;el teko

dk lk{; feyk gSA blds Q+kSju Åij dh ijr ls XysT+M os;j

dk lk{; miyC/k gS ftldh frfFk yxHkx rsjgoha lnh gSA ;s

rF; leqfpr #i ls lkaLdfrd vUrjky dk vdkV~; izek.k

mifLFkr djrs gSaA bu lk{;ksa ds vkyksd esa fjiksVZ dh ;g

3963

vo/kkj.kk fd ;gkaW ds lHkh dkyksa esa lkaaLdfrd fujUrjrk Fkh lR;

izrhr ugha gksrkA oLrqr% ;gk W a d s 18 ijrk s a oky s teko dk s

9 dh txg 5 lk aLd ` frd dkyk s a e s a gh foHkDr fd;k

tkuk pk fg,A x q Ir dky d s i'pkr ,d yEch vof/ k

dk vUrjky] bld s i'pkr bLykfed dky i z kj EH k

g sk rk g SA bl ikWaposa lkaLdfrd dky (Cultural Period) dks

dbZ <kWapk&vk/kkfjr dkyksa (Structural Period) esa foHkkftr

fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¼v½ ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fjiksVZ esa izfrikfnr ik W apok a] NBk ,o a

lkrok W a dky euekuh (arbitrary) lk{;k s a ij vk/ k k fjr

i zrhr gk sr k g S A bl lEcU/k esa fuEu rF; izLrqr gSa%&

Period V-

(a) ikWaaposa dky dks Post-Gupta-Rajput dky dgk x;k gSA fjiksVZ

ds vuqlkj G7 Vªsap esa Layer 5 rFkk Layer 6 bl dky dk

izfrfuf/kRo djrs gSa (ASI Report, Vol. I, Table after page

36; also page 40)

(b) fjiksVZ esa bl dky dh igpku eq[;r% Knife-edge bowl ls

dh xbZ gSA blds vk/kkj ij bls lkroha ls nloha lnh ds chp

jD[kk x;k gSA ”The period is marked by the

appearance of the knife-edge bowls and other types

which belong to the period from seventh to tenth-

century AD” (ASI Report, Vol I, p. 40)A mYys[kuh; gS

fd Knife-edge bowl dk mYys[k Stratigraphy and

Chronology ds v/;k; esa rks gqvk gS] fdUrq Pottery ds

v/;k; esa tgkWa bldk mYys[k visf{kr Fkk] dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA

fjiksVZ ds figure 44 esa vf/kdka'k bowls dk js[kk fp= izdkf'kr

gS fdUrq muds o.kZu esa fdlh dks Hkh Knife-edge bowlugha

dgk x;k gSA ,sls fof'k"B izek.k dk u dsoy js[kk fp=] cfYd

Nk;kfp= Hkh izdkf'kr gksuk pkfg, FkkA blds fcuk js[kkfp= dh

izekf.kdrk dk ewY;kadu lEHko ughaA miYkC/k rF;ksa dh foospuk

3964

ls ,slk yxrk gS fd oLrqr% bl rFk k&dfFkr dky l s bl

i zdkj dk bowl feyk gh ugh aA

(c) rFkk dfFkr Post Gupta-Rajput dky ls ,slh lkexzh dk

furkUr vHkko gS ftlls bl dky dh fu.kkZ;d igpku curh gks]

t Sl s flDdk ] lhy] lh fy ax ] LdYipj vkfnA blds

foijhr bl dky ls xqIr dky ds ikVjh (pottery) feyrs gSaA

buesa xqIrdkyhu Lid-cum-bowl, knobbed lid, Inkpot type

lid vkfn mYys[kuh; gSA (ASI Report, Vol.I, Fig. 44).

(d) Layer 5 rFkk 6 ls izkIr lkefxz;ksa ds vk/kkj ij bl dky dks

Post Gupta-Rajput dky fu/kkZfjr djuk fcYdqy eux<+Ur

izrhr gksrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Depositional

History ds vkyksd esa rks Layer 6 iqjkrkfRod teko gS gh

ughaA oLrqr% rFkk&dfFkr ik W apok a dky x q Ir dky dk gh

v ax i zrhr gk sr k g S A

Period VI-

(e) fjiksVZ esa bl dky dks Medieval Sultanate dky dgk x;k

gSA bldh frfFk 11th- 12th Century AD fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA

mYys[kuh; gS fd fjiksVZ esa bl frfFk fu/kZkj.k ds vk/kkj ds

lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl iz'u ij fd

bl dky dks Medieval-Sultanate D;k s a dgk x;k ]

fjik sV Z i wj h rjg ek Su g SA

(f) fjiksVZ esa G7 Vªsap dh ijrksa 3] 3 A rFkk 4 dks bl dky dk

ledkfyd teko dgk x;k gSA fdUrq Depositional History

ds vuqlkj Layer 4 dk Åijh Hkkx rks iqjkrkfRod teko gS gh

ugaha] bldk fuekZ.k rks ck<+ rFkk g;wel teko ds QyLo#i

gqvkA fQj blds i'pkr ;g iqjkLFky yEcs le; ds fy, ohjku

gks x;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd blds Åij fLFkr lHkh ijrksa ls

fofHkUu izdkj ds XysT+M os;j (glazed ware) rFkk XysT+M VkbYl

(glazed tiles) ds vo'ks"k feys gSa (See Appendix I, III) ,slh

fLFkfr esa Layer 3] 3 A rFkk 4 dh frfFk 11th-12th Century

3965

AD fu/kkZj.k djuk fdlh Hkh izdkj ;qfDr laxr izrhr ugha gksrkA

(g) mijksDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa Post Gupta-Rajput dky dh

rjg bl dky dk Hkh dksbZ vfLRkRo ugha yxrkA

Period VII-

(h) fjiksVZ esa bls Medieval dky dgk x;kgSA bldh frfFk 12th ls

16th Century AD dh 'kq#vkr ds chp fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS

(ASI Report Vol I, p. 41)A mYys[kuh; gS fd bl frfFk

fu/k k Z j. k d s vk / k kj d s lEcU/ k e s a i z kl afxd v/;k;

(Stratigraphy and Chronology) fcYd qy ek Su g S

tcfd frfFk lEcU/kh ppkZ blh v/;k; esa visf{kr gSA

(i) fjiksVZ ds Structures uked v/;k; esa bl dky dh frfFk

fu/kkZj.k ds vk/kkj ij dqN rF; miyC/k gSaA fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj

bl dky esa fufeZr nhokj ua0 16 (Wall No. 16) rFkk ouLirh;

eksVhQ+ (floral motif) ls lqlfTtr ,d v"VHkqtkdkj

f'kyk[k.M (Octagonal sand stone block) dks eq[; vk/kkj

ds lk{; ds #i esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS (ASI Report, Vol I,

pp. 52 and 56)

(j) fjiksVZ esa bl bZV fufeZr nhokj (wall 16) dh lerk lkjukFk

ds /keZpdzftu fogkj esa fLFkr ,d fo'ks"k bZV dh nhokj ls

LFkkfir dh xbZ gSA bl fogkj dk fuekZ.k xgM+oky 'kkld

xksfoUn pUnz dh jkuh dqekj nsoh us ckjgoha lnh esa djk;k FkkA

(k) v;ks/;k ds v"VHkqtkdkj f'kyk[k.M (Octagonal sand stone

block) dh rqyuk lkjukFk fogkj esa fLFkr ouLirh; eksVhQ+

(floral motif) ls lqlfTtr ,d fo'ks"k f'kyk[k.M (stone

block) ls dh xbZ gSA bu nksuksa esa lekurk LFkkfir dh xbZ gSA

bl lekurk ds vk/kkj ij wall No. 16 dks ckjgoha lnh dk

Äksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA fjiksVZ esa blh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkrosa

dky dh izkjfEHkd frfFk ckjgoha lnh fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA¢ **

“6. That I do not agree with stratigraphy and chronology

as laid down in the ASI report. In this behalf the witness

3966

presents the following facts:-

A- There are two aspects of this subject. Both are

important.

(i) The first one is stratigraphy and the other one is

chronology. Out of the two, the first one holds more

importance, because chronological determination

depends mainly on stratification but its contrary is

not true. There is an utter absence of facts in relation

to stratification, in the chapter “Stratigraphy and

Chronology” in the ASI report. The whole chapter is

replete with details about chronology, that too, not on

the basis of verified facts. It is pertinent to mention

that stratification cannot be done in a real sense,

only on the basis of number of layers coming to light

through excavation and their nomenclature.

(ii) For a meaningful stratification, it is very essential to

make a proper description and explanation of

physical features and contents of the concerned

layers. In this process, an extensive description of

colour, texture and composition of every layer as also

their contents is absolutely necessary. The

depositional history of an archaeological site is

constructed on the basis of explanation of these very

facts. It throws light on several abstruse facts, such

as whether all the deposits on the said

archaeological site are of archaeological nature or

whether some of them are also natural deposits. If

some of them are natural deposits then what is their

type, such as, whether they are water borne, air

3967

borne etc.? The report suffers from utter absence of

these facts. It contains no information about the

colour, texture, composition etc. of any layer in the

process of stratification. It has no discussion on the

depositional history.

B- (i) In course of my observation, I got an opportunity

to study the sections which have come to light

through excavation, from the view- point of

depositional history. As a student of archaeology I

pay obeisance to Trench G-7. The section of this

trench tells the whole story of this archaeological

site. It is an open book. Every layer of its is like

pages of a book which can be read by anybody who

is capable of doing so. I put forward whatsoever I

have been able to gather in a limited time by virtue of

my ordinary capacity.

(ii) As per stratification report, a deposit of total 18

layers has come to light here. Besides, there are also

pits connected with some layers. This deposit of 18

layers is on natural soil. The ASI scholars have taken

the whole deposit as an archaeological deposit. This

fact is brought forth by a statement contained in the

report which reads as “Excavation at the disputed

site of Ayodhya has yielded a continuous cultural

sequence contained in the total deposition of about

10.80 m.” (ASI Report, Vol.I p.37). I disagree with

this finding. We classify this deposit mainly into two

categories: archaeological and natural. For

convenience, archaeological category can be further

3968

divided into two parts: (a) habitational and (b)non-

habitational. Here non-habitational means “filling

deposit”.

(iii) On the basis of colour, texture and composition, two

of the eighteen layers come under the category of

natural deposit. At the Trench G-7 (which can be

called index trench for convenience), these layers are

represented by the upper portion of Layer no.4 and

the Layer no.6. Here it is necessary to mention that

Layer no.4 is not correctly identified in the report.

Actually, two different types of deposits have been

discovered at this layer. Its upper portion is a natural

deposit and its lower portion is an archaeological

deposit.

(iv) The upper portion of Layer 4 and the Layer 6 are

both mainly water borne deposits. On the basis of

colour, texture and composition they appear to be

deposits categorized as silt. Formation of silt

depends on water process. The colour of Layer 6 is

light grey; its texture is smooth but hard and its

composition appears to be a mixture of sand and

mud. Remains of shells and possibly of snails, etc.

are also seen in it. (It is pertinent to mention that the

discovery of riverine shell finds mention also on page

no. 43 of the report. It relates to the filling deposit of

Period VIII. The filling deposit contains soil of the

early period). It is worth mentioning that there is an

utter absence of habitational materials in this

deposit. This evidence also suggests that it is not an

3969

archaeological deposit.

(v) The upper portion deposit of Layer 4, from the angle

of colour, texture and composition, appears to be

further divided into two parts- upper and lower parts.

The lower part is almost similar to Layer 6 in respect

of colour, texture and composition. It is of dark grey

colour. Its texture is comparatively loose. Its being of

dark grey colour perhaps suggests that vegetation

has had a special role in its formation. This sterile

level can be termed as ancient humus. This type of

deposit is seen at any level only after that level

having remained desolate for a long period. It is

pertinent to mention that deposit of these two layers

have been discovered at this archaeological site from

all those trenches which have been excavated down

to these layers.

(vi) On the basis of the facts available, it is beyond doubt

that both the layers characterized as silt deposit

came to be formed as a result of flood. Proof of

habitation is available here after the flood-stemming

deposit of Layer 6 but no clear proof of there being

habitation for a long time is found at this place, after

the flood-stemming deposit of Layer 4.

(vii) In this deposit having 18 layers, all layers, except

for these two layers (the upper part of Layer 4 and

the Layer 6), come under archaeological category.

All the layers above the ancient humus and Layers 7

and 8 below the humus are categorized as filling

deposits. All the remaining layers (layers 9 to 18)

3970

below it come under the category of regular

habitation.

(viii) A clear proof is found of having elevated the

archaeological site in question through filling

deposits. Its proof consists in the fact that mixed

materials of different periods have been discovered

from the concerned layers. In archaeology, this

position is taken to be evidence of elevating the level.

As per the evidences available, the process of

heightening this sites starts right from Layer 8. This

process continues upto Layer 1 with the exception of

two layers (Layer 6 and the upper part of the Layer

4). The report also speaks of the level having been

elevated many times but it has not thrown light on its

reasons. It is an important question why there was

necessity of repeated heightening of this

archaeological site.

(ix) As per my study, providing protection to the

archaeological site against floods appears to be the

main reason for it. From the evidences discovered it

transpires that the archaeological site has been

flood-prone since the beginning. In this behalf it is

pertinent to mention that remains of fluviatile sand

bed belonging to the Early Historic Period have been

discovered at the excavation carried out by Sri B.B.

Lal in the west of this site (Indian Archaeology- A

Review, 1976-77, p. 52). Topographical evidence also

throws light on this problem. It is pertinent to

mention that the region in question, from this point of

3971

view, comes under flood plain. As per the report, ". . .

. . . . the reason around the Ayodhya along the river

comes under its flood plain. . . . . ." (ASI Report,

Vol.I, p. 1). At the excavation carried out by Sri Lal,

remains of ramparts and fortification wall

constructed in the Early Historic Period have also

been found from here. From the view point of

protection against flood, this evidence is also very

important. All these evidences clearly alludes to

flood protection. Discovery of alluvial deposit from

this place is the most important evidence out of these

ones. A clear proof of fierce floods having occurred

twice has been found from this place. The facts

available give rise to a full possibility that necessity

was felt for repeated heightening of this place only

with a view to provide protection against the fury

of flood. In course of this development, there was

once a time when people had to abandon this place

itself for a long period on account of flood. This fact

is borne out by the evidence of humus deposit in the

wake of flood.

C-

(i) Chronology- This is the second aspect of the subject

in question. In the report, deposit of 18 layers has

been divided into the following nine periods: NBPW,

Sunga. Kushana, Gupta, Post Gupta-Rajput, Early

Medieval-Sultanate, Medieval, Mughal and Late and

Post Mughal.

(ii) In reference to chronology, the report says that there

3972

is cultural continuity in all the periods (ASI Report

Vol.I, p.37). From archaeological point of view, it is

a very important finding. We do not agree with this

finding of the report.

(iii) As per our study, after the first four periods this

archaeological sites became desolate for a long

time. The continuity of periods came to be broken. In

this behalf a clear proof of cultural intermission is

available. The fourth period of chronology is the

Gupta period. As per the report this period has been

dated as 4th-6th century AD. As per my study, proofs

are found of floods having occurred twice in this

period. After the second flood people abandoned

this place for a long time. This fact is evidenced by

the fact that proof is found of there being humus

deposit above this flood-stemming deposit. It is

pertinent to mention that the remains of whichever

culture is found after the humus deposit, belongs

to the Islamic period. Discovery of remains of

glazed ware, glazed tiles, animal bones and the

floors made of lime and surkhi from the layers

above the humus deposit are unassailable proofs of

this fact. On analysis of the information collected

from Day-to-Day Register, it is proved that from all

the layers above the humus, remains of glazed ware

and animal bones have been discovered details

whereof are being given in Appendices I and II. In

this very manner, the analysis of the information

collected from the list of pieces of glazed tiles given

3973

in Chapter VI (pp. 164-172) goes to prove that

remains of glazed tiles have been discovered from all

the concerned layers above the humus deposit, in

which respect details are being given in Appendix III.

(iv) Here we begin to find glazed ware associated with

the Muslim culture from the Sultanate period. The

beginning of this period is attributed to the

beginning of around 13th century. Here the end of

fourth period (the Gupta period) is attributed to the

sixth century. Evidence of the humus deposit has been

found only after the second flood-stemming deposit of

this period. Evidence of there being glazed ware has

been found from the layer immediately above it which

is dated to around 13th century. These facts properly

present unassailable proofs of cultural continuity.

The conception of the report believing there to be

cultural continuity here in all the periods does not

appear to be true in light of these evidences. Actually

the 18-layer deposit of this place should be divided

only into in five cultural periods instead of nine

ones. After the Gupta period, the Islamic period

begins after a long interval. This fifth cultural

period can be divided into many structural periods.

(v) Fifth, sixth and seventh periods as envisaged in the

ASI report appear to be based on arbitrary

evidences. In this behalf the following facts are

presented:

Period V

(a) The fifth period has been termed as Post Gupta-

3974

Rajput period. As per the report, this period is

represented by Layer 5 and Layer 6 at Trench G-7

(ASI Report, Vol.I, Table after page 36; also page

40).

(b) In the report, this period has been identified mainly

with knife-edge bowls. On this basis this period has

been placed between 7th to 10th century. “The period

is marked by the appearance of the knife-edge bowls

and other types which belong to the period from

seventh to tenth century AD” (ASI Report, Vol. I, p.

40). It is pertinent to mention that knife-edge bowl

certainly finds mention in the chapter titled

Stratigraphy and Chronology but it finds no mention

in a chapter on pottery where it was required to be

mentioned. Figure 44 of the report carries diagrams

of most of the bowls but in their description none of

them has been called knife-edge bowl. Not only

diagrams but also photographs of so special proofs

ought to have been published. But for them, it is not

possible to assess authenticity of diagrams. From the

analysis of the facts available, it appears that this

type of bowls have actually not been discovered

from this so-called period.

(c) Among the materials discovered from the so-called

Post Gupta-Rajput period, there is an utter want of

such materials as coins, seals, ceiling, sculpture

etc. which may be helpful in identifying this period in

a conclusive manner. On the contrary, potteries from

this period to the Gupta Period are found. Out of

3975

these, lid-cum-bowl, knobbed lid, inkpot type lid etc.

are worth mentioning. (ASI Report, Vol.I, Fig. 44).

(d) On the basis of the materials discovered from layers

5 and 6, dating this period as Post Gupta Rajput

Period appears to be utterly fabricated. In this behalf

it is worth mentioning that Layer 6, in the light of

depositional history, is certainly not an

archaeological deposit. Actually, the so-called fifth

period appears to be a part of the Gupta period

itself.

Period VI

(e) In the report, this period has been termed as

Medieval Sultanate. It has been dated 11th-12th

century AD. It is worth mentioning that no evidence

has been presented in the report in connection with

the basis of this dating. The report is completely

silent over the question as to why this period has

been termed as Medieval-Sultanate period.

(f) In the report, layers 3, 3A and 4 of Trench G-7 have

been termed as contemporary deposits of this period.

But as per Depositional History, the upper portion of

Layer 4 which is certainly not an archaeological

deposit, was surely formed as a result of floods and

humus deposit. After that this archaeological site got

depopulated for a long time. It is worth mentioning

that remains of several types of glazed ware and

glazed tile has been discovered from all the layers

above it (See Appendices I & III). In such a situation,

it does not appear proper in any manner to date

3976

Layers 3, 3A and 4 as 11th-12th century AD.

(g) In the light of aforesaid facts, like Post Gupta-Rajput

period this period too does not appear to have any

existence.

Period VII

(h) In the report, it has been termed as medieval period.

It has been dated between 12th to the beginning of

16th century AD (ASI Report Vol. I, p. 41). It is

pertinent to mention that the concerned chapter

(Stratigraphy and Chronology) is completely silent

over the basis of this dating, whereas dating-related

discussion is required to be there in this very chapter.

(i) In a chapter titled Structures in the report, some facts

are available about the basis of dating of this period.

Constructed in this period Wall No.16 and an

octagonal sand stone block decorated with floral

motif have been cited in the report as evidence of the

main basis of dating (ASI Report, Vol, pp. 52 and 56).

(j) The report has established similarity of this brick-

built Wall 16 with a particular brick-wall standing in

Dharmachakrajin Vihar of Sarnath. Kumar Devi,

queen of Gahadwal ruler Govind Chandra, had got

this monastery built in the 12th century.

(k) The octagonal sand stone block of Ayodhya has been

compared with a Sarnath Vihar-situated particular

stone block decorated with floral motif. Similarity

between these two has been established. On the basis

of the similarity, Wall No. 16 has been attributed to

the 12th century. On this very evidence, the beginning

3977

of the seventh period has been attributed to the 12th

century, in the report." (E.T.C)

3832. The facts stated in affidavit, he (PW 24) admits to

have based on Trench G-7, as is evident form page 287 and

293/294:

^^eq[; ijh{kk dk tks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS] og iz/kku #i ls

th&7 V~sap ds v/;;u ij vk/kkfjr gS] D;ksafd V~sap th&7 esa gh uspqjy

Lok;y rd tks Lrjhdj.k ds lk{; miyC/k gq, gSa] os fdlh vU; V~sap esa

miyC/k ugha gSaA V~sap th&7 dks bl iqjkLFky ij gq, mR[kuu dk

b.MsDl V~sap Hkh dgk tk ldrk gSA esjh nf"V esa V~sap th&7] b.MsDl V~sap

gks ldrh gSA blds vfrfjDr ftu vU; V~sapks esa oftZu Lok;y rd

mR[kuu gqvk gS] os V~sapst esjh nf"V esa mrus egRoiw.kZ ugha gSaA**¼ist 287½

“The affidavit of the examination-in-chief, is mainly

based on study of Trench G-7 because the evidences of

stratification found up to natural soil in Trench G-7, are

not available in any other trench. The Trench G-7 can also

be called the index trench of the excavation carried out at

this archaeological site. In my view, the Trench G-7 can be

the index trench. Besides it, the other trenches excavated

up to virgin soil, are not that important in my

view.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&6 ¼'kiFk &i= ds

ist&5 yxk;r 17½ esa tks er O;Dr fd;k gS] og V~sap th&7 ds v/;;u

ij vk/kkfjr gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus Lrjhdj.k rFkk dky

fu/kkZj.k ds fy, V~sap th&7 ds vfrfjDr vU; V~sapks ds v/;;u dh

vko';drk ugha le>hA eSaus vius 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&6 esa eSVhfj;y]

fj;wt+ djus dh ckr dgh gSA ftl Hk h e SVh fj;y d s fj; wt fd; s

tku s dk s e S au s crk;k g S ] og e SVh fj;y uku&bLykfed

fcfYM aXl d s e SVh fj;Yl g S a rFk k o s fgUn w e afnj k s a ;k ck S)

fogkj l s l ac af / kr g S aA ** ¼ist 293&294½

“The opinion expressed by me in para-6(page 5 to 17

3978

of the affidavit) of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief,

is based on study of Trench G-7. It is wrong to say that for

stratification and periodization, I did not consider it

necessary to study other trenches besides Trench G-7. In

para 6 of my affidavit, I have stated about reuse of

material. Whatever material I have stated to be reused, is

material of non-Islamic building and related to Hindu

temples or Buddha Vihar.”(E.T.C.)

3833. PW 24 D.Mandal treated trench G7 as the best

trench, but PW-30 has a different view:

^^v;ks/;k esa fookfnr LFky ij mR[kuu dh 'kq:vkr mRrj fn'kk esa ts&3

ls gqbZ FkhA

iz'u& V~sap ts&3 mR[kuu LFky ij [kksyh x;h V~sapksa esa ls ,d vfr

egRoiw.kZ V~sap ekuh tkrh gS] bldh tkudkjh vkidks gS\

mRrj& esjh nf"V esa mR[kuu ds fy, ftrus Hkh V~sap yxk;s tkrs gSa] lHkh

egRoiw.kZ gksrs gSa] D;ksafd iqjkrRo esa lk{; dh mifLFkfr o vuqifLFkfr

nksuksa gh lkekU; rkSj ij egRoiw.kZ gksrh gSA** ¼ist 53½

“The excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya had

commenced from J-3 in the north.

Question:- Do you have the information that trench J-3 is

considered to be a very important trench out of the trenches

dug out at the excavation site?

Answer:- In my opinion, all the trenches made for

excavation are important because generally presence and

absence of evidence are both important in

archaeology.”(E.T.C.)

3834. The witness, therefore, while not disputing the

stratification/ chronology upto the period IV, i.e., Gupta period,

has challenged V, VI and VII periods alleging it arbitrary. For

period V, he has given two reasons, firstly that Knife-edge bowl

3979

though referred in the Chapter of stratigraphy and chronology

but no reference is given in the Chapter of "Potteries". Figure 44

showing sketched diagram of bowl does not justify the inference

leading to a knife-edge bowl. According to PW 24, it appears

that no such bowl was actually found. Secondly, according to

him, the conclusive identity proofs like coin, seal, sealing,

sculpture for determining post Gupta-Rajput period were not

found. Only potteries of Gupta period were found like, lid-cum-

bowl, knobbed lid, inkpot type lid etc. Period VI has been

assailed on the ground that no reason or evidence has been

mentioned to treat 11th and 12th Century A.D. as medieval

Sultanate period. Besides above, from layer 4 in Trench G-7

different types of glazed wares and glazed tiles were found in all

the levels. Hence, on the basis of layers 3, 3A and 4, the 11th and

12th century A.D. period is not justified to be determined. VIIth

period termed as medieval from 12th to 16th century is also said

to be silent with regard to any contextual material etc. Some of

the structural evidence like wall 16 has been taken but its

similarity and the reasons thereof are not correct. Similarly, it

has also said that period VIII termed as “Mughal” is also based

on conjectures and surmises and, in fact, period IX ought to

have been treated as 5th period by terming it as "Islamic" period.

Here what we find is PW 16 sought to make his statement with

respect to history also claiming himself to be an authority, but

when confronted, he claimed himself an 'Archaeologist'

^^eS iqjkrRofon gwWaA ¼ist 188½

“I am an Archaeologist.” (ETC)

^^eSa ;gkWa ij vke O;fDr dh gSfl;r ls xokgh u nsdj iqjkrRo ds

fo'ks"kK dh gSfl;r ls xokgh ns jgk gwWaA** ¼ist 315½

3980

“I am giving testimony here as a specialist in archaeology,

not as a layman.” (E.T.C.)

^^QhYM vkfdZ;ksykth ds lEcU/k esa eSa fo'ks"kK gwWaA ¼ist 136½

“I am an expert in field archaeology.” (ETC)

3835. However, when his opinion on history was

challenged in the cross examination, he claimed that being an

Archaeologist, he is Historian also:

^^iz'u& igyh ckj tc vki bl U;k;ky; ds le{k xokgh nsus mifLFkr

gq, Fks tc vki ,d iqjkrRoosRrk dh gSfl;r ls vk;s Fks ;k ,d

bfrgkldkj dh gSfl;r ls vk;s Fks\

mRrj& e S a i q j krRoo sRrk gk sr s g q, bfrgkldkj Hk h g wW a D;ksafd

iqjkrRo ,d ,sfrgkfld foKku gS blfy, eSa tc dksVZ ds lkeus is'k

gqvk] bl fo"k; ij lexzrk ls viuh xokgh nsus ds fy, is'k gqvk

FkkA**¼ist 352½

“Question- Your first appearance in this court to give

evidence was as a archaeologist or historian?

Answer- Besides being an Archaeologist, I am also a

historian because archaeology is a historical science and

as such when I appeared before this court, I appeared to

give my evidence on this topic in entirety.” (E.T.C.)

^^gj oFk Z Ogkby vkfd Z;k sy k ftLV ¼i q j krRoo sRr k ½ bfrgkldkj

Hk h gk sr k g S vk S j bfrgkl ,d O;kid foKku g S i q j krRo

ftldk v ax g S ] eSa tc bfrgkldkj ds :i esa xokgh nsus vk;k

mldk ;g rkRi;Z ugha gS fd eSa iqjkrRo ds Kku o fof/k ls oafpr gksdj

vk;k FkkA** ¼ist 353½

“Every worthwhile archaeologist is also a historian.

History is a detailed science with archaeology being its

branch. When I came to give evidence as a historian, it did

not mean that I had come without the knowledge and

method of archaeology.” (E.T.C.)

3981

3836. The PW 24 sought to discredit other like report of

Prof. B.B. Lal by saying :

^^izks0 ch0ch0 yky vkfdZ;ksykftLV gSa] bfrgkldkj ugha gSaA^^

“Prof. B.B. Lal is an Archaeologist, not a historian.”(ETC)

3837. On periodization or stratification and chronology,

PW 24 said in cross examination:

^^'kqax dky lsds.M lsapqjh ch0lh0 ls izkjaHk gksrk gS vkSj QLVZ lsUpqjh

ch0lh0 ij [kRe gksrk gSA jkti wr dky dk sb Z LV S f Cy'M dky

ugh a g SA bl dky dk lkekU; #i es bfrgkl esa iz;ksx gqvk gS] ftldh

frfFk yxHkx ukSaoh 'krkCnh ls X;kjgoha&ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds chp fu/kkZfjr

dh tk ldrh gzSA

xqIr dky dk vUr NBh 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k

gS]^^¼ist 154½

"The Shunga period begins with the second century B.C.

and ends with the first century B.C. The Rajput period is

not an established period. This period has been generally

used in history and can be dated between around ninth

century and 11th-12th century.

The end of the Gupta period has been attributed to

6th century AD." (E.T.C)

^^bl dky ds ckn g"kZ dky dk izkjaHk gksrk gSA g"kZ dky lkroha 'krkCnh

esa lekIr gks tkrk gSA g" k Z dky d s ckn dk sb Z LV S f Cy'M dky

dk mYy s[ k ugh a feyrk g S ] fdUrq mlds ckn dh vof/k esa jktiwr

'kkldksa us g"kZ ds ckn ds fo[kf.Mr {ks=ksa esa jkT; fd;k] blds mijkUr

lYrur dky dk izkjEHk gksrk gSA

lYrur dky dk igyk 'kkld d+qrqcqn~nhu ,scd+ 1206 esa gqvk

Fkk]^^ ¼ist 154½

"The Harsha period begins after this period. The Harsha

period concludes in the 7th century. No established period

is found after the Harsha period but in the subsequent

3982

period the Rajput rulers reigned in the post-Harsha

disintegrated regions. After that begins the Sultanate

period.

Qutb-ud-din Aibak took over as the first ruler of the

Sultanate period in 1206 AD." (E.T.C)

^^eSa bl ckr ls lger gWwa fd 1200 ,0Mh0 rd fdlh ,d oa'k dh

gqdwer ugha jgh] cfYd fofHkUu jktoa'kksa us jkT; fd;kA eSa bl ckr ls

Hkh lger gWwa fd fofHkUu oa'kksa esa eq[;r% pkj oa'k pkyqD;] xwtj] pkSgku]

izfrgkj ds gh jkT; jgsA e S a ;g ugh a crk ikÅW ax k fd bu pkjk s a

o a' k k s a dk s gh jkti wr dgk tkrk g SA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh

ugha gS fd 600 ,0Mh0 ls 1200 ,0Mh0 rd dk dky Hkkjr dh

lkfgfR;d miyfC/k ds fy, cgqr egRoiw.kZ gSA^^ ¼ist 155½

"I agree that period upto 1200 AD witnessed the reign of

no single dynasty but of many royal dynasties. I also agree

that out of many dynasties, mainly four dynasties-

Chalukya, Gujar, Chauhan and Pratihar- had their reigns.

I am not in a position to tell whether these four

dynasties themselves are called Rajputas. I do not know

whether the period from 600 AD to 1200 AD is very

important for literary achievement in India." (E.T.C)

^^600 b Z Loh l s 1200 b Z Loh d s chp dk sb Z fouk'kdkjh ck< +

v;k s/;k e s a vku s dk i zek.k ugh a g S ] ijUrq ,sls izek.k gSa] ftuls

irk yxrk gS fd ,sls fouk'kdkjh ck<+ ds vkus dks jksdus dk Izk;kl

fd;k x;k gksA^^ ¼ist 156½

"There is no proof of Ayodhya having witnessed any

disastrous flood between 600 AD to 1200 AD but there

are such proofs as go on to reveal that efforts have been

made to prevent such devastating floods." (E.T.C)

(This is contrary to what he said in C(iii) chronology)

^^esjs erkuqlkj pwafd mijksDr lkjh lkefxz;kWa ftu Lrj ls fudyh fn[kkbZ

3983

xbZ gSa muls feyh gh ugha gSa] blfy, buls ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk dky

fudkyuk eqefdu ugha FkkA e sj s vu q H ko o Kku d s vu qlkj

mijk sDr lHk h ,UVh fDoVht + + tk s i ` "B 27 ij ntZ g S a] ok s

y s;j 7 l s gh fey ldrh Fk h aA ^ ^ ¼ist 170½

"In my view, since all the aforesaid materials have not been

discovered from the levels from where they are shown to

have been discovered, it was not possible for the ASI to

date them. As per my experience and knowledge, all the

aforesaid antiquities, mentioned on page 27, could be

found only from Layer 7." (E.T.C)

^^,0,l0vkb Z 0 dh fjik sV Z o S Y; we 1 d s i ` "B 27&, ij fn; s

x; s pkV Z e s a n' k k Z ;h x;h V ª sUp th&7 d s y s;j u a0 3 o 4

dk dky vjyh feMhoy lYrur lgh n'k k Z;k x;k g S A eSa

blls lger gWwaA^^ ¼ist 170½

"Layers 3 and 4 of Trench G-7, shown in the chart given

on page 27A of the ASI report, Vol. I, have been

correctly shown to be of Early Medieval Sultanate

period. I agree with the same." (E.T.C)

^ ^th&5 V ª sUp e s a y s;j 5 o 6 dk dky Hk h vjyh fefMoy

lYrur lgh fn;k x;k g S A ^ ^ ¼ist 170½

"Layers 5 and 6 at Trench G-5 have also been correctly

shown to be belonging to Early Medieval Sultanate

period." (E.T.C)

^^esjs 'kiFk&i= ds iSjk 6 ihfj;M (v) Leky ch ¼i"B 12½ esa ^^ukbQ+

,st^^ ds lanHkZ esa esjk ;g dFku gS fd ,slh ikVhjht+ dk ,st] ukbQ+ ,st

gks ldrk gS vkSj ugha HkhA esjs erkuqlkj ukbQ++ ,st ckÅy dk eryc gS

fd ckÅy dk fdukjk lh/kk gksA 'kkiZ gksuk t+#jh ugha gS vkSj mlesa

dSjhus'ku gksus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA e S au s i ` "B 12 ij ftl

ukb ZQ + , st ckÅy dk l anH k Z fn;k g S ] ml ckÅy dk s ek Sd + s

ij n s[ ku s dk volj e q> s i z k Ir ugh a g qvkA^ ^ ¼ist 172&173½

"In reference to "Knife-edge" mentioned in para 6, period

3984

(V) b (page 12) it is my statement that the edge of such

potteries may or may not be knife-edge. In my opinion,

knife-edge bowl means that the edge of bowl should be

straight. Its being sharp is not necessary and there is no

question of corrosion in it. I got no chance to have an on-

the-spot look at that very knife-edge bowl which is

referred to on page 12." (E.T.C)

^^eSaus vius 'kiFk i= ds i"B&34 izLrj 12lh ij ;g ckr dgh gS fd ,

0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa Lrjhdj.k ds ikjLifjd lEcU/kksa dks

rksM+&ejksM+dj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vxj ml Lrjhdj.k vkSj dkydze

dks cny Hkh fn;k tk, rks Hkh esjs fopkj es bl fjiksVZ esa vkSj Hkh =qfV;kWa

gSaA^^ ¼ist 178½

"On page 34, para 12C of my affidavit I have stated that

co-relation of stratification has been distorted in the ASI

report. Even if the said stratification as also chronology is

changed, this report, in my opinion, still has

discrepancies." (E.T.C)

^^eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ dk v/;;u LVªsVhxzkQ+h dh nf"V ls xgu

v/;;u fd;k gS vkSj LVªsVhxzkQ+h fdlh Hkh mR[kuu dk cSd cksu gksrk

gS]^^ ¼ist 186½

"I have made an in-depth study of the ASI report from

stratigraphical point of view, and stratigraphy is the back

bone of any excavation." (E.T.C)

^^eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ esa LVªsVhxzkQ+h ls lEcfU/kr lHkh 'kCnksa vkSj

VfeZuksyksth dk v/;;u fd;k gSA^^ ¼ist 186½

"I have studied all the words and terminology related to

stratigraphy used in the ASI report." (E.T.C)

^^iz0&[kqnkbZ LFky ds fdlh ,d Hkkx ds ckjs esa vki crkb;s fd bldk

ikjLifjd laca/k Lrjhdj.k ls x+yr gqvk gS\

m0& oky ua0&18, rFkk oky ua0&16 nksuksa dk ikjLifjd laca/k ,

3985

0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa x+yr #i ls is'k fd;k x;k gSA^^ ¼ist 200½

"Question- Tell about any portion of the excavation site

where its co-relation has been wrongly established with

stratification.

Answer- Co-relation between both the Wall No. 18A and

Wall No. 16 has been wrongly presented in the ASI report."

(E.T.C)

^^fjiksVZ esa eSaus ;g i<+k gS fd oky ua0&18, vkSj 16 nksuksa ledkfyd gSa]

fdUrq miyC/k izek.k ds vuqlkj nksuksa nhokjsa ledkfyd ugha gSaA nksuksa

nhokjksa ds chp esa fFkd ¼eksVk½ IykLVj miyC/k gSA nksuksa nhokjsa ijLij

ck.MsM vFkkZr~ tqM+h gqbZ ugha gSaA ;fn nksuksa nhokjsa ledkfyd gksrha] rks

nksuksa dks ijLij tqM+k gqvk gksuk pkfg, Fkk] ijUrq ,slk ugha gS] cfYd

nksuska ds chp esa ,d IykLVj gS] tks bl ckr dks izekf.kr djrk gS fd

nksuksa nhokjsa ledkfyd ugha gSaA^^ ¼ist 200&201½

"I have read in the report that Wall No. 18A and Wall No.

16 are both contemporaneous; but as per the proof

available, both the walls are of the same time. There is a

thick plaster between both the walls. Both the walls are not

bonded or connected with each other. If both the wall were

contemporaneous, both of them ought to have been

connected together but such is not the position; rather,

there is a plaster in between, which proves that both the

walls are not contemporaneous." (E.T.C)

^^esjk fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd mijksDr nksuksa nhokjsa ledkfyd ugha gSa vkSj

ftldk Ik;kZIr iqjkrkfRod izek.k myiC/k gSA

oky 18&, ihfj;M&7 ds nwljs LVªDpjy ihfj;M dh gSA

iz'u& D;k ;g lgh gS fd oky&16 rFkk oky 18&, dk dky ,d gh

gS\

mRrj& mijk sDr nk su k s a nhokjk s a dk lk W aLd ` frd dky ,d gh

g S ] fdUr q LV ª Dpjy ih fj;M vyx&vyx g SA

bu nksuksa nhokjska ds LVªDpjy ihfj;M ¼le;kof/k vFkkZr~ VsEiksjy

3986

M;wjs'ku½ ds vaarj dks ugha crk;k tk ldrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd

mijksDr nksuksa nhokjksa dk dky ,d gh gSa] ijUrq mldh le;kof/k

vyx&vyx gS] ftls crk;k ugha tk ldrkA^^ ¼ist 203½

"My finding is that both the aforesaid walls are not

contemporaneous and archaeological proof thereof is

sufficiently available.

Wall 18A belongs to the other structural period of Period-7

Question- Is it true that Wall 16 and Wall 18A are of one

and the same period?

Answer- The cultural period of both the aforesaid walls

is the same but their structural periods are different.

It is not possible to tell the space of time between the

structural period (temporal duration) of these two walls. It

is true to say that both the walls are of the same period but

their temporal duration is different which cannot be

determined." (E.T.C)

^^eSaus vius eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= ds ist 6 ij B-II esa Lrjhdj.k

fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj dqy feykdj 18 irksZa ds teko ds izdk'k esa vkus dk

mYys[k fd;k gSA mu 18 irksZa dk teko Vªsap la[;k th&7 esa feyk

FkkA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us 18 irksZa dk tks teko Vªsap la[;k th&7 esa crk;k

gS] og x+yr gSA e sj s vu qlkj V ª s ap l a[;k th&7 e s a 17 irk sZ a dk

mYy s[ k gk su k pk fg,A ,0,l0vkb Z 0 u s bl V ª s ap e s a ijr

l a[;k 3 o 3&, dk s x +yr fn[k k;k g S A bu irksZa ds fudy pqdus

ds ckn eSaus Vªsap la[;k th&7 dks ns[kk Fkk] ml le; rd yxHkx ukS

irksZa rd dh [kqnkbZ bl Vªsap esa gqbZ FkhA Vªsap la[;k th&7 esa irZ la[;k

9 ls uhps okyh irsZa lgh gSa] ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa blls lacaf/kr

rF; izdkf'kr gksus ij mldks eSaus ns[kk FkkA esjs O;fDrxr Kku ds

vk/kkj ij irZ la[;k 9 ds uhps dh irsZa lgha gSaA irZ la[;k 9 ds Åij

dh irksZa dh lgh igpku ugha gqbZA ;fn bu irksZa dh lgh igpku gksrh

rks bl iqjkLFky ij izkIr 18 irksZa ds teko dks tks iqjkfRod teko dgk

x;k gS] oSlk ugha dgk tkrkA blds LFkku ij dqN iqjkrkfRod teko o

3987

dqN izkd`frd teko dh ckr Hkh dgh tkrh] tSlk fd ugha dgk x;k gSA

izkdfrd teko og teko gS] ftl teko esa ekuo fufeZr vo'ks"kksa dk

iw.kZ vHkko gks] rFkk xBu] lajpuk] dUVsUV~l ij og teko izdfr fufeZr

izekf.kr gksrk gSA esjs vuqlkj ogkaW ij izkdfrd teko ds #i esa flYV

dk teko FkkA flYV ds ckn ogkWa ij ,slk teko Fkk] tks ekuo fufeZr

FkkA ftlesa ekuo fufeZr vo'ks"k izkIr gSaA flYV dk Hkkx ugha gksxkA bl

flYV dk teko yxHkx 8 ls 10 bap eksVk FkkA ogka ij nks flYV dk

teko gS] ,d ys;j&6 o nwljk ys;j&4 ds Åijh fgLls eas flYV teko

FkkA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa flYV ds teko dk mYys[k fcYdqy

gh ugha fd;k gSA ,0,l0vkb Z 0 u s flYV teko dk s i q j krk f Rod

teko d s #i e s a i z Lr qr fd;k g SA

iz'u& D;k flYV ds teko dks ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks vyx ys;j ds #i esa

fn[kkuk pkfg, Fkk\

mRrj& th gkWaA

,slk ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk flYV dks

vyx irZ ds #i esa fn[kkrs rc Hkh ;g irZ 18 irksZa ds vUrxZr vkrh

rFkk bl fn[kkus ls irksZa dh la[;k esa dksbZ of) ugha gksrhA ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 u s 18 irk sZ a dk tk s teko crk;k g S og lgh g S

ijUr q mldk bUVji zV s' ku lgh ugh a g SA ^ ^ ¼ist 204&205½

"At page 6 of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, I

have mentioned about discovery of deposit of in all 18

layers in B-II as per the stratification report. The deposit

of those 18 layers was found in Trench No. G-7. The

deposit of 18 layers given by ASI in Trench G-7, is wrong.

According to me 17 layers should have been mentioned

in Trench G-7. In this trench, the ASI has wrongly

shown Layer Nos. 3 & 3A. I had seen Trench G-7 after

discovery of these layers, by that time excavation in this

trench had been carried out up to about nine layers. The

layers below Layer 9 in Trench G-7 are proper. I had seen

it after publication of facts related to it in the ASI Report.

3988

On basis of my personal knowledge, the layers below the

Layer No. 9 are proper. The layers above Layer No.9 have

not been properly identified. Had these layers been

properly identified, then the deposit of 18 layers found at

this archaeological site would not have been termed as

such. Some archaeological deposit and some natural

deposit is also claimed, which has not been given. Natural

deposit is that deposit which totally lacks man-made

remains and on its constitution, construction and contents

it is established to be nature made. According to me, silt

deposit was present here as natural deposit. After the silt,

there was such deposit over there which was man made.

The one in which man-made remains are found, will not be

part of silt. This silt deposit was about 8-10 inches thick.

Silt deposit was found there at two places, one in Layer-6

and the other in upper part of Layer-4. In its report, ASI

has not all mentioned about the silt deposit. The silt

deposit has been presented by the ASI as archaeological

deposit.

Question: Should the ASI have shown the silt deposit as a

separate layer ?

Answer: Yes.

It has not been done so by the ASI. Had the ASI

shown this silt as a separate layer, then also this layer

would have fallen under the 18 layers and there would

have been no increase in the number of layers. The deposit

of 18 layers given by ASI is correct, but its interpretation

is not." (E.T.C.)

^ ^e S au s bfrgkl Fk k sM +k cg qr i< +k g SA ^ ^ ¼ist 211½

3989

"I have studied a bit of history."(E.T.C.)

^^Lrjhdj.k iqjkrRo foKku dk cSdcksu gS vkSj ;fn ml cSdcksu dk

v/;;u lgh ugha gks ik;k] rks 'ks"k v/;;u fujFkZd ,oa vFkZghu gks tkrk

gS vkSj ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ dk LVªsVhxzkQ+h vkSj dzksuksykth dk fu"d"kZ

x+yr gSA blh vk/kkj ij geus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ dks x+yr le>kk gSA^^

¼ist 212½

"Stratification is back bone of archaeology and if this back

bone has not been studied properly, then the remaining

study becomes useless and meaningless. The stratigraphy

and conclusion of chronology in the ASI Report is wrong

and on this basis I have considered the ASI Report to be

wrong."(E.T.C.)

^^igys eSaus mldh LVªsVhxzkQ+h tkuus dh ps"Vk dh vkSj ;g ik;k fd

LV ª sV hx z kQ +h dh n ` f "V l s ftl vkeyd dk ft +d z bl fjik sV Z

e s a g S ] og mR[kuu l s i z k Ir gh ugh a g qvk g SA vr% mlds

lEcU/k esa vf/kd tkudkjh izkIr djuk O;FkZ gSA og vkeyd ,

0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa okY;we&1 dh Q+hxj &59 ij tgkWa rd eq>s

Lej.k gS] izdkf'kr gSA^^ ¼ist 214½

"I first attempted to find out its stratigraphy and found that

the 'Amlak' (myrobalan) mentioned in this report from

the angle of stratigraphy, had not been found in the

excavation. Hence, it was useless to gather more

knowledge in its behalf. As far as I remember, this 'Amlak'

is published at Figure 59 of ASI Report Vol. I."(E.T.C.)

^^vkeyd dh LVªsVhxzkQ+h ugha gksrh gSA vkeyd ftl pht+ ij cuk gksrk

gS] mldh LVªsVhxzkQ+h gksrh gSA vkeyd ¼vkCtsDV½ ds LVªsVhfQ+ds'ku dk

eSaus v/;;u fd;k gS vkSj ;g vkeyd dk ihl mR[kuu ls izkIr u

gksdj ljQ+sl ls izkIr gqvk gSA^^ ¼ist 215½

"Stratigraphy is not done of 'Amlak'. Stratigraphy is done

of the object on which the 'Amlak' is built. I have studied

the stratification of the 'Amlak' (object) and this piece of

3990

'Amlak' has been found at the surface and not from

excavation."(E.T.C.)

^^v/;;u ds ckn eSsaus ;g ik;k fd ;g vkeyd mR[kuu ls izkIr ugha

gqvk gS] cfYd ljQ+sl ds Åij MEi ls izkIr gqvk gS vkSj iqjkrRo dh

nf"V ls og iqjkrkfRod lkexzh Hkys gh gks] fdUrq mldk mi;ksx

iqjkrkfRod izek.k dh nf"V ls dHkh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA og MEi

iqjkrkfRod mR[kuu ls ckgj dk FkkA^^

^^iz'u& D;k mijksDr MEi [kqnkbZ LFky ds ckgj ls vk;k Fkk\

mRrj& bl MEi ds ckgj ls vkus dh laHkkouk dks udkjk ¼#yvkmV½

ugah tk ldrk gSA^^

^^e S au s fdlh dk s ckgj l s bl MEi dk s ykr s g q, ugh a n s[ k k

Fk kA bl MEi dk s ckgj l s y s vkuk #yvkmB ugh a fd;k tk

ldrk g S ] ^^ ¼ist 215½

"After studies I have found that this 'Amlak' has not been

found from excavation and instead has been found from

dump over the surface. From archaeological point of view

it may be an archaeological article but it can never be used

from the point of archaeological evidence. This dump was

besides the archaeological excavation.

Question: Had this dump come from outside the excavation

site ?

Answer: The possibility of this dump coming from outside

cannot be ruled out.

I had not seen anybody bringing this dump from outside.

The bringing of this dump from outside cannot be ruled

out."(E.T.C.)

^^eSa bl U;k;ky; esa lqUuh lsUVªy cksMZ vkQ oD+Q dh rjQ+ ls xokgh ns

jgk gWwaA eSaus Ms Vw Ms jftLVj vkt ls yxHkx 2&3 ekg iwoZ ns[kk FkkA

blds igys eSaus bl jftLVj dks ugha ns[kk FkkA^^ ¼ist 229½

"I am giving evidence in this Court on behalf of Sunni

3991

Central Board of Waqf. I had seen the day-to-day register

about 2-3 months ago. I had not seen this register

earlier."(E.T.C.)

^^iz'u& ,sls dkSu ls rF; Fks tks ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa ugha

fy[ks gSa\

mRrj& igyk ogk W a d s Lrjhdj.k d s l ac a/ k e s a flYV fMik ft +V

dk dk sb Z mYy s[ k u djuk n wljk , su hey ck sUl ij foLr `r

fjik sV Z u n su k rhljk Xy sT +M o s;j rFk k Xy sT +M VkbYl d s

ckj s e s a I k;k Z Ir tkudkjh u n su kA ; s e q[; rF; Fk s] ftudk

mYy s[ k ,0,l0vkb Z 0 dh fjik sV Z e s a ugh a g S A bld s vykok

vU; cg qr l s , sl s rF; g S a ftudk mYy s[ k fjik sV Z e s a ugh a

g S A t Sl s ljdqyj Jkbu dh lgh frfFk fu/k k Z j. k u djuk ]

dkydze dk lgh fu/k k Z j. k u djuk bR;k fnA bldk mYy s[ k

e S au s viu s e q[; ijh{ k k d s 'kiFk&i= e s a vo'; fd;k

gk sx kA ^ ^ ¼ist 232½

"Question: What are the facts, which have not been

mentioned by ASI in its report ?

Answer: Firstly, the non-mention of silt deposit in

context of the stratification over there. Secondly, the

non-furnishing of a detailed report on animal bones.

Thirdly, the non-furnishing of sufficient information

about glazed ware and glazed tiles. These were the main

facts, which have not been mentioned in ASI report.

Besides these, there are many other facts which have not

been mentioned in the report, such as the non-

determination of correct date of circular shrine, the non-

correct determination of chronology etc. I must have

mentioned these in the affidavit of my examination-in-

chief."(E.T.C.)

^^eSa VªsUp la0- th&7 esa mrjk Fkk vkSj ml VªsUp dks ns[kk Fkk] bl VªsUp ds

3992

ys;j la0 6 dk fujh{k.k fd;k FkkA tc ;g VªsUp cgqr xgjh [kksn nh

xbZ] rc eSaus bl VªsUp esa uhps mrj dj ugha ns[kkA tc eSa igyh ckj

mR[kuu LFky ij x;k Fkk] rc bl VªsUp th&7 dh iwjh [qknkbZ ugha gqbZ

FkhA e S au s mijk sDr i z Lrj d s n wljh rFk k rhljh i af Dr e s a ;g

fy[k k g S j ax ] xBu rFk k l ajpuk d s vk/ k kj ij o s flYV

dk sfV d s teko i zrhr gk sr s g S a e sj s ^ ^i zrhr^ ^ 'k Cn fy[ku s dk

rk Ri; Z ;g g S fd og flYV dk sfV dk teko gk s ldrk g S

vk S j ugh a H k h gk s ldrk g SA Lo;a dgk fdUrq tgkWa rd jhoj lsD'ku

dk eq>s vuqHko gS mlds vk/kkj ij bldh laHkkouk vf/kdre gS fd og

flYV fMikft+V gh gS vkSj bldk lgh fu"d"kZ rc rd ugha fudkyk tk

ldrk tc rd fd mldk jlk;fud ijh+{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk esa u fd;k

x;k gksA eSaus iz;ksx'kkyk esa bldk jlk;fud ijh{k.k ugha fd;k Fkk

D;ksafd eSa bldk ijh{k.k ugha dj ldrk Fkk D;ksafd mldk uewuk

miyC/k ugha FkkA eSaus mldk uewuk ugha ekWaxk FkkA e S au s bl i zLrj e s a

ik W apoh a i af Dr e s a ftl ^ ^i zrhr^ ^ 'k Cn dk i z;k sx fd;k g S

mll s H k h e sj k rk Ri; Z ogh g S tk s e S au s bl i zLrj d s rhljh

i af Dr e s a i z; qDr 'k Cn^ ^ i zrhr^ ^ dk crk;k g SA ^^ ¼ist 233&234½

"I had got down inside Trench No. G-7 and had seen that

trench, had inspected Layer No. 6 of this trench. After this

trench had been dug very deep, I did not see it by getting

inside this trench. When I first went to the excavation site,

this Trench G-7 had not been excavated completely. In

second and third line of the aforesaid paragraph I have

stated that 'on basis of colour, constitution and

construction, they appeared to be silt category deposits.'

By the word 'appear' it means that it could be and could

not be a deposit of silt category. Stated on his own that

'however as per my experience of river section, the

probability is maximum that it is silt deposit and its correct

conclusion cannot be derived till its chemical analysis has

been carried out in laboratory. I have not carried out its

3993

chemical examination in laboratory because I could not

carry out its examination as its sample was not available. I

had not asked for its sample. By the word 'appear' used by

me in fifth line of this paragraph as well, I imply the

same what I have given for the word 'appear' used in

third line of this paragraph."(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vius eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk&i= dh /kkjk&3 dh nwljh rFkk rhljh

iafDr esa ;g fy[kk gS fd ^^og ; q fDrl axr i zrhr ugh a gk sr k g S ^ ^

bl 'k Cn le wg e s a i z; qDr 'k Cn ^ ^i zrhr^ ^ dk ogh rk Ri; Z g S

tk s e S au s vHk h viu s Åij c;ku e s a crk;k g S ] bldk rkRi; Z

gk s ldu s rFk k u gk s ldu s nk su k s a l s g SA ^ ^ ¼ist &234½

"In the second and third line of para-3 of the affidavit of my

examination-in-chief, I have stated that 'It does not appear

reasonable'. The word 'appear' used in the said

sentence, means the same as just stated above by me in

my statement. It implies both 'possible' and 'not

possible'. "(E.T.C.)

^^fo}ku ftjgdrkZ vf/koDrk us lk{kh dk /;ku muds eq[; ijh{kk ds

'kiFk&i= dh /kkjk 6 (B)(iv) ¼'kiFk i= dk i"B 7 o 8½ dh vksj

fnyk;k ftlesa ;g fy[kk gqvk gS fd ys;j 4 dk Åijh Hkkx okyk teko

--- jax] xBu ,oa lajpuk dh nf"V ls i qu% nk s H k kxk s a e s a gk su k i zrhr

gk sr k g S ;gk W a ij ^ ^i zrhr gk sr k g S ^ ^ ] dk rkRi; Z ^ ^gk s ldu s

rFk k u gk s ldu s^ ^ nk su k s a l s g S fdUrq ;gkWa ij eq>s ;g dguk gS

fd oSKkfud vuqla/kku esa dHkh Hkh fdlh [kkst ds laca/k esa ;g ugaha dgk

tk ldrk gS fd u gks ldus dh fLFkfr ugha vk ldrh gSA^^ ¼ist 241½

"The learned counsel for the cross examiner drew the

attention of witness to para 6 (B)(iv)(page 7&8 of the

affidavit) of the affidavit of his examination-in-chief

wherein it has been stated that the upper deposit of Layer

No. 4, again appears to be in two parts from the point of

3994

colour, constitution and construction. Here 'appears'

implies both 'possible and not possible', but I have to

state at this stage that in scientific research it can never be

said regarding any discovery that the stage of not possible

cannot arrive." (E.T.C.)

^^esjs vuqlkj xqIrdky rhljh] pkSFkh 'krkCnh bZloh ls NBh 'krkCnh bZLoh

rd dk dky gSA NBh 'krkCnh bZLoh ds ckn dk dky iksLV xqIrk

ihfj;M dgk tkrk gSA e/; dky Hk kjr d s bfrgkl d s dky e s a

12oh a ' krk Cnh d s vUr l s o 13oh a ' krk Cnh d s 'k q#vkr l s

ekuk tkrk g SA lYrur ihfj;M dh 'kq#vkr 1206 bZLoh ls ekuh

tkrh gSA tgkW rd eq>s Lej.k gS ;g d+qrqcqn~nhu ,scd+ dk le;

FkkA^^¼ist 242½

"According to me the Gupta period extends from third,

fourth century AD to 6th century AD. The period subsequent

to 6th century AD, is called the post-Gupta period. The

period of medieval Indian History is considered to be

from last of 12th century to beginning of 13th century. The

beginning of sultanate period is considered to be from 1206

AD. As far as I remember, it was the period of Qutub-ud-

din Aibak." (E.T.C.)

^^,d iqjkrRofon~ ds :i esa th0ih0vkj0 dh lkbZfVfQd fjiksVZ ij

fo'okl djrk gwaA -----iqjkrkfRod nf"V ls th0ih0vkj0 losZ ds }kjk

tks ,ukfeyh feyrh gS mldh iqf"V iqjkrkfRod mR[kuu ,oa lk{;ksa }kjk

gksus ij mls iq"V gqvk ekuk tk;sxkA^^ ¼ist 266½

"As an archaeologist, I believe in the scientific report

of GPR. . . . .The anomalies found in a GPR survey, from

archaeological point of view, are treated confirmed upon

confirmation by archaeological excavation and evidences."

(E.T.C.)

^^th0ih0vkj0 ds ftu fiyjcslst++ rFkk LVªDpj dh mR[kuu ds }kjk iqf"V

3995

dh xbZ mldk fooj.k bl fjiksVZ esa gS fdUrq mlls eSa lger ugha gWwaA

fook fnr LFky ij mR[kuu d s fx zM flLVe dh fof/ k

viukb Z xb Z Fk hA ;g vUrjk Z "V ª h; Lrj ij ek U;rk i z k Ir

fof / k g S A mR[kuu e s a ,0,l0vkb Z0 }kjk Fk z h Mkbe s a' kuy

fof / k l s fjdk fM Z ax dh xb Z g SA VªsUp okbt+ rFkk ys;jokgt+

Q+ksVksxzkQ+h dh xbZ gSA fookfnr LFky ij ofVZdy rFkk gksjhts+UVy nksuksa

fof/k;ksa ls mR[kuu fd;k x;k gSA vk fd Z;k sy k sftdy mR[kuu dh

tk s ek U;rk i z k Ir fof/ k g S ] mld s vu qlkj gh fook fnr LFky

ij ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk mR[kuu fd;k x;k g S fdUrq dqN vU;

igyqvksa dh vuns[kh xbZ gSA^^ ¼ist 268½

"The details of those pillar bases and structures of GPR,

which have been verified by excavation, are found in this

report but I do not agree with them. The grid system

method of excavation was used at the disputed site. It is

a method recognised at international level. In

excavation, the ASI has carried out recoding by three

dimensional method. Photography has been carried out

trench-wise and layer-wise. Excavation has been carried

out at the disputed site by both vertical and horizontal

methods. The excavation at the disputed site has been

carried out by ASI as per the recognised method of

archaeological excavation, but few other aspects have

been overlooked." (E.T.C.)

^^mR[kuu esa ihjh;MkbZts+'ku ds nks rjhds gSa] igyk Lrjhdj.k nwljk izkIr

vo'ks"k dk Lrjhdj.k ls ikjLifjd laca/kA^ eSa le>rk gWaw fd ;g nksuksa

fof/k;kWa ihjh;MkbZts'ku dk vk/kkj Hkh gSa vkSj fof/k Hkh gSA iqjkrRo esa

Mk;usLVh ds vk/kkj ij Hkh dky fu?kkZj.k gksrk gS ;fn izklafxd vo'ks"k

izkIr gq, gksaA ;g dguk lgh g S fd i qj krRo e s a

ihjh;Mkb Zt s +' ku d s fy, rhu rjhd + s g S a igyk y s;j okbt +]

n wljk Mk;u sLVh okbt +] rhljk l sUp q j h okbt +A ^ ;g dguk

lgh g S fd l sUp q j h okbt ihjh;Mkb Zt s' ku i q j krRo e s a

3996

ekU;rk i z k Ir o SKk fud fof / k g S A e S a ,d i q j krRoo sRrk d s :i

e s a bl ckr l s lger g w a fd l sUp q j kokbt ihjh;Mkbt s' ku

bldk lcl s vPNk rjhdk g S A ,0 ,l0 vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa

ihjh;Mkbts'ku ds lca/k esa ,d psIVj j[kk gSA bl pSIVj dk eSaus

v/;;u fd;k gSA ,0 ,l0 vkbZ0 fjiksVZ esa rhuksa fof/k;ksa vFkZkr~ ys;j

okbt+] lsUpqjh okbt+ rFkk Mk;usLVhokbt+ ihjh;M] ds vk/kkj ij

ihjh;MkbZts+'ku fd;k gSA^^ ¼ist 269½

"There are two methods of periodization in excavation.

Firstly, stratification. Secondly, by co-relation of remains

found with stratification. I understand that these two

methods are not only bases but also methods of

periodization. In Archeology, dating is done on the basis of

dynasty as well, if relevant remains have been discovered.

It is correct to say that there are three methods of

periodization in archeology. First is layer-wise, second

dynasty-wise, third century-wise. It is correct to say that

century-wise periodization is a recognised and scientific

method in archeology. As an Archaeologist, I agree that

century-wise periodization is its best method. The ASI has

dealt with periodization in a chapter in its report. I have

studied this chapter. In ASI Report, periodization has been

done by all three methods i.e. layer-wise, century-wise and

dynasty-wise period."(E.T.C.)

^^fo}ku ftjgdrkZ vf/koDrk us lk{kh dk /;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ

okY;we 1 ds i"B 38 yx+k;r 44 ij fn;s x;s ihfj;M la0 1 yx+k;r 9

ij vkd"V fd;k rFkk lk{kh ls ;g iwNk fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fn;s x;s

bu lHkh ihfj;Mksa esa ihjh;Mkbt+s'ku dh mijksDr rhuksa fof/k;ksa dk iz;ksx

fd;k x;k gS vFkok ugha] lk{kh us bls ns[kus ds ckn crk;k fd gj

ihjh;Mksa ds laca/k esa ys;j] dky ,oa lsapqjh dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k

gSA l s ap q j h dk mYy s[k gj ih fj;M d s lkFk fd;k x;k g S A ^ ^

¼ist 270½

3997

"The learned counsel for the cross-examiner drew the

attention of witness to period no. 1 to 9 given at page 38 to

44 of ASI Report Vol. 1 and asked the witness whether the

aforesaid three methods of periodization had been used or

not by the ASI in all these periods. After looking at it the

witness stated that layer, period and century have not been

mentioned in respect of each period. Century has been

mentioned with each period."(E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk viuh fjiksVZ esa ihfj;Mkbt+s'ku ds laca/k esa lsapqjh ds

vuqlkj tks dky x.kuk dh x;h gS mlls eSa lger ugha gWwaA bl laca/k

esa eSa ;g dguk pkgWwxk fd ys;j] Mk;usLVh rFkk lsapqjh fof/k;ksa dks

iqjkrRo dh nf"V ls nks Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA igyk

jsysfVo MsfVax eSFkM nwljk ,clksywV MsfVax eSFkMA ,0 ,l0 vkbZ0 }kjk

ihfj;Mkbt+s'ku ds ckjs esa viuh fjiksVZ esa tks dgk x;k gS og lgh ugha

gSA lsapqjh fof/k }kjk tks dky dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS mu frfFk;ksa dk

fu/kkZj.k lksyj bZ;j ¼lkSj o"kZ½ }kjk ftu fof/k;ksa }kjk frfFk fu/kkZj.k dh

tkrh gSA bu fof/k;ksa }kjk fjiksVZ esa lsapqjhokbt+ tks frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh

xbZ gSA og mu fof/k;ksa ij vk/kkfjr ugha gSA bldk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd

fjiksVZ esa lsapqjh }kjk tks dky x.kuk dh xbZ gS og ,ClksY;wV MsfVax

eSFkM ij vk/kkfjr ugha gSA ,ClksY;wV MsfVax ds vUrxZr dkcZu MsfVax

rFkk vU; fof/k;kWa vkrh gSaA dkc Zu M sfV ax ih fj;Mkbt + s' ku dk ,d

o SKk fud rjhd +k g SA lkekU;r% dkc Zu M sfV ax l s tk s frfF k

vkrh g S ] mldk s lgh ekur s g S aA ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ esa dkcZu

MsfVax ds laca/k esa ,d visafMDl esa fn;k x;k gS ftldks eSaus ns[kk gSA ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 u s viu s vi s af MDl e s a ftu dkc Zu frfFk;k s a s dk

mYy s[ k fd;k g S mue s a yxHkx vf/ kdk a' k frfFk;k s a d s l ac a/ k

e s a y s;j dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% mldh fo'oluh;rk

lansgizn gks tkrh gSA^^ ¼ist 271&272½

" I do not agree with the period determination done as per

century by ASI in its report, in respect of periodization. In

this behalf I would like to say that layer, dynasty and

3998

century methods can be divided in two parts from the point

of archaeology. First, relative dating method, second,

absolute dating method. The version of ASI in its report

regarding periodization, is not correct. The dates of period

determined by century method, have been determined by

solar year, by which method dates are determined. The

dates determined century-wise in the report by these

methods, are not based on those methods. It implies that

the period determination done in the report by centuries, is

not based on absolute dating method. Carbon-dating and

other methods fall under absolute dating. Carbon-dating is

a scientific method of periodization. Usually the date

determined by Carbon-dating is accepted as correct. An

appendix regarding Carbon-dating is contained in ASI

Report, which has been seen by me. Layers have not been

mentioned in respect of most of the Carbon dates

mentioned by ASI in its appendix. Hence, its credibility

becomes doubtful." (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa ,u0ch0ih0MCyw0 dk dky tks ihfj;M

1 ds #i esa NBh 'krkCnh ch0lh0 ls rhljh 'krkCnh ch0lh0 fn[kk;k gS]

mlls eSa lger gWwaA^^ ¼ist 272½

"I agree with the period of NBPW shown by ASI in its

report as Period-I from 6th century BC to 3rd century

BC."(E.T.C.)

^^blh izdkj ,0,l0vkbZ0 ds fjiksVZ okY;we 1 ds i"B 40 ij ihfj;M 5

iksLV xqIrk&jktiwr ysfoy dks 7oha ls 10oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 crk;k x;k

gS] ftlls eSa lger ugha gWwA e sj s vu qlkj ;g vof/ k 13oh a

' krk Cnh l s 15oh a ' krk Cnh ,0Mh0 gk su h pk fg,A blh i"B ij

ihfj;M 6 e/;dkyhu&lYrur ysfoy dk dky 11oha ls 12oha 'krkCnh ,

0Mh0 crk;k x;k gS] ftlls eSa lger ugha gWwaA esjs vuqlkj ;g dky

3999

13oha 'krkCnh ls 15oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 gksuk pkfg,A blh fjiksVZ ds i"B

41 ij ihfj;M 7 ds #i esa e/;dkyhu ysfoy dk dky 12oha ls 16oha

'krkCnh ,0Mh0 crk;k x;k gS] blls Hkh eSa lger ugha gWwA esjs

vuqlkj ;g dky 13oha 'krkCnh ls 15oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 ds vUrxZr gh

vkosxkA blh fjiksVZ ds i"B 43 ij ihfj;M viii ¼eqx+y ysfoy½ dk dky

lsapqjh ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA esjs vuqlkj ;g dky 16oha

'krkCnh ,0Mh0 ls ekuk tk;sxkA blh fjiksVZ ds i"B 44 ij ihfj;M 9

ftls ysV ,UM iksLV eqx+y ysfoy dgk x;k gS] bldh frfFk Hkh ,

0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk lsapqjh esa fu/kkZfjr ugha dh xbZ gS] esjs vuqlkj ;g dky

16oha 'krkCnh ls 17oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 gSA esjs vuqlkj ihfj;M 8 rFkk

ihfj;M 9 dk ysV ysfoy 16oha ls 17oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 gSA iksLV eqx+y

ysfoy 17oha 'krkCnh ls vc rd gks ldrh gSA blh izdkj esjs vuqlkj

ihfj;M 6 vkSj ihfj;M 9 dk dky 13oha 'krkCnh ls 15oha 'krkCnh ,0Mh0

gSA ihfj;M 7 ds laca/k esa Hkh eSaus ;gh dgk gSA bl izdkj e S a ,

0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk fd; s x; s dky fu/k k Z j. k tk s ih fj;M 5] 6

rFk k 7 dk fd;k x;k g S ] d s vykok ,0,l0vkb Z 0 }kjk fd; s

x; s vU; dky fu/k k Z j. k l s lger g W W a wA ^ ^ ¼ist 273&274½

"In this very manner, on page 40 of the ASI report, Vol. I,

Period-5 Post Gupta-Rajput Level is stated to be belonging

to 7th to 10th century AD, with which view I do not agree. In

my opinion, this period ought to be from 13th century to

15th century. On this very page, Period-6: Medieval-

Sultanate Level has been ascribed to 11th to 12th century

AD, with which view I do not agree. In my opinion, this

period ought to be from 13th century to 15th century. On

page 41 of this very report, the Medieval Level is stated to

be Period-7 and to have spanned between 12th century and

16th century AD; with this view too I do not agree. In my

opinion, this period would be covered under the period

spanning between 13th century and 15th century. On page

43 of this very report, Period-8 (Mughal Level) is not dated

4000

in terms of century. In my opinion, this period will be taken

to have begun from 16th century. On page 44 of this very

report, Period-9, termed as Late and Post Mughal Level,

has also not been dated in terms of century by the ASI. In

my opinion, this period is from 16th century to 17th century

AD. The Post-Mughal Level may be from 17th century till

date. In this very manner, the span of Period-6 and Period-

9, in my opinion is from 13th century to 15th century AD. I

have stated this very thing in reference to Period-7 as well.

In this way, with the exception of dating done by ASI in

respect of Periods 5, 6 and 7, I agree with the dating

done by it in respect of other periods." (E.T.C)

^^eSaus viuh eq[; ijh{kk dk tks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS] og iz/kku #i

ls th&7 Vªsap ds v/;;u ij vk/kkfjr gS] D;ksafd Vªsap th&7 esa gh uspqjy

Lok;y rd tks Lrjhdj.k ds lk{; miyC/k gq, gSa] os fdlh vU; Vªsap esa

miyC/k ugha gSaA Vªsap th&7 dks bl iqjkLFky ij gq, mR[kuu dk

b.MsDl Vªsap Hkh dgk tk ldrk gSA esjh nf"V esa Vªsap th&7] b.MsDl Vªsap

gks ldrh gSA blds vfrfjDr ftu vU; Vªsapksa esa oftZu Lok;y rd

mR[kuu gqvk gS] os Vªsapst+ esjh nf"V esa mrus egRoiw.kZ ugah gSaA^^

¼ist 286&287½

"The affidavit I have filed at my Examination-in-Chief,

depends mainly on the study of Trench G-7, because

stratigraphical evidences which have been discovered upto

the depth of natural soil in Trench G-7 itself, are not

available in any other trench. Trench G-7 may also be

termed as index trench of the excavation carried out on this

archaeological site. Trench G-7, in my opinion, may be an

index trench. Besides, other trenches wherever excavations

have been carried out upto the depth of virgin soil, are, in

my opinion, not so important." (E.T.C)

1

4001

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 us lhfer le; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj

gk sj ht + s aVy rFk k ofV Zdy nk su k s a fof / k;k s a l s mR[kuu dk; Z

i w. k Z fd;k ] tk s ,d i z' k aluh; dk; Z g S ] fdUr q ftruh de

vof/ k e s a ;g fjik sV Z i zdk f' kr dh xb Z g S ] og i z ' k aluh;

ugh a g S A esjs fopkj ls fjiksVZ dh izLrqfr ds fy, ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks vkSj

le; fn;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ftl Lrj dk mR[kuu dk;Z ,

0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fookfnr LFky ij fd;k x;k Fkk] mldh fjiksVZ izLrqr

djus ds fy, ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks de ls de N% ekg dk le; vkSj fn;k

tkuk pkfg, FkkA de le; esa fjiksVZ izLrqr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k bl

fjiksVZ esa vusd fMfLdziSalh gSaA^^ ¼ist 290&291½

"Under the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the ASI by

using both the horizontal and vertical methods

completed excavation work in a limited time, which is

an appreciable work; but a short span of time in which

this report has been published is not appreciable. In my

opinion, the ASI ought to have been given more time for

submission of report. Considering the level of excavation

work which had been undertaken on the disputed site by the

ASI, it should have been given at least six months' more

time for submission of report. On account of submission of

report in less time, this report suffers from many

discrepancies." (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd Q+kbuy LVªsVhxzkQ+h rHkh lEHko gS] tc ml Vªsap

esa vafre Lrj rd mR[kuu iw.kZ dj fy;k tk;sA Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj esa

Q+kbuy LVªsVhxzkQ+h dk fy[kk tkuk lEHko ugha gksrk gSA izfrfnu ds

mR[kuu esa tks lkefxz;ka feyrh gSa] mlh dk mYys[k mlesa fd;k tkrk

gSA iz'uxr mR[kuu ds ckjs esa Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj esa izfrfnu izkIr gksus

okyh oLrqvksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA eSaus Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj dks viuh

eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa mR[kuu ls lacaf/kr viuk er O;Dr djus

ds fy, ,d vk/kkj cuk;k Fkk] bldk dkj.k ;g gS fd bl nLrkost+ ds

ek/;e ls gesa Ms&Vq&Ms ds mR[kuu ls izkIr lkefxz;ksa dk fooj.k fey

4002

ldrk Fkk vkSj ;g tkudkjh ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ }kjk izkIr ugha FkhA^^

¼ist 291&292½

"It is true to say that final stratigraphy is possible only

when excavation is carried out upto the last level at the

concerned trench. It is not possible to write about final

stratigraphy in Day-to-Day register. Whatsoever materials

are discovered at each day's excavation are mentioned

therein. As far as the excavation in question is concerned,

materials discovered therefrom on each day have been

mentioned in the Day-to-Day register. I used the Day-to-

Day register as a basis to express my opinion on the

excavation, in the affidavit filed at Examination-in-Chief;

its reason is that I could through this document get details

about the materials discovered at Day-to-Day excavations

and this information was not forthcoming from the ASI

report." (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd mR[kuu ds nkSjku vFkok mlds ckn tc eSaus

fookfnr LFky dk foft+V fd;k Fkk] rc e S au s ,0,l0vkb Z0 }kjk dh

xb Z LV ª sV hx z kQ +h ;k mR[kuu d s ckj s e s a dk sb Z vkif Rr ugh a

mBkb Z Fk hA ^^ ¼ist 295½

"It is true to say that when I, during or subsequent to the

excavation, visited the disputed site, I raised no objection

about the stratigraphy or excavation carried out by the

ASI." (E.T.C)

3838. The statement extracted above shows self

contradiction and lack of clarity on the part of PW-24.

3839. PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections

filed on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. It is for this

reason that she was examined first before re-examination of PW

16 and 24. The affidavit of PW 29 is dated 28.9.2005 and her

4003

cross examination was conducted from 29.9.2005 to 19.1.2006.

PW 24 was examined second time when he was produced in

respect to ASI report by filing his affidavit dated 5.12.2005 and

the cross examination conducted from 5.12.2005 to 4.1.2006. So

far as PW 16 is concerned, on third occasion his affidavit is

dated 20.2.2006 and cross examination held from 20.3.2006 to

28.7.2006. It is for this reason probably that the periodization/

chronology vis-a-vis its co-relation with various finds and

structures etc. found by ASI have been assailed in para 8 (from

para 8.1 to 8.6) of the objections of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4).

However, in her affidavit dated 28.9.2005, PW 29 has changed

her stand and in para 4 and she says:

“4. That the ASI Report has problems with stratigraphy

and chronology, which may be summarised as

under:-

(A) That as many as 15 pieces of terracotta figurines of

later periods were reported from earlier levels, an

impossible situation if deposits were actually

stratified. In fact, deposits from Gupta period

onwards are not stratified and the material is all

mixed up. This is a point that is not debated by the

ASI and has been repeated several times through the

Report.

(B) That there are clearly problems with the stratigraphy

which is indicated by other inaccuracies. If one

calculates the total depth of deposits in different

periods from a single trench such as G7, it is clear

that there are gaps. Specifically, in G7, there is 1

metre deposit for Period 1(NBP), 1.6 metre for

4004

Period II (Sunga), 1.5 metre for Period III (Kushan),

2 metre for Period IV (Gupta), 0.9 metre for Period V

(Post Gupta), 0.75 metre for Period VI (Early

Medieval), 0.6 metre for Period VII (Medieval) and

0.25 metre for Period VIII and Period IX has not

been indicated (as derived from Chapter III). This

totals up to 8.60 metres of cultural deposits.

According to the ASI, the total cultural deposit is

10.80 metre, which means that almost 2.20 metre is

not accounted for. Not only this, Appendix IV, at the

end of the book, mentions total depth dug for Trench

G7 as 13.45 metre. Even if the ASI points out that the

lower layers in G7 belong to a pit and we accept

their depth for natural as 10.80 metre, it still means

that there is a massive pit of about 2.65 metre depth,

which is a trifle difficult to imagine. There could have

been a fill as there is in Trench J3, but not a pit of

such dimensions.

(C) That the ASI also mentions a continuous cultural

occupation of the site. However, if we examine Plate

5 of the Final Report, a layer with no cultural

material (termed in archaeology as a sterile layer)

can be clearly seen, for example, below layer 4. The

ASI has marked out this layer but has not numbered

it. Sterile layers indicate periods when there was no

habitation or occupation. These layers are ascribed

to the Early Medieval/Sultatnate period (Period VI)

in the tentative periodization of the site. There is

then a possibility that there was no Early Medieval

4005

occupation and there was a gap between the Gupta

and the Medieval periods. This had been noted as

early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from

the Department of Ancient Indian History and

Culture, of BHU, Varanasi, which had noted a

desertion of the site between the Early Historic and

Medieval periods. (By neglecting to indicate the

sterile layers and their implications, the ASI is trying

to project a continuous occupation of the site from

the Early Historic to the Medieval periods. Neither

the stratigraphy nor the artefacts, however,

substantiate such a claim. There is a certain bias

here, which again goes against the norms of

archaeological objectivity, to force a certain

interpretation on the material, that from the 10th

century AD onwards the area was occupied by

Hindu religious structures.)

(D) That in the same context, the layering of fill deposits

in J3, J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to

show continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It

was only when complaints were made that these fill

deposits were acknowledged but eventual

registrations of artefacts from these deposits in the

final Report were left uncorrected.

(E) That in archaeology, structures can be dated if there

are special construction techniques or material,

known specifically to have been used in a particular

period, such as lime-surkhi from the end of the 12th

century AD. Structures can also be dated on the basis

4006

of associated artefactual material coming from

stratified contexts in association with the structures.

But when the material is all mixed up from the

Gupta period onwards, it is impossible to neatly

slot structural remains into periods of post-Gupta,

Early Medieval or Medieval levels.

(F) That in this attempt to force a particular

interpretation on the material that cannot be

substantiated, there is bound to be confusion and

discrepancies. Confusion is clearly indicated by the

manner in which floors are numbered at various

places in the text. The same floor is given different

numbers, some floors appear and disappear, their

extent keeps changing and so forth.) The numbering

of floors in association with so called “pillar bases”,

mentioned in the Table on pages 56-67 of the Final

Report does not match with those in Fig. 8,9,10,11,12

and 13. On page 41, it is mentioned that the earliest

floor extended in the eastern area up to the H series

of trenches in sub-period VIIA. In sub-period VIIB,

the next floor extended up to trenches J4-J5-J6. On

page 42, it is indicated that in sub-period VIIC, the

floor associated with the “pillar bases” is the most

extensive on the mound. In Fig. 23A, however, Floor

4 (the earliest floor) is shown as extending all over

the mound while Floor 3 and Floor 2 are more

restricted, providing a completely contradictory

picture.

(G) That the tentative periodization and schematic cross-

4007

section of the mound that has been provided between

page 37 and 38 of the Final Report does not provide

a layer-wise description of all the trenches. For

example, no information on layers has been provided

for important trenches like E8, F8, F9, G8, G9 and

G1. Even for trenches that have been mentioned in

the diagrams, we have no indication of the layers

below Floor 4 in important trenches like F3 and

F4/F5. (There should have been a concordance of the

layers of trenches from the north and south of the

site.)

(H) That in some cases strata were marked in almost

complete darkness within trenches such as G8. A

study of stratigraphy within a trench requires careful

examination of the sections to discern differences in

colour and texture of soil. Obviously plenty of light

is required for such a study. Even though there were

arrangements for artificial light, very often this was

not used as in the case of Trench G8 and yet strata

were marked and antiquities registered as from

particular layers.”

3840. PW 29, this time has taken stand which substantially

conforms to that of PW 24. In cross examination, she said :

“I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal

periods but with the rest of the periods I do not agree.

According to my information N.B.P.W. should be dated

from 600 B.C. to 100 B.C. whereas Shunga period is

second century B.C. which would overlap the N.B.P.W.

N.B.P.W. denotes Northern Black Polished Ware. N.B.P.W.

4008

is well known pottery of Northern India. From my point of

view archaeological periods should not be distinguished

on the basis of dynasties Kushan period is dated from Ist

to 3rd century A.D.” (Page 71)

“I have mentioned in para 4-A of my affidavit that deposits

from Gupta period onwards are not stratified. In this

regard I have to say that all the materials of earlier and

later periods, were mixed up. If the material is mixed up it

does not give a correct picture of the stratification.” (Page

74)

" I do not agree with the periodisation of the disputed site

at Ayodhya as shown by ASI in Chart, at page No. 37-A of

the ASI report, Volume-I" (Page 45)

"In para 3 A of my affidavit I have mentioned about

terminology ad periodization. The defects in terminology

and periodization show confusion in the report. Due to the

defect of terminology and periodization, the report of

ASI is also biased." (Page 70)

“Terminology and periodization play a significant role

but they are not most important. The terminology and

periodization can be changed. I would also have

problems with archaeologically identifying periods

according to dynasties. I do not know about universal

periodization.” (Page 70)

“Learned counsel drew the attention of witness towards

A.S.I. Report Vol. 1, (Text) at page no. 37-A. The witness

stated that in last column of page period has been

mentioned but I am not in agreement with this

periodization.” (Page 71)

4009

"… I think that the stratigraphy shown in this plate, is

correct. The layers are distinct in texture.” (Page 111)

“Starting period of Muslim rule in India is from 1206 A.D.

i.e. of Qutubuddin Aibak. I don’t know whether this period

is known as Illawari Turk. According to renowned

historians, the period before 1206 A.D. is known as

Early Medieval period. Since I have not read the book by

B.S. Smith, therefore I cannot say whether he refers to the

period from Harsha till 1200 A.D. as Rajput Period. I have

not heard about Anoop Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. I don’t

know whether the most authentic version of Prithviraj Raso

written by Chandbardai is maintained in this library. … I

would say Rigveda can be dated from 1500 B.C. Alexander

invaded India in 327-325 B.C. Mauryan dynasty was

established in 321 B.C. The Mauryas were succeeded by

Sunga dynasty. Sunga dynasty is dated from 2nd century

B.C. to 1st century B.C. Archaeologically, the periods

cannot be categorized on the basis of dynasties.” (Page

115-116)

“I will not agree with the statement even in para 1 to 5 just

because the period VI and VII have been changed in

nomenclature. In my view A.S.I.’s period V, and period

VI and period VII should be considered as Early

Medieval.” (Page 129)

“Stratigraphy is a term used in Archaeology. Stratigraphy

is the study of layers as they are formed over time. … The

Archaeology periods can be fixed on the basis of centuries.

Centuries can be put into various periods for the purposes

of study. Harappan period is dated from 2600 B.C. To 1900

4010

B.C. from 600 B.C. various Mahajanpad period was

followed by the Nandas and the beginning of Mauryan

period. During 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. the two dynasties

ruled while the Mauryan dynasty continued beyond 300

B.C. also." (Page 144)

"It is correct to say that for the purpose of periodization,

the method of century-wise study is better and preferable

to that of dynasty-wise. The period 800 AD to 1200 AD

falls within the Early Medieval period, which started much

earlier to 800 AD. … Early Medieval period lasted from

600 AD to 1200 AD. I know the periods in terms of pre-

Gupta, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. According to me,

Gupta period begins from fourth century AD and continued

up to sixth century AD and prior to that, was the pre-Gupta

period up to the time immemorial. Pre-Gupta period would

date back to 600 BC and post-Gupta is from 600 BC to

1200BC." (Page 150)

"Medieval period would be post 1200 A.D. According to

archaeology periodisation is on the basis of stratigraphy.

Ques- Will it not be correct to say that there are three well

established norms of periodisationm that ism no. 1 layer,

wise 2. century wise 3. Dynasty wise. ?

ANS- It is not correct to say that 'periodisation' in

archaeology can be done on the basis of 'dynasties'.

I do not agree that periodisation can be done century-

wise. Century-wise periodisation is covered by stratigraphy

or layer wise study. The numbering of the layers is done

from top to bottom. Where as periodisation is ascertained

from bottom to top.” (Page 182-183)

4011

“A.S.I. has mentioned about periodisation in its report. It is

correct to say that A.S.I. has adopted all the three methods

of periodisation mentioned above in its report. It is wrong

to suggest that A.S.I. has mentioned in its periodisation by

layers, century and dynasties. According to me some

periods were identified on the basis of century wise and

one was identified on the basis of archaeological

culture. I think A.S.I. has identified nine periods in its

report. According to me century has been mentioned in

all the above nine periods. Dynasty wise report is not

mentioned in all the above mentioned nine periods. A.S.I.

has given details of dynasties of four periods. The

dynasties mentioned by the A.S.I. are Shungas. Kushans,

Guptas, Mughal. A.S.I. has not mentioned any dynasty

other than the Mughal for the medieval period... I don't

agree with the identification of the period 'post Gupta

Rajput level. According to me the post Gupta Rajput part

of the period should be called as early medieval period

which should extend upto 1200 A.D. According to me

post' Gupta Rajput period will be period from 7th century

to 1200 A.D. … The term post 'Gupta Rajput period' is

used in archaeology, not in history. I have not heard about

the term Medieval-sultanate period in archaeology. I do not

agree that the period of 12th century is called as medieval

sultanate period in archaeology. Medieval period is

considered from 1200 A.D. Till the colonial period that is

13th century till 18th century.” (Page 183-185)

“I have heard about periodization on the basis of

dynasty. It is prevalent and used in Archaeology.

4012

Probably dynasty wise periodization commenced in the

1940's. It is correct to say that Medieval is a phase in

history.” (Page 186)

“I do not correlate medieval period with Islam because

Islam reached the sum continent much earlier. Islam

reached Sindh in 8th century AD. Islam would have reached

probably in Kerala through traders in 8th or 9th century AD.

I am of the opinion that in archaeology century wise

periodization is possible particularly for the earlier

periods. I think it will be more or less correct to say that

century wise periodization is correct method of

periodization in archaeology.” (Page 187)

“I have not done detail study of the periodization given

in appendix 1 on the bases of carbonating. As such I am

unable to express my opinion about information given in

appendix 1. As regards sample no. 9, which from trench

G7 (layer 20) is dated 1680 – 1320 BC. This layer

according to ASI was a pit and so these early dates have

little meaning.” (Page 188)

“ Periodization was done on the bases of layers, centuries

and dynasties. … I will not agree with periodization.

...According to me in history the dynasty wise, century wise

periodization for period is correct. In my opinion

periodization in history and archaeology is different. In my

opinion in archaeology the periods referred above as

period 1 to IV is the Early Historic period. . . .I will not

agree with the sun division on the basis of dynasty that has

been provided by ASI.” (Page 189-190)

“According to me the terms for identification for periods in

4013

history and archaeology are different but not altogether

different. . . . It is more or less correct to say that

periodization on the basis of centuries is correct." (Page

193)

3841. A few thing, which we may say immediately to

show apparent false allegations are that para 4(B) of the

complaint said that according to ASI, the total cultural deposit is

10.80 metre but Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mention

total depth dug for trench G7 as 13.45. The complainant

probably has not seen the report properly which says that the

natural soil was found at 10.80 metre but the ASI people dug the

trench further to find out and ensure the presence of natural soil

and this fact they have also mentioned in the report. Similarly,

PW-29 on the one hand stated that she agree with N.B.P.W.,

Mughal and late post Mughal periods, but do not agree for rest

of the period (Page 71) while PW-24 has expressed his

agreement with all other periods except 5, 6 and 7. Similarly, on

page 70, PW-29 says that terminology and periodization are not

most important while PW-24 has expressed a different view on

page 186 and says stratigraphy is the backbone of any

excavation. The statement of PW-29 on page 186 is

contradictory to what she has said on page 182-183.

3842. PW 30 (Dr. R.C.Thakran), though assailed ASI

report on the ground of lack of integrity and manipulated

nomenclature etc. but its main stress is not that of wrong

interpretation but she says that ASI has interchangeably used

periods VI and VII according to convenience so as to co-relate

the Finds, structural or otherwise, with a period which may give

it a desired result. The part of objection with respect to

4014

periodization of PW 30, we have already noted above in para

535 from page 598 to 602. In the cross examination, however,

he has said :

^^iqjkrkfRod mR[kuu vkSj mR[kfur lkexzh ds leqfpr fo'ys"k.k ds fy,

Vªsap dh LV~sVhxzkQh dk fuf'pr rkSj ij cgqr egRo gSA

iz0& Lrj& foU;kl vFkkZr~ fofHkUu Lrjksa ds fu/kkZj.k ¼LV~sVhfQds'ku vkQ+

ys;lZ½ dk D;k vk/kkj gksrk gS\

m0&iqjkrRo esa fdlh Hkh Lrj ¼ys;j½ dk fu/kkZj.k djus ds fy, ml Lrj

fo'ks"k esa ik;h tkus okyh lkexzh dk Lo:i o ijr dh cukoV e ftl

rjg dh feV~Vh lfEefyr gksrh gS] ;g Lrj&fu/kkZj.k djus esa eq[;

vk/kkj dk dke djrs gSaA

tc Hkh dHkh iqjkrRo esa [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku ys;j dh igpku dh

tkrh gS] rc ;g Hkh tkuuk vko';d gksrk gS fd ml ys;j dh feV~Vh

dh lajpuk D;k gS] mldk jax D;k gS] mldh dBksjrk dSlh gS] mlesa

ekuo&fufeZr lkexzh gS ;k ugha] bu lHkh ckrksa dk fo'ks"k /;ku j[kk

tkrk gSA gkykafd] mijksDr vk/kkj cgqr egRoiw.kZ gSa] ysfdu blds

ckotwn Hkh Lor% irksZa ¼ys;jlZ½ ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkphu dky ds

vo'ks"kksa okyh ;g ys;lZ fHkUu fHkUu gSaA budh igpku djus ds fy,

iqjkrRoosRrk dks gh iqjkrRo fu;eksa ds vuqlkj bu ys;lZ dh

vyx&vyx igpku djuh t:jh gksrh gsA ys;lZ dh eksVkbZ

vyx&vyx gks ldrh gS] eksVkbZ vyx gksus ds fy, fofHkUu dkjd gks

ldrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 63&64½

“Question:- What is the basis of stratification of layers ?

Answer:- In stratification of any layer, the form of the

material discovered in that particular layer and the type of

soil inherent in the formation of its coats, work as main

bases in archaeology.

In archaeology, whenever identification of a layer is

carried out in course of digging, it is also necessary to

know what the soil structure of that layer is, what its

colour is, how hard it is and whether man made materials

4015

are in it or not. All these facts are specially taken into

account. Despite the afore-said bases being very important,

it is not clear from layers themselves that these layers

comprised of remains of the ancient time are different. For

their identification, it is necessary for an archaeologist to

separately identify them in accordance with rules of

archaeology. The width of layers may be different which

may be due to several factors.” (E.T.C.)

^^VsªUp ds [kksns tkus ij LVªsVhxzkQ+h dh ys;lZ dh ekfdZxa ¼uEcfjax½ Åij

ls uhps dh vksj dh tkrh gS tcfd mR[kuu ls izkIr fofHkUu lkaLdfrd

dkyksa dh ekfdZax uhps ls Åij dh rjQ+ dh tkrh gSA vxj ys;j la0 2

ij ys;j la0 3 LFkkfir gS rks ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd ^^ys;j 2 jsfLVax vku

ys;j Fkh*A ¼ist 66½

"On trenches being dug up, stratigraphical layers are

marked from top to bottom; whereas several cultural

periods discovered as a result of excavation are marked

from bottom to top. If layer no. 3 is placed on layer no. 2, it

will taken to mean 'layer-2 resting on layer-3.” (E.T.C.)

^^'kaqx ds ckn dUuo o dq"kk.k dky vkrs gSa vkSj dq"kk.k dky ds ckn eksVs

rkSj ij xqIrk dky vkrk gSA xqIrdky dk var 600 bZLoh esa vkdj [kRe

gks tkrk gSA xqIrdky ds ckn lkekU; rkSj ij vyhZ fefMoy ihfj;M dh

bfrgkl esa 'kq:vkr ekuh tkrh gSA vyh Z fefMoy ih fj;M 600 ,

0Mh0 l s 'k q: gk sr k g S vk S j fnYyh lYrur d s LFk k fir gk su s

rd ;gh dky pyrk g SA fnYyh lYrur dh LFk kiuk 1206

b Z Loh e s a g qb Z blh fy, 600 ,0Mh0 l s y sdj 1206 ,0Mh0 dk s

vyh Z fefMoy ih fj;M d s uke l s tkuk tkrk g S A 600 ,0Mh0

ls 1200 ,0Mh0 ds chp esa fnYyh ij vusd oa'kksa ds jkT; le;&le;

ij jgsA eq[; rkSj ij xgM+oky] pkSgku] xwtj izfrgkj] pkyqD; vkfn ds

jkT; fnYyh o fnYyh ds vkl ikl esa jgsA fQj dgk fd pkyqD; dk

{ks= fnYyh ds vkl&ikl ugha Fkk] og mRrjh egkjk"V~ esa gksrk FkkA ;g

Bhd gS fd mijksDr pkjks oa'kt vius dks jktiwr dgrs FksA ;g Bhd

4016

g S fd dk sb Z bfrgkldkj ;fn fdlh fo'k s" k { k s= dk s vyh Z

fefMoy dky d s jkti wr dky l s l ac k sf / kr djuk pkg s] rk s

dj ldrk g S ] ijUrq bfrgkl esa ogn :i esa bl dky dks vyhZ

fefMoy dky ds uke ls gh tkuk tkrk gSA** ¼ist 111&112½

"The Shunga period is followed by Kannav and Kushana

periods and the Kushana period is, roughly speaking,

followed by the Gupta period. The Gupta period comes to

an end in 600 AD. Generally, the history of early

medieval period is considered to have started after the

Gupta period and this very period continues up to the

emergence of Delhi Sultanate. The Delhi Sultanate

came to be established in 1206 AD and hence the period

spanning between 600 AD to 1206 AD is known as early

medieval period. Between 600 AD to 1200 AD Delhi was

under the reign of several dynasties from time to time.

Mainly, Gahadwals, Chauhans, Gujar-Pratihars,

Chalukyas, etc. had their reigns in Delhi and its adjoining

areas. (Further Stated ) The territory of Chalukya was not

in and around Delhi; it was in northern Maharashtra. It is

true that those belonging to the afore-said four dynasties

called themselves Rajputas. It is true that if any historian

wants to name a particular period as the Rajput period

under early medieval period, he can do so but this period,

under the broader division in history, is known only as

early medieval period.” (E.T.C.)

^^Mk;usfLVd ihfj;M esa 'kaqx] dq"kk.k] xqIrk rFkk iksLV xqIrk ihfj;M vkrk

gSA ik sLV x q Irk ih fj;M e s a gh jkti wr ih fj;M dk s lfEefyr

dj fy;k tkrk g S A bld s ckn dk dky lYrur dky dgk

tkrk g S A lYrur dky ds ckn eqxy dky vkrk gSA eqxy dky ds

ckn mRrj eqxy dky vkrk gSA mRrj eqxy dky ds ckn vk/kqfud

4017

Hkkjr dky] ftls fczfV'k dky Hkh dgk tkrk gS] vkrk gSA

eqxy Mk;usLVh lu~ 1526 bZ0 ls ysdj 1707 bZ0 rd eq[; rkSj

ij ekuh tkrh gSa eqxyoa'k dk izkjEHk ckcj us fd;kA** ¼ist 192½

“The dynastic periods include Shunga, Kushana, Gupta

and post Gupta periods. The Rajput period is included in

the post Gupta period itself. Its subsequent period is

called Sultanate period. This Sultanate period is followed

by the Mughal period. The Mughal period is followed by

later Mughal period. The later Mughal period is followed

by modern Indian period, which is also called the British

period.

The Mughal dynasty is mainly dated from 1526 to

1707. Babur ushered in the Mughal dynasty.” (E.T.C.)

^^fefMoy dky vius esa foLrr dky gS tks lu~ 600 ,0Mh0 ls 'kq:

gksdj lu~ 1707 rd pyrk gS vkSj bl iwjs dky ds vUrxZr dbZ mi

dky gSa] tSls lu ~ 600 l s 1200 rd vyh Z fefMoy dgykrk g S

vkSj lu~ 1206 ls 1526 rd lYrur dky dgk tkrk gS o lu~ 1526 ls

1707 rd eqxy dky dgykrk gSA** ¼ist 113½

“The medieval period in itself is a broad period which

begins from 600 AD and continues up to 1707 and the

whole of this period has many sub-periods, for example-

the period between 600 to 1200 AD is called Early

Medieval period; the period between 1206 to 1526 is

called Sultanate period and the period between 1526 to

1707 is called the Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)

^^Hk kjrh; i q j krRo bfrgkl e s a e q fLye ih fj;M 'k Cn dk

i z;k sx ugh a g qvk g S ] y sfdu fc z fV'k bfrgkldkjk s a u s H k kjrh;

bfrgkl d s e/; dky dk s e q f Lye dky lkfcr dju s dh

dk sf ' k' k dh g S A - - - - - - -t sEl fey u s bl dky dk s

e q fLye dky dk uke fn;k g S A t sEl fey u s lYrur dky

4018

o e qxydky dk s e q fLye dky d s v anj j[k k g S vFkkZr~ eqfLye

dky ds vanj midky ds vUrxZr mls ekuk gSA** ¼ist 113&114½

“The words 'Muslim period' are not used in Indian

archaeology and history but British historians have tried

to establish the Medieval period of Indian history as the

Muslim period . . . . . .. James Mill has named this

period the Muslim period. James Mill has placed the

Sultanate period and the Mughal period under the

Muslim period, that is to say, he has taken them to be sub-

periods of the Muslim period.” (E.T.C.)

^^11oha 'krkCnh esa xgM+oky 'kkldksa dk jkT; dUukSt ij FkkA**¼ist 113½

“In the 11th century, Kannauj was under the reign of

Gahadwal rulers.” (E.T.C.)

^^Hkkjrh; bfrgkl esa fdlh ihjh;M dsk ^^bLykfed ihfj;M** ugha dgk

tkrk gSA e S au s viuh e q[; ijh{ k k d s 'kiFk i= e s a ,d txg

ij ^ ^bLyk fed ih fj;M* * 'k Cn dk i z;k sx fd;k g S ] esjk blls

rkRi;Z ;g gS fd bl dky esa XysTM VkbYl] XysTM ikWVjh dk efLtn esa

iz;ksx fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd bfrgkl esa

ihfj;Mkbts'ku ds ukedj.k dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA eSaus vius 'kiFk&i=

esa ^^bLykfed ihfj;M** 'kCn dk iz;ksx bfrgkl rFkk iqjkrRo ds lUnHkZ esa

ugha fd;k gS] cfYd dqN [kkl rF;] ftudh ppkZ Åij dh xbZ gS] ds

lEcU/k esa fd;k gSA eSaus bl 'kCn dk iz;ksx bLykfed izpyuksa ds fy,

fd;k gSA --- e S au s viuk 'kiFk&i= ,d i qj krRoo sRrk d s #i e s a

i z Lr qr fd;k g S A ** ¼ist 228&229½

“No period of Indian history, is called ‘Islamic period’. I

have used the term ‘Islamic period’ at one place in the

affidavit of my examination-in-chief, by which I mean

that glazed tiles, glazed pottery were used in mosques in

this period. It is not correct to say that nomenclature of

periodisation has no importance in history. The term

4019

‘Islamic period’ has not been used by me in my affidavit

with reference to history and archaeology, and instead has

been used for certain particular facts, which have been

discussed above. I have used this term for Islamic

practices. …I have filed my affidavit as an

archaeologist.” (E.T.C)

^^bfrgkl esa rFkkdfFkr bLykfed 'kkldksa ds jkT; dk dky lu~ 1206

bZ0 ls 'kq# gksdj 18oha 'krkCnh ds e/; rd ekuk tkrk gSA ;gkWa ij

rFkkdfFkr ls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd e/;dky d s bl Hk kx dk s

bLyk fed ih fj;M d s uke l s H k h le>r s g S aA cg qr l s

bfrgkldkjk s a u s bl ih fj;M dk s bLyk fed ih fj;M dgk g SA

eSa fdlh ,sls izfl) bfrgkldkj dk uke vFkok mudh iqLrd dk uke

ugha crk ikÅWaxk] ftUgksaus vFkok ftudh iqLrd esa ^^bLykfed ihfj;M**

'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k gksA --- bfrgkl esa Mk;usLVh ds vk/kkj ij dky

fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus dks eSa Bhd ugha ekurk gwWa] ijUrq bfrgkldkjksa us

Mk;usLVh ds vk/kkj ij dky&fu/kkZj.k fd;k gSA** ¼ist 229½

“In history, the period of the alleged Islamic rulers is taken

from 1206 AD to mid of 18th century. By ‘alleged’, I mean

that this portion of the medieval period is taken as

‘Islamic period’. Many historians have termed this

period as ‘Islamic period’. I will not be able to name any

famous historian or his book, where the term ‘Islamic

period’ has been used. … I do not approve determination of

periods in history, on basis of dynasty but historians have

determined periods on basis of dynasties.” (E.T.C)

(Note: The statement on page 229 is contrary to what the

witness has said on page 228)

^^iz0&D;k bfrgkl esa fdlh fo'ks"k leqnk; ;k dE;qfuVh vFkok fdlh

fo'ks"k oxZ ;k fdlh fo'ks"k /keZ ds vk/kkj ij dkydze dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k

tkrk gS\

4020

m0&cgqr ls bfrgkldkj bu vk/kkjksa ij bfrgkl dk foHkktu o

ukedj.k djrs gSa] ysfdu bfrgkl ds oSKkfud nf"Vdks.k ls bls mfpr

ugha ekuk tkrk gSA ¼ist 231½

“Question:- Is period determined in history on basis of any

particular community, class or religion?

Answer:- Many historians divide and name history on these

bases, but from scientific view of history, it cannot be

considered proper.” (ETC)

iz0&vkids mijksDr mRrj ls D;k eS ;g le>wWa fd vki }kjk iz;qDr

^^bLykfed ihfj;M** 'kCn dk iz;ksx mfpr ugha gS\

m0& ;g dguk lgh ugha gS] D;ksafd eSaus bl lUnHkZ esa bl dky ds

fodkl&dze ds fo'ks"k izpyuksa dh rjQ b'kkjk djrs gq, ,slk fy[kk gSA**

¼ist 231½

Question:- Should I infer from your above reply that the

use of term ‘Islamic period’ by you, is not proper?

Answer:- It is not correct to say so, because in this

reference I have mentioned so by referring to the particular

practices of development-chain of this period.”(E.T.C)

^^mR[kuu esa ys;lZ dh uEcfjax Åij ls uhps dh vksj gksrh gS rFkk

ihfj;M dk fQ+Dls'ku uhps ls Åij dh vksj gksrk gSA** ¼ist 345½

“At excavation, layers are numbered from the top to the

bottom and fixation of periods is done from the bottom to

the top.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkb Z0 u s tk s ih fj;MMkbt + s' ku y s;l Z d s vu qlkj

fd;k g S ] og lgh g S ] ijUrq ukedj.k ds fglkc ls lgh ugha gS vkSj

u gh oa'kkoyh ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k ukedj.k mfpr gSA

ihfj;Mkbt+s'ku dh MsfVax dh eq[; rkSj ij nks fof/k;kWa gSa&

1- lkisf{kd fof/k

2- oSKkfud fof/k

fjysfVo ihfj;MkbZts'ku ,d rks LV~sVhxzkQh ds eqrkfcd vkSj nwljh

igys dh laLdfr dh lkexzh rqyukRed fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ijA

4021

,ClksY;wV o lkbafVfQd fof/k;kWa ,d gh gSaA bl fof/k dks dzksuksfefV~d Hkh

dgrs gSaA dkcZu MsfVax esFkM o FkeksY;wfefulsal esFksM] MsM~ksdzksuksykWth

MsfVax esFkM vkfn gSaA ;g dguk ges'kk ds fy, lgh ugha gksxk fd

,ClksY;wV MsfVax ;k oSKkfud fof/k ls fd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku ,dne

Bhd gksxkA ;g dguk Hkh lgh ugha gS fd lkbafVfQd fof/k dk

ihfj;Mkbt+s'ku izk;% lgh gh gksxkA Lrjhdj.k }kjk fd;k x;k

ihfj;Mkbts'ku Hkh 'kr izfr'kr fu.kkZ;d ugha gksrkA nksuksa fof/k;ksa }kjk

fd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku rFkk nksuksa fof/k;ksa }kjk rqyukRed fo'ys"k.k

djhc&djhc lgh ekuk tk ldrk gS] ijUrq ,ClksY;wVyh duDywftc

ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkfdZ;ksykth esa lkbafVfQd fof/k }kjk

fd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku duDywft+o gh gksxkA D;ksafd bu fof/k;ksa ds }

kjk tks frfFkdj.k fd;k tkrk gS og mR[kuu esa mR[kfur fd, x,

lSEiy dk iz;ksx'kkyk esa fd, x, fo'ys"k.k ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj lSEiy

ysrs oDr mfpr lko/kkfu;kWa cjruk] lSEiYl dh lgh iSafdax djuk]

lSEiYl dh lgh ekfdZax djuk vkSj lSEiYl dk ,dne izkd`frd 'kfDr;ksa

ls izHkkfor gksuk vko';d gSA** ¼ist 351&352½

“The periodization which ASI has done on the basis of

layers, is correct, but the same, when based on

nomenclature, is not correct, nor is it proper to name them

(i.e. periods) on the basis of genealogies. There are mainly

two methods of dating through periodization -

1. Relative method

2. Scientific method

Relative periodization may be based on stratigraphy

and on the comparative analysis of the materials of the

earlier culture. Absolute and scientific methods are one and

the same .This method is also called chronometric. There

are methods known as carbon-dating method, thermo-

luminescence method, dedo -chronology dating method,

etc. It will not always be correct to say that periodization

carried out through absolute dating or scientific method

4022

will be entirely correct. It is also not correct to say that

scientific method of periodization will often be correct .

The periodization carried out through stratification is also

not cent percent conclusive . Periodization and

comparative analysis through both the methods, may be

considered to be almost correct . But they are not

absolutely conclusive . It is wrong to say that in

archaeology the periodization carried out through

scientific method will certainly be conclusive , because the

dating done through these methods is based on analysis

done in laboratories ,of samples excavated in course of

excavations . And while taking samples, proper care should

be exercised, samples should be properly packed and they

should be properly marked. And it is natural for samples to

get absolutely influenced by natural forces.” (E.T.C.)

^*,0,l0vkbZ0 us LV~sVhxzkQh ds pSIVj esa dkcZu MsfVax ds vk/kkj ij ftl

MsafVax dk mYys[k fd;k gS] mls eSa lgh ugha ekurk] D;ksafd ,0,l0vkbZ0

ds }kjk tks ihfj;Mkbts'ku fd;k x;k gS] og gh vuqfpr gSA --- ,

0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk lsUpqjht ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ dky x.kuk dh fof/k dks

eSa lgh ekurk gwWaA

iz'u& D;k vkidks bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh

fjiksVZ eas fofHkUu ys;lZ dh dkyx.kuk tks 'krkCnh esa fd;k gS] mlesa

dkcZu MsafVax ds fjtYV dks vk/kkj cuk;k gS\

mRrj& laHkor% ;g lgh gS] ijUrq esjk er gS fd dsoy ek= dkcZu

MsafVax }kjk izkIr dh xbZ MsafVax ds vk/kkj ij dky foHkktu dks lgh

ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA** ¼ist 354½

“I do not take to be correct the dating, done through

carbon dating method, about which A.S.I. has mentioned

in a chapter on stratigraphy, because the periodization

itself carried out by ASI is improper. … I take to be correct

4023

the method of century-based reckoning done by ASI.

Question:- Do you have the knowledge that the dating of

several layers which ASI has in its report done in terms of

centuries, is based on the result of Carbon-dating method

applied to them ?

Answer:- It is perhaps correct but my opinion is that the

division of time done on the basis only of Carbon-dating

cannot be treated to be correct.”(E.T.C.)

(Note: The statement of witness is contrary to what PW 24

has said as also this very witness has stated on page 351

and 352)

3843. PW 31 did not make any comment with respect to

stratification but PW 32 has virtually towed the line as that of

PW 24 and 29 in her affidavit. She has said in para 6 of her

affidavit dated 27.3.2006 about stratigraphy as under:

“That one of the most important concepts in archaeology is

stratigraphy. “The law of superposition states that the book

at the bottom of the stack was put there before, and is

therefore older, than the one placed at the top. Sediments

generally obey this principle as well as the archaeological

materials they contain … The essence of stratigraphic

analysis is determining discrete, superimposed layers of

features and then examining their contents.” It was so

stated by Clive Gamble in his book entitled as

“Archaeology: The Basics”, published by Routledge

(London & New York) 2001. A true copy of the relevant

extract of the aforesaid book is enclosed herewith as

ANNEXURE No. 1. An examination of the stratigraphy as

indicated by the sections of various trenches at the site of

4024

Ayodhya revealed the following three important features:

(i) That only the archaeological deposits of Periods I,

II and III are stratified and hence found in a

primary context, that is in their original place of use

or discard.

(ii) That the deposits from Period IV till Period IX are

not stratified and the material found is in a

secondary context. In order words the

archaeological deposits that have been described of

Periods IV to IX mostly comprise of fill deposits

brought from elsewhere for the purpose of

construction in the Medieval Period. Hence this is

not their original place of use or discard. The

deposits from the Gupta Period onwards are not

stratified is substantiated by the fact that as may as

15 pieces of terracotta figurines of later periods were

reported from earlier levels, an impossible situation

if deposits were actually stratified. The ASI was

Stratifying the layers incorrectly was even pointed

out through a complaint filed on 26.06.2003

regarding Trench G8. In Trench G8, under the top

floor are the brick courses of a wall foundation.

Under these brick courses is a fill deposit. Neither

the foundation nor the fill deposit can be ascribed a

layer. It appears that this stratification was done on

the basis of the calcrete and brick filling that lies to

the east. However, this method of stratification is

completely wrong. The calcrete and brick filling

visible in trench G8 belongs to a single construction

4025

phase and cannot be ascribed separate layers.

Moreover, the area that was excavated on 25th June

lies to the west of the clacrete and brick filling. Thus,

if stratification of the filling is wrong, stratifying a

structure in relation to it is also incorrect. The whole

principle behind stratification is to identify

chronologically distinct phases. Thus, a brick wall of

six courses of brick can not be ascribed six different

layers. Similarly, six rows of calcrete alternating with

brick, sandwiched with thick mortar, cannot be

ascribed six different layers, the reason in both cases

being a single construction phase.

(iii) That there is a possibility that there was no Early

Medieval occupation and there was a gap between

the Gupta (Period IV) and the Medieval Periods. If

we examine Plate 5 of the Final Report, a layer with

no cultural material (termed in archaeology as a

sterile layer) can be clearly seen, for example, below

layer 4. The ASI has marked out this layer but has

not numbered it. Sterile layers indicate periods when

there was no habitation or occupation. These layers

are ascribed to the Early Medieval/ Sultanate Period

(Period VI) in the tentative periodization of the site.

A gap in occupation of the site between the Early

Historic and Medieval Periods had been noted as

early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from

the Department of Ancient Indian History and

Culture, at BHU, Varanasi, and later in 1976-77 by

Professor, B.B. Lal and his team from the A.S.I. The

4026

ASI is trying to falsely project a continuous

occupation of the site from the Early Historic to the

Medieval Periods. Neither the stratigraphy nor the

artefacts, however, substantiate such a claim. There

is a certain bias here, which again goes against the

norms of archaeological objectivity, to force a

certain interpretation on the material, that from the

10th century AD onwards the area was occupied by

Hindu religious structures.

In the same context, the layering of fill deposits in J3,

J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to show

continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It was only

when complaints were made that these fill deposits were

acknowledged but eventual registrations of artefacts from

these deposits in the final Report were left uncorrected.”

3844. In her cross examination, however, she (PW-32)

says:

“There is no period known as early medieval Saltanate

period. I have not heard any period which is called as

'Early Mughal period'. I came across the 'Early Medieval

Rajput Period' in the ASI report filed in this case. Process

of periodization is based on certain features found in polity,

society and economy. Stratification is based on discerning

layers in sections that have formed due to either geological

or human activities.”(Page 31)

“I mean to say that ASI people have flouted the principles

and methods of stratification, such as the fill deposit has to

be reported as a fill deposit and a pit has to be reported as

a pit but in the excavation in question, the ASI was wrongly

4027

stratifying a pit and in the report they themselves have

gone on record saying that pits in J-3 and also in K-7

and K-8 were wrongly identified as layers and they

themselves admitted that pits were stratified and they

have stated so in the report.” (Page 93)

“Marking of different layer is done on the basis of soil

colour, soil texture, compactness of the soil and cultural

material.” (Page 110)

“It is correct that several layers put together comprise one

cultural period. Contemporary, layer means it is in relation

to some other layers, e.g. Layer 14 in J-3 could be

contemporary with layer 18 in trench G-7, both belonging

to NBPW period. Similarity of number is not necessary

because it may vary from trench to trench.” (Page 111)

“Method of association in archaeology means associated

cultural material in a layer. In a layer, so many different

articles may be found, such as bangles, potteries, bones

etc.” (Page 112)

“I have learnt from the report of Prof. A.K. Narain that the

entire Ayodhya is one site and stratification can be similar.

In archaeology entire Ayodhya would be referred to as one

site.” (Page 130)

“'Stratigraphy' means a study of layers of different

chronological periods indicating what comes earlier is at

the bottom and what follows will be above it and so the

sequences gets built up 'Early historic period' is a term

used by historians to describe the period between sixth

century B.C. and sixth century A.D. and 'medieval' is used

by the historians for the period between 12th and 18th

4028

centuries. The period between sixth century A.D. to 12th

century A.D. is called 'early medieval period'. The

medieval period has been further sub-divided into two

periods, namely 'Sultanate period' and 'Mughal period'.

There is no period like pre-Sultanate period.” (Page 23)

“This chronological order was created by James Mill who

wrote the book 'History of India in 1830. 'Filling' means

that for the purpose of construction activities, a ground has

to be levelled and while doing so, some earth is brought

from outside to fill up the uneven ground. ”(Page 23)

“...the whole issue of periodization in history and

archeology is contested and debates are there.”(Page 36)

“Early medieval-6/7th century up to 12th Century A.D.

Medieval-Generally 12th to 18th Century A.D.

late medieval-Generally 18th century or late Mughal

period.” (Page 107)

“As far as I know Century wise periodization is

recognised under archaeology because certain diagnostic

material do establish chronology in terms of centuries.

Dynasty-wise periodization is a subject of historians

although sometimes Archaeologists do follow it. It is true

that in excavation on the disputed site the ASI has adopted

all the three methods for the purpose of periodization.”

(Page 125-126)

“Volunteers that she does not agree with the periodization

given by the ASI.” (Page 126)

3845. PW 32 in general appreciated function of ASI:

"It is true that each trench was being supervised by an

archaeologist. It is also correct to say that excavation was

4029

being conducted as per norms of grid system of excavation-

which is one of the accepted system of excavation. It is

correct to say that the excavation work was going on in

presence of the parties and their nominees; and two

judicial officers under the orders of the court were also

supervising the excavation. So long I was there, the

presence of the parties, their nominees and supervision

of the judicial officers continued. Generally, for

antiquities, it was three dimensional recording but for other

finds, just a depth was recorded. Photography and Video

recording of trenches and also of antiquities were also

being done.” (Page 121)

“It is true that at the site in dispute, excavations were made

horizontally as well as vertically.” (Page 123)

“It is correct to say that the ASI excavated up to the

required depth.” (Page 125)

“It is correct to say that for getting result in compliance of

court orders excavation by horizontal and vertical methods

were necessary which has been done by ASI. In this case

only vertical excavation was not sufficient.” (Page 147)

3846. From the statement of the six expert witnesses

produced on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-4), we find that all of them

are not unanimous in saying that the entire stratigraphy or

periodization made by ASI is bad or incorrect or suffers such

material illegality or irregularity that the same deserves to be

rejected, which would ultimately may result in rejection of the

entire report itself. Their statements are also contradictory,

vague, confused and based on more of conjectures.

3847. PW 16 on the one hand says that he has no objection

4030

to the categorization of period 1 to 5 (page 455), tried to dispute

the ascertainment of period 6-7 (page 454), then on page 456

made some unclear statement by observing that period 7 should

come after period six as Sultanate period. What appears to us is

that in the ASI report the period 6 has been termed as "Medieval

Sultanate" and period 7 as Sultanate but PW 16 wanted that

period 6 should not be termed as "Sultanate" at all since it

started in 13th century. He, however, suggested that in another

manner period 6 ought to have started with 13th century if it is

related with "Sultanate period".

3848. PW 24 on the contrary stated that after the first four

periods there appears to be total dissolution for a long time and

this has disturbed the continuity of the period. The 4th period

(Gupta period) ended in 6th century and thereafter there is a gap

of about 700 years since the further layer of natural deposition

with the evidence of habitation appears to be related to 13th

century hence total periodization instead of 9 ought to have been

5. He says that 5th, 6th and 7th period has been determined

arbitrarily. The gap of 7th century to 12th century he has tried to

justify on the ground of flood on account whereof the people

abandoned the place for along time. However, on page 156 he

himself admits that there is no evidence of any disastrous flood

witnessed at Ayodhya between 600 AD to 1200 AD and further

that there are evidence revealing that efforts were made to

prevent such devastating floods. This shows that there had to be

habitation otherwise who took steps for preservation of

disastrous flood and why, if there was no habitation and the

place stood abandoned. His statement on his own is ex facie

contradictory, reflects on a total confusion to his part. Then he

4031

tried to justify his conclusion by stating on page 170 that all the

finds were not discovered from the levels as claimed by ASI and

that is why it could not have determined the period correctly.

PW 16 has not disputed that the finds discovered by ASI were

actually found by them. Then PW 29 says that except NBPW

Mughal and late post Mughal period she disagree for the rest of

the periods (page 71). She pointed out that the ASI had made

some change in the nomenclature inasmuch as in the Chapter of

stratigraphy, period six has been termed as Medieval Sultanate

but in the subsequent chapter of result they have termed period 7

as medieval Sultanate and period 6 has been termed as early

medieval period.

3849. PW 30 on his own evolved a different theory by

suggesting that periodization made on the basis of carbon dating

is not correct though the process of cabon dating has been

appreciated by PW 16 and 24 both. PW 24 on page 170 has

justified layer 5 and 6 as that belonging to early Medieval

Sultanate period but then on page 271 disagree with centurywise

periodization made by ASI.

3850. Two more witnesses namely, Prof. Shereen F.

Ratnagar, PW 27 and Dr. Sitaram Roy PW-28 were also

examined by the plaintiffs (Suit-4). Both of them claimed to be

Expert (Archaeologist). Both were examined before ASI

proceedings. PW 27 basically sought to contradict Dr. B.B. Lal's

observation about Ayodhya based on his excavation thereat

made in 1976-77 and supported the book Exhibit 63 (Suit-4),

("Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition") written by Prof. D.

Mandal criticising Dr. B.B. Lal's report with respect to Ayodhya.

3851. Exhibit 14 (Suit-5) (Register 20, pages 125-127)

4032

contains two pages number 52 and 53 of Indian Archeology

1976-77- A Review. At Sl. No. 75, it talks of excavation at

Ayodhya, District Faizabad conducted by Dr. B.B. Lal and Sri

K.V. Soundra Rajan. It reads as under:

“75. Excavation At Ayodhya, District Faizabad.- In

continuation of last year's work which was taken up under

the project called 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites',

excavation as resumed under Professor B.B. Lal of the

Indian Institute of Advanced Study' Simla and Sri K.V.

Soundra Rajan of the Survey, assisted by Sarvashri B.

Narasimhaiah, Rambabu, M. S. Mani, R.K. Sehgal, J, C.

De and A.K. Mishra of the Survey and Surya Kant

Srivastava and R.N. Kaw of the Institute. The work was

concentrated on two important sectors in the ancient part

of the city, namely Ram Janma Bhumi mound and the open

area to the west of Hanuman Garhi, besides a few trenches

at Sita-ki-Rasoi.

The excavation revealed a fairly compact and

working sequence for the antiquity of the place from its

first settlement over the natural soil. This began with the

use of the well-known Northern Black Polished Ware, in all

its shades. At the lowest levels, alongside the Northern

Back Polished Ware, were also found a few sherds of grey

ware, painted with fugitive bands in black pigment along

the rim or obliquely on the exterior. This is taken, on a

consideration of the position of this ware at Sarvasti,

Piprahwa, Kausambi, etc., as the very late and degenerate

phase of the well-known Painted Grey Ware found at

Hastinapura, Mathura, Ahichchhatra, etc. On the basis of

4033

the date available from other sites like Mathura, Sravsati,

Kausambi, etc., it would seem reasonable to ascribe the

first occupation of the Janma Bhumi area to circa seventh

century B.C.”

3852. The statement of PW 27, may not be relevant for the

purpose of testing ASI report. But even otherwise we find that

her deposition and opinion does not inspire confidence and it is

short of the "expert's opinion" which may be termed "relevant"

under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. She admits of having

never visited the disputed site till she appeared as witness in

these cases. She had written "introduction" to Prof. Mandal's

book (Exhibit 63). From her cross-examination it is evident that

she had no experience of field excavation.

"It is correct that in India I have not done any

digging and excavation on my own." (page 52)

3853. She admits of writing things giving hypothetical

sketches with respect to the disputed site:

"It is also correct that at pages 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and

14 some sketches are given in my Introduction. Those

sketches are purely by way of Introduction to the book as

they are hypothetical. It is correct that from pages 16 to 69

is the book itself." (page 53)

3854. Merely on the basis of a photograph entire book and

article etc. has been written. About her own work PW 27 says:

"It is substantially correct that I wrote my critique on

the basis of the said sole photograph." (page 63)

3855. Her lack of knowledge about disputed site is evident

from page 67:

"I am not absolutely certain of the area and extent of

4034

the disputed site at Ayodhya. I do not know in which part of

Ayodhya the disputed site is located."

3856. Though she came to support the book written by Dr.

Mandal criticising Dr. B.B.Lal's report but when specifically

asked whether she agree with the report of Dr. B.B. Lal relating

to Ayodhya on page 75 she says:

"I cannot say in terms of whether I agree or disagree

with them."

3857. She (PW-27) also admitted that there is a possibility

of some structure of the earlier period at the disputed site. On

page 84 she said:

"It is correct to say that I do not rule out the

possibility of any other structure of any other early period

at the disputed site."

3858. Similarly, PW 28, Dr. Sitaram Roy, a retired

Director, Archaeology from the State of Bihar was also

examined in 2002, i.e., before the excavation proceedings

commenced. He tried to make a statement that according to his

studies and as a student of Archaeology he can say that neither

Ram Janam Bhumi temple nor any other kind of temple ever

existed at any point of time, therefore, the question of

construction of mosque after demolition of temple does not

arise. He also tried to dispute stone inscription found in

December, 1992 that the script therein is not of 12th century as is

being claimed by other side. Archaeological evidence he can say

that Lord Rama was not being worshipped at Ayodhya in 12th

century and in 12th-13th century no temple of Lord Rama existed

at Ayodhya. On the one hand he appeared as Expert

(Archaeologist) and on the other hand he has tried to make

4035

various statements on History and other subjects.

^^e S a ,d bfrgkldkj d s :i e s a vFkoZosn dks bfrgkl dk

izekf.kd xzUFk ugha ekurk gwWaA** ¼ist 13½

“As a historian, I do not recognise Atharvaved as an

authoritative book.” (E.T.C.)

^^v;k s/;k d s ftru s H k h or Zeku e afnj g S a e af nj d s

vo'k s" k g S a mue s a vkt l s rhu lk S o" k k sZ d s i wo Z dk ,d Hk h

mnkgj.k ugh a feyrk g S A Q Stkckn e s a djen.Mk vfHky s[ k

l s e S a ifjfpr g wW aA laHkor% ;g xqIr ihfj;M dk gS bl le; ;kn

ugha gSA djen.Mk vfHky s[ k e s a e afnj dk ftdz g S A ** ¼ist 19½

“The temples which are existing at present at

Ayodhya are the remains of the temples, out of them no

instance of any temple dating back to three hundred

years from today is found. I am aware of the

Karamdanda inscription of Faizabad. Probably, it relates

to Gupta period, presently, I do not remember. There is

reference of a temple in Karamdanda inscription.”

(E.T.C.)

“lkroh a ' krk Cnh d s vQl< + d s e afnj dh nhokj ij

p wu s l s cuk;h x;h jke] y{e.k ] lhrk ] gu qeku dh

vkd ` fr;k W a F k h a tks vc ugha gSaA ;g vkd ` fr;k W a nloh a] x;kjgoh

'krk Cnh dh ugh a] cfYd lkroh a ' krk Cnh dh Fk h aA

i q j krRoo sRrk bl e afnj dk s lkroh a ' krk Cnh dk ekur s

g S a D;ksafd blesa ml dky dk vfHkys[k feyk gS ftldk uke gS jktk

vkfnR;lsu dk vQl<+ ls izkIr vfHkys[kA** ¼ist 20½

“On the walls of temple of Afsarh of 7th century,

there existed images of Ram, Lakshman, Sita, Hanuman

made of lime, which do not exist now. These images were

not of 10th-11th century but of 7th century.

The archaeologists recognize this temple as of 7th

4036

century because it contains the inscription of that period,

named as inscription of King Adityasen recovered from

Afsarh." (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus f'kykys[k dk iw.kZ QksVksxzkQ] LVSEist ;k mldk

fMlkbQjesaV ugha ns[kk gSA eSaus viuk ys[k fy[krs le; f'kykys[k

dks ;k mlds iwjs QksVksxzkQ dks ns[kus dh t:jr le>h Fkh] ijUrq esjs

ikl tks lk/ku Fks mls dkjxj u gksus dh n'kk esa eSa iw.kZ QksVksxzkQ ns[k

ugha ik;k FkkA** ¼ist 24½

“I have not seen full photograph, stampage of the

inscription or its decipherment. At the time of writing my

article, I felt need to see the inscription or its full

photograph, but for wants of means I could not see the full

photograph. ” (E.T.C.)

3859. He tried to dispute the very factam of place of birth

of Lord Rama in Ayodhya. This statement now goes against the

stand of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) in view of the statement made

under Order 10 Rule 4 in April 2009. This witness has no

experience of field Archaeology as is evident from page 66. The

credibility of the said witness, based on his archaeological

conduct is tried to be dislodged by the defendants, in the

following manner:

^^;g dguk xyr gS fd tc esjh vkfdZ;ksykftdy losZ vkQ

bafM;k esa ukSdjh gqbZ rks izks0 vkj0,l0'kekZ ml lsysD'ku cksMZ esa lnL;

FksA ;g dguk fcYdqy xyr gS fd tc eSa fcgkj ljdkj esa ,DlIyksjs'ku

,aM ,DlDos'ku esa vkQhlj ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk rks dqN ewfrZ;k xk;c

gks x;h FkhaA eSaus Jh /kj oklqnso lksguh dk uke lquk gS og fcgkj ds

yksdk;qDr FksA esjs dk;Zdky esa ewfrZ;k xk;c ugha gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk

fcYdqy xyr gS fd ^^rFkkdfFkr ewfrZ;ksa ds pksjh ** ds ckn dksbZ lpZ

ikVhZ cuh Fkh vkSj bl lEcU/k esa eSa Li"V djuk pkgwaxk fd

,aVhDohVh ,.M vkVZ V~StlZ ,DV ds rgr dksbZ Hkh izkbZosV bafMfotwvy

vius ikl iqjk vo'ks"kksa dks fucU/ku djkdj j[k ldrk gSA blh ds

4037

vUrZr Mk0 vkj0ch0lksguh ds iq= Jhfuokl jko] vkbZ0,0,l0] ds uke ls

dqN iqjk vo'ks"k fucfU/kr djkus ds fy, vkosnu i= nsdj Mk0 lksguh]

yksdk;qDr ls lsokfuoRr gksrs gh mu iqjk vo'ks"kksa ds lkFk iwuk pys x;sA

ogha iqjkvo'ks"k Mk0 lksguh us fcgkj ljdkj dks vius uke esa nh?kkZ

[kksyus dh 'krZ ij l'krZ _.k ij fcgkj ljdkj dks lkSai fn;kA ;g

ckr xyr gS fd esjh isa'ku ls 20 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh gks x;hA ;g

Bhd g S fd e sj h i s a' ku l s fcgkj ljdkj u s 5 i z fr'kr

dVk Srh dh ckr dgh Fk h ij U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls og vkns'k

fujLr gks x;kA vkt eSa iwjh isa'ku ik jgk gwWaA e sj h i s a' ku dh

mijk sDr dVk Srh dk vkn s' k bl vk/ k kj ij g qvk Fk k fd e S au s

lk sguh lkgc dk s , sUVhd qVh y s tku s l s jk sdk ugh aA ** ¼ist 83½

“It is wrong to say that when I got job in

Archaeological Survey of India, Prof. R.S. Sharma was a

member in that Selection Board. It is totally wrong to say

that while I was posted as Exploration and Excavation

officer in Bihar Government, some idols had been stolen

away. I have heard the name of Sri Dhar Vasudev Sohani.

He was Lokayukt in Bihar Government. The idols were not

taken away during my period. It is wholly incorrect to say

that any search party was constituted after the 'alleged

theft of idols' and in this connection, I would like to make it

clear that under the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, any

private individual can keep with him any archaeological

remains after getting it registered. Under this very Act, Dr.

R.B. Sohini soon after his superannuation from the post of

Lokayukt and after submitting an application for

registration of certain archaeological remains in the name

of his son Sri Niwas Rao I.A.S., went to Pune with the

aforesaid archaeological remains. Dr. Sohini handed over

the said archaeological remains to the Bihar Government

4038

on the condition to allot a gallery in his name on

conditional loan it is incorrect that the 20 % of my pension

was deducted. It is correct that the Bihar Government

had said for deduction of 5% from my pension but by

the order of the Court tht order was cancelled. Today I am

drawing full pension. The order for the aforesaid

deduction from my pension was passed on the ground

that I had not prevented Sohini Saheb from carrying

away the antiquity.” (E.T.C.)

3860. However for our purposes, we do not find the above

facts relevant in any manner.

3861. PW-28 has admitted that Dr. R.S. Sharma has been

his teacher and when he was selected for the post of Director

Archaeology and Museum, Bihar by Public Service

Commission Dr. R.S. Sharma was the Expert Member in the

selection board. He also admitted his acquaintance with Dr.

Sharma since 1953 when he was in Post-Graduation (page 83).

His Article (Paper No. 199 C 2) was published in 1996 in a book

where Prof. K.M. Shreemali of Delhi University was Editor.

3862. Supporting stratificaton/periodization made by ASI,

Sri M.M.Pandey submitted that:

I. Archaeology provides scientific factual data for

reconstructing ancient historical material culture,

understanding Archaeology for the past is a multi

disciplinary scientific subject and requires a team of

workers for effective results. Excavation of ancient sites is

one of the major works of Archaeologists. As it is a

scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its

working.

4039

II. All Archaeological excavations are revealing and

also at the same time destructive; revealing in the sense

they yield unknown data like structures, antiquities etc,

destructive that as one digs layer after layer, the upper

layer have to be removed to go deeper and deeper to know

more.

III. The area proposed to be excavated is divided into

squares rising grid system and all available latest

recording by documentation system, i.e., photography,

video-recording etc. is done before starting excavation at

desired and appropriate stages so that discovery of all

structural remains and important finds to maintain a

proper record for all future purposes.

IV. In archaeological context, layers (strata) are

occupational and deposits caused by human and natural

activities are generally distinguishable by their colour and

texture as one digs.

V. Layers (strata) are important as they establish the

relation between the structures and antiquities that help in

establishing chronology provided the layer remained

undisturbed.

VI. The thickness of a layer (stratum) also indicates the

time span of activities and occupation..

VII. In some places long walls may pass through several

trenches but these are easily seen through the layers, the

baulk and are retain.

VIII. Archeological excavations and its methods have been

referred in various books. According to the views referred

to by Mr. Brain M. Faigan in his book styled as "In the

4040

beginning an introduction Archeology" as well as

according to the famous archeologist who is considered to

be father of Archeology Sir Mortimer Wheeler in his book

"Archeology from the earth" have settled certain norms of

excavation. According to them archaeological excavation

work is a scientific investigation which is be conducted on

sound research methodology.

IX. Here laboratory work also includes the process of

writing report.

X. Detailed records and accurate measurement are the

foundations of a sound, scientific excavation.

Documentation (recording) throughout the excavation

includes site diary, antiquity register and daybook. This

day book records all events which have meticulously

maintained in this case also. Moreover the day-today

register has been duly signed by their advocates and expert

nominees present on the spot in presence of Judge

Observers.

XI. The antiquity Register is maintained to contain a

special number of each small find, numbered with its level,

trench number, depth below surface and additional

information relating to the layer in which the object was

found. This procedure provides a permanent record of

significant artifacts which must be described individually

in the final report and whose preservation is important.

Lists of 'bag of finds' found during excavation are also

recorded in this register; each bag, especially of common

artifacts like pottery, animal bones, and stone implements

receives a serial number which is recorded in a list in the

4041

back of the small-finds register.

XII. Recording of Site Plan, structures and stratigraphic

sections are equally important. Accurate plans provide a

record of measurement and grid set up before excavation to

provide a metrical framework for trenching. A system of

redial coordinate measurements is used to record the

position of horizontal features, with the radial lines

forming an accurate network of reference points.

XIII. Three dimensional recording of major features and

important artifacts is also a vital part of the excavation

process. Many huts, pits or burial groups are important

merely because of their association with other features or

artifacts. Such information can be recovered only by 3-

dimentional measurements, i.e. by recording the feature's

horizontal and vertical coordinates with reference to the

site grid.

XIV. In Archeology period of construction and

stratigraphy is most important. Stratigrahpy is itself a

scientific basis of periodization. It is based on Geological

law of superimposition. Position of layers and their

relation with structures is the basis for the same. Layers

(strata) have to be worked out on the basis of texture,

behaviour, colour, etc. It has to be seen whether the deposit

is normal or flood deposit, layer (stratum) is disturbed or

undisturbed, relationship of layer with structures, its

contemporary deposit etc. For determination of age of the

layer carbon dating is considered to be most scientific

method. Periodization is done on the basis of finds that

includes pottery, epigraphic materials, artifacts etc.

4042

complied with C-14 dating.

XV. A perusal of chapter 3 of the report makes it clear

that ASI has adopted all the three methods of periodization

and has based its report on sound archeological norms. It

is well settled that periodization is done mainly in either of

the three ways: - (1) Century wise (timeframe

periodization) (2) Dynasty wise periodization (3) Layer

(stratum) wise (Stratigraphically). The dating are of two

types i.e. absolute dating and relative dating. The carbon

dating is considered to be absolute dating being

periodization by scientific investigation. Relative dating is

base on stratigraphical observation. There may be

variation in nomenclature of the periodization amongst the

scholars but there may be no point of controversy in

century wise periodization. However the report mentions

about all the three methods in its reports as is evident from

the report at pages 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 & 44 (volume 1).

XVI. To begin with, i.e. historically the year 1192 A.D., i.e.

12th century, is the end of the Hindu rule in Delhi when

Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated by Muhammad Ghori in

the 2nd battle of Tarain and Ghori appointed Qutabuddin

Aibak as his nominee to look after the territory of Delhi

which he did although formally he proclaimed himself to be

the ruler (Sultan) only in 1206, after the death of his

master. Thus, for all practical purposes, in Delhi the

Sultanate started during the closing years of the 12th

century A.D.

XVII. Another world fame renowned scholar of

Indian History professor A.L. Basham used the term

4043

"Medieval Hindu India for Chapter 6, pp. 51-59 in his book

"Cultural History of India", Oxford, 1975".

XVIII. On the basis of well established datable

artifacts, cermacised and C-14 dates, the ASI report has

followed the cultural sequence of Ayodhya as under:-

NBPW= Northern Black Polished Ware

RW= Red Ware

BSW= Black Slipped Ware

GW= Grey Ware

Late & Post Period IX Glazed Ware + RW+BSW

(p.109)

Mughal

Mughal (p.41) Period VIII Glazed Ware + RW+BSW

(p.109)

Medieval Period VII (1200-1600 A.D.) '' " (p.109)

Medieval (p.40) Period VI (1000-1200 A.D.)-

RW+BSW+GW (p.104)

Sultanate

Post-Gupta(p.40) Period V (700-1000 A.D.)-

RW+NBPW+GW (p.98)

Rajput

Level

Gupta Period IV (400-600 A.D.)–RW+BSW+NBPW

Earlier material of pd. III is in pd. IV (p.40)

Kushan(p.39) Period III (100-300 A.D.) – RW

-Triratna Sample (p.85)

-Spouted wide open mouth of Makar (p.85) &

Plate 69/71

Sunga Period II (300-100 B.C.)-

4044

NBPW+RW+BSW+GW (p.39)

NBPW Levels Period I (600-300 B.C.)–

NBPW+BSW+GW+RW (p.38)

It is pertinent to mention here that

The pottery sequence of pd. VII, VIII & IX are the

same. (p.108)

XIX. A perusal of the report submitted by ASI shows that

the excavations were conducted by the ASI in a most

standardized settled norms of excavations, Recording and

writing of the reports were strictly followed. The

excavations were conducted in vertical and horizontal

manners by way of grid system of layout for excavation.

Three dimensional recording were done and principal of

stratigraphy was strictly followed. The Archaeological

excavation being a scientific investigation was conducted

on spot in accordance with settled norms. The trench

supervisor’s note book, diary, daily register antiquity

registers were maintained regularly in presence of the

parties. Three dimensional records were done and

principles of stratigraphy were strictly followed.

XX. The objection of the plaintiffs that in view of the

evidence drawn from the despositional history of the site

there was no habitation at this site after Gupta Period for a

long time. It was reoccupied after a long desertion in 13th

century A.D.

XXI. In this connection it may be submitted that the source

of this 'evidence drawn' can only be a figment of malicious

mind. The Report mentions on page 271 para one:

"Another noteworthy feature is that it was only duing

4045

and after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto

Period IX (late and post Mughal level) that the

regular habitational deposits disappear in the

concerned levels".

XXII. In the same para it further mentions:

"The area below the disputed site thus,

remained a place for public use for a long time till

the Period VIII (Mughal level) when the disputed

structure was built".

XXIII. From where and on what basis 'a long

desertion' is established and how the site is shown as

'reoccupied in 13th century A.D.' is neither clear not

justified.

XXIV. The objection of the plaintiffs that essential

requirement in an excavation report is a chapter that

describes, one after the other, the main strata or levels

found in the excavation, their nature (soil texture, colour,

etc.) and contents. But there is no such section, level alone

a chapter, in the Ayodhya report.

XXV. Periodization has been done on the basis of

finds of a particular layer or set of layers that is on the

basis of contents of the layers.

XXVI. The Chapter III covers all the salient points

required for defining and study of layers and their

respective periods.

XXVII. It is again the 'ostrich attitude' of the objector

who wishfully do not want to acknowledge the existence of

all these features in the Chapter IIII "Stratigraphy and

Chronology" from pp. 37-47 in the Report.

4046

XXVIII. The objection of the plaintiffs that descriptions

given in the report are not always matched by the sections.

The reverse is also true. The report does not states the

period to which layer 6 of J3, layers 4-6 in ZE1-ZF1 And

layers 3-6 in e7 belong.

XXIX. In this connection it may be submitted that on

page 46 of Report in 5th line form top it is mentioned that

the material marked those from layer 1 to 6 "belongs to a

pit and the layers are superficial". So far as the period of

the pit is concerned the data unearthed from the excavation

is too scanty to determine, as the successive digging of pits

for later construction in the same spot has obliterated the

earliest pit line that could have dated the pit.

XXX. In any excavation report it is neither required

nor possible to include each and every layer of every

trench excavated while describing the stratigraphy of the

site. However, in general walls 16 and 17 have been

defined along with their associated layers to definite

periods.

XXI. The objection of the plaintiffs that the

numbering of the floors and other details are not according

to the stratigraphy and the report is full of confusion.

XXXII. In this connection it may be submitted that

confusion does not exist in the report rather it has been

created out of lack of understanding of the subject and

because facts are seen in isolation of one another and not

in the right perspective. Archaeological evidences at any

given site are found in different trenches and then they are

put to gather to reach a meaningful conclusion. It is like

4047

completing a jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, any description of it

should be seen and read in the same way.

XXXIII. There is no single trench which has produced

all the floors and layers. Evidence of different trenches has

been shown in the Schematic Cross Section.

XXXIV. The objection of the plaintiffs that the text fails

to mention which particular layers in these (Tr. G2, G7, J5-

J6 and E8-F8) and other trenches pertain to Period VII.

XXXV. In this connection is may be submitted that

since the layers of this period are not regular depositional

layers rather are the filling material brought from out side

to level the area as a preparatory to lay the successive

floors, these floors have been described to belong to this

period. The layers of fill, which are sandwiched between

these floors, naturally become contemporary layers and

therefore, have been defined as belonging to this period.

The excerpt from page 42 of the Report is incomplete and

should be read with the remaining part of the same

paragraph which reads as:

XXXVI. As some places due to differential coverage

area of the floor itself while at some other places due to

destruction or decadence one of these was found missing.

During excavation in different trenches they were named

according to their occurrence from one onwards. The

relative levels can be seen in the cross-sections of the

mound and in the schematic cross section of the mound".

XXXVII. The confusion disappears as it never existed

rather is a concocted one. The division of five areas of

eastern, northern, western, southern and raised platform

4048

are treated in Chapter II "Cuttings" which defines the

limits of each area. Therefore, there is no need to "count"

any trench in any area, rather it should be verified from the

relevant chapter.

XXXVIII. In G2, a narrow strip (about 1 m wide) was

excavated and in that small area with some top layer

disturbances all the floors top floors (upto Fl.4) were

found, since the dividing line for different periods is floors

all the layers in between shall belong to the respective

period, so the layer 3 and 4 also belong to the Period VII.

XXXIX. The objection of the plaintiffs that nowhere is

there any section showing floors numbered "4" or "5" and

no section shows a sequence of floors numbered "1" and

"5".

XL. Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal, who was examined

as PW 24 by the plaintiff as an archaeologist of pre-history,

has been re-examined after submission of excavation report

by the Archaeological Survey of India by the plaintiff Sunni

Central Waqf Board to support the objections filed by them.

It is pertinent to mention that Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal,

who has written a book styled as "Archaeology after

Demolition", had never visited the disputed site before

writing the book. During excavation the disputed site was

visited by him twice as stated by him in his examination in

chief from 10.06.2003 to 15.06.2003 and from 27.09.2003

to 29.09.2003. The entire evidence given by Prof. Mandal

makes it clear that the book was written by him on the basis

of news published in newspapers, magazines, booklets,

particularly paper 118/C. This fact has been admitted by

4049

him. Regarding excavations also he has very clearly stated

that his observations are based on his own observations

without any measurement or actual verification of the site.

Prof. Mandal admits that he has no knowledge about the

disputed site nor ever attempted to see the artifacts,

inscriptions, etc., found at the time of leveling or

excavation of the disputed site. Prof. Mandal in his

statement has admitted that the process of excavation, i.e.,

grid system excavation was perfectly correct which is

internationally accepted mode of excavation. He further

admits the circular sign found during the excavation to be

of Gupta period i.e. 4th-6th century AD which is

undisputedly a non-Islamic construction of pre-Islamic era.

XLI. Dr R.C. Thakran was examined as PW 30 by

SCWB in support of their objections against report of ASI,

who, according to him, has not carried any excavation,

rather during his masters degree course had attended some

excavation at the sites of Mirzapur Karan ka Quila. The

witness, in para 1 of his affidavit, has stated that he is

involved in archaeological research since 1976 and had not

excavated any site. The witness has given various details of

the report in his examination in chief and annexed various

documents but has failed to establish the same, rather the

cross examination proved his statement to be false and

baseless. The witness was in full agreement with the

method of excavation, its marking, recording and listing.

The witness stated that comparative study of

archaeological finds was not possible on his part at the site

and the witness could know about the alleged defects only

4050

after submission of the report. Regarding periodisation, the

witness stated that periodisation from period 7th to 10th

century A.D., as mentioned in page 40 period 5 in report of

ASI is correct but the witness expressed his disagreement

with the nomenclature only. According to the witness early

medieval period started from 600 AD and continues up to

1200 AD. But at page 112 the witness admits that early

medieval period may be termed as Rajput period. Further,

contracting his own admission at page 113, the witness

states that the medieval period starts from 600 AD and

continues up to 1707 AD although further clarifies that

period from 600 AD to 1200 AD is called early medieval

period where as period from 1206 AD to 1526 AD is called

Sultanate period and period from 1526 AD to 1707 AD is

said to be Mughal period. Admitting existence of pillar

bases at the disputed site, the witness states at page 116:

"Maein us report mein likhi ish baat se sahmat hoon ki

pillar bases patthar ke pedestal par tikey huwey

thei....Maeine Ayodhya ki khudai ke dauran sabhi pillar

bases ko dekha thaa. Usmein pedestal stones kahin par

nahin haein, kewal Mata Sita ki Rasoi ki taraf kuchh

pillar bases ke upar patthar paye gaye haein jo pedestal

se bhinna haein." Regarding manufacturing of pillar

bases the witnes stated: "Jabtak maein khudai sthal par

raha aisa nahin hai ki ASI walon nein pillar base

banaye hon, Baad mein agar unhone kuchh kiya ho to

mujhe is baat ka gyan nahin hai.Yadi sabhi trenches

mein lagatar videography ho rahi hon to pillar base

banana sambhav nahin hai. " Regarding use of Chuna

4051

and Surkhi, the witness admitted the same being used in

7th-8th century and also in Gahadwal period. The witness

supporting the third stand taken by SCWB regarding

existence of old mosque/Idgah underneath the disputed

structure stated at page 69: "Khudai ke dauran diwar ko

dekhne se tatha ASI ke report dekhne se mujhe aisa laga ki

Babri masjid ya uske poorva ke masjid/idgah banne mein

jo material punah prayog mein laya gaya wah kahin aas

paas se laakar istemal kiya gaya hai. The witness admitted

existence of Kapot padi door jamb, lotus motif at the

disputed site and has also stated that he has not seen any

such thing in any mosque. The witness who is an atheist

stated that: "Maein Ishwar ya devi devta mein astha nahin

rakhta hoon." The witness admitted that he has no

knowledge nor had ever studied about differences of masjid

and idgah. At Page 187 the witnerss states: "Masjid wa

idgah ke antar ke barey mein maine avashya suna hai,

parantu iske barey maein maine adhyayan nahin kiya. Yah

kahna sahi hai ki masjid wa idgah ke sambandh mein

mainey sa-sapath apna bayaan mukhya pariksha ka prastut

kiya hai ish vidha mein maein vishesh gyan nahin rakhta

hoon.... Keval neemv ki diwar ko dekhkar uparokt donon

antar bata pana mere liye sambhav nahin." The witness

admitted existence of taakh or niches in temples. The

witness at page 191 states: "Mandiron ki khudai ki reports

mein animal bones paye jane ke barey mein maine padha

hai." The witness admits importance of Kalash and floral

motifs for temples and stated that it is used in temples only.

The witness admits circular structure and wall belonging to

4052

Gupta period. A perusal of the cross examination of the

witness at page 356 to 360 makes it clear that the witness

has no idea of the walls and has not identified the same in

spite of filing detailed affidavit and going through the

same. The entire cross examination of the witness makes it

clear that the witness has no idea of excavation and has

tried to support the objection of SCWB merely on the basis

of some bookish knowledge as well as under some

extraordinary circumstance.

XLII. At page 251, the witness (PW 31) admitted that

the ASI had adopted all the three methods of periodisation

and the carbon dating was a scientific mode which was

considered to be absolute dating method. But according to

the witness the Sultanate period was confined to 10th and

11th centuries only. The only objection against

periodisation, according to the witness, was as stated by

him at page 252: "I do not have any objection regarding

periodisation of ASI in which they did not mention early

Sultanate period from 10th to 11th century. In my opinion

one of the objections regarding periodisation is the mention

of early medieval Sultanate period, The periodisation

should not be made on the basis of dynasty-wise."

Regarding periodisation, the witness stated that he was in

full agreement with the periodisation done by ASI but he

was not agreeable to the periodisation of period 6 which is

shown as medieval Sultanate period.

XLIII. The witness (PW-32) has categorically stated

about her presence on the spot during excavation although

so many things have been stated in her affidavit filed by

4053

way of examination in chief. But the cross examination of

the witness proves that, although the witness is not a field

archaeologist, the excavations were conducted by A.S.I. as

per settled norms. Describing fill deposits, the witness

confirmed in her cross examination at page 24 that no

stratification is possible in fill deposit.

3863. From the above, it is evident that the entire

chronology/stratification of ASI has not been condemned/

objected/criticized by Experts of Plaintiffs (Suit-4) but basically

it is confined to 5, 6 and 7 period. PW 16 on page 54 stated that

the determination of period 6 and 7 is contrary to the facts on

the basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been antedated. On

page 455 it says that he has no objection to the determination of

periods 1 to 5. PW 24 does not dispute periods 1 to 4 but then

has made comments against the periods 5, 6 and 7, as

determined by ASI but then on page 170 in cross examination

stated that layer 5 and 6 have rightly been shown belonging to

early medieval Saltnat period and then on page 271 says that he

does not agree with the century-wise periodization made by ASI

and tried to explain the same on page 273-274, and, concluded

that except period 5, 6 and 7 he agree with rest of the

determination made by ASI. PW 29 on page 71 while agreeing

with N.B.P.W. Mughal and late post Mughal expressed for her

disagreement with the rest of the periods. PW 30 without raising

any serious objection with respect to periodization has said that

the periods 6 and 7 have been mentioned in report by ASI

interchangeably creating confusion. PW 31 remained silent with

respect to stratification but PW 32, who is co-author of the

objection filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) against ASI report,

4054

claims that period 6 to 9 are not based on the deposits but the

material found therein is a secondary context and therefore, the

determination of the said period is not correct. These witnesses

have given their different version in support of their opinion or

understanding which are not in general harmony with each other

and therefore, it cannot be said that all the witnesses have

provided similar or common reasons against that part of

stratification/chronology of the ASI which they have challenged.

On the contrary, most of them admits that determination of

stratigraphy/chronology can be done in one or more method

which are well recognized and they are three (1) Dynasty wise,

(2) Century wise and (3) Layer wise, and the ASI has followed

all the three system (PW 16 page 454, PW 24 page 269, PW 29

page 144, 150, 183, PW 30 page 351/352,)

3864. Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, OPW 18 has supported

ASI report in its entirety. He retired in 1992 from the post of

Superintending Archeologist from ASI. Having done M.Sc. in

Physical Anthropology in 1958 from University of Sagar and

Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology in 1968 from Institute of

Archaeology, Government of India, he served ASI Department

for about 33 years and had the experience of exploration,

excavation of archeological sites. Some of the excavation work

he has undertaken has been detailed in para 5 and 6 of his

affidavit. He has clearly averred that the three ways of

periodization is well established in the field of Archaeology and

the ASI has adopted all the three methods. Regarding 6 and 7

period determined by ASI, he has explained that suggestion by

some of the witnesses that the medieval period in India must be

co-related with Islam only is not correct and is not a universally

4055

excepted proposition. He has referred to the opinion of Ram

Sharan Sharma, a Historian, recorded in his book "Perspectives

in Social and Economic History of Early India" published in

1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi, where on page 228 Chapter XVI the author says "

"An important problem in the general history of India

is that of transition from the ancient to the mediaeval.

Certain dates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997, and

1206 have been suggested as landmarks in political history.

But since politics was the preoccupation of a small section

of society in early times, it has to be shown whether any of

the above-mentioned dates or whether any other date or

point of time is equally significant in the history of land

system, crafts and commerce, polity, society, language, art,

religion, etc. There has taken place a lot of discussion

whether Harsavardhana's death in AD 647 marks the end

of one and the beginning of another era in Indian history.

The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of

Harsavardhana set in the process of decline in Indian

history has been ably refuted by a number of scholars, and

especially by H.C. Ray. But for those who wish to

investigate patterns of social and economic life, the real

point to look for is not the presages of decline and

prosperity but the nature of change in the existing way of

life. If the change is of a fundamental nature, it should be

regarded as heralding the advent of a new period. If it is a

minor change it would not necessitate any new

characterization of the period. Even the question of decline

and prosperity has to be examined in relation to the process

4056

of change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how

far the decline of the existing system of life shows

symptoms of the rise of a new pattern of life. None of these

points has been taken into account by V. Smith when he

says that the death of Harsavardhana in AD 647 begins a

period of decline nor by those who try to refute his theory.

On the grounds of dynastic and political history H.C.

Ray suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of

demarcation between the two periods in the history of

northern India. In his opinion: 'these may be called the

ancient and the mediaeval periods; but it would be perhaps

more reasonable to call them simply the Hindu period and

the period of the Turks and Afghans.' A similar approach

has been adopted by some other scholars. In the fifth

volume of the History and Culture of the Indian People it is

said at one place that ancient India came to an end in AD

997, and again, at another, that in Indian history the

mediaeval factor was introduced in the thirteenth century.

Both views are based on the assumption that the Muslim

conquest ushered in mediaevalism in India. Does it mean

that without the Muslim conquest there would have been no

mediaevalism in India? Does it imply that the countries of

Europe which escaped this conquest had no mediaeval

period in their history? In Europe it is difficult to think of

mediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature of

which have to be examined in the case of India. In our

opinion the beginnings of a feudal way of life can be sought

in the age of the Guptas and Harsa, which marks a period

of transition in the history."

4057

3865. He has also referred to the opinion of another

learned Historian A.L.Basham's book "A Cultural History of

India" (first published in 1975) Oxford University Press

(Eighth Indian Impression in 1992) contained in Chapter VI,

titled as "Medieval Hindu India". While giving details of various

Hindu kings ruling different parts of the country, even after

Muslim invasion, Dr.Basham has observed that it is not that the

entire Indian Continent got influenced by Muslims from 7, 8 or

9 century but from time to time different parts were ruled by

different Hindu kings of great vitality.

3866. We have copy of the entire book of A.L. Basham,

i.e., "A Cultural History of India" (first published in 1975) and

10th impression 2006 by Oxford University Press, New Delhi

(Book No. 112). Sri Basham in Chapter VI which runs from

page 51 to 59 has noticed that the Gupta Empire disappeared by

the middle of 6th century. In the second half of 6th century, a city

on Upper Ganga, before its confluence with Jamuna,

Kanyakubja (later known as Kanauj), rose to prominence as the

capital of the Maukhari kings. The city of Sthanvisvara, now

Thanesar, in the watershed between the Ganga and the Indus,

became the capital of a rising family of rulers descended from a

certain Pushyabhuti. Gujarat and Malwa were in the power of

the Maitraka Dynasty, founded by the general of the Guptas. In

the Deccan the Chalukya Dynasty was gaining in strength, while

in Tamilnadu the Dynasty of the Pallawas was also enlarging its

boundaries. This is the pattern of Indian politics until the

Muslim invasion. It further says:

"The political history of India between the end of the

Gupta Empire and the coming of the Muslims can be traced

4058

in some detail from thousands of inscriptions which contain

the genealogies and brief accounts of the reigns of kings,

and in the panegyrics which form the preambles to records

of land-grants, mostly to religious bodies-temples,

monasteries, or groups of learned brahmans."

3867. In 7th century (606-47 AD) Harshavardhana gained

control of Kanyakubja (Kannauj). After heirless demise, his

empire also died with him. The subsequent period by Sri A.L.

Basham is described as under:

"The succeeding period is very obscure and badly

documented, but it marks the culmination of a process

which had begun with the invasion of the Hunas in the last

years of the Gupta Empire. The sixth and seventh centuries

saw the rise of many new dynasties, small and great, in the

northern part of the sub-continent. Few of these ruling

families are to be found mentioned in sources from periods

before the Guptas, and many of their genealogies begin

with names which do not seem Sanskritic. These people

appear to have been new-comers. Some of them may have

been related to the Hunas. A new people, who began to

make their presence felt towards the end of the sixth

century, the Gurjaras, gave their name to the present

Gujarat and founded several important ruling dynasties.

Since place-names containing a similar element can be

found as far to the north-west as Pakistan and Afghanistan,

it is commonly suggested that the Gurjaras entered India

in the wake of the Hunas. Their name has been linked with

that of the ancient people of the south Russian steppes

called Khazars, and with the Georgians (Gruz) of the

4059

Caucasus. Other obscure tribes of Central Asians may also

have followed the Hunas, and wilder peoples from outlying

areas may have profited from the unsettled conditions to

gain political control of important regions. In any case,

new ruling houses arose in the post-Gupta period and

many of their names survive to the present day as those of

the Rajput clans.

Towards the end of the eighth century three of the

recently arisen dynasties contended for Kanyakubja, by

now the acknowledged metropolis of northern India. These

were the Palas of Bihar and Bengal, the Rashtrakutas of

the Deccan, and the Gurjara-Pratiharas, who controlled

parts of Malwa and Rajasthan. The great city was for a

time occupied by the Palas, whose Buddhist king

Dharmapala drove up the Ganga valley and exacted tribute

from many kings of the area. The Rashtrakuta Govinda III,

whose policy of raiding the north, continued by his

successors, was to have many repercussions, drove

Dharmapala out, but was forced to return to his base

owing to trouble at home. The vacuum was filled, very

early in the ninth century, by Nagabhata II of the Gurjara-

Pratiharas.

For about a hundred years the Gurjara-Pratiharas of

Kanyakubja restored a little of the glory of the earlier

empires. Under their greatest kings, Mihira Bhoja (c. 836-

90) and Mahendrapala (c. 890-910), they received tribute

from rulers from Gujarat to the borders of Bengal, and

Muslim travellers were much impressed by the

peacefulness and prosperity of their quasi-feudal

4060

empire. But their old enemies, the fierce Rashtrakutas from

the Deccan, were constantly worrying them, and in about

916 Kanyakubja was again temporarily occupied by Indra

III of the Rashtrakutas, whose lightning raids provided a

foretaste of the similar attacks of the Marathas 800 years

later.

Indra III soon returned to the south; but his effects

were longer-lasting than those of previous Rashtrakuta

raiders. Though the Pratiharas returned to their capital,

they were humiliated and weakened, and their vassals

ceased to respect them. Within a generation or two the

greater vassals had thrown aside their allegiance, and were

fighting with their former masters and among themselves.

It was in these circumstances that Mahmud or Ghazni, in

the early years of the eleventh century, carried out his

seventeen raids on India; but though the Turkish raiders

ransacked and destroyed palaces and temples, and

returned to their headquarters in Afghanistan with

immense caravans of riches and slaves, India resumed

her traditional political ways as if nothing had

happened.

The Turks overwhelmed the Sahi kingdom, which had

controlled a large area of the north-west, from Kabul to

Lahore. The rulers of this realm had also been Turks, but

Turks who had adopted Hindu traditions, and who offered

no serious threat to their neighbours to the east. The

Ghaznavids also conquered the Muslim kingdoms of Sind,

occupied by the Arabs early in the eighth century, whose

chiefs had long ceased to trouble the hindu kingdoms on

4061

their frontiers. Thus the hindu states of the Gangetic

basin and Rajasthan now had on their borders a young

aggressive kingdom with new methods of warfare and

with a religious ideology which might be expected to

encourage aggression.

The most remarkable feature of the situation was

that, as far as surviving records show, nobody whatever in

hindu India recognised the menace of the Turks. The

Ghaznavids made a few further raids, but these were far

less impressive than those of Mahmud. The Turks were

soon torn by internal strife and, though they continued to

hold the Panjab, it must have seemed to the hindu

politicians of the time that, like that Arabs before them,

they would be contained indefinitely. Having no real

historical tradition, the Indian memory, of earlier

conquerors coming from the north-west-Greeks, Sakas,

Kushanas, and Hunas-was so vague that it was quite

ineffectual as a warning to the rulers of the time.

In the involved situation arising from Mahmud's

raids, five larger kingdoms shared most of northern

India between them, the Chahamanas (Chauhans) of

Rajasthan, the Gahadavalas (Gahrwals) of Kanyakubja

(Kanauj) and Varanasi (Banaras), the Chaulukyas or

Solankis of Gujarat, the Paramaras (Parmars) of

Malwa, and the Chandellas (Chandels) of Bundelkhand,

to the south of the Ganga. These dynasties bore names

which are among the best-known of the thirty-six Rajput

clans. Their kings had already acquired something of the

traditional Rajput character-gallant, extremely sensitive to

4062

points of honour, glorifying war, but war of a gentlemanly

kind, intensely devoted to tradition, and quite incapable of

serious co-operation one with another. The Palas, who

governed Bihar and Bengal, had been quite untouched by

Mahmud's invasions. Early in the twelfth century they were

replaced by the Sena Dynasty, which reversed the Palas'

traditional support of Buddhism and encouraged hindu

orthodoxy. They seem to have played little or no part in the

politics of the western part of India, where the five major

kingdoms and numerous lesser tributary realms fought

honourable among the themselves, basing their strategy

and tactics on principles inherited from epics.

In 1173 Ghazni was captured by Ghiyas-ud-din,

whose headquarters were Ghur in Afghanistan. From

his new capital Ghiyas-ud-din turned his attention to

India. His brother, Muhammad bin Sam, occupied the

Panjab and deposed the last ruler of the line of Mahmud.

Then in 1191 Muammad bin Sam attacked Prithviraja, king

of the Chahamanas, the hindu ruler on his eastern frontier.

Prithviraja, fighting on his own ground with a larger army,

defeated Muhammad at Tarain, and he retreated. In the

following year, 1192, Muhammad came again with stronger

forces, and on the same field of Tarain Prithviraja lost the

day, and the Ganga valley was open to the invaders. Before

the century was over Turkish control was established along

the whole length of the sacred river.

It is easy to suggest reasons why the Hindus were

unable to resist the Turks, and many such suggestions have

been put forward. In dealing with the question it must be

4063

remembered that the invasion of the Turks was only one of

numerous attacks through the north-western passes which

took place in historical times. The Aryans, by a process not

fully known to us, gained control of the Panjab from the

decadent Harappans. The Achaemenians of Iran occupied

part at least of the Indus valley; Alexander's troops reached

the Beas, but were compelled to retreat; in the second

century B.C. the Greeks from Bactria occupied the Panjab;

they were followed in the next century by the Sakas or

Scythians; in the first century A.D. came the Kushanas, and

in the fifth the Hunas. Mahmud's raids in the early eleventh

century were precursors of the even stronger Turkish

attacks of Muhammad bin Sam, which led to the protracted

domination of most of India by Muslim rulers.

These were not by any means the last attacks from the

north-west, however. Soon after the Turkish occupation,

Mongol hordes swept into India and occupied much of the

territory west of the Indus. In 1398 Timur, the great Mongol

conqueror, sacked Delhi and raged through western India,

causing tremendous carnage and destruction. In 1526

Babur the Mughal defeated the Afghan rulers of Delhi and

occupied the country. In 1555 his son, Humayun,

reconquered it from his base in Afghanistan. During the

eighteenth century Persians and Afghans raided India in

turn, both sacking Delhi before returning to their

homelands."

3868. The above clearly shows that in the period of

Mahmood Gaznavi raids and thereafter, the northern India was

shared by five larger kingdoms namely, Chauhans (Rajasthan),

4064

Gahadavalas (Kannauj and Banaras), Chalukyas or Solanki

(Gujarat), Parmaras (Malva) and Chandellas (Bundelkhand).

The said dynasties have been titled by learned author as one of

"the best known of 36 Rajput clans". The Palas, who governed

Bihar and Bengal remain untouched by Mahmud Gazanavi's

invasion but early in the 12th century they were replaced by Sena

dynasty which reversed the Palas traditional support of

Buddhism and encourage Hindu orthodox religion. The

Chauhans rule came to end with the defeat of Prithvi Ram

Chauhan in 1192 AD by Mohammad Ghuri at Tarain leaving the

Ganges valley open to invaders/foreigners. In 1206 AD

Gaharwals (King Jai Chand) was also defeated by Ghuri.

3869. The details of Maukhary, Pushyabhuti, Pratihar,

Gaharwal etc. rulers has also been given in "Ayodhya Ka Itihas

Evam Puratatva" (supra) (Book No. 141), Chapter-7, pages 81

to 105 which is a minute and detailed study on the subject and

except of some observations made therein based on 1992

inscriptions found at Ayodhya which for the time being we can

exclude, the rest of the contents of the said chapter as such have

not been shown inaccurate or incorrect, hence may be referred

hereunder:

^ ^ek S[ kj h ] i q ";H k wf r ] ijorh Z x q Ir] i z frgkj ,o a xgM +o kyk s a dk

; qx

xqIr lkezkT; ds iru ds ckn ls v;ks/;k dk jktuhfrd egRo mruk

vf/kd ugha jg x;k FkkA lRrk dk xq#Ro dsUnz v;ks/;k ls gVdj

dUukSt vFkok dkU;dqCt igqWap x;kA xqIr lkezkT; ds iru ds dky esa

lkeUrksa dk egRo mlh vuqikr esa c<+rk x;k ftl vuqikr esa v;ks/;k ds

xqIr lezkVksa dh dsUnzh; lRrk esa fc[kjko vkus yxk FkkA ikapoh 'krkCnh

ds vafre pj.k rd rks xqIr lezkV~ fdlh izdkj lkezkT; dh ,drk cuk,

j[k lds Fks rFkk NBh 'krkCnh ds izFke pj.k esa dsUnzh; lRrk ds fy,

4065

gksus okys la?k"kksZa ds dkj.k xqIr lkezkT; ds vUrxZr vusd v/khuLFk

jktoa'k vfLrRo esa vk x,A bZlk dh NBh&lkroha 'krkfCn;ksa esa ftu

jktoa'kksa dk mn; gqvk vkSj mUgksaus mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfrd

xfrfof/k;ksa ij izHkko Mkyk muesa rhu jktoa'k eq[; :i ls mYys[kuh;

gSa& ¼1½ dUukSt ds ekS[kjh] ¼2½ Fkkus'oj ds iq";Hkwfr rFkk ¼3½ ekyok ds

ijorhZ xqIr] ftUgksaus ckn esa ex/k ij 'kklu fd;kA buds ckn

izfrgkjksa ,oa xgM+okyksa dk ;qx vkrk gS ftle s a xgM +o kyk s a u s

v;k s/;k e s a fo'k s" k #fp yhA

dUuk St d s ek S [kj h

dUuk St d s ek S [k fj;k s a e s a lcl s igyk jktk gfjoek Z g qvkA

bZ'kkuoekZ ds gjgk vfHkys[k esa ekSf[kfj;ksa dh oa'kkoyh gfjoekZ ls izkjEHk

gksrh gSA mlds iwoZt laHkor% fcgkj ls ;gka vk, gksaxs] D;ksafd fcgkj ds

x;k ftys ds cjkcj vkSj ukxktqZuh igkfM+;ksa ls ekS[kjh jktkvksa ds rhu

vfHkys[k izkIr gq, gSaA bu vfHkys[kksa esa rhu jktkvksa ds uke feyrs

gSa&;KoekZ] 'kknwZyoekZ rFkk vuUroekZA vuUroekZ dks dksbZ mikf/k ugha nh

xbZ gS fdUrq mlds firk 'kknwZyoekZ dks lkeUr pw.kkef.k dgk x;k gSA

'kknwZyoekZ ds firk ;KoekZ dks Hkh ui ek= dgk x;k gSA bl izdkj NBh

'krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa ;s lkeUr ekS[kjh ujs'k x;k ds {ks= esa 'kklu dj

jgs FksA blesa dksbZ lUnsg ugha gS fd x;k ds ;s rhuksa ekS[kjh jktk xqIr

lezkVksa ds v/khuLFk lkeUr Fks] fdUrq budk dUukSt ds ekSf[kfj;ksa ls D;k

lEcU/k Fkk] bl fo"k; ij dqN dguk laHko ugha gSA

vf/kd&ls&vf/kd ;gh laHkkouk dh tk ldrh gS fd xqIr lezkVksa ds

funsZ'k ij fcgkj ds ekSf[kfj;ksa ds oa'k esa mRiUu gfjoekZ dks dkU;dqCt

vFkok dUukSt esa lkeUr ds :i esa fu;qfDr feyh gksA gjgk ds vfHkys[k

esa gfjoekZ dks ek= jktk dgk x;k gS rFkk mls vkfn ujs'k ekuk x;k

gSA ysfdu bl vfHkys[k ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd ekS[kfj;ksa us viuk

'kklu dgka ls 'kq: fd;k Fkk vFkok mudh jkt/kkuh dgka ij FkhA jk/kk

xksfoUn clkd dk ;g er gS fd izkjEHk esa ekS[kfj;ksa us v;ks/;k ls 'kklu

fd;k Fkk rFkk ckn esa vofUroekZ ds dky esa mUgksaus viuh jkt/kkuh

dUukSt dks cuk;kA ekS[kfj;ksa dh jkt/kkuh dUukSt esa Fkh] bldh lwpuk

gesa g"kZpfjr ls izkIr gksrh gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd ekS[kjh jkuh

jkt;Jh] tks g"kZo/kZu dh cgu Fkh] ekyojkt ds }kjk dUukSt esa gh cUnh

4066

cuk yh xbZ FkhA blds vfrfjDr phuh lzksrksa esa Hkh bl ckr ds ladsr

feyrs gSa fd dUukSt ekS[kfj;ksa dh jkt/kkuh Fkh vkSj jkT;Jh dks eqDr

djkus ds ckn g"kZ ls dUukSt dk 'kklu laHkkyus dk vkxzg fd;k x;k

FkkA ek S[k fj;k s a d s vfH ky s[ k tk Sui q j ¼i wo h Z mRrj i zn s' k ½ rFk k

gjgk ¼ ftyk ckjkc adh ] i wo h Z mRrj i zn s' k ½ l s i z k Ir g q, g S aA

blds vfrfjDr fcgkj esa ukyUnk] ls 'koZoekZ dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj

rFkk e/; izns'k esa vlhjx<+ ls blh jktk dh ,d rkacs dh eqgj izkIr gqbZ

gSA xksj[kiqj ftys ds lksgukx uked LFkku ls vofUroekZ dh ,d eqgj

izkIr gqbZ gS rFkk blh jktk dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj ukyUnk ls Hkh izkIr

gqbZ gSA dUukSt ls gh vofUroekZ dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj izkIr gqbZ gSA

ukyUnk ls gh feV~Vh dh ,d vU; eqgj izkIr gqbZ gS ftl ij vofUroekZ

ds iq= ^jktkf/kjkt Jh lq - -^ uke mfYyf[kr gSA [kf.Mr gks tkus ds

dkj.k jktk dk iwjk uke ugha i<+k tk ldk gSA blds vfrfjDr db Z

ek S[kj h jktkvk s a d s flDd s H k h vfgPN=k ] v;k s/;k vk S j

f H kVk S j k ¼ v;k s/;k d s fudV] ftyk Q Stkckn½ l s i z k Ir g qb Z

g S aA bu i zek.k k s a l s ;g Li"V Kkr gk sr k g S fd x q Ir jkto a' k

d s ckn v;k s/;k rFk k mld s ckn dk s' ky i zn s' k ek S [kj h

'k klukUrx Zr vk x;k Fk kA

ekS[kfj;ksa us viuh jkt/kkuh v;ks/;k esa D;ksa ugha cukbZ gksxh] bl

laca/k esa dsoy vuqeku gh izLrqr fd, tk ldrs gSaA igyh laHkkouk ;g

gS fd xqIr lezkVksa us izkjafHkd ekS[kjh lkeUrksa dks dUukSt esa LFkkfir gksus

dk funsZ'k fn;k gks vkSj ijEijkxr :i esa tc ekS[kjh vf/kd 'kfDr'kkyh

gks x, vkSj xqIr lkezkT; dk vUr gks x;k rks Hkh mUgksaus yxHkx mUgha

dkj.kksa ls viuh jkt/kkuh v;ks/;k esa cukus dk fopkj u fd;k gks ftuds

dkj.k iq";fe= 'kaqx us ekS;Z jktoa'k dk vUr gks tkus ds ckn viuh

jkt/kkuh ikVfyiq= esa ugha cukbZA

gfjoekZ ds ckn mldk iq= vkfnR;oekZ ekS[kjh oa'k dk jktk gqvkA

mldk fookg g"kZxqIrk ls gqvk FkkA uke lkE; ds vk/kkj ij ;g ekuk

tkrk gS fd g"kZxqIrk ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k ds nwljs 'kkld g"kZxqIr dh

cgu FkhA g"kZxqIr dk le; 505&515 bZ0 ds chp ekuk tkrk gSA bl

izdkj vkfnR;oekZ dk Hkh ;gh le; ekuuk pkfg,A vkfnR;oekZ dk iq=

bZ'ojoekZ gqvk ftldh iRuh dk uke mixqIrk crk;k x;k gSA ch0ih0

4067

flUgk us ;g er O;Dr fd;k gS fd mix q Irk v;k s/;k d s x q Ir

le z kV fo".k qx q Ir dh cgu jgh gk sx hA ;g fo".k qx q Ir jkto a' k

dk vfUre 'k kld ekuk tkrk g S vk S j bldk le; 543&550

b Z 0 rd crk;k x;k g S A ysfdu fdj.k dqekj Fkify;ky dk ;g

ekuuk gS fd bZ'ojoekZ dh iRuh mixqIrk nsoh laHkor% ijorhZ xqIr

jktoa'k dh jktdqekjh FkhA b Z 'ojoek Z d s tk Sui q j vfH ky s[ k l s ;g

Kkr gk sr k g S fd mlu s vkU / k z d s jktkvk s a dk s H k h ijk ftr

fd;k Fk k rFk k / k kj k l s vku s oky s fdlh vkd ze.k dk s foQy

dj fn;k Fk kA laHkor% /kkjk ls vkus okyk ;g vkdze.k gw.kjkt

fefgjdqy ds }kjk fd;k x;k vkdze.k Fkk vkSj bZ'ojoekZ us xqIr lezkV

ds lkeUr ds :i esa bl ;q) esa Hkkx fy;k gks rks dksbZ vk'p;Z ughaA

ysfdu ,slk yxrk gS fd bl le; rd ekS[kjh xqIr jktoa'k }kjk 'kkflr

izns'kksa esa lcls 'kfDr'kkyh lkeUr ds :i esa LFkkfir gks jgs FksA

mRrj Hk kjr e s a ek S [k fj;k s a dh 'k fDr dk i w. k Z mn; Jh

b Z ' k kuoek Z d s le; e s a gk sr k g S A bZ'kkuoekZ ds gM+gk ik"kk.k

vfHkys[k ¼'yksd 13½ esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd mlus vkU/kzifr dks thrdj]

'kwfydksa dh lsuk dks ijkLr djds rFkk xkSM+ksa dk lEcU/k iFoh ls NqM+kdj

mUgsa leqnkJ;h gksus ds fy, ck/; djds] flagklu dks vf/kd`r fd;k FkkA

bl izdkj ,slk yxrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ us ;g fot;sa vius ;qojkt dky

esa izkIr dh Fkha vkSj blh dkj.k mlds firk ds dky esa fy[kok, x,

tkSuiqj vfHkys[k esa foU/; vkSj vkU/kz ds jktkvksa dks ijkLr djus dh tks

ckr dgh xbZ gS mlesa bZ'kkuoekZ dk Hkh lg;ksx FkkA tgka rd xkSM+ksa dks

ijkLr djus dh ckr gS mlds lEcU/k esa fo}kuksa dh ;g jk; gS fd

ekS[kfj;ksa us ;g vfHk;ku v;ks/;k ds xqIr lezkVksa dh v/khurk esa pyk;k

gksxkA vkfnR;lsu ds vQlk<+ vfHkys[k esa ;g mYys[k vk;k gS fd

thforxqIr us] og Hkh xqIrksa dk lkeUr jgk gksxk] dnyh o{kksa dh

'kk[kkvksa ls vkoRr leqnz rVksa ij jgus okys 'k=qvksa dks ijkLr fd;k FkkA

flUgk us rks ;gka rd dgk gS fd ;g xqIr 'kkld fo".kqxqIr pUnzkfnR;

jgk gksxkA

bZ'kkuoekZ ds ckn mldk iq= 'koZoekZ 'kkld gqvkA ysfdu gM+gk

vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ dk ,d vkSj iq= lw;ZoekZ

gqvkA fdUrq lw;ZoekZ us 'kklu fd;k Fkk vFkok ugha] ;g iz'u fooknkLin

4068

gS D;ksafd bZ'kkuoekZ ds iq= 'koZoekZ vkSj mlds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa us lw;ZoekZ

dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA y sfdu] e/; i zn s' k l s i z k Ir

egk f' kox q Ir ckykt q Zu d s eYgkj rke zi=k f H ky s[ k l s ;g Kkr

gk sr k g S fd ek S[kj h jkto a' k dk l w; Z oek Z ex/k dk jktk

Fk kA bl izdkj ;g Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ us vius

thoudky esa gh ex/k dks vius v/khu dj fy;k Fkk vkSj laHkor%

bZ'kkuoekZ ds ckn mlds iq= lw;ZoekZ us dqN le; rd 'kklu

fd;kA ;|fi fljiqj ls izkIr ,d vfHkys[k esa lw;ZoekZ dks dsoy ui dgk

x;k gS ysfdu blls bl rF; ij dksbZ vUrj ugha iM+rk fd ;g lw;ZoekZ

ekS[kjh ujs'k bZ'kkuoekZ dk iq= FkkA

ek S [kj h vfH ky s[ k k s a e s a d soy gM +g k vfH ky s[ k ,dek=

, slk y s[ k g S ftl ij frfFk nh g qb Z g S vk S j og fodze l aor ~

611 g S tk s b Z Loh lu ~ 554 e s a iM +r k g SA ;g vfHkys[k ;|fi

bZ'kkuoekZ ds iq= lw;ZoekZ }kjk fy[kok;k x;k Fkk fQj Hkh ml le;

ekS[kjh flagklu ij bZ'kkuoekZ gh vklhu FkkA bZ'kkuoekZ dk mRrjkf/kdkjh

mldk ,d vU; iq= 'koZoekZ gqvk ftldks eqgjksa ij ^ije ekgs'oj

egkjktkf/kjkt* dgk x;k gSA 'ko Z oek Z dk 'k klu ex/k l s y sdj

e/; i zn s' k e s a vlhjx< + rFk k c q Un sy[k.M rd QSyk Fk kA

if'pe e s a mldk 'k klu dk axM +k rd foLr `r Fk kA dqN yksaxks

us ;g fopkj O;Dr fd;k gS fd pwafd dUukSt vkSj dkaxM+k ds chp

iq";Hkwfr oa'k dk Hkh 'kklu iM+rk gS blfy, dkaxMk esa ekS[kfj;ksa dk

'kklu laHko ugha gSA fdUrq bl ckr dks eku ysuk pkfg, fd laHkor%

ml le; rd iq";Hkwfr oa'k viuh lkeUr voLFkk esa gh Fkk tcfd

ekS[kjh oa'k ds ujs'k ^egkjktkf/kjkt*] ^ijes'oj* vkfn mikf/k;ksa ls

foHkwf"kr fd;s tkrs FksA H k k stn so d s ckjkg rke zi=k f H ky s[ k e s a bl s

^ije s'oj 'ko Z oe Zn so * dgk x;k g S vk S j ;g crk;k x;k g S

fd ^ije s'oj 'ko Z oe Zn so * u s dky atj e aMy d s mn q Ecj fo" k;

e s a d qN Hk wfenku fd;k Fk kA ijorhZ xqIr 'kkld thforxqIr f}rh;

ds nsoo.kkZdZ vfHkys[k esa ^ijes'oj Jh'koZoekZ* rFkk ^ijes'oj Jh

vofUroekZ* rFkk ,d vU; ^egkjktkf/kjkt ijes'oj* dk mYys[k feyrk

gSA bl i zdkj ;g Li"V g S fd ek S[kj h o a' k viu s le; e s a

mRrj Hk kjr dk lcl s 'k fDr'k kyh jkto a' k Fk k vk S j mudk

4069

i z H k ko {k s= Hk h yxHkx i wj s mRrj Hk kjr e s a foLr `r Fk kA

bl dky&[k.M ds bfrgkl dks fy[kus okys fo}kuksa us ijorhZ

xqIr jktoa'k vkSj iq";Hkwfr jktoa'k dks ekS[kfj;ksa ds leku gh egRo ns

j[kk gSA Q~yhV us lcls igys vkfnR;lsu ds vQlk<+ vfHkys[k dk

laiknu fd;k Fkk vkSj mUgksaus bl vfHkys[k esa izkIr ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k

ds 'kkldksa dks ekS[kfj;ksa dk izfr}anh jktoa'k crk;kA mlds ckn ftrus

Hkh bfrgkldkjksa us ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k ds fo"k; esa fy;k gS mu lHkh us

bl er dks egRo fn;k gSA ysfdu] okLrfodrk ;g gS fd v;k s/;k d s

x q Ir le z kVk s a d s jkto a' k d s iru d s ckn dUuk St d s ek S [kj h

jkto a' k u s yxHkx ogh fLFk fr i z k Ir dj yh Fk h tk s x q Ir

le z kVk s a dh Fk hA NBh 'krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa ijorhZ xqIr vkSj iq";Hkwfr

jktoa'kksa dh fLFkfr NksVs&eksVs lkeUrksa tSlh gh FkhA v;ks/;k ds bfrgkl

ds lEcU/k esa fopkj djrs le; ;g ckr izeq[k :i ls dgh tk ldrh gS

fd ekS[kjh jktoa'k ds xgoekZ ds jkT;dky rd dks'ky muds

'kklukUrxZr cuk jgkA dqN fo}kuksa us ijorhZ xqIr 'kkldksa dks ex/k ls

mn~Hkwr gqvk ekuk gS ftlls ;g /kkj.kk curh gS fd laHkor% dks'ky Hkh

fdlh le; ijorhZ xqIrksa ds vUrxZr jgk gksxkA fdUrq ;gka ;g crk nsuk

vko';d gS fd NBh 'krkCnh bZ0 esa ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k jktLFkku ds

ekyo tuin dh LFkkuh; vkSj lkekU; 'kfDr FkhA vkfnR;lsu dk

vQlk<+ vfHkys[k lkroha 'krkCnh esa fy[kok;k x;k Fkk ftl le; og

ex/k dk ,d egRoiw.kZ 'kkld cu x;k FkkA mlus bl vfHkys[k esa vius

iwoZtksa dk fooj.k fn;k gS ftlesa vius iwoZ ds lkr jktkvksa dk mYys[k

fd;k gSA vkfnR;lsu dk vQlk<+ ys[k mu egRoiw.kZ ys[kksa esa gS ftUgsa

izkjEHk ls gh xyr lanHkZ esa le>k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHkys[k esa

vkfnR;lsu vius iwoZtksa dks lk/kkj.k ^ui* vFkok ^Jh* vkfn uke ls gh

vfHkfgr djrk gS ftlls muds lkekU; LFkkuh; 'kkld gksus dh ckr

ekuh tkuh pkfg,A dqN LFkkuksa ij mlds iwoZtksa ds ekS[kjh jktoa'k ds

lkFk izfr}af}rk vkSj izfrLi/kkZ dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA vQlk<+ vfHkys[k ds

vkBosa 'yksd esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vkfnR;lsu ds pkSFks iwoZt dqekjxqIr

us jktkvksa esa pUnzek ds leku Jh bZ'kkuoekZ dh lsuk dks eanjkpy ioZr

dh Hkkafr foefFkr ¼eFk½ dj fn;k FkkA fdUrq bl ;q) dk D;k ifj.kke

gqvk ;g ugha crk;k x;k gSA ysfdu vxys gh 'yksd esa ;g vo';

4070

lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd ^'kkS;ZlR;ozr/kkjh* us iz;kx tkdj djh"k

¼dUMs ;k miys½ dh vfXu esa izos'k djds vkRegR;k dj yh FkhA ;g

fdl dkj.k fd;k x;k ;g Li"V ugha crk;k x;k gSA flugk us ;g

lq>ko fn;k gS fd dqekjxqIr us bZ'kkuoekZ ij izkIr fot; dh izlUurk esa

nsorkvksa ds izfr drKrk Kkiu ds :i esa vkRenkg fd;k FkkA fdUrq bl

izdkj ds fopkj gkL;kLin gSa D;ksafd fdlh Hkh fot; ds mijkar fot;h

jktk Lo;a dk vkRenkg ugha djrkA ,slk yxrk gS fd dqekjxqIr bl

;q) esa ijkftr gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k mls vkRegR;k djuh iM+hA

blds ckn ds 'yksdksa esa dqekjxqIr ds iq= nkeksnjxqIr ds fo"k; esa dgk

x;k gS fd og ekS[kfj;ksa ds ;q) esa gw.kksa dh xtlsuk dks fo?kfVr djrs

gq, ewfNZr gks x;k Fkk ¼ekjk x;k Fkk½ rFkk mldh uhan LoxZ esa tkdj

lqjo/kqvksa ds dj&Li'kZ ls [kqyhA bl 'yksd dk vFkZ Q~yhV us bl izdkj

fd;k gS ^;q) esa ¼dqpydj ekj Mkyus ds mn~ns'; ls½ gw.kksa dh lsukvksa

dks m[kkM+ Qsad nsus okys ekS[kjh ds vkxs c<+rs gq, eneRr 'kfDr'kkyh

gkfFk;ksa ds O;wg dk fo?kVu djds og ewfPNZr gks x;kA ¼rFkk iqu% LoxZ

esa½ lqjo/kqvksa ds chp p;u djrs gq,] rFkk ¼veqd vFkok veqd½ esjh

gS ;g dgrs gq, muds dj&deyksa ds lq[kn Li'kZ ls psru gqvkA^ Q~yhV

}kjk fd, x, bl vuqokn esa mudk ;g vkxzg >ydrk gS fd ;g ;q)

Hkh ekS[kfj;ksa vkSj ijorhZ xqIrksa ds chp gqvk FkkA ysfdu okLro esa ,slk

yxrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ ls ;q) esa dqekjxqIr ds ijkftr gksus ds ckn

nkeksnjxqIr dks ekS[kfj;ksa dh v/khurk Lohdkj djuh iM+h Fkh vkSj

bZ'kkuoekZ vFkok mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh ds lkFk gw.kksa ds ;q) esa nkeksnjxqIr

,d lkeUr ds :i esa yM+rs gq, ekjk x;k FkkA blesa xtlsuk dk tks

mYys[k vk;k gS og gw.kksa dh xtlsuk dk yxrk gS] vkSj ;q) gw.kksa vkSj

ekS[kfj;ksa ds chp yM+k x;k FkkA bldk ladsr gesa tkSuiqj ds bZ'ojoekZ

ds ik"kk.k ys[k esa feyrk gS ftlesa ^/kkjkekxZfofuxZrkfXudf.kdk* dk

mYys[k vk;k gSA ;g laHkor% gw.k vkdze.k dk gh mYys[k gSA

ek S [kj h jkto a' k dk 'k klu bl {k s= ij de&l s&de

vofUroek Z vk S j mld s i q= x `goek Z d s le; rd pykA

bfrgkldkjk s a dk , slk vu qeku g S fd g" k Z o/ k Z u u s x `goek Z

dh gR;k d s ckn dUuk St dk 'k klu Lo; a l aH k ky fy;k Fk k

vk S j bl i zdkj dUuk St d s ek S [k fj;k s a dk o a' k lek Ir gk s

4071

x;k Fk kA g~osulkax us Hkh ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd 'k=qvksa dk neu

djus ds ckn dUukSt ds eaf=;ksa us g"kZ ls dUukSt dk 'kklu laHkkyus dk

vuqjks/k fd;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr g"kZ dh fot;ksa vkSj dke:e ds

'kkld HkkLdjoekZ ds lkFk g"kZ ds nkSR; lEcU/k dh ckr dks /;ku esa

j[krs gq, ;g Lohdkj djuk iM + sx k fd dqN le; d s fy,

v;k s/;k rFk k dk s' ky {k s= Hk h ] g" k Z d s lke z kT; dk v ax cu

x;k Fk kA ;g Hkh laHko gS fd g"kZ us dUukSt dks dsoy viuh

xfrfof/k;ksa dk dsUnz ek= cuk;k gksA ysfdu] ekS[kjh jktoa'k dk fouk'k

gks x;k Fkk ;g Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ukyUnk ls izkIr ,d eqgj

esa vofUroekZ ds iq= ds uke dk mYys[k gqvk gS ftlds uke dk dsoy

izFke v{kj ^lq* i<+k tk ldk gSA dqN fo}kuksa us bl ^lq* dks ^lqpUnzoekZ*

ekuus dk lq>ko fn;k gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd bl eqgj esa

vofUroekZ ds iq= xgoekZ dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA cgqr laHko gS fd

x`goekZ ds ckn vofUroekZ ds nwljs iq= ^lq* us jkT; fd;k gksA

vk;ZeqtqJhewydYi esa ^xg* ds ckn ^lqoz* ds 'kkld gksus dh ckr dgh

xbZ gSA ^lq* ds ckn ekS[kjh jktoa'k dk bfrgkl iqufuZfeZr djuk dfBu

dk;Z gSA dqN fo}kuksa us iw.kZoekZ dks ekS[kjh jktk ekuk gS rFkk g~osulkax

Hkh mls v'kksdjkt dk vafre mRrjkf/kdkjh ekurk gSA iw.kZoekZ ;k rks

ex/k dk Lora= 'kkld Fkk vFkok ekS[kjh oa'k dk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh FkkA

630 b Z0 e s a ukyUnk dh ;k=k dju s oky s g ~o sulk ax u s

i w. k Z oek Z dk s i wo Zdky dk jktk crk;k g SA dqN fo}kuksa us ;g Hkh

lq>ko fn;k gS fd iw.kZoekZ g"kZ }kjk fu;qDr ex/k dk 'kkld Fkk vkSj

mldh eR;q ds mijkar gh ek/koxqIr g"kZ }kjk ex/k dk 'kkld fu;qDr

fd;k x;kA blh ek/koxqIr dk iq= vkfnR;lsu Fkk ftlus vQlk<+ dk

ik"kk.k[k.M vfHkys[k fy[kok;k FkkA ek S[kj h o a' k vk fnR;l su d s

le; e s a H k h u"V ugh a g qvk Fk k ] bl ckr dh l wpuk ge s a

u si ky d s t;n so f}rh; d s i'k q ifr vfHky s[ k l s i z k Ir gk sr h

g S A ;g vfHky s[ k u si kyh l aor ~ 157 ¼773 b Z0 ½ e s a frF;k afdr

g S A ble s a ;g dgk x;k g S fd ex/k d s 'k kld vkfnR;l su

u s viuh i q=h dk fookg ek S[kj h uj s' k H k k sxoek Z l s fd;k Fk k

vk S j bl Hk k sxoek Z dh i q=h oRln so h u si ky d s fyPNoh uj s' k

t;n so f}rh; dh ekrk rFk k f' kon so f}rh; dh iRuh Fk hA

4072

bl izdkj ;|fi g"kZ ds iq";Hkwfr oa'k ds fo"k; esa lkroha 'krkCnh esa gesa

dksbZ tkudkjh miyC/k ugha gS fdUrq ekS[kjh oa'k lkroha 'krkCnh ds vafre

pj.k esa Hkh vfLrRo esa Fkk] bldh lwpuk usiky ds bl vfHkys[k ls Kkr

gksrh gSA flUgk us ;g lq>ko fn;k gS fd HkksxoekZ us dUukSt ij vf/kdkj

dj fy;k Fkk rFkk blh dkj.k vkfnR;lsu us mlls viuh iq=h dk fookg

dj fn;kA mUgksaus ;gka rd dgk gS fd HkksxoekZ vkfnR;lsu dk lkeUr

jgk gksxkA fdUrq ;s nksuksa ckrsa dkYifud yxrh gSaA

blh lUnHkZ esa dUukSt ds ;'kksoekZ dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk

ldrk gS ftldk o.kZu okDifrjkt ds izkdr dkO; xkSM+ogkSa esa fd;k

x;k gSA ;'kksoekZ dk ,d ik"kk.k vfHkys[k ukyUnk ls izkIr gqvk gSA ;g

vfHkys[k okLro esa ;FkksoekZ ds ,d ea=h] ekykn ds }kjk fy[kok;k x;k

Fkk ftlesa jktk ds ckjs esa dqN fo'ks"k ugha dgk x;k gS] flok; blds fd

og mnkj vkSj lnk'k; jktk FkkA rFkk vusd ;q)ksa dk fotsrk FkkA blds

vfrfjDr ;'kksoekZ uke okys dqN flDds Hkh izkIr gq, gSa tks blh jktk ds

crk, x, gSaA fdUrq bl lEcU/k esa fo}kuksa us 'kadk O;Dr dh gS]

D;ksafd ;s flDds d'ehj vkSj iatkc ls izkIr gq, gSa vkSj b.Mks&lhfFk;u

izdkj ds gSa ftudks nqyZHkd izrkikfnR; f}rh; ¼700bZ0½ rFkk t;kihM+

fou;kfnR; ¼772 bZ0½ ds chp j[kk x;k gSA ysfdu bl dky esa d'ehj esa

bl uke dk dksbZ vU; jktk u gksus ds dkj.k ;s flDds dUukSt

ds ;'kksoekZ ds ekus tk ldrs gSaA

;'k k soek Z dk s bl dkO; e s a pUn zo a' k e s a mRiUu jktk

crk;k x;k g S rFk k ;g Hk h dgk x;k g S fd mldh

jkt/k kuh dUuk St e s a F k h ftld s dkj.k fo}kuk s a u s ;g

Lohdkj fd;k fd ;g ;'k k soek Z ek S [kj h o a' k dk gk s ldrk

g S A y sfdu ek S[kj h o a' k pUn zo a' k h; ugh a F k kA blds vfrfjDr

oeZu uke Hkh dsoy ekS[kjh jktoa'k esa izpfyr jgk gks] ;g ckr Hkh ugha

gSA v;ks/;k ds bfrgkl dh nf"V ls ;g ckr mYys[kuh; gS fd ;'kksoekZ

us gfj'pUnz dh uxjh ¼gfjvan uvfj,s½ esa ,d gh fnu e s a ,d e afnj

dk fuek Z . k djok;k F k kA ;gk a gfj'pUn z uxjh l s v;k s/;k

dk rk Ri; Z g S A laHkor% dUukSt ds ;'kksoekZ us viuh fnfXot; ds

nkSjku ;g dk;Z fd;k FkkA okdifrjkt d s bl x z aF k dk le;

735 b Z 0 ekuk tkrk g SA

4073

bZlk dh lkroha 'krkCnh esa v;ks/;k ds bfrgkl ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ

vU; lkfgfR;d vFkok vfHkysf[kd lk{; miyC/k ugha gSA NBh 'krkCnh

ds vUr esa vFkok lkroha 'krkCnh ds izkjfEHkd o"kksZa esa] ,d ,slh ?kVuk

?kV xbZ ftlds dkj.k ekS[kfj;ksa ds iz'kklu ij dqN le; ds fy, xzg.k

yx x;kA ekS[kjh lezkV xgoekZ dk fookg iq";Hkwfr oa'k ds jktk

izHkkdjo/kZu dh iq=h jkT;Jh ls gqvk FkkA ekyok ds jktk nsoxqIr vkSj

xkSM+ ds jktk 'k'kkad us ekS[kjh oa'k dh jkt/kkuh dUukSt ij vkdze.k

djds x`goekZ dks ekj fn;k rFkk mldh jkuh jkT;Jh dks ogha ds

dkjkxkj esa Mky fn;kA ck.k ds g"kZpfjr ls ;g tkudkjh feyrh gS fd

bldh lwpuk feyus ij Fkkus'oj ls jkT;o/kZu ,d lsuk ysdj ekS[kjh oa'k

ds 'k=qvksa ls yM+us ds fy, fudyk ysfdu og Lo;a 'k=qvksa ds

fo'okl?kkr ds dkj.k ekjk x;kA bldh lwpuk feyus ij g"kZ us 'k=qvksa

dks ijkLr djus dk fu'p; fd;kA blh chp esa jkT;Jh dkjkxkj ls

fudydj foU/; ds taxyksa esa pyh xbZ FkhA g"kZ ls mldh HksaV ogha ij

gksrh gSA g"kZpfjr dh dgkuh ;gha ij lekIr gks tkrh gSA ysfdu

phuh ;k=h g ~o sulk ax u s bld s vkx s H k h fooj.k fn;k g S

D;k s afd og yxHkx 636 l s 640 b Z 0 d s chp g" k Z d s lkFk

mldh jkt/k kuh dUuk St e s a jgk F k kA blds lkFk og ;g Hkh

lwpuk nsrk gS fd dUukSt ds eaf=;ksa us ;g fuosnu fd;k Fkk fd og

dUukSt dk jkT;Hkkj laHkky ysA g" k Z d s 'k klu dk i z kj EH k 606

b Z 0 e s a ekuk tkrk g S vk S j bld s yxHkx rhl o" k k sZ a d s ckn

g ~o sulk ax u s mld s njckj e s a ig q aprk g S A bl i zdkj ;g

le; g" k Z d s 'k kludky dk lok Z f / kd egRoi w. k Z vk S j o S H ko

dk ; qx Fk kA , slh fLFk fr e s a ;fn g ~o sulk ax g" k Z dh fot;k s a

l s rFk k mld s i z H k ko l s i z H k k for gk sdj ml s dUuk St dk

'k kld ekurk g S rk s bl s vLok H k k fod ugh a dgk tk ldrkA

ysfdu ge ;g Hkh ugha eku ldrs fd ekS[kjh oa'k lekIr gks x;k Fkk

vkSj mlds /oa'kko'ks"k ij g"kZ us viuk lkezkT; fuekZ.k fd;k FkkA g"kZ ds

ckn iq";Hkwfr oa'k dk D;k gqvk blds fo"k; esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha

feyrhA ysfdu fofHkUu lzksrksa ls ge ;g tkurs gSa fd ekS[kjh jktoa'k

lkroha vkSj vkBoha 'krkfCn;ksa esa Hkh thfor jgkA bl vk/kkj ij ;g dgk

tk ldrk gS fd lkroha 'krkCnh ds iwokZ)Z esa g"kZ dk mn; ,d

4074

vkdfLed ?kVuk Fkh vkSj mlds ckn iqu% mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfr viuh

LokHkkfod fLFkfr esa vk xbZA ,slk yxrk gS fd g"kZ us ekyok ds ijorhZ

xqIr jktoa'k ds ek/koxqIr dks ex/k esa LFkkfir fd;k Fkk vkSj bl izdkj

ekS[kfj;ksa dks ex/k ij ls viuk vf/kdkj NksM+uk iM+k gksxkA blds

ckotwn dks'ky dk {ks= ekS[kfj;ksa ds gh 'kklukUrxZr jgkA bls ekuus esa

dksbZ dfBukbZ ugha gksuh pkfg,A

g" k Z ,o a ijorh Z x q Irk s a dk dky

lkroha 'krkCnh ds iwokZ)Z esa dksly {ks= esa Hkh g"kZo/kZu dk 'kklu Fkk

bldh i q f "V QStkckn d s fudV fH kVk S j k l s i z k Ir ,d fuf/ k

l s gk sr h g S A bl fuf / k e s a 248 pk anh d s flDd s g" k Z o/ k Z u d s

eku s tkr s g S a ftu ij ^ ^Jh'kynRr* * ¼Jh'k hyk fnR;½ y s[ k

mRdh.k Z g S A vkj0 cu Z u s bUg s a g" k Z dk flDdk ekuk g SA Mk W 0

n sog wfr Hk h bl s Lohdkj djrh g S aA

phuh ;k=h g~osulkax Hkh blh le; Hkkjr vk;k Fkk vkSj mlus bu

{ks=ksa dh foLrr ;k=k dh Fkh rFkk vius fooj.k ,d iqLrd ds :i esa

fy[ks FksA ik'pk R; fo}kuk s a u s rFk k mud s vu qdj.k ij vu sd

Hk kjrh; bfrgkldkjk s a u s H k h ] g ~o sulk ax d s fooj.k k s a dk s

lUn sg krhr < ax l s Lohdkj fd;k g S A ysfdu] g~osulkax ds lHkh

fooj.k iw.kZ:i ls fo'oluh; ugha gSA lcls cM+h ckr rks ;g gS fd

mlus vius fooj.kksa esa b/kj&m/kj ls lquh&lqukbZ ckrksa dks vR;f/kd

LFkku fn;k gSA ftlesa ,sfrgkfld rF;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vkuq"kkafxd

dgkfu;ka] fo'ks"k :i ls ckS) /keZ ls lEcfU/kr] vf/kd egRo ds lkFk

mn~/k`r dh xbZ gSA nwljh ckr ;g gS fd mldk nf"Vdks.k ckS/k /keZ

ds ,d vuq;k;h HkDr dh Hkkafr Fkk ftlus izeq[k :i ls dsoy ckS) /keZ

ls lEcfU/kr LFkkuksa] Lekjdksa rFkk vo'ks"kksa dk fooj.k fn;k gSA vU; /keksZ

ls lEcfU/kr fooj.k cgqr la{ksi esa vkSj pyrkÅ <ax ls fn, x, gSaA

rhljh ckr ;g g S fd mld s }kjk fn; s x, Hk k Sxk sfyd

fooj.k cg qr vf/ kd fo'oluh; ugh a g S aA rFk k n wf j;k s a d s

fooj.k Hk h dHk h&dHk h vfo'oluh; yxr s g SA g ~o sulk ax u s

dk s' ky l s lEcfU / kr nk s LFk kuk s a dk fooj.k viu s ;k=k

o `rk Ur e s a fn;k g S A igyk LFk ku vk s&; q&rk s dk g S ftl s]

fooj.k dk s l adfyr dju s okyk s a u s] v;k s/;k ekuk g S rFk k

4075

lHk h bfrgkldkjk s a u s bl fooj.k dk s v;k s/;k dk gh fooj.k

Loh kdj fd;k g S A dUukSt ls uonsodqy ¼u&iks&fr&iks&dq&yks½ dh

nwjh ,d lkS yh crkrs gq, ogka ls nf{k.k&iwoZ dh fn'kk esa N% lkS yh

pydj xaxk ikj djus ds ckn og vks&;q&rks igqWaprk gSA mldk tks

;k=k ekxZ gS mlds vuqlkj vks&;q&rks ls rhu lkS yh iwoZ tkus ds ckn

xaxk ds mRrj esa og g;eq[k ¼vkS&f;&eq&f[k½ igqWaprk gS vkSj ogka ls

lkr lkS yh xaxk ds nf{k.k tkdj iz;kx ¼iks&yks&,&fd;k½ igqWaprk gSA

iz;kx ls ikap lkS yh pydj og dkS'kkEch igqWaprk gS rFkk dkS'kkEch ls

lkr lkS yh mRrj pydj og dliqj ¼f'k&fd;k&f'k&vks&yks½ igqWaprk gS

vkSj ogka ls 170 vFkok 180 yh mRrj fn'kk esa fo'kk[k ¼fi&lks&fd;k½

dh fLFkfr crkrk gSA bl fi&lk s&fd;k dk s dfu a? ke }kjk

v;k s/;k l s ler q fyr fd;k x;k g S D;k s afd v;k s/;k dk ,d

uke fo'k k[k H k h F k kA

vc g ~o sulk ax d s v;k s/;k ¼vk s&; q&rk s½ rFk k fo'k k[k

¼ fi&lk s&fd;k ½ dh igpku d s lEcU/ k e s a H k ze mRiUu gk su k

LokH k k fod g S D;k s afd v;k s/;k ¼\½ l s og fo'k k[k ig q W apu s d s

fy, ftl V s< + s&e s< + s ekx Z dk s viukrk g S mld s vu qlkj bu

nk su k s a LFk kuk s a dk s ,d&n wlj s l s dkQh n wj gk su k pk fg,A

dfua?ke us nUr/kkou dq.M vFkkZr~ cq) dh nkrkSu ls mits o{k dh dFkk

ds dkj.k fi&lks&fd;k dks v;ks/;k ekuk gS ftldk fooj.k ge ihNs ns

vk, gSaA vc ;fn ;g v;ks/;k Fkk rks vks&;q&rks dkSu&lk LFkku jgk

gksxk] ;g fopkjus dh ckr gSA y sfdu gekj s bfrgkldkjk s a u s fcuk

bl fo" k; ij fopkj fd, vk s&; q&rk s dk s v;k s/;k Lohdkj

dj fy;k g S rFk k mld s fooj.k dk s H k hA

g ~o sulk ax d s vu qlkj vk s&; q&rk s 5]000 yh ds {ks= esa

foLrr Fkk vkSj bldh jkt/kkuh 20 yh {ks= esa QSyh FkhA ;gka ij 100

la?kkjke Fks rFkk 3]000 fHk{kq Fks ftuesa ghu;ku vkSj egk;ku nksuksa ds gh

fHk{kq lfEefyr FksA vks&;q&rks ds {ks= esa 10 nsoeafnj FksA ysfdu mlesa

jgus okys fofHkUu iaFkksa dks ekuus okys fo}kuksa dh la[;k cgqr de FkhA

blh v;ks/;k ds lEcU/k esa g~osulkax us olqcU/kq cksf/klRo dh dFkk dk

fooj.k fn;k gSA v;k s/;k dk o.k Zu dju s oky s vk/ k q fud fo}ku ~

bl s gh v;k s/;k ekur s g S aA y sfdu dfu a? ke u s H k k Sxk sfyd

4076

dfBukb;k s a dk s n s[ kr s g q , dkui qj l s mRrj&if'pe dh vk sj

dkd wi q j uked ,d dLc s l s bldh igpku dh g SA lcl s

cM +h ckr rk s ;g g S fd bl vk s&; q&rk s dk s x axk d s fdukj s

fLFkr crk;k x;k g SA i z 'u ;g g S fd d;k bldh igpku

v;k s/;k l s dj ldr s g S\ rFkk vks&;q&rks esa ftu Lrwiksa] la?kkjkeksa

vkSj fogkjksa dk fooj.k g~osulkax us fn;k gS D;k mUgsa v;ks/;k ij

vkjksfir dj ldrs gSa\ ;fn bldk mRrj ^gkWa* esa fn;k tk, rks

fi&lks&fd;k vFkkZr~ fo'kk[kk ds fo"k; esa D;k dgk tk,xk tks HkkSxksfyd

nf"V ls vks&;q&rks ls dkQh nwj gS rFkk tgka ij cq) ds nkrkSu ls

mRiUu o{k dk fooj.k feyrk gSA bu nksuksa LFkkuksa ds fooj.k vkSj

igpku esa dfBukbZ ds dkj.k iwjk ;k=k fooj.k gh lUnsg ds ?ksjs esa vk

tkrk gSA

i z frgkj dky

vkBoh a l s nloh a 'krk f Cn;k s a d s v;k s/;k d s bfrgkl

d s fo" k; e s a dk sb Z fo'k s" k l wpuk vk f H ky sf[ kd ,o a lk fgf R;d

l z k sr k s a l s ugh a fey ikrhA fdUrq mRrj Hkkjr ds jktuhfrd

bfrgkl esa dUukSt dk egRo cuk jgk D;ksafd x qt Zj&i z frgkj

jktkvk s a u s uoh a ' krk Cnh b Z 0 e s a dUuk St l s 'k klu fd;k

Fk kA ukxHkV~V f}rh; tks igys xksfoUn rrh; ls ijkftr gks pqdk Fkk]

dUukSt ij vf/kdkj djus ds ckn vius dks lezkV~ ?kksf"kr djrk gS rFkk

^ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf/kjkt ijes'oj* dh mikf/k;ka /kkj.k djrk gSA

mlh ds oa'k esa ukxiky ds ckn jkeHknz rFkk mldk iq= fefgjHkkst

'kkld curk gSA izfrgkj dky esa dUukSt ds izfrgkjksa ds la?k"kZ nf{k.k es

jk"V~dwVksa ds lkFk rFkk iwoZ esa caxky ds ikyksa ds lkFk fujUrj pyrs jgsA

fefgjHkkst ds ckn mldk iq= egsUnziky 'kkld gqvk ftldh 'kklu

frfFk 885&915 bZ0 rd ekuh tkrh gSA egsUnziky ds ckn Hkkst f}rh;]

rRi'pkr eghiky vkSj mlds ckn egsUnziky f}rh; vkSj nsoiky 'kkld

curs gSaA nsoiky dh vafre Kkr frfFk 948 bZ0 gS vkSj mlus laHkor% 950

bZ0 rd 'kklu fd;kA nsoiky laHkor% vfUre egRoiw.kZ jktk Fkk D;ksafd

xgM+oky jktk pUnznso ds pUnzkorh vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd

mlds firkeg ;'kksfoxzg us nsoiky ds oa'ktksa ds u"V gks tkus ds ckn

cyiwoZd dkU;dqCt ij vf/kdkj dj fy;k FkkA ;g ,d fopkj djus dh

4077

ckr gS fd nsoiky] tks vis{kkdr ,d detksj 'kkld Fkk vkSj cgqr gh

vYi le; ds fy, jktxn~nh ij cSBk] fdl izdkj xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa

mn~/k`r fd;k x;k gSA okLro esa nsoiky ds ckn izfrgkj oa'k u"V ugha

gqvk Fkk rFkk vfHkys[kksa ls Kkr gksrk gS fd mlds ckn fot;iky vkSj

rRi'pkr~ mldk iq= jkT;iky 'kkld gqvkA fdUrq bl vof/k esa izfrgkj

oa'k ds jkT; {ks= dks gM+ius okys dbZ jktoa'k mB [kM+s gq, FksA

jkT;iky d s 'k kludky e s a gh 1019 b Z 0 e s a dUuk St ij

ege wn xtuoh d s bl vkd ze.k g qvk Fk kA eqfLye vkdze.kksa dk

fooj.k ge vxys v/;k; esa nsxsaA blfy, ;gka ij egewn xtuoh ds bl

vkdze.k dh foospuk ugha dh tk jgh gSA mYys[kuh; ckr ;g gS fd bl

vkdze.k ls Hkh izfrgkj oa'k dk lewy fouk'k ugha gqvk Fkk D;ksafd fodze

l aor ~ 1184 ¼1027 b Z 0½ d s bykgkckn fty s e s a fLFkr > wWlh

l s i z k Ir gk su s oky s ,d vfHky s[ k e s a j kT;iky d s i q=

f=yk spuiky dk s ^ijeHkV ~Vkjd egkjktk f / kj kt ije s'oj *

dgk x;k g SA ysfdu f=ykspuiky dk fdruk jktuhfrd egRo

Fkk] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrkA 1019 bZ0 esa egewn ds vkdze.k esa

f=ykspuiky us Hkh dkQh ohjrk fn[kk;h fdUrq og ijkftr gks x;kA

f=ykspuiky ds ckn ;'k%iky uked ,d vU; izfrgkj 'kkld dk uke

feyrk gS ftls ^egkjktkf/kjkt ;'k%iky* dgk x;k gS ysfdu ;g ugha

dgk tk ldrk fd bl ;'kiky dk f=ykspuiky ls D;k laca/k FkkA bl

i zdkj dUuk St d s x qt Zu&i z frgkjk s a dk b Zlk dh X;kjgoh a

' krk Cnh d s i wo k Z) Z e s a iru gk s x;k vk S j mudk LFk ku

xgM +o kyk s a u s y s fy;kA

izfrgkj dky esa tgka rd v;ks/;k vkSj dks'ky ds bfrgkl dk

iz'u gS] ;g fu'p;iwoZd ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;g {ks= izfrgkj

jktkvksa ds lh/ks iz'kklu ds vUrxZr Fkk vFkok muds fdlh lkeUr }kjk

iz'kkflr gks jgk FkkA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh fu'p; ds lkFk ugha dgk

tk ldrk fd lEiw.kZ dks'ky izns'k ,d gh lkeUr vFkok vf/kdkjh }kjk

iz'kkflr gksrk Fkk vFkok bl {ks= esa dbZ NksVs&eksVs lkeUr 'kklu dj jgs

FksA HkkSxksfyd fudVrk dh nf"V ls ;g Lohdkj djus esa ladksp ugha

gksuk pkfg, fd dks'ky lh/ks xqtj&izfrgkj 'kkldksa ds vUrxZr FkkA

xgM +o ky dky

4078

v;k s/;k d s bfrgkl dh n ` f "V l s xgM +o ky ; qx vR;f/ kd

egRoi w. k Z g S A ;|fi bl le; Hk h v;k s/;k d s lEcU/ k e s a

vf/ kd vkf H ky sf[ kd vFkok lk fgf R;d lk{; miyC/k ugh a g S a

fQj Hk h vu sd LFkyk s a ij , sl s mYy s[ k feyr s g S a ftul s

v;k s/;k d s bfrgkl ij Fk k sM +k cg qr i zdk'k iM +r k g S A

xgM+oky 'kkld Lo;a dks dk'kh vkSj mRrj dksly vkfn rhFkksZa dk ikyu

djus okyk dgrs gSa vkSj mudk ;g dFku bl nf"V ls vkSj egRoiw.kZ gks

tkrk gS fd bl ;qx esa if'pe ls eqfLye vkdze.k ckj&ckj gks jgs FksA

vHkh gky gh esa 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks v;ks/;k esa jke&tUeHkwfe LFky

fLFkr <kaps dks fxjkrs le; mldh nhokyksa ds vUnj fpus x, iRFkj ds

Qyd ij mRdh.kZ chp iafDr;ksa dk ,d xgM+oky dkyhu vfHkys[k izkIr

gqvk gSA blesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd if'pe ls vkus okyh Hkhfr ¼vkdze.kksa½

dks izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k rFkk v;ks/;k esa fo".kqgfj dk ,d fo'kky eafnj

cuok;k x;kA bl izdkj v;ks/;k xgM+oky jktoa'k ds 'kkludky esa

muds }kjk gh vkjf{kr jghA

;'k k sf ox zg

xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj] bl oa'k ds izFke iq#"k dk uke ;'kksfoxzg

Fkk tks pUnznso dk firkeg FkkA mlds fo"k; esa dgk x;k gS fd mlus

iFoh dks thrdj mls viuh n.Miz.kf;uh cuk;kA izk;% ;g ekuk tkrk

gS fd ;'k k sf ox zg u s X;kjgoh a ' krk Cnh b Z - d s e/; e s a ' k klu

fd;k Fk kA fdlh vU; izek.k ds vHkko esa ;gh Hkh ekuk x;k gS fd

mlu s yxHkx 25 o" k Z ' k klu fd;k gk sx kA

eghpUn z

;'kksfoxzg dk iq= eghpUnz dk firk FkkA bldk o.kZu Hkh xgM+oky

vfHkys[kksa esa lk/kkj.k <ax ls ,d fot;h jktk ds :i esa fd;k x;k gS

rFkk ;g dgk x;k gS fd mldk ;'k leqnz ds ikj rd QSy pqdk FkkA

egkjktiq= xksfoUnpUnz ds rkezi=kfHkys[k esa mls ^ui* dgk x;k gS

rFkk ;g crk;k x;k gS fd mlus vusd 'k=qvksa ij fot; izkIr dh FkhA

bl vfHkys[k esa mls eghry uke fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj bfrgkldkjksa

dk ;g ekuuk gS fd ;'kksfoxzg rFkk eghpUnz nksuksa gh lkeUr 'kkld Fks

vkSj fdlh cM+s jktk dh v/khurk Lohdkjr djrs FksA laHkor% budk

Lokeh dYpqfj 'kkld y{ehd.kZ ¼1042&1070 bZ0½ Fkk ftldk

4079

mRrjkf/kdkjh ;'k%d.kZ FkkA eghpUnz us Hkh laHkor% X;kjgoha 'krkCnh bZ0

ds rhljs pj.k esa 'kklu fd;k gksxkA

pUn zn so

pUnznso xgM+oky jktoa'k dk izFke izrkih jktk FkkA mldk igyk

vfHkys[k pUnzkorh ls feyk gS vkSj ml ij fodze laor~ 1148 ¼1090 bZ-½

dh frfFk iM+h gqbZ gSA bl vfHkys[k esa mls ^ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf/kjkt

ijes'oj ijekgs'oj futHkqtksikftZr JhdkU;dqCtkf/kiR; JhpUnznsofot;h*

dgk x;k gSA blls ;g vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd 1090 bZ0 ds

dkQh igys gh mldk 'kklu izkjEHk gks pqdk FkkA izk;% lHkh xgM+oky

vfHkys[kksa esa mls dk'kh ¼okjk.klh½] dqf'kd ¼dU;dqCt ;k dUukSt½]

mRrjdks'ky ¼v;ks/;k½ rFkk bUnzLFkkuh;d vkfn rhFkksZa dk ikyu djus

okyk dgk x;k gSA vf/kdka'k fo}ku~ bUnzLFkkuh;d dks bUnzizLFk vFkok

fnYyh gh ekurs gSaA bl le; fnYyh ij rksejksa dk jkT; Fkk vkSj mlds

ckn pkgekuksa dk 'kklu gqvkA rksejksa ds fdlh Hkh vfHkys[k ls bl ckr

dh >yd ugha feyrh fd fnYyh ij xgM+okyksa us 'kklu LFkkfir fd;k

gks vkSj rksejksa dks vinLFk fd;k gksA fQj Hkh] pUnzkorh vfHkys[k esa

mfYyf[kr bUnzLFkkuh;d dks ;fn fnYyh ekuk tk, rks ;gh Lohdkj

djuk iM+sxk fd pUnznso rqdksZa ds vkdze.k ds fo#) vfHk;ku djrs gq,

fnYyh rd igqWapk gksxk vkSj mldh j{kk dh gksxhA

pUnznso us fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl foLrr Hkw&Hkkx ij 'kklu izkjEHk

fd;k] blds fo"k; esa dqN ladsr egkjktiq= xksfoUnpUnz ds clkgh

rkezi=kfHkys[k ls izkIr gksrk gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd Hkkst dh eR;q

ds i'pkr~ rFkk d.kZ dh dhfrZ ds vo'ks"k ds u"V gksus ij tc iFoh

dfBukbZ esa iM+ xbZ Fkh rks pUnznso us mldh j{kk dhA pUnzkorh vfHkys[k

esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mlus vius mnkj izrki ls leLr iztksinzoksa

dks 'kkUr djds xkf/kiqj vkf/kjkT; dks vftZr fd;k rFkk 'k=qvksa dks

fo/oLr dj fn;kA

olkgh nkui= y s[ k e s a mfYyf[kr Hk k st dh igpku

Hk k st ijekj l s dh xb Z g S ftlu s 1000 l s 1050 b Z 0 rd

'k klu fd;k Fk k ] rFk k d.k Z dh igpku dYp q fj 'k kld

y{ehd.k Z l s dh xb Z g S ftlu s ; q) e s a db Z ckj ijk ftr

gk su s d s ckn viuk fl ag klu 1073 b Z0 d s i wo Z viu s

4080

i q= ;'k %d.k Z d s fy, Nk sM + fn;k Fk kA y{ehd.kZ dh ijkt;ksa ds

ckn vUrosZnh esa dksbZ 'kfDr'kkyh izfrjks/k u jg tkus ds dkj.k rFkk

if'pr ls eqlyekuksa ds fujarj gksus okys vkdze.kksa ds dkj.k iztktuksa esa

Hk; O;kIr gks x;k FkkA bldks 'kkUr djus dk Js; pUnznso dks izkIr

gqvkA e qlyeku bfrgkldkjk s a d s mYy s[k k s a l s ;g Kkr gk sr k

g S fd ledkyhu xtuh d s l q Yrku bc z k fge u s ¼1059&99

b Z 0 rd½ Hk kjr ij db Z ckj vkd ze.k fd, Fk sA gchc q fLl;j

uked bfrgkl y s[kd dk ;g dguk g S fd ^mlu s

fgUn q Lrku ij db Z ckj vkd ze.k fd;k vk S j gj ckj fot;h

gk sdj xtuh yk SVkA* , sl s e s a le; e s a pUn zn so u s r q#"d

vkd ze.k k s a l s bu n sorhF k k sZ a dh l qj{ k k dju s d s fy, rFk k

i ztk e s a O;k Ir min zok s a dk s ' k k Ur dju s d s fy, 'k klu viu s

gkFk e s a y s fy;kA

pUnznso ds 'kkludky ds pkj vfHkys[k miyC/k gSa tks fodzeh

laor~ 1048] 1050] 1054 esa frF;kafdr gSaA pUnznso dks okjk.klh ls fnYyh

rd ds {ks= dk Lokeh cuus ds fy, dbZ ;q) djus iM+s gksaxsA xgM+oky

vfHkys[kksa esa 'k=q dks u"V djus okyk ¼dzkUrf}"kUe.My%½ rFkk m}r

;ks)kvksa ds }kjk QSyk, x, vU/kdkj dks u"V djus okyk

¼fo/oLrks)r/khj;ks/kfrfej%½ dgk x;k gSA pUn z korh d s fod ze l aor ~

1150 ¼1093 b Z 0½ oky s y s[ k e s a ml s ujifr] xtifr]

fxfjifr rFk k f='k ad qi fr dk s thru s dk J s; fn;k x;k g S A

buds fo"k; esa fu'p;iwoZd dqN fo'ks"k ugha dgk tk ldrkA laHkor% ;g

dYpqfj jktkvksa dh mikf/k;ka Fkha vFkok ;s lkeUrksa ds dqN fo'ks"k oxZ FksA

pUnznso dh lcls egRoiw.kZ miyfC/k dkU;dqCt vFkok egksn; ij

vf/kdkj djuk jgk gSA dUukSt ekS[kjh dky ls gh vUrosZnh ij 'kklu

djus okys 'kfDr'kkyh lezkVksa dh jkt/kkuh jgh gSA g"kZ vkSj izfrgkj

lezkV Hkh dUukSt ls 'kklu dj jgs FksA blh dkj.k izk;% lHkh

vkf/kdkfjd xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa dkU;dqCt dh fot; dks nks ckj

lanfHkZr fd;k tkrk jgk gSA ¼^Jhen~xkf/kiqjkf/kjkT; leanksfoZdzes.k vftZr*

rFkk ^futHkqtksikftZr Jh dU;dqCtkf/kiR;a½A pUnznso ds ikS=

xksfoUnpUnz }kjk vius firk enuiky ds 'kkludky esa egkjktiq=

ds :i esa fy[ok, x, clkgh vfHkys[k esa pUnznso ds fo"k; esa ;g dgk

4081

x;k gS fd mlu s dkU;dq Ct dk s viuh jkt/k kuh cuk;k

¼dkU;dqCtsnzktk jkt/kkuhefuafnrke½A izk;% fo}kuksa us bl fo"k; ij

fopkj djus esa vf/kd le; O;rhr fd;k gS fd xgM+okyksa dh jkt/kkuh

dUukSt esa Fkh vFkok okjk.klh es] vkSj bl izdkj dh laHkkouk,a O;Dr dh

gSa fd igys dUukSt dks jkt/kkuh cuk;k x;k vkSj ckn esa mls okjk.klh

okil ys vk;k x;k D;ksafd fodze laor 1101 ds clkgh vfHkys[k esa

pUnznso ds }kjk dkU;dqCt dks jkt/kkuh cukus dk mYys[k vkrk gS

tcfd fodze laor 1162 ds dekSyh vfHkys[k esa bldk dksbZ mYys[k ugha

feyrk A ;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd ;s nk su k s a gh vfH ky s[ k pUn zn so

dh e ` R;k sij k ar mld s i q + += enuiky d s 'k kludky e s a

egkjkti q= xk sf o UnpUn z }kjk fy[kok, x, Fk sA ;g ,d

gkL;kLin vuqeku ek+= gSA okzLro esa xgM+okyksa dh eq[; jkt/kkuh

okjk.klh gh jgh gksxh rFkk dkU;dqCt mudh f}rh; jkt/kkuh ekuh tk

ldrh gS vkSj mldk dkj.k dkU;dqCt dks ijEijkxr jkt/kkuh ds :i

esa izkIr izfr"Bk dks crk;k tk ldrk gSA ,slk yxrk gS fd dkU;dqCt esa

ml le; xkf/kiqjkf/kifr xksiky dk oa'kt lkeUr ds :i esa 'kklu dj

jgk Fkk vkSj le;&le; ij xgM+oky ujs'k dkU;dqCt esa Hkh jgrs jgs

gksaxsA

d qN fo}kuk s a u s pUn zn so dh igpku ml pk Wnjk; l s

dju s dh dk sf ' k' k dh g S ftld s fo" k; e s a e q fLye

bfrgkldkjk s a dk ;g dguk g S fd og xtuh d s 'k kldk s a dk

gfLriky Fk kA Mh0 lh0 xkaxqyh us bl ckr dk loZizFke mYys[k fd;k

gS vkSj ;g dgus dh dksf'k'k dh gS fd pUnznso ewqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa

dk gfLriky Fkk vkSj mudk djn jktk FkkA ;|fi ;g fl)kUr lansg ls

ijs ugha gS rFkk bldk [k.Mu Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gS fWQj Hkh] g S Ul

c sdj u s vHk h gky e s a gh bldh i qu:fDr dh g S A , slk

yxrk g S fd mUgk s au s j k se k fu;k sx h }kjk fyf[kr xgM +o ky

jkto a' k d s bfrgkl dk s n s[ k k gh ugh aA

xkaxqyh us bl ?kVuk dks vius rdZ dk vk/kkj cuk;k gS ftlds

vuqlkj xkf/kiqjkf/kifr xksiky ds 'kkludky esa ,d ckj iqu% eqlyeku

lsuk us vUrosZnh ij vkdze.k fd;k FkkA gchcqfLl;j ds vuqlkj bl

vkdze.k dk usr~Ro bczkfge us Lo;a fd;k FkkA ysfdu lyeku ds vuqlkj

4082

mldk iq= egewn bl lsuk dk usrRo dj jgk FkkA t;iky ds

ohjrkiwoZd izfrjks/k ds ckotwn ijkt; ds ckn pkjks fn'kkvksa ls jktk

yksx vehj ds fy, migkj ysdj vkus yxsA migkjksa esa brus vf/kd gkFkh

feys fd lqYrku dks dkU;dqCt esa ,d gfLr'kkyk LFkkfir djuh iM+h

vkSj pkWanjk; uked ,d O;fDr dks mldk gfLriky fu;qDr fd;k

x;kA ;gka ij bl pkWanjk; dh igpku xgM+oky ujs'k pUnznso ls dh xbZ

vkSj xkaxqyh }kjk ;g lq>ko fn;k x;k fd

^^HkkX; dks pedkus ds fy, pUnznso us eqlyekuksa dk

lkFk Lohdkj fd;kA izkjEHk esa mlus egewn ds v/khu

dUukSt esa gfLriky ds :i esa lsok djuk Lohdkj

fd;kA ysfdu eqfLye lsuk ds izLFkku ds rqjUr ckn

mlus cyiwoZd dUukSt ij vf/kdkj dj fy;k vkSj ns'k

dk 'kkld cu x;k - - - - A pUnznso us dUukSt dh

jkT;lRrk egewn ds leFkZu ls bl 'krZ ij izkIr dh Fkh

fd og xtuh ds lqYrku dks okf"kZd dj nsxkA ckjgoha

'krkCnh esa eqlyekuksa us xgM+oky izns'kksa ij ckj&ckj

vkdze.k fd,A Li"Vr% ;s geys pUnznso ds oa'ktks dks

lqYrku dks cjkcj dj nsus dks ck/; djus ds fy, fd,

tkrs FksA**

jksek fu;ksxh us Mk0lh0 xkaxqyh }kjk pUnznso xgM+oky dh igpku

pkWanjk; ls fd, tkus dh vkykspuk dh gS D;ksafd ;g dbZ izdkj ls

iwoZvo/kkj.kkvksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA lcls igyh ckr ;g gS fd gfLriky

pkWanjk; ds Åij fdlh izdkj ds dj dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k Fkk] bl

ckr dh lwpuk nhoku&,&lyeku gchcqfLl;j vFkok tehmRrokjh[k esa

ugha nh xbZ gSA nwljh ckr ;g gS fd xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa lanfHkZr

^rq:"d n.M* uked dj dh izdfr ds fo"k; esa dksbZ Li"V tkudkjh ugha

gS ysfdu ;gka ;g eku fy;k x;k gS fd xgM+oky jktk viuh iztk ls

^rq:"d n.M* blfy, olwy djrs Fks fd xtuh ds 'kkldksa dks dj ns

ldsaA rhljh ckr ;g gS fd xgM+okyksa ds jkT; {ks= eas rqdksZ ds fujarj

vkdze.k muls dj olwyus ds fy, gksrs Fks bldk Hkh dksbZ eqfLye vFkok

Hkkjrh; izek.k ugha feyrkA ml dky esa eqfLye vkdze.k izk;% lHkh fgUnw

jktkvksa ij gksrs Fks vkSj mUgsa dsoy xgM+okyksa ij gq, vkdze.k ds lanHkZ

4083

esa ugha ns[kk tkuk pkfg,A nhoku&,&lyeku e s a e qlyekuk s a d s

xgM +o ky {k s= ij gk su s oky s vkd ze.k dk foLrkj l s mYy s[ k

fd;k x;k g S y sfdu mle s a ;g dgh a ugh a dgk x;k fd ;g

vkd ze.k pk W anj k; d s o a' ktk s a l s dj ol wyu s d s fy, fd;k

x;k Fk kA okLrfodrk rks ;g gS fd nhoku esa pkWnjk; dks dUukSt dh

gfLr'kkyk dks gfLriky fu;qDr djus ds mYys[k ds ckn mlds thou ds

fo"k; esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u ;g dgk

x;k gS fd mlus dUukSt ij tcjnLrh dCtk dj fy;k Fkk vFkok dj

olwyus ds fy, xtuh dh lsuk,a pkWanjk; ij vkdze.k djrh FkhaA bu

dkj.kksa ls pkWanjk; dh igpku pUnznso ls ugha dh tk ldrhA ;gk a ;g

Lej.k h; g S fd pUn zn so d s firk vk S j firkeg nk su k s a gh

^u `i * dg s x, g S a rFk k i z k;% lHk h fo}ku Lohdkj djr s g S a

fd okjk.klh rFk k v;k s/;k d s { k s= e s pUn zn so d s firk vk S j

firkeg nk su k s a gh ^u `i* dg s x, g S a rFk k i z k;% lHk h fo}ku

Lohdkj djr s g S fd okjk.klh rFk k v;k s/;k d s { k s= e s a

pUn zn so d s i wo Ztk s a dk igy s l s jktuh frd vfLrRo jgk

gk sx kA bl izdkj pUnznso dh igpku pkWanjk; ls ugha dh tk ldrh

ftlus eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa ls gfLriky dh ukSdjh Lohdkj dh

FkhA ;g pkWanjk; dksbZ lkekU; O;fDr jgk gksxkA nwljh vksj pUnznso

izkjEHk ls gh eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa ds vkdze.kksa dk mRrj nsus ds fy,

bfrgkl esa tkuk tkrk gSA

fod ze l aor 1150 d s vk f'ou onh 15 jfookj ]

rnu qlkj 23 vDV wcj 1093 dh frfFk e s a v afdr pUn zn so d s

pUn z korh rke zi=k f H ky s[ k e s a v;k s/;k dk d qN mYy s[k feyrk

g S A pUn zn so u s v;k s/;k e s a fo".k q g fj d s e afnj e s a vu sd lk su s

d s vy adj.k djok, rFk k dk'k h e s a vk fnd s' ko dh i z frek

i z fr"Bk fir djkb ZA blds vfrfjDr mRrj dksly fLFkr v;ks/;k esa

mlus ladYiiwoZd ¼d`rfu'pS½ Hkwfenku fn;kA ;g dk;Z vkf'ou ekl dh

vekoL;k dks fd;k x;k Fkk tks jfookj gksus ds lkFk&lkFk lw;Zxzg.k dk

Hkh volj FkkA mYys[kuh; gS fd blds nwljs fnu ls 'kkjnh; uojk= dk

izkjEHk gksrk gSA bl volj ij pUnznso us lj;w ?k?kZjk unh ds rV ij

fLFkr LoxZ}kjk uked rhFkZ ij Luku fd;k ¼lj;w?k?kZjk?ke"kZ.ks

4084

LoXxZ}kjukfEu rhFksZ LukRok½A rnksijkUr lw;Z dh mikluk dh

¼m".kjksfp"keqiLFkk;½] fQj mlus Hkxoku f'ko dh vpZuk dh

¼vks"k/khifr'kdy'ks[kja leH;P;Z½] fQj rhu yksdksa ds Lokeh j{kd oklqnso

dh iwtk djds ¼HkxorfL=Hkqou=krqOokZlqnsoL; iwtka fo/kk;½ gou djus ds

i'pkr~ ¼izpqjik;lsu gfo"kk gfoHkqZta gqRok½] mlus firjksa dk fi.Mnku

fd;k ¼firfi.M;Kf=OoZR;Z½A ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnznso us nku

nsus ds iwoZ Åij mfYyf[kr tks /kkfeZd fo/kku fd, oSls gh /kkfeZd

fof/k&fo/ku mlds oa'ktksa xksfoUnpUnz vkfn ds vfHkys[kksa esa Hkh fd, tkus

dk mYys[k feyrk gSA bl dkj.k ;g le>uk mfpr ugha gksxk fd

v;ks/;k esa nku nsrs le; pUnznso us dksbZ fo'ks"k izfdz;k viukbZ FkhA**

pUn zn so d s mijk sDr rke zi= l s ;g Kkr gk sr k g S fd

de&l s&de Lox Z}kj uke dk rhFk Z xgM +o ky ; qx e s a H k h

vfLrRo e s a F k kA bll s ;g Hk h Kkr gk sr k g S fd lj; w ml

le; Hk h lj; w ?k? k Z j k uke l s i zpfyr Fk hA fnus'k pUnz ljdkj

dk ;g er leFkZuh; ugha gS fd v;ks/;k LoxZ}kj rhFkZ lj;w vkSj ?kk?kjk

ds laxe ij fLFkr FkkA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd lj;w&?kk?kjk uke ml

unh dk gS ftlds fdukjs v;ks/;k uxj clk gqvk gSA lj;w dks lj;w&?

k?kZjk uke D;ksa feyk blds fo"k; esa ge igys v/;k; esa fopkj dj pqds

gSaA

bl vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr ugha gksrk fd pUnznso ¼pUnzkfnR;nso½ us

f'ko vkSj oklqnso dh iwtk fdu efUnjksa esa atkdj dh FkhA y sfdu bl

vfHky s[ k d s vkBo s a 'yk sd e s a ;g mYy s[ k fd;k x;k g S fd

pUn zn so u s ef.k;k s a l s tM + s g q, lk su s d s vk H k w" k . k v;k s/;k e s a

fo".k qg fj d s e afnj e s a p< +k, rFk k dk'k h e s a vk fnd s' ko dh

i z frek dk s H k h Lo.k Z j Ruk s a d s vk H k w" k . k s a l s foHk wf " kr fd;kA

bl i zdkj pUn zn so d s le; e s a v;k s/;k e s a fo".k qg fj d s

e afnj d s vfLrRo e s a gk su s dk fu'p; gk sr k g S A ckn e s a

xk foUnpUn z d s dky e s a mld s i qufu Zek Z . k dk mYy s[ k 1992

e s a i z k Ir v;k s/;k vfHky s[ k e s a feyrk g S ftll s ;g Li"V

gk sr k g S fd fo".k qg fj dk e afnj tUeLFk ku ef Unj gh Fk kA

enuiky n so

pUnznso ds i'pkr~ mldk iq= enuiky flagklu:<+ gqvkA pUnznso ds

4085

'kkludky dk vfUre vfHky s[ k 1156 fodze l aor ~ e s a

frF;k afdr g S ¼1100 bZ0½ vkSj enuiky ds 'kklu dky dk igyk

vfHkys[k 1161 laor~ ¼1103 bZ0½ esa frF;kafdr gSA bl dkj.k ;g ekuk

tkrk gS fd enuiky 1100 vkSj 1103 bZ0 ds chp esa fdlh le;

'kkluk:<+ gqvk FkkA ysfdu lcls mYys[kuh; ckr ;g gS fd 1103 bZ0

esa tkjh fd;k x;k clkgh dk rkezi=kfHkys[k enuiky ds iq= xksfoUnpUnz

ds }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mlh izdkj laor~ 1154 ¼1097 bZ0½ esa tkjh

fd;k x;k caxky ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh dk rkezr=kfHkys[k enuiky ds }

kjk vius firk ds thoudky esa fy[kok;k x;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa

enuiky dks leLr jktdh; mikf/k;ksa ls mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS

¼JhpUnznsoiknkuq/;kr ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf/kjktijes'oj ijeekgs'oj

JheUenuiky nso½A blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd enuiky dk jkT;kfHk"ksd

pUnznso ds thoudky esa gh 1097 bZ0 ds igys gh gks pqdk FkkA ;|

fi ;g nku pUnznso us gh fd;k Fkk fdUrq bldk izdk'ku enuiky us

viuh eqnzk ls djok;k Fkk vkSj fucfU/kr djok;k FkkA ,slk yxrk gS fd

pUnznso dkQh o) gks pqdk Fkk vkSj bl dkj.k vius thoudky esa gh

mlus vius iq= dks jkT;kfHkf"kDr djok fn;k FkkA pUnznso bl vfHkys[k

ds de&ls&de nks o"kZ ds ckn rd Hkh thfor jgkA bldk izek.k mlds

pUnzkorh rkezi=kfHkys[k ls izkIr gksrk gS tks fodze laor~ 1156 ¼1100

bZ0½ esa frF;kafdr gSA

enuikynso ds 'kkludky ls dqy N% vfHkys[k izdk'k esa vk, gSa

ftlesa caxky ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh dk Åij mfYyf[kr rkezi=kfHkys[k]

mlus vius firk ds thoudky esa izpfyr djok;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr

mldk fodze laor~ 1164 esa izdkf'kr cM+sjk rkezi=kfHkys[k ek= ,slk

vfHkys[k gS tks mlds }kjk vdsys uke ij tkjh djok;k x;k FkkA blds

vfrfjDr rhu vU; rkezi=kfHkys[k enuiky ds 'kkludky esa izpkfjr

fd, x, vkSj ;s rhuksa gh jktiq= xksfoUnpUnz ds }kjk fy[kok, x, FksA

clkgh ds rkezi=kfHkys[k esa mls jktiq= rks dgk gh x;k gS lkFkh gh

jktkvksa dk fryd Hkh dgk x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fodze laor~ 1066

esa frF;kafdr jkbu rkezi=kfHkys[k esa Hkh mls egkjktiq= dgk x;k gSA

enuiky ds dky dk NBk nkui= fodze laor 1164 dk crk;k tkrk gS

ftlesa egkjkuh iFohJhdk ds nku dk mYys[k gSA bls ^Vsjh,.M dEiuh*

4086

dk vfHkys[k dgk x;k gS ysfdu vc ;g miyC/k ugha gSA Jh csatky us

tuZy vkQ+ jkW;y ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh ¼1866½ esa bldk ftdz djrs

gq, ;g fy[kk gS fd bldh Hkk"kk fodze laor~ 1162 ds dekSyh nkui=

ls feyrh&tqyrh gS vkSj laHkor% bls Hkh xksfoUnpUnz us izpfyr djok;k

gksxkA

izkjEHk esa dsoy os gh pkj rkezi=kfHkys[k miyC/k Fks ftudks

egkjktiq= xksfoUnpUnz us mRdh.kZ djok;k FkkA blds dkj.k fo}kuksa

esa ;g /kkj.kk cyorh gqbZ fd laHkor% enuiky us 'kklu gh ugha fd;k

FkkA vkSj bl dkj.k ;g vuqeku yxk;k x;k fd og chekj ;k v'kDr

FkkA vr% 'kklu&lw= jktiq= xksfoUnpUnz dks laHkkyuk iM+k rFkk clkgh

nkui= esa mfYyf[kr iqjksfgr tkxqd] egRrd ckYgu rFkk izfrgkj xkSre

ds leFkZu ls nkui= fuxZr fd, tkus yxs FksA vkSj laHkor% 'kklu izcU/k

ds fy, ;qojkt] jkuh jkYgknsoh rFkk iqjksfgr izfrgkj vkSj egRrd

dh ,d lfefr cuokbZ xbZ FkhA y sfdu cM sj k dk rke zi=k f H ky s[ k

1926 e s a i z k Ir g qvk rFk k 1941 e s a i zdk f' kr g qvk ftll s ;g

fuf'pr eku s tku s yxk fd ijeHkV ~Vkjd] ije s'oj ]

ijekekg s'oj Jheku ~ enuikyn so u s okLro e s a ' k klu fd;k

Fk kA ysfdu vk'p;Z dh ckr ;g gS fd fdlh dk /;ku caxky

,f'k;kfVd lkslkBVh ds ml rkezi=kfHkys[k dh vksj ugha x;k ftlesa

enuiky dks mu leLr jktdh; mikf/k;ksa ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS

ftldk mYys[k ge igys dj vk, gSA bl izdkj ;g fu'p;iwoZd dgk

tk ldrk gS fd enuiky us Hkh dkQh yEcs le; rd 'kklu fd;k

gksxk vkSj vius firk ds thoudky esa gh mldk jkT;kfHk"ksd djk fn;k

x;k gksxkA mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnznso ds dkQh yEcs le; rd thfor

jgk gksus ds dkj.k mldk iq= enuiky izkS<+koLFkk esa gh 'kkld cuk

gksxkA

xgM +o ky o a' k e s a enuiky gh og igyk jktk g S

ftlu s pk anh vk S j rk ac s d s flDd s pyok, Fk sA mld s flDd s

o ` " k H k vk S j v'okjk sg h i zdkj d s g S a tk s ml le; mRrj Hk kjr

e s a i zpyu e s a F k sA buds iqjksHkkx ij v'okjksgh dk Hkn~nk fp= gS rFkk

mlds pkjksa vksj jktk dk uke ^enunso* fy[kk feyrk gSA ysfdu fdlh

Hkh flDds ij iwjk uke ugha feyrkA dgha enu dgha ^en* vkSj ^Jhe*

4087

feyrk gSA i ` "BHk kx ij c SB s g q, o ` " k H k dh j s[ k kd ` fr g S ftl ij

^ek/ko Jh lkeUr* ¼vFkok ^ek/ko* ^Jhlke* vFkok ^ek/k*½ feyrk gSA

enuiky ds pkanh ds flDds vR;f/kd fojy gSa ftuesa izk;% Hkkjh feykoV

gksrh gSA Fkkel us bl jktk ds ,d flDds dks pkWanh vkSj rkacs dk crk;k

gS rFkk dfua?ke us ,d&nwljs flDds dks foyksu dk crk;k gSA budk

Hkkjr Hkkjrh; eku ds vuqlkj 32 jRrh dk gksrk gSA ysfdu okLro esa

1025 xzk0 ls ysdj 1-62 xzk0 ds Hkkj okys flDds feys gSa tcfd 32 jRrh

yxHkx 2 xzk0 dk gksrk gSA

dqN fo}kuksa us ;g vuqeku yxk;k gS fd enuiky ds 'kkludky

esa rq:"d vkdze.kdkfj;ksa us vkdze.k djds dUukSt ij fot; izkIr dj

yh Fkh vkSj enuiky dks canh cuk fy;k FkkA xksfoUnpUnz us eqfDr/ku

nsdj enuiky dks eqDr djk;k FkkA bl er dh izcy leFkZd jksek

fu;ksxh gSa ftuds rdksZa dk laf{kIr fooj.k bl izdkj gSA

jksek fu;ksxh ds vuqlkj] clkgh nkui= esa ;g mfYyf[kr gS fd

pUnznso us dkU;dqCt dks viuh jkt/kkuh cuk fy;k Fkk ¼dU;kdqCts

djksnzktk jkt/kkuhefuafnrke~½A mudk ;g vuqeku gS fd ;g nkui=

enuiky ds 'kkludky esa fodze laor~ 1161 esa fy[kok;k x;k Fkk] rFkk

fofp= ckr ;g gS fd dekSyh nkui= esa ;g 'yksd ugha feyrk ;|fi

vU; lHkh 'yksd oSls gh feyrs gSaA okLro esa dksbZ Hkh xgM+oky ys[k

dkU;dqCt dks jkt/kkuh ugha crkrkA bl izdkj mUgksaus ;g vuqeku

yxk;k gS fd 25 fnlEcj 1104 bZ0 ¼clkgh nkui= dh frfFk½ rFkk 24

vDVqcj 1105 bZ0 ¼dekSyh nkui= dh frfFk½ ds chp esa fdlh le;

xgM+okyksa dks jkt/kkuh dkU;dqCt dks NksM+uk iM+k gksxk rFkk xksfoUnpUnz

dks 1105 bZ0 esa uxj dks iqu% izkIr djus ds fy, ;q) djuk iM+kA os

jkgu nkui= esa bldk dkj.k [kkstrh gS ftlesa ;g mYys[k vkrk gS fd

vleku ;q) ds ckj&ckj gksus ds dkj.k gEehj dks viuk oSj NksM+uk iM+k

¼gEehja U;LoSja eqgqjlej.kdzhM+;k ;ks fo/krs½A muds vuqlkj] gEehj vFkok

vehj ¼eqfLye lsukifr½ tks fodze laor~ 1166 ds iwoZ xksfoUnpUnz }kjk

ijkftr fd;k x;k Fkk] xtuh dk lqYrku elwn bCu bczkfge ¼rrh;]

1099 ls 1115 bZ0½ vFkok mldk dksbZ vf/kdkjh jgk gksxkA

rcdkr&,&ukljh ds vuqlkj] bl lqYrku ds 'kkludky esa gkftc

rq/kkrxhu us xaxk ikj djds fgUnqLrku ds mu {ks=ksa rd tsgkn NsM+k tgka

4088

lqYrku egewn ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh dh lsuk,a ugha igqWaph FkhaA

ledkyhu dfo lyeku us vius nhoku esa bl ?kVuk dk fooj.k bl

izdkj fn;k gS%&

bLyke dh lgk;rk ls elwn us ,d lsuk [kM+h dhA tsgkn

ds fy, mlus fgUnqLrku ij /kkok cksykA fgUn ds 'kkld

[kqnk ds ekjs gq, eYgh dks cUnh cuk;k] dUukSt fgUn dh

jkt/kkuh Fkh ftls dkfQj viuk /kzqorkjk ekurs FksA ;g

lqefu;ksa dk dkck Fkk vkSj dkfQjksa dk fdcyk FkkA lkjs

fgUn dh /kujkf'k ;gka tek gksrh Fkh tSls fd lHkh ufn;ka

leqnz esa feyrh gSaA eYgh ds ikl lsuk] /ku] gkFkh] gfFk;kj

D;k dqN ugha FkkA

jksek fu;ksxh us eYgh vFkok eYghj dks enu dk viHkza'k ekuk gSA os dqN

yksxksa ds bl lq>ko dk fojks/k djrh gSa fd ;g eYgh fodze laor~ 1176

esa tkjh fd, x, nkui= dk enu jgk gksxkA muds vuqlkj] eYgh dks

fgUn dk 'kkld dgk x;k gS rFkk dkU;dqCt dks fgUn dh jkt/kkuh

crk;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k ijkftr jktk Lo;a xgM+oky 'kkld jgk

gksxkA bl dkj.k ijkftr jktk Lo;a xgM+oky 'kkld jgk gksxkA bl

izdkj os ;g ifj.kke fudkyrh gSa fd fodze laor~ 1161&62 esa xtuh ds

lqYrku elwn rrh; dh lsuk dk uwrRo djrs gq, gkftc rq?kkrxhu

dkU;dqCt rd p<+ vk;k vkSj ;fn dfo lyeku ij fo'okl fd;k tk,

rks mlus xgM+oky jktk enuiky dks cUnh cuk fy;k rFkk izR;iZ.k jkf'k

ikus ds ckn NksM+kA

;gka ij jksek fu;ksxh ds mijksDr fl)kUr esa dbZ dfe;ka gSa tks

gekjk /;ku vkd"V djrh gSaA clkgh ds nkui=kfHkys[k esa pUnznso ds

fo"k; esa tks ;g dgk x;k gS fd mlus dkU;dqCt dks viuh jkt/kkuh

cuk;k og fdlh nwljs lanHkZ esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A okLro

esa leLr xgM+oky ys[kksa esa pUnznso dk o.kZu djrs le; ;g mYys[k

feyrk gS fd mlus vius ckgqfodze ls dkU;dqCt dk jkT; izkIr fd;kA

clkgh nkui= ys[k esa blh ckr dk mYys[k Bhd mlh LFkku ij ;g

dgdj fd;k x;k gS fd mlus dkU;dqCt dks viuh jkt/kkuh

cuk;kA ;g ,d lkekU; mYys[k fofHkUu izdkj dh 'kCn&jpuk esa u,

'yksd ds :i esa clkgh nkui= esa vkrk gSA blds vk/kkj ij vuqeku

4089

yxkuk fd dekSyh vfHkys[k esa jkt/kkuh 'kCn ugha vkrk blfy,

dkU;dqCt jkt/kkuh ds :i esa xgM+okyksa ls fNu x;k Fkk] iafDr;ksa ds

chp esa i<+us dk iz;kl dgk tk,xkA okLro esa dekSyh nkui= ys[k ds

ckn ds fdlh Hkh xgM+oky vfHkys[k esa dkU;dqCt ds jkt/kkuh gksus dk

mYys[k ugha vkrk] rks D;k bldk ;g vFkZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd ckn

esa fQj dHkh dUukSt xgM+okyksa dh jkt/kkuh ugha cu ldk\

nwljh ckr eYgh dh igpku enuiky ls djus ls lEcfU/kr gSA

fdlh Hkh Hkk"kk&'kkL=h; nf"Vdks.k ls enu dk viHkazs'k eYgh ugha cuk;k

tk ldrkA ;fn eYgh ds lehi dksbZ uke vkrk gS rks og pUnznso ds

firk eghpUnz dk uke gks ldrk gS ftldk nwljk :i egh;y ;k

eghry vkfn ys[kksa esa izkIr gksrk gSA ----

xk sf oUnpUn z

;|fi xksfoUnpUnz us vius firk ds thoudky esa gh 'kklu&lw= laHkky

fy;k Fkk rFkk mldks Hkh ,d ;qojkt ds :i esa egRoiw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr

Fks ysfdu og vius firk dh Hkkafr vius firk ds thoudky esa jktin

ij vfHkf"kDr ugha gqvk FkkA mldk firkeg pUnznso yEch vk;q rd

thfor jgkA bl dkj.k mldk firk dkQh izkS<+koLFkk esa gh jktk cu

ik;k gksxk vkSj cgqr laHkkouk bl ckr dh dgh tk ldrh gS fd og Hkh

vius 'kkludky esa ;kSouksfpr rstfLork [kks pqdk jgk gks ftlds dkj.k

xksfoUnpUnz dks dqN vf/kd gh vf/kdkj izkIr jgs gksaA bldh lwpuk

jktiq= ds :i esa tkjh fd, x, xksfoUnpUnz ds nkui=ksa ls feyrh gSA

xksfoUnpUnz dh ekrk dk uke jkYgknsoh Fkk ftldk mYys[k fodze laor~

1179 ds dekSyh rkezi=kfHkys[k esa feyrk gSA enuiky dh ,d vU;

jkuh iFohJhdk ds fo"k; esa Hkh gedks fodze laor~ 1164 ds cgqojk

nkui= ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ftls ^Vsjh ,.M dEiuh* dk nkui= Hkh dgk

tkrk gSA fdUrq ;g ewy ys[k vc miyC/k ugha gSA xk sf oUnpUn z

xgM +o ky jkto a' k dk lcl s egku ~ ' k kld Fk kA mlus yxHkx

vk/kh 'krkCnh rd mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfr dks izHkkfor fd;kA ,d

;qojkt ds :i esa vius firk ds 'kklu&dky esa gh mlus tks lQyrk,a

izkIr dha mlds dkj.k mls vfHkys[kksa esa ^^leLrjktizfdz;ksisr** dgk x;k

gSA mldk vkSipkfjd jkT;kfHk"ksd 1109 bZ0 ls 1114 bZ0 ds chp esa fdlh

le; gqvk gksxk D;ksafd ; qojkt d s :i e s a mldk v afre jkgu

4090

nkui= fodze l aor ~ 1166 ¼1109 b Z 0½ e s a tkjh fd;k x;k

Fk k rFk k egkjktk f / kj kt d s :i e s a ik fy rke zi=ky s[ k fod ze

l aor ~ 1171 ¼1114 b Z 0½ e s a tkjh fd;k x;k Fk kA vr% mldk

jkT;fHk"ksd rFkk mlds firk enuiky dh eR;q bUgha nks frfFk;ksa ds e/;

j[kh tk ldrh gSA xk sf oUnpUn z d s }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k

vfUre xk Syh nkui= fo-l- 1211 ¼1154 b Z0 ½ dk g S tcfd

mld s i q= fot;pUn z dk igyk nkui= fl0l a0 1217 e s a

¼1160 b Z0 ½ e s a tkjh fd;k x;k Fk kA bl izdkj ;qojkt ds :i esa

mldk izFke nkui= fo0l0 1161 ¼1104 bZ0½ esa tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA

bl izdkj xksfoUnpUnz dks mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfr esa dk;Z djus dk

yxHkx 56 o"kZ dk dk;Zdky izkIr gqvkA

i q j krk f Rod l z k sr

mlds 'kkludky ds yxHkx 45 vfHkys[k izkIr gSa tks mlds ;qojkt

dky esa fy[kok, x, rhu vfHkys[kksa ds vfrfjDr gSaA bl dkj.k ;g

fu'p;iwoZd dgk tk ldrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us vius jktoa'k esa lcls

vf/kd nkui= fy[kok,A ysfdu bu nkui=ksa esa ,d mldh jkuh

dqekjnsoh }kjk ik"kk.k&[k.M ij fy[kokbZ xbZ lkjukFk ls izkIr iz'kfLr

Hkh 'kkfey gS rFkk rhu vfHkys[k mlds jktdqekjksa ds }kjk rFkk ,d

fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk fy[kok;k x;k gSA ----

lk fgfR;d lz k sr

bu iqjkrkfRod lk{;ksa ds vfrfjDr xk sf oUnpUn z d s

egklk f U / k fox z fgd y{eh / kj }kjk fyf[kr dR;&dYir:

x z U F k H k h miyC/k g S ftlds fo"k; esa ys[kd dk ;g dFku gS fd

mldh ea=.kk us jktk dks ;'k izkIr djok;k ¼rr~ loZ [kyq ;L;

ea=efgek'p;Z lg y{eh/kj%½ blds vfrfjDr y{eh/kj ;g Hkh dgrk gS

fd mlus dk'kh ds jktk ds 'k=qvksa ls lQyrkiwoZd ;q) fd;k Fkk

¼uhrkdk';kf/kiL;;su fjiqoLrs czg~ep;Zije~½A bl izdkj xksfoUnpUnz dk

egklkfU/kfoxzfgd y{eh/kj dsoy ys[kd vkSj ,d fo}ku gh ugha

oju~ ,d ;ks)k rFkk jktuhfrdq'ky O;fDr Hkh FkkA viuh iqLrd ds vUr

esa ^ O;ogkjdk.M* d s vUr e s a y{eh/ kj ;g dgrk g S fd mlu s

d ` R;dYir# dh jpuk xk sf oUnpUn z d s vkn s' k ij dh Fk h

¼egkjktf/kjkt xksfoUnpUnz nsokfn"Vsu - - - Jh y{eh/kj HkV~Vsufojfpra - -

4091

½A bl izdkj ;g xzaFk Hkh xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ds bfrgkl dk ,d

lzksr gSA ,d vU; xzUFk u;pUnz }kjk fojfpr jEHkkeatjh ukVd gS ftlesa

xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ds dqN mYys[k feyrs gSaA ;gka ;g

mYys[kuh; gS fd vHkh gky gh esa v;ks/;k ls izkIr vfHkys[k esa u;pUnz

uked ,d O;fDr dks xksfoUnpUnz }kjk lkdsr e.My ds vf/kifr ds :i

esa fu;qDr fd, tkus dk mYys[k feyrk gS tks vYg.k dk Hkrhtk crk;k

x;k gSA bl ckr dh lEHkkouk dh tk ldrh gS fd ;g u;pUnz

jEHkkeatjh ukVd dk ys[kd u;pUnz gks ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr

xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ds lEcU/k esa dqN mYys[k vU; ledkyhu

jktoa'kksa ds vfHkys[kksa ls Hkh izkIr gksrs gSaA eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa ds dqN

mYys[k Hkh izR;{k vFkok vizR;{k :i ls xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ij

izdk'k Mkyrs gSaA ysfdu vf/kdka'k eqfLye vkdze.kksa esa vkdzkUrkvksa dks

eqWag dh [kkuh iM+h Fkh rFkk eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa }kjk eqfLye 'kkldksa dh

ijkt;ksa dk mYys[k u djus dh izofRr ds dkj.k vusd ;q)ksa dk mUgksaus

mYys[k rd ugha fd;k gS tks xksfoUnpUnz vkSj eqfLye vkdzkUrkvksa ds

chp yM+s x, FksA

e q fLye vkd ze.k

xksfoUnpUnz us ;qojkt ds :i esa tc ls 'kklu dk;Z izkjEHk fd;k rHkh ls

mlus viuh iz'kklfud izfrHkk vkSj lkefjd dq'kyrk dk izn'kZu izkjEHk

dj fn;k FkkA ;|fi mlus vklikl ds jkT;ksa ij viuh /kkd tek yh

Fkh rFkk vusd jktoa'kksa dks ijkftr djds muds jkT;{ks= vius 'kklu

ds vUrxZr 'kkfey dj fy, Fks] fQj Hkh] mldh lkefjd izfrHkk dk

izn'kZu if'pe ls gksus okys eqfLye vkdze.kksa ds izR;korZu esa fn[kkbZ

iM+rk gSA dqN bfrgkldkjksa us ;g fn[kkus dk iz;kl fd;k gS fd xtuh

ds ;kfeuh lqYrkuksa dh lsuk us dkU;dqCt ij vkdze.k djds

vLFkk;h :i ls ml uxj dks vius vf/kdkj esa dj fy;k Fkk vkSj laHkor

% xksfoUnpUnz ds firk enuiky dks cUnh cuk fy;k FkkA fdUrq ihNs

ge ;g ns[k vk, gSa fd bl izdkj dh dYiuk esa dksbZ lPpkbZ ugha gS

rFkk eqlyekuksa }kjk dkU;dqCt ij vkdze.k] vf/kdkj rFkk enuiky ds

cUnh cuk, tkus ds ihNs dksbZ rF;kRed izek.k ugha miyC/k gSaA bl

dkj.k jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g dguk fd ;kfeuh lqYrkuksa }kjk dkU;dqCt

dh ijkt; ls xgM+okyksa dks ,d /kDdk yxk Fkk] mfpr ugh gksxkA

4092

xgM +o ky jkto a' k d s i z F ke 'k kld pUn zn so d s

vfH ky s[ k k s a e s a tk s ;g mYy s[ k feyrk g S fd mlu s dk'k h ]

dkU;dq Ct] v;k s/;k rFk k bUn z LF k kuh;d vkfn rhFk k sZ a

i fjikyu ¼l aj { k. k ½ fd;k Fk k ] ;g n'k k Z rk g S fd e q fLye

vkd ze.kdk fj;k s a d s }kjk bu rhFk k sZ dh l q j{ k k dk s [krjk

mRiUu gk s x;k Fk k vk S j , sl s le; e s a pUn zn so u s mRrj

Hk kjr d s cM + s H k w&[k.M ij vk f / kiR; LFk k fir dju s dk tk s

dk; Z fd;k mld s ihN s bu rhFk Z { k s= k s a dh e q fLye

vkd z k Urkvk s a l s l q j{ k k gh e q[; mn ~n s'; Fk kA ;g dk;Z mlds

iq= enuiky rFkk ikS= xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky esa lQyrkiwoZd fd;k

tkrk jgkA v;ks/;k ls izkIr ik"kk.k Qyd vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS

fd xksfoUnpUnz ds le; esa if'pe ls vkus okys Hkhfr dks izR;kofrZr

fd;k x;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa mfYyf[kr ;g ^ik'pkR; Hkhfr* fu'p;

gh if'pe ls vkus okyh eqfLye vkdze.k ds Hk; dh vksj ladsr djrh

gSA

if'pe ls gksus okys eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa dk dsUnz fcUnq xtuh

Fkk tgka ij ;kfeuh lqYrku 'kklu dj jgs FksA xk sf oUnpUn z dh

'k klukof / k e s a yxHkx ik W ap l qYrkuk s a u s xtuh ij 'k klu

fd;kA ;|fi ;s lqYrku vkUrfjd >xM+ksa esa O;Lr jgs fQj Hkh] Hkkjr

Hkwfe ij ykgkSj esa dsUnz LFkkfir djds ;s vkUrfjd Hkkxksa ij ckj&ckj

vkdze.k djrs jgsA bu vkdze.kksa dh izd`fr eq[; :i ls Mkdqvksa dh

Hkkafr ywV&ikV ds fy, vkdze.k djuk vkSj okil pys tkus rd gh

lhfer jghA o s vkd z k Ur {k s= k s a ij dHk h 'k klu LFk k fir ugh a

dj ld sA Hkkjrh; jktoa'k Hkh bls [ksy ds :i esa ysrs jgsA xksfoUnpUnz

ds ;kSojkt dky esa fy[kok, x, 1109 bZ0 ds jkgu nkui=kfHkys[k

esa ;g Li"V :i ls dgk x;k gS fd ^eqgwjlej.kdzhM+k* esa gkj tkus ds

dkj.k vehj dks oSj R;kx nsuk iM+kA ¼gEehj 'kCn vjch 'kCn vehj dk

Hkkjrh; :i gS½A ysfdu bl mYys[k esa j.kdzhM+k 'kCn /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS

ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd Hkkjrh; bls ;q)

dk [ksy gh ekurs Fks D;ksafd eqfLye vkdzkUrk vpkud izdV gksrs vkSj

turk dks ywVrs&ikVrs rFkk xqyke cukus ds fy, cUnh djrs vkSj jktk

dh lsuk ls lkeuk gksus ij FkksM+k&cgqr ;q) djds Hkkx [kM+s gksrsA ysfdu

4093

bl mYys[k esa nks 'kCn lcls egRoiw.kZ gSa os gSa & ^e qg wj * vk S j

^vle*A eqgwj dk vFkZ gksrk gS ckj&ckj rFkk vle dk vFkZ gksrk gS

vleku 'kfDrA e q fLye vkd z k Urk y wV&ikV d s bjkn s l s F k k sM +h

lh Hk h l su k ,d= dj iku s d s ckn bl i zdkj dh y wVikV

d s fy, fudy iM +r s Fk s vk S j tedj ; q)k s a e s a lkeuk ugh a

djr s Fk sA tgk a dgh a ij mudk lQyrk fey tkrh ogk a

mud s njckjh bfrgkldkj fot;?k k s" k d s lkFk mudh

lQyrk dk mYy s[ k djr s rFk k lkFk gh o s bu rhu ckrk s a

dk Hk h mYy s[k djuk ugh a H k wyr s & 1- fdru s fgUn qvk s a dk s

ekjk vk S j x qyke cuk;k ] 2 - fdru s ÅWVk s a ij /ku&nk Syr

ykndj okil y s x,] rFk k 3- fdru s fgUn w n so e afnjk s a

dk s /oLr fd;k ¼rFk k volj feyu s ij mud s Åij efLtnk s a

dk fuek Z . k djk;k ½A bl vfHkys[k esa gEehj }kjk 'k=qrk NksM+ nsus

dk tks ladsr fd;k x;k gS og ;gh crkrk gS fd xgM+oky lsuk }kjk

ijkftr gksus ds ckn dqN o"kksZ rd eqfLye vkdzkUrk bl vksj iqu% vkus

dk lkgl ugh dj ldsA

xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu tks ikWp ;kfeuh 'kkld gq, muds uke

vkSj 'kkludky bl izdkj gS&1-elwn ¼rrh;½ bCu bczkghe

¼y01099&1115bZ0½] 2- 'khjtkn¼1115&16bZ0½] 3- vlZyku 'kkg

¼1116&18bZ0½] 4- cgjke 'kkg ¼1118&52bZ0½] vkSj 5- [kqljc 'kkg

¼1152&60bZ0½A ;s lqYrku xn~nh ds fy, ijLij ;q)jr jgrs FksA buesa

lcls vf/kd fouk'kdkjh la?k"kZ vlZyku 'kkg vkSj cgjke 'kkg ds chp esa

gqvk ftlesa [kqjklku ds lqYrku latj us ekSds dk ykHk mBkdj cgjke

dk lkFk fn;k vkSj vlZyku dks Hkkxdj Hkkjrh; {ks= es 'kj.k ysuh iM+hA

cgjke lqYrku latj ds laj{k.k esa xtuh dk lqYrku cukA ckn esa

vlZyku us cgjke dks ijkftr dj fn;kA fdUrq [kqjklku ds lqYrku ds

}kjk cgjke dh lgk;rk fd, tkus ds ckn ,d ;q) esa vlZyku ekjk

x;kA cgjke 'kkg us 1118 ls 1152 bZ0 rd ds vius yEcs 'kkludky esa

Hkkjr ij dbZ vkdze.k fd, ,slk eqlyeku bfrgkldkjksa dk dguk gSA

ysfdu jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g dguk loZFkk mfpr gS fd ^bu

l qYrkuk s }kjk H k kjr ij fd, tku s oky s vkd ze.k k s a dk dk sb Z

H k h foLr `r fooj.k e q fLye bfrgkldkjk s a u s ugh a fn;k g SA ^

4094

tcfd xksfoUnpUnz ds egklkfU/kfoxzfgd us dR;dYir: dh jktiz'kfLr

esa xksfoUnpUnz ds ckjs esa ;g fy[kk gS fd mlus vleku ;q) esa gEehj

ohj dks ekj Mkyk ¼vle&lej&lEiy&yEiV 'kkS;ZHkktke~

&vof/kjof/k&;q)s ;su gEehj ohj½A yEeh/kj xksfoUnpUnz ds

egklkfU/kfoxzfgd Fks vkSj bl dkj.k mUgksus xksfoUnpUnz ds fo"k; esa ;g

tks lwpuk nh gS fd mUgksaus vle ;q) esa vehj dk o/k dj fn;k Fkk]

xyr ugh gks ldrkA ysfdu bl ;q) esa ekjs x, vehj dk D;k uke Fkk

vkSj ;g ;q) fdl le; gqvk Fkk bldk fu'p; djuk cgqr dfBu gS]

D;ksafd e q fLye bfrgkldkj viuh ijkt;k s a dh dgk fu;k s a dk s

i z k;% vun s[ k h dj x, g S aA jkgu nkui= esaa Hkh] tSlk ge ns[k vk,

gS] ,d vehj ds }kjk 'k=qrk R;kx fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA ,slk yxrk

gS fd ;s nksuksa mYys[k nks vyx&vyx le; esa gqbZ ?kVukvksa ls lacfU/kr

gSaA jkgu nkui=kfHkys[k ml le; fy[kok;k x;k Fkk tc

xksfoUnpUnz ,d ;qojkt vFkok egkjktiq= FksA ysfdu y{eh/kj }kjk

fd;k x;k mYys[k xksfoUnpUnz ds egkjktf/kjkt cu tkus ds ckn dh ?

kVuk dgk tk ldrk gS ftlesa vkdze.kdkjh usrk ekjk x;k FkkA bl

ckr dh laHkkouk rks ugha yxrh fd ;g dksbZ ;kfeuh lqYrku jgk gksxk]

ysfdu ;g Hkkjr esa xtuh ds lqYrku dk dksbZ izfrfuf/k fuf'pr :i ls

jgk gksxkA jkgu nkui= vkSj dR;dYir: nksuksa esa gh ,d ckr

leku :i ls ns[kus dks feyrh gSA ,d esa ^vle j.k dzhM+k^ vkSj nwljs

esa ^vle lej^ dk mYys[k feyrk gS vkSj bu nksuksa dh 'kCnks dk ,d gh

vFkZ gS fd bu ;q)ksa esa nksuksa lsukvksa ds cy leku ugha FksA ,slk yxrk

gS fd xksfoUnpUnz dh fo'kky lsuk ds lkeus ,d ckj rks vkdzkUrk dks

Hkkx tkuk iM+k vkSj nwljh ckj ds ;q) esa og ekjk x;kA

- - - -

xk sf oUnpUn z d s lkeUr ,o a ledkyhu

dqekjnsoh ds lkjukFk vfHkys[k esa ;g mYys[k gS fd mlus okjk.klh dh

j{kk ds fy, dk;Z fd;kA y{eh / kj d s d ` R;dYir: e s a H k h ;g

mYy s[ k g S fd og 'k= qvk s a l s dk'k h dh j{k k d s fy,

yM +k A ;s nksuksa gh mYys[k ;g ladsr djrs gS fd dk'kh ij Hkh rq:"d

vkdze.kdkfj;ksa dk /kkok gqvk Fkk ftuls dk'kh dh j{kk ds fy,

xksfoUnpUnz dks yM+uk iM+kA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g fopkj gS dh

4095

xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky esa xgM+oky jkT; dk if'peh lhekUr dkQh

lqjf{kr jgk gksxk D;ksafd fnYyh esa rksej mlds v/khu jkT; dj jgs FksA

cnk;wW esa jk"VªdqV Fks rFkk dkU;dqCt esa xkf/kiqjkf/kfr xksiky ds oa'kt

jkT; dj jgs FksA laHkor% xgM+oky 'kkld dh ;g lqfopkfjr uhfr jgh

gks fd if'peh lhekUr dks bu 'kkldksa ds v/khu NksM+ fn;k tk, ftlls

os rq:"dksa ls igys fuiV ysaA ysfdu] Hkkjrh; lkeUrokn ds vuqlkj ,d

cM+s jktk ds v/khu vusd NksVs&cMs lkeUr gqvk djrs Fks tks LFkkuh;

iz'kklu viuh :fp ds vuqlkj pykrs Fks vkSj muds nSufUnu dk;ksZ esa

vf/kjktk dk dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha gksrk FkkA ;s lHkh lkeUr viuh&viuh

lsuk ds lkFk vf/kjkt dh lsuk dk fuekZ.k djrs FksA vko';drk iM+us

ij ,d lkFk ,d+ gksrs FksA bl dkj.k ;g dguk mfpr ugha gS fd

if'pe esa xksfoUnpUnz us bu rhuksa jktoa'kksa dks tku& cw>dj blfy,

NksM+ fn;k Fkk fd os rq:"d vkdze.kksa dk igys lkeuk djsaxsA okLro esa

lEiw.kZ xgM+oky lkezkT; {ks= esa lSdM+ks NksVs&eksVs jktoa'k 'kklu djrs

jgs gksaxs ftuesa ls dsoy dqN ds fo"k; esa gh gesa vfHkys[kksa vFkok vU;

lzksrksa ls lwpuk fey ikrh gSA bu lkeUrksa ds ckoktwn lkezkT; dh LFkk;h

lsuk lhekUrksa ij fu;qDr jgrh gksxhA ysfdu blds ckotwn rq:"d

vkdze.kdkjh fdlh izdkj dk'kh vFkok v;ks/;k vFkok eFkqjk rd vkdze.k

djus esa lQy gks tkrs gksaxs ftudks mYys[k dHkh&dHkh Hkkjrh; lzksrksa ls

gesa Kkr gksrk gSA

xksfoUnpUnz dk lkezkT; iwoZ esa iVuk vkSj eqaxsj rd foLrr Fkk

vkSj bl nf"V ls dHkh&dHkh mldk la?k"kZ xkSM+ ds iky jktkvksa ls Hkh

gqvk FkkA iVuk d s fudV ek su sj uked LFk ku l s i z k Ir fo0l a0

1183 ¼1124 b Z 0½ y s[ k l s ;g Kkr gk sr k g S fd bl le;

rd fcgkj e s a de&l s&de iVuk dk {k s= mld s

'k klukUrx Zr vk x;k Fk kA bld s vfrfjDr mRrj i zn s' k e s

fLFkr ykj l s i z k Ir fo0l a0 1202 ¼1146 b Z0 ½ d s ,d

vfHky s[ k l s ;g Kkr gk sr k g S fd bl o" k Z mlu s e q Xnfxjh

¼e q ax sj ] fcgkj½ l s bl y s[k dk i zdk'ku fd;k Fk kA ;g

mYys[kuh; gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds firk enuiky ds 'kkludky esa ;g

{ks= caxky ds iky jktk jkeiky ds v/khu FkkA ysfdu fdlh le;

xksfoUnpUnz us bl {ks= ij viuk vf/kdkj dj fy;k FkkA nf{k.k esa mlus

4096

f=iqjh ds gSg; dYpqfj jktk dks gjkdj mldk {ks= vius jkT; esa feyk

fy;k FkkA dYpqfj jktk ;'k%d.kZ dks mlds firkeg pUnznso us ijkLr

fd;k FkkA fo0la0 1177 ¼1120 bZ0½ ds caxky ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh ds

nkui= ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us dYpqfj jktk ;'k%d.kZ

ds }kjk vius xq: f'kokpk;Z HkV~Vkjd dks fn, x, nku dks okil ysdj

BDdqj of'k"B uke czkEg.k dks ns fn;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa igyh ckj

xksfoUnpUnz us lqizfl) dYpqfj ekS[kjh] iq";Hkwfr] ijorhZ xqIr] izfrgkj ,oa

xgM+okyksa dk ;qx mikf/k ^v'oifr] xtifr] ujifr] jkt=;kf/kifr^

dks /kkj.k dj fy;k ftldk vFkZ ;g ekuk tkrk gS fd mlus dYpqfj

jktoa'k ij viuh fot; dks js[kkafdr djus ds fy, bl mikf/k dks

/kkj.k fd;k Fkk] ftls mlds oa'kt vUr rd /kkj.k djrs jgsA blds

vfrfjDr xksfoUnpUnz us dYpqfj;ksa }kjk izpfyr y{ehizdkj ds flDdksa

dks Hkh viuk;k tks mldh dYpqfj;ksa ij fot; dk ,d izek.k ekuk

tkrk gSA

xksfoUnpUnz us nf{k.k fn'kk esa n'kk.kZ vFkok iwohZ ekyok ij Hkh

fot; izkIr dh FkhA bldk mYys[k u;pUnz jfpr jEHkkeatjh ukVd esa

gqvk gSA bl ukVd ds vuqlkj ftl fnu xksfoUnpUnz us n'kk.kZ ij

fot; izkIr dh mlh fnu mlds ikS= t;pUnz dk tUe gqvk Fkk vkSj

blh dkj.k mldk uke t;pUnz j[kk x;kA ml le; n'kk.kZ ij ijekj

oa'k ds 'kkld jkT; dj jgs Fks rFkk ujoeZu vkSj ;'kksoeZu xksfoUnpUnz

ds ledkyhu FksA ysfdu xksfoUnpUnz }kjk ekyok fot; dh iqf"V fdlh

vU; lzksr ls ugh gks ikbZ gSA

xksfoUnpUnz dk pansy ledkyhu enuoekZ ¼1129&93bZ0½ Fkk vkSj

blds 'kkludky esa pUnsy 'kfDr dk fo'ks"k fodkl gqvkA enuoekZ ds

eÅ vfHkys[k ls Kkr gksrk gS fd dk'kh ds jktk lkSgknzZ ds lkFk viuk

le; fcrkrs Fks ¼dkay lkSgknzZ;oR;k xxe;fr lrra =kLr% dkf'kjkt%½A

nf{k.k Hkkjr ls Hkh xksfoUnpUnz ds jktfu;d lacU/k jgs gksaaXks

blds vkfHkysf[kd izek.k xaxSdks.Mpksyiqje~ ls izkIr gksrs gSA dqyksRrqxa

izFke ¼1070&1120bZ0½ ds bdrkyhlos jkT;o"kZ esa mRdh.kZ ys[k ds uhps

xgM+oky jktoa'k dh oa'kkoyh ;'kksfoxzg ls pUnznso rd xgM+oky 'kSyh

dh fyfi esa mRdh.kZ gSA ;|fi ;g ys[k vpkud :d vkrk gS fQj Hkh

dqyksRrqxa pksy ds mDr vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd

4097

bls enuiky vFkok xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky esa mRdh.kZ fd;k x;k

gksxkA nf{k.k Hkkjr ds ckS) fHk{kq JkoLrh ¼lgsr&egsr½ esa mifLFkr Fks

bldh lwpuk xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1176 ds lgsr&egsr vfHkys[k ls

izkIr gksrh gSA buesa ,d fHk{kq pksy ns'k dk Fkk] nwljk fHk{kq vksMª ns'k

¼mM+hlk½ dk Fkk ftUgsa nku fn;k x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr pkyqD; jktk

fl)jkt t;flag ds ,d jktnwr ds dk'kh ds jktk t;pUnz ds njckj esa

tkus dk mYys[k es:rqax ds izcU/k fpUrkef.k esa feyrk gSA blh izdkj

jktrjafx.kh ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu d'ehj ds

jktk t;flag ls mlds vPNs laca/k FksA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g dguk gS fd

^;|fi xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu ds ledkyhu

jktkvksa ds lkFk jktuf;d laca/kks dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha feyrk fQj Hkh

ledkyhu jktoa'kks ds vfHkys[kksa rFkk vU; lkfgfR;d lzksrksa ls izk;% lHkh

egRoiw.kZ iM+kslh jktkvksa ds lkFk fe=rk ds lEcU/kksa ds mYys[k feyrs gSA

bl ckr esa dksbZ lansg ugh gS fd mRrj Hkkjr esa jktuhfr ds {ks= esa bl

rhljs xgM+oky jktk dks vR;ar mPp vknj.kh; LFkku izkIr FkkA

xgM+oky 'kkld xksfoUnpUnz dks ijEijkuqlkj vusd lkeUr Hkh

izkIr gq, FksA blds vfrfjDr mlus dqN vkSj {ks=ksa dks thrdj ogka ds

'kkldksa dks viuk lkeUr cuus ds fy, foo'k fd;kA ;|fi fnYyh ds

rksej xgM+okyksa dh v/khurk ds fo"k; esa vius vfHkys[kksa esa dksbZ ladsr

ugha nsrs fQj Hkh ,slk yxrk gS fd os xgM+okyksa dh N=Nk;k esa yxHkx

Lora= :i ls 'kklu dj jgs FksA xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu rksej jktk

laHkor% eghiky nso FkkA blds vfrfjDr cnk;wW esa 'kklu dj jgs

jk"VªdwV jktoa'k esa xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu 'kkld laHkor% ds iq= vkSj

ikS= jgsa gksaxsA jksek fu;ksxh us ;g lEHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd

xkf/kiqjkf/kifr xksiky dk jktoa'k laHkor% cnk;wW ds jk"VªdwV xksiky ds

jktoa'k ls fHkUUk jgk gksxkA bl xkf/kiqjkf/kifr xksiky dk oa'kjkt

enuiky xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu Fkk ftlds ea=h fo|k/kj us fo0la0

1176 ¼1119 bZ0½ dk lgsr&egsr nkui= tkjh fd;k FkkA

fodze laor 1191 ¼1134bZ0½ ds dekSyh nkui= ls ,d vU;

lkeUr J`axj oa'kh; oRljkt dk vfHkys[k feyrk gSA bl vfHkys[k esa

pUnznso ls ysdj xksfoUnpUnz rd xgM+oky oa'kkoyh nh xbZ gSA blds

ckn Jaxj oa'k ds jktkvksa dh oa'kkoyh Hkh nh gqbZ gSA blesa nkudrkZ

4098

oRljkt dks egkjktiq= dgk x;k gS rFkk mlds firk dk uke yksg.knso

crk;k x;k gSA yksg.knso ds firk dk uke vYg.k rFkk mlds firk dk

uke Jhdeyiky crk;k x;k gSA Jhdeyiky J`axjksVk uked LFkku ls

vk, Fks vr% bl oa'k dk uke Jaxj oa'k iM+kA

blds vfrfjDr ckjgoh 'krkCnh ds ukxjh fyfi esa fy[ks x,

dl;k ¼dq'khuxj] m0iz0½ ls izkIr ,d [kf.Mr vfHkys[k ls Hkh ,d vU;

dYpqfj jktoa'k dk mYys[k feyrk gS tks xgM+okyksa ds lkekUr jgs gksaxsA

blesa vfUre jktkvksa] f'kojkt izFke ¼Hkwnk dk ifr½] y{e.kjkt rrh;

rFkk Hkher esa ls dksbZ Hkh xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu lkeUr jgk gksxkA

dqN xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa ^ljokj^ 'kCn vk;k gS tks lj;wikj dk

izdr :i dgk tk ldrk gSA ykj ls izkIr ¼ist 98&100½eksusj vfHkys[k

ds vfrfjDr xksfoUnpUnz us fo0la0 (1146 bZ0) ds eqXnfxfj (eqaxsj) ls ,d

vU; vfHkys[k tkjh fd;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa lj;wikj xksfolkyd ds

vUrxZr ikuny iryk esa nq/ksyh xzke ds nku dk mYys[k gSA lj;wikj

dk mYys[k xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1171 ds ikfy vfHkys[k esa Hkh gqvk gS

ftlesa ikfy vkSj muoy xzkeksa ds uke vkrs gSA

,d vU; vfHkys[k ls blh {ks= ls ,d vU; jktk dhfrZiky nso

ds fo"k; esa tkudkjh feyrh gSA y[kuÅ laxzgky; esa laxzghr fo0la0

1167 (1111bZ0) ds rkezi=kfHkys[k ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ijeHkV~Vkjd

egkjktkf/kjkt ijes'oj ijekgs'oj Jh dhfrZikynso us ,d nku fn;k Fkk

tks ijeHkV~Vkjd egkjktkf/kjkt] ijees'oj ijekgs'oj Jh fodzeikynso

ds iknkuq/;kr Fks rFkk ftUgksus mRrj leqnz vFkok flU/kq dk LokfeRo

vius ckgqcy ls izkIr fd;k FkkA ;g ys[k fodze laor 1167 ds QkYxqu

ekl ds 'kqDy i{k f}rh;k] fnu 'kfuokj] dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk tks 11

Qjojh 1111 bZ0 esa iM+rk gSA ftu xzkeksa dk nku fd;k x;k mudks njn

x.Mdh ns'k esa fLFkr crk;k x;k gSA ;|fi bl {ks= dh igpku ugh gks

ikbZ fQj Hkh dhygkuZ dk ;g lq>ko gS fd ;g {ks= fcgkj esa cgus okyh

x.Mdh unh dh ?kkVh esa jgk gksxkA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g fopkj gS

fd ;g {ks= xksj[kiqj ftys ds iwoksZRrj esa iM+uk pkfg, tks bl le;

nsofj;k ftys dk mRRjh Hkkx gSA jksek fu;ksxh us fLeFk }kjk dydRrk ds

bf.M;u E;wft;e esa of.kZr ^dhfrZ^ ys[k okys dqN flDdksa dks

dhfrZikynso dk flDdk ekuk gSA mUgksus ;g Hkh lq>ko fn;k gS fd njn

4099

x.Mdh ns'k ?kk?kjk vkSj cM+h x.Md ds chp dk {ks= jgk gksxk vkSj

frfFk dh nf"V ls dhfrZiky enuiky vFkok xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu

jgk gksxkA bUgksus ;g Hkh laHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ikfy

rkezi=kfHkys[k esa tks ^ukSjkT; xt^ dk mYys[k feyrk gS blls ;g

vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us dhfrZiky ds mRrj leqnz

vFkok lkSE; flU/kq jkT; dks fodze laor~ 1167 (1111 bZ0) rFkk fo0la0

1171 (1114 bZ0) ds chp esa ;qojkt vFkok jktk ds :i esa thr fy;k

FkkA

----;gka ;g ckr Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1182

ds dekSyh rkezi=kfHkys[k esa Hkh ,d vYg.k dk uke vkrk gS ftlds iq=

dhB.k us bl rkeziV~V ys[k dh jpuk dh FkhA bl rkezi= esa vYg.k dks

^JhokLrO; dqyksn~Hkwr dk;LFk^ dgk x;k gSA

JhokLrO;&dqyk sn ~ H k wr&dk;LFk k sYg.k&l wu qukA

fyf[krLrkEcz (ez) iV~Vks·;a dhB.ksu uikK;sfr AA15AA

bl izdkj vYg.k ds nks iq=ksa dk mYys[k feyrk gS vkSj ;g nksuks gh

lkfgR;dkj FksA Hkrhtk u;pUnz tks lkdsr e.My dk vf/kifr Fkk vkSj

ftlus jEHkkeUtjh ukVd dh jpuk dh FkhA ,d iq= dhB.k ;k ^d`".k^

Fkk ftls d`".kpUnz Hkh bl vk/kkj ij dgk tk ldrk gS fd mlds nks

vU; Hkkb;ks ds uke ds vUr esa pUnz 'kCn vkrk gS vkSj dhB.k dks

d`".kpUnz dk viHkza'k eku ldrs gSaA bl dhB.k dks xksfoUnpUnz ds

'kklu dky esa izpkfjr dekSyh nkui= dh jpuk dk Js; izkIr gSA

vYg.k dk nwljk vkSj NksVk (dfu;ku) iq= vk;q"kpUnz Fkk ftlus v;ks/;k

dh iz'kfLr dh jpuk dh Fkh vkSj bl iz'kfLr ;s ;g Hkh ladsr feyk gS

fd og bl le; Lo;a v;ks/;k dk jktk FkkA v;k s/;k e s a

i zpfyr ,d ijEijk ;g Hk h Lohdkj djrh g S fd bl {k s=

ij JhokLro o a' k u s jkT; fd;k Fk kA

- - jk se k fu;k sx h dk ;g ekuuk g S fd xgM +o ky jkT;

dk vf/ kdk a' k H k kx ;Fk k ] dkU;dq Ct] cnk; W w] tk Sui q j ] p qukj ]

jk sgrklx<] okjk.klh rFk k l aH kor% v;k s/;k H k h e q fLye

jktuh frd i z H k ko {k s= l s ckgj Fk sA

xk sf oUnpUn z d s flDd s cg qr cM +h ek=k e s a yxHkx

lEi w. k Z mRrj Hk kjr l s i z k Ir g q, g S aA mld s d soy lk su s d s

4100

flDdk s a dh l a[;k yxHkx ,d gtkj crkb Z tkrh g SA pkWnh

vkSj rkWcs ds flDdksa dh la[;k vis{kkdr de gSA mlds flDds fcgkj

vkSj mRrj izns'k ls ysdj fnYyh rd ds {ks= ls feys gSaA cgjkbp ftys

ds ukuikjk ls 800 lksus ds flDds feys FksA blds vfrfjDr bykgkckn]

cukjl] mUuko ftys esa ijesnk] fcgkj esa pkSlk vkSj >cqvk rFkk eqaxsj ds

ikl lwjtx<+] jkWph] ukyUnk vkSj jktfxfj ls Hkh feys gSaA fnYyh ds ikl

ls Hkh xksfUnpUnz ds flDds izkIr gq, gSaA xk sf oUnpUn z d s flDd s nk s

i zdkj d s g S a] i z F ke i zdkj e s a y{eh dh vkd ` fr oky s flDd s

vkr s g S a vk S j n wlj s i zdkj e s a v'okjk sg h i zdkj d s flDd s

vkr s g S A bu ij ^JhenxksfoUnpUnz nso%^ ys[k rhu iafDr;ks aesa feyrs gSA

ysfdu vf/kdka'k flDdksa esa nso 'kCn ugha feyrkA xksfoUnpUnz ds lksus ds

flDds 3-88 xzk0 ds gSaA ;|fi dqN flDds 0-4 xzke ds Hkh feys gSA

xksfoUnpUnz ds ifjokj ds fo"k; esa Hkh gedks vfHkys[kksaa vFkok

vU; lzksrksa ls tkudkjh feyrh gSA xksfoUnpUnz dh ekrk dk uke jkYgk

nsoh FkkA xksfoUnpUnz dh pkj jkfu;ksa ds ukeksa ds mYys[k feyrs gSA buesa

dqekjnsoh ds }kjk fy[kokbZ xbZ ,d iz'kfLr lkjukFk ls izkIr gqbZ gSA

dqekjnsoh frfB ds fpDdksj jktoa'k ds jktk nsojf{kr dh iq=h FkhA

nsojf{kr xkSM+ ds iky jktk dk lkeUr FkkA dqekjnsoh us lkjukFk esa ckS)

fHk{kqvksa dks nku fn;k FkkA xksfoUnpUnz ds dekSyh nkui= ys[k ls mldh

,d vU; iV~V egknsoh u;udsfy dk uke feyrk gSA blds vfrfjDr

ckxjeÅ nkui=ksa ls ,d vU; iV~V egknsoh xkslYynsoh dk uke feyrk

gSA ,d pkSFkh jkuh clUrnsoh ds uke dk mYys[k usiky ds njckj

iqLrdky; esa laxzfgr v"VlkgfL=dk izKkikjferk uked ik.Mqfyfi ls

Kkr gksrk gSA

xksfoUnpUnz ds nks iq=ksa ds uke Hkh gesa vfHkys[kksa ls izkIr gksrs gSA

fo0la0 1190 (1140 bZ0) ds mucjh nkui=kfHkys[k esa ;qojkt

vkLQksVpUnz dk mYys[k feyrk gSA blds vfrfjDr nks vU; vfHkys[kksa esa

egkjktiq= jkT;iky nso dk Hkh mYys[k feyrk gSA ysfdu xksfoUnpUnz

ds i'pkr~ mldk iq= fot;pUnz 'kkld gqvkA bl dkj.k ;g dgk tk

ldrk gS fd vkLQksVpUnz vkSj jkT;iky nso dh eR;q xksfoUnpUnz ds

thoudky esa gh gks xbZ FkhA

fot;pUn z

4101

izk;% ,slk le>k tkrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ckn ls gh xgM+oky 'kfDr

dk iru izkjEHk gks tkrk gSA xksfoUnpUnz us jktlRRkk dk mi;ksx dkQh

le; rd fd;kA mld s 'k kludky dk vfUre vfHky s[ k

fo0l a0 9299 (1154 b Z 0) dk g S A ,slk yxrk gS fd blds 'kh?kz

ckn gh xksfoUnpUnz dk nsgkUr gks x;k vkSj mldk iq= fot;pUnz

'kkluk:<+ gqvkA xgM+oky jktoa'k esa ;g ijEijk jgh gS fd vius firk

ds thoudky esa gh ;qojkt Hkh nkui= tkjh djrs FksA pUnznso ds

thoudky esa gh enuiky dk jkT;kfHk"ksd dj fn;k x;k Fkk] bldk

mYys[k ge dj vk, gSA enuiky ds 'kkludky esa xksfoUn us egkjkt

ds iq= ds :i esa nkui= tkjh fd,A blh izdkj xksfoUnpUnz ds

'kkludky esa mlds nks iq=ksa us 'kklui= tkjh fd,A ;qojkt

vkLQksVpUnz us HknSuh dk nkui=kfHkys[k fo0la0 1190 esa tkjh fd;k FkkA

mlds ckn egkjktiq= jkT;ikynso us muoy nkui=kfHkys[k fo0la0

1201 esa tkjh fd;k FkkA ,slk yxrk gS fd ;qojkt vkLQksVpUnznso dk

nsgkUr fo0la0 1190 ds ckn fdlh le; gks x;kA lEHkor% egkjktiq=

jkT;ikynso Hkh vius firk ds thoudky esa gh fnoaxr gks x;k FkkA

xgM+oky jktoa'k esa lEHkor% dsoy fot;pUnz gh ,d ek= ,slk 'kkld

gS ftldks vius firk ds thoudky esa nkui=kfHkys[k tkjh djus dk

volj ugh izkIr gks ldk FkkA

fot;pUn z d s 'k kludky d s d qy N% nkui=k f H ky s[ k

i z k Ir gk sr s g S aA mldk igyk nkui= fo0la0 1216 (1161 b Z0) esa

tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr mlus fo0la0 1221 (1165 b Z 0)

rFkk fo0la0 1223 (1166 b Z0) esa Hkh Lora= :i ls nkui= tkjh fd,

FksA fo0la0 1224 esa fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa egkjktiq= t;pUnz us

gfjiqjk dk nkui= tkjh fd;k FkkA blds ckn fo0la0 1225 (1170 bZ0)

esa ^;kSojkT;kfHkf"kDr egkjktiq= Jht;pUnznso^ us ukxyh nkui= tkjh

fd;kA bu ikWp nkui=ksa ds vfrfjDr fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa fodze

laor 1225 (1169 bZ0) esa tkSuiqj ls fdlh ^HkV~Vkjd HkfoHkw"k.k^ us ,d

LrEHk vfHkys[k nks iafDr;ksa esa fy[kok;k FkkA

MkW0 jksek fu;ksxh us ftl le; xgM+oky jktoa'k dk bfrgkl

uked iqLrd dk iz.k;u fd;k Fkk rc rd fo0la0 1217 ds df.Muh

4102

nkui= dk izdk'ku ugh gks ldk Fkk vSj 1221 rFkk 1223 ds nkui= Hkh

ml le; rd izdk'k esa ugh vk lds Fks ftlds dkj.k mUgksaus ;g

vuqeku yxk;k Fkk fd 1154 bZ0 esa xksfoUnpUnz ds vfUre nkui= ds

i'pkr 1168 bZ0 rd fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky dk dksbZ vU; nkui=

ys[k ugha feyrkA ;g rsjg o"kksZa dk vUrjky bl jktoa'k ds fy,

vlk/kkj.k lk yxrk gSA tcfd blds igys rd vusd nkui= tkjh

fd, tk pqds FksA blds fy, mUgksaus vkUrfjd dyg dks ftEesnkj ekuk

Fkk rFkk ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd 'kk;n ;qojkt vkLQksVpUnz vkSj

egkjktiq= jkT;iky nso ds lkFk mRrjkf/kdkj dk la?k"kZ gks ldrk gSA

blds vfrfjDr ,d nwljh laHkkouk eqlyekuh vkdze.kksa ds dkj.k fnYyh

dk gkFk ls fudy tkuk Hkh gks ldrk gSA

vfHkys[kksa esa fot;pUnz dks ijEijkxr :i ls iz'kaflr fd;k x;k

gSA blds lkFk gh ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd lalkj dks nfyr djus okys

gEehj ds ukfj;ksa dh vkW[kksa ls fudyus okyh ty/kkjk ls mlus

iFohyksd ds rki dks /kks Mkyk Fkk ^^Hkqou & nyu & gsyk & gE;Z &

geohj & ukjh & u;u &tyn&/kkSr&Hkwyksdrki%^^A ;gka ij mfYyf[kr

gEehj dk rkRi;Z fot;pUnz ds nks ledkyhu ;kfeuh lqYrkuksa ls gks

ldrk gS& 1- [kql: 'kkg] ftlus 1150&60 bZ0 ds chp 'kklu fd;k

vkSj 2- [kql: ekfyd] ftlus 1160&86 ds chp 'kklu fd;k FkkA blesa

igys ;kfeuh lqYrku dh laHkkouk vf/kd dh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd mldk

'kkludky vQxkfuLrku ds /kqt+ dchys ds yksxksa ds vkdze.k ds dkj.k

fopfyr jgk vkSj mls Hkkxdj Hkkjr esa ykgkSj esa viuk dsUnz cukuk

iM+kA vehj vkSj fot;pUnz ds chp ;g la?k"kZ 1161 bZ0 ds iwoZ gqvk

gksxkA D;ksafd mlds ckn ds lHkh vfHkys[kkas esa fot;pUnz ds fy, bldk

mYys[k feyrk gSA ;g Hkh laHko gS fd fot;pUnz us rq:"dksa ij ;g

fot; vius firk ds 'kkludky esa izkIr dh gksA

i ` Fohjktjklk s a e s a pUnojnk;h u s fot;pUn z }kjk dh

xb Z db Z fot;k s a dk mYy s[ k fd;k g S ftld s fo" k; e s a

bfrgkldkjk s a dk s l ang s g S A bld s vu qlkj ] fot;pUn z u s

dVd ¼mM +hlk ½ d s lk seo a' k h jktk e qd q Unn so dk s ijk ftr

fd;k Fk k rFk k ml s bl ckr d s fy, ck/; fd;k Fk k fd og

viuh i q += h dk fookg mld s i q= t;pUn z l s dj n sA

4103

t;pUn z dh blh iRuh l s l a; k sfxrk vFkok l a; q Drk dk tUe

g qvk Fk k ftld s ckn e s a i ` Fohjkt pk Sgku l s fookg g qvkA

ysfdu bfrgkldkjksa dk ;g fo'okl gS fd nf{k.k dks'ky ds lkseoa'kh

jktkvksa dks xaxks us xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ds izkjEHk esa gh ijkLr

djds mudk jkT; gM+i fy;k Fkk rFkk eqdqUnnso uke ds fdlh jktk dk

uke mM+hlk ds bfrgkl esa ugha feyrkA blds mRrj esa ;g dgk tk

ldrk gS fd eqdqUnnso lkseoa'kh jktkvksa dk dksbZ vYiKkr mRrjkf/kdkjh

jgk gksxk D;kasfd ;fn mlds vfLrRo ls gh badkj dj fn;k tk,xk rks

iFohjkt vkSj la;ksfxrk dh dFkk dk vk/kkj gh lekIr gks tk,xk tks

iFohjktjklksa dk eq[; fo"k; gSA jklksa esa gh ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd

fot;pUnz us fnYyh ds rksej jktk vuaxiky dks gjk;k FkkA blds

vfrfjDr iV ~Vui qj d s H k k sy k H k he dk s H k h mlu s gjk;k Fk kA

bl Hk k sy k H k he dh igpku vufgyikVd d s pky qD; uj s' k

H k hen so f}rh; l s dh tk ldrh g S ftlds 'kklu dk izkjEHk

1173 bZ0 ls gksrk gSA blds iwoZ mlds firk pkyqD; dqekjiky us 1114

bZ0 ls 1173 bZ0 rd 'kklu fd;k FkkA bl izdkj bfrgkldkjksa dk ;g

ekuuk gS fd Hkhenso f}rh; ds 'kkluk:<+ gksus ds rhu o"kZ iwoZ gh

fot;pUnz dk 'kkludky lekIr gks x;k FkkA ysfdu bl lEcU/k esa ;g

dgk tk ldrk gS fd Hkhenso f}rh; ls fot;pUnz dk la?k"kZ ml le;

gqvk gks ldrk gS tc Hkhenso ;qojkt FkkA mldk firk pkyqD;

dqekjiky yxHkx 59 o"kksZ rd 'kklu djrk jgk vkSj cgqr laHko gS fd

mlds 'kkludky ds vfUre fnuksa esa mldk iq= gh 'kklu dk;Z ns[krk

jgk gksA

jksek fu;ksxh us ;g Hkh laHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd caxky ds lsu

jktkvksa us Hkh xgM+oky izns'k ij fot; izkIr dh Fkh D;ksafd y{e.klsu

ds ek/kkbZ uxj vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd tc og dqekj Fkk rHkh

mlus xkSM+ ij vf/kdkj dj fy;k] ;q) esa dk'khjkt dks thrdj

¼;su&vklkS&dk'khjkt lej&Hkqofoftrk½ rFkk dfyax dh ukfj;ksa ds lkFk

dzhM+k dhA

blds vfrfjDr fo'o:ilsu rFkk lw;Zlsu ds vfHkys[kksa ls ;g

Kkr gksrk gS fd ;k rks y{e.klsu us vFkok fo'o:ilsu us iz;kx vkSj

dk'khiqjh ij fot; izkIr djds fot; LrEHk [kM+s fd, Fks ¼{ks=

4104

fo'os'ojL;-----f=os.;k-----/kuksPpSj;K&;wiS% lg lej t;&LrEHk&ekykU;

/kkf;½A ysfdu ,slk yxrk gS fd ;s mfDr;ka ijEijkxr iz'kalkRed ckrsa

gh Fkha D;ksafd fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa mldh jkt/kkuh okjk.klh rFkk

jkT; ds gn;LFky esa fLFkr iz;kx ij xkSM+ lsuk,a fot; izkIr dj ldh

gksa] ;g lHkao ugha yxrkA ;g vo'; dgk tk ldrk gS fd rhFkZ;k=h ds

:i esa bu jktkvksa us okjk.klh vkSj iz;kx esa ;K djds ;K&;wi [kM+s

fd, gksaA

jksek fu;ksxh us izcU/k fpUrkef.k dh ,d ?kVuk dk mYys[k fd;k

gS rFkk mldks xgM+oky {ks= ij lsu vkSj rq:"d vkdze.kksa ds lkFk tksM+k

gSA bl ?kVuk ds vuqlkj pkSyqD; dqekjiky ds 'kkludky ¼1114&73

bZ0½ esa okjk.klh ds ,d dfo fo'os'oj iV~Vu x, rFkk mUgksaus tSukpk;Z

gsepUnz }kjk cqykbZ xbZ ,d lkfgfR;d laxks"Bh esa Hkkx fy;kA ckn esa

pkSyqD; jktk dqekj iky us muls vius jkT; esa gh Bgj tkus dk

vuqjks/k fd;kA fdUrq fo'os'oj us fouezrkiwoZd mRrj nsrs gq, ;g dgk

fd mudk eu izHkkl rhFkZ tkus dks O;kdqy gS D;ksafd ^d.kZ dsoy

ukeek= dks dgkfu;ksa esa 'ks"k jg x, gSA okjk.klh uxj esa yksx ugha jg

x, gSa rFkk gfj ds {ks= esa gEehj ds ?kksM+s izlUurkiwoZd fgufguk jgs

gSaA^ ;gka ij mijksDr m)j.k esa dgha Hkh lsu jktk ds vkdze.k dk ladsr

ugha feyrkA pkSyqD; dqekjiky dk 'kkludky 1114 bZ0 esa izkjEHk gqvk

Fkk vkSj ;gh og o"kZ gS tc xksfoUnpUnz us xgM+oky ujs'k ds :i esa

viuk izFke vfHkys[k tkjh fd;k FkkA bl dkj.k fo'os'oj ds }kjk Åij

fn;k x;k o.kZu xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky ij Hkh ykxw fd;k tk ldrk

gSA cukjl ds lkFk&lkFk ^gfj ds {ks=^ esa gEehj ds ?kksM+ksa dh fgufgukgV

dk vFkZ v;ks/;k ij eqfLye vkdze.k ls lEcfU/kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

gky gh esa v;ks/;k ls izkIr ik"kk.k Qyd vfHkys[k dh ppkZ ge dj vk,

gSa rFkk ,slk yxrk gS fd dfo fo'os'oj dk ;g mYys[k v;ks/;k ds ml

vfHkys[k esa of.kZr ?kVuk ls lEcfU/kr gS tks fd xksfoUnpUnz ds

'kkludky esa gqbZ gksxhA

blh laUnHkZ esa fo0la0 1223 ¼5 flrEcj 1166 bZ0½ dks fcgkj ds

'kkgkckn ftys ds lqugj xzke ls izkIr ,d tkyh rkezi=kkfHkys[k dk

mYys[k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A okLro esa ;g nkui= egkjktk fot;pUnz us

fof/kiwoZd nku djus ds ckn fy[kok;k Fkk rFkk bldk ys[kd

4105

egkv{kiVfyd BDdqj Jh Jhifr gSa ftUgksaus xksfoUnpUnz ds 'kkludky esa

dbZ vfHkys[kksa dks fy[kk FkkA bl vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj] Lo.kZgy xzke ds

czkgE.kksa dks Hkwfe xbZ FkhA ;g Lo.kZgy vFkok lksugy xzke orZeku esa

lqugj xzke dgk tkrk gSA bldk egRo bl nf"V ls gS fd izrki /koy

ds rkjkp.Mh f'kykys[k esa bldks ^dqrkez i=^ dgk x;k gS ftldks

xkf/kuxj ds jktk ds ,d nkl ¼vf/kdkjh½] ftldk uke nsm Fkk] tks

Lo.k Z gy d s c z kgE.k k s a u s ? k wl ¼mRdk sp ½ n sdj fy[kok fy;k

Fk kA izrki /koy us 16 vi z Sy 1169 b Z0 dks ;g 'kklui= tkjh

fd;k fd bl xzke ds czkgE.kksa dks lqbZ dh uksd cjkcj Hkwfe Hkh u nh

tk, rFkk ;g vkns'k egkuk;d izrki /koy ds oa'k ds iq=&ikS=ksa dks Hkh

crk fn;k tk, fd bu yEiV czkgE.kksa ds mij rfud Hkh fo'okl ugha

fd;k tkuk pkfg,A rkjkp.Mh ds bl f'kykys[k ls dbZ jkspd ckrsa

izdk'k esa vkrh gSaA igyh ckr rks ;g gS fd egkuk;d izrki /koy vius

dks lkeUr dgrk gSA blds vfrfjDr Lo;a dks tkfiykf/kifr egkuk;d

Jhizrki/koy Hkh crkrk gSA bl izdkj ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd izrki

/koy fot;pUnz dk ,d lkeUr jgk gksxkA ysfdu blds ckotwn mlds

izns'k esa dkU;dqCt ds jktk fot;pUnz us ,d xzke dh dqN Hkwfe nku esa

nh ftlds fo"k; esa izrki /koy us ;g vkn s' k tkjh fd;k fd ;g

nkui= n sm uked jktdeZpkjh dk s ? k wl n sdj fy[kok;k

x;k Fk k vk S j mu c z kgE.k k s a dk s ftUg s a H k wf e nku e s a feyh Fk h

mll s c sn[ky dj fn;k x;kA ;gka ij lkeUr vkSj vf/kjkt ds

vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa jkspd rF; izkIr gksrs gSa vkSj ;g Kkr gksrk gS ;fn

v/keZiwoZd mRdksp ;k ?kwl nsdj dksbZ nku vf/kjkt ls djok fy;k tk,

rks v/khuLFk lkeUr jktk mldks ekuus ls bUdkj Hkh dj ldrk FkkA

fot;pUnz dk lqugj nkui= ys[k blh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

fot; pUnz dk vfUre nkui= ek?k lqnh 15] fo0 la0 1225 es

tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlds iq= t;pUnz dk izFke nkui= vk"kk<+

lqnh 6] 1226 dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA bl i zdkj ;g vu qeku

yxk;k tk ldrk g S fd ek? k 1225 d s ckn rFk k v" k k< +

1226 d s i wo Z fdlh le; fot;pUn z dk n sg k Ur g qvkA

t;pUn z

t;pUnz dk izFke nkui=kfHkys[k 21 twu 1170 bZ0 dks tkjh fd;k x;k

4106

Fkk vkSj mlds ckn mlu s yxHkx 24 o" k k sZ rd 'k klu fd;kA

, slh ekU;rk g S fd e qbTtqn ~nhu e qgEen xk sj h d s lkFk 1194

b Z 0 e s pUnoj d s ; q) e s a og ekjk x;k Fk kA bl chp esa mlds

'kkludky ds yxHkx 24 vfHkys[k izdk'k es vk, gSaA buesa dqN vfHkys[k

dqN lkekU; ukxfjdksa }kjk Hkh tkjh fd, x, gSaA vius firkeg vkSj

firk dh Hkakfr t;pUnz ds le; esa Hkh xgM+oky jkT; viuh 'kfDr dh

pje lhek ij FkkA mldk ledkyhu pUnsy jktk ijekfnZ Fkk rFkk

if'pe esa pkSgku jktk iFohjkt Hkh mldk ledkyhu FkkA pkSgkuksa vkSj

pUnsyksa esa ijLij dbZ ;q} gq, ftuesa t;pUnz dh lgkuqHkwfr pUnsyksa ds

lkFk jghA t;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa gh iFohjkt vkSj t;pUnz dh iq=h

la;ksfxrk dh ?kVuk dh tkudkjh lkfgfR;d lzksrksa ls feyrh gSA ysfdu

blds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vkfHkysf[kd izek.k ugh feyrkA t;pUnz ds

'kkludky esa Hkh mldk jkT; {ks= izk;% ogh cuk jgk tks mlds firk ds

'kludky esa FkkA

Hkkjrh; lkfgfR;d lzksr t;pUnz dks vius le; dk lcls cM+k

jktk fl) djrs gSa rFkk eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa ds dFku Hkh blh ckr dh

iqf"V djrs gSa fd ^og Hkkjr dk lcls cM+k jktk Fkk rFkk lcls cM+s {ks=

dk Lokeh FkkA^ mlds ikl cgqr cM+h lsuk FkhA t;pUn z xgM +o ky

jkto a' k e s a ,dek= , slk jktk g S tk s H k kjrh; lk fgR; e s a

tkuk tkrk g SA mlds 'kkludky dh dksbZ cM+h egRoiw.kZ ?kVuk

vfHkys[kksa ls ugh Kkr gksrh y sfdu Hk kjrh; lkfgR; bl ckr dh

l wpuk n sr s g S a fd mldk e qlyekuk s a l s db Z ckj l a? k " k Z g qvk

Fk kA

fo|kifr d s x z UF k i q:" kijh { k k rFk k u;pUn z d s

jEH k keTtjh ukVd ,o a i ` Fohjktjklk s a l s ;g Kkr gk sr k g S

fd e qbTtq}hu ¼ f' kgkc qn ~nhu½ xk sj h l s t;pUn z d s db Z ckj

l a? k " k Z g q , rFk k t;pUn z u s ml s ijkLr djd s H k kxu s ij

foo'k dj fn;kA n wljh vk sj lHk h e q fLye bfrgkldkj

x;kl qn ~nhu d s H k kb Z e qb Z Tt qn ~nhu e qgEen xk sj h d s lkFk

i ` Fohjke d s d soy nk s ; q)k s a rFk k t;pUn z d s d soy ,d ; q)

dk mYy s[ k djr s g SA x;klqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh 1163 bZ0 esa xksj dk

lqYrku gqvk vkSj mlus vius HkkbZ f'kgkcqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh dks xtuh

4107

dk jkT;iky fu;qDr fd;k ftlus Hkkjr ij vusd vkdze.k fd,] ysfdu

ckj&ckj ijkLr gksuk iM+kA eqgEen ds izkjfEHkd vfHk;ku Msjk bLekbZy

[kku ds if'pe esa fLFkr xksey njsZ ls gksrs Fks D;ksafd ;g ekxZ NksVk vkSj

vf/kd lqjf{kr FkkA ifj.kkeLo:i eqYrku vkSj mN mlds v/khu gks x,A

ckn esa flU/k Hkh /kjk'kk;h gqvk ysfdu tc mlus e:Hkwfe ikj djds

xqtjkr ij vkdze.k djus dk iz;kl fd;k rks mls eqWag dh [kkuh iM+hA

1178 b Z0 e s a s e q gEen xk sj h e:Hk wf e ikj djd s vkc w rd

ig q Wp x;k Fk k y sfdu ble s a mldh l su k u"V gk s xb Z vk S j

cph [k qph&l suk dk s pky qD; jktk e qyjkt f}rh; u s u"V

dj fn;kA e qgEen xk sj h viu s Fk k sM + s l s flik fg;k s a d s lkFk

dfBukb Zi wo Zd tku cpk ldkA mld s ckn mlu s n wljk

jkLrk viuk;kA mlu s 1178 b Z0 e s a i s' k koj vk S j 1185 e s a

L;kydk sV y s fy;kA vxy s o" k Z ykgk S j ij Hk h mldk dCtk

gk s x;kA bld s ckn og pk Sgku jktk i ` Fohjkt r `rh; ij

p< + nk SM +k rFk k mll s db Z ckj ijk ftr g qvkA v ar e s a 1192

b Z 0 e s a rjkb Zu d s ; q) e s a i ` Fohjkt ijk ftr g qvk vk S j ekjk

x;kA mld s ,d l sukifr dqr qc qn ~nhu , scd u s 1192 e s a

gk Wlh dk s thr fy;k rFk k e sjB vk S j cjku ¼c qyUn'kgj½ bu

nk s LFk kuk s a l s mlu s i wo Z e s a viu s vkd ze.k k s a dk l ap kyu

fd;kA fQj ckn e s a mlu s pk Sgku jktk dk s fnYyh l s

H kxkdj 1193 e s a viuh jkt/k kuh cuk fy;kA Nk sV s&ek sV s

vkd ze.k k s a e s a mlu s dk sy ¼vyhx< +½ rd viuk i z H k ko Q Syk

fy;kA

pUnoj dk ; q)

- - - -

mijksDr dkj.kksa ls ;fn jklks] iq:"kijh{kk vkSj jaHkk&eatjh ukVd

vkfn ;g fooj.k nssrs gSa fd xksjh ds lqYrku dks dbZ ckj ijkt; dk

eq[k ns[kuk iM+k rks blesa lR; dk dqN va'k vo'; gh gSA ysfdu

eqlyeku bfrgkldkj xgM+oky lsuk ds lkFk ,d NksVh >M+i rFkk

pUnoj ds eSnku esa ,d cMs+ ;q) dk fooj.k ek= nsrs gSaA glu futkeh

ds rktmyekFkhj ds vuqlkj fnYyh] vtesj vkSj dksy dks ijkftr djus

ds ckn lqYrku us viuk /;ku xgM+okyksa dh vksj yxk;kA dqrqcqn~nhu ds

4108

usrRo esa 50]000 dh lsuk ds lkFk mlus nhu ¼/keZ½ ds nq'euksa dh lsuk

dk lkeuk fd;k vkSj mls gjk;kA ,slk dgk tkrk gS fd ;g >M+i

xgM+oky lsuk ds lhekUr izns'k dh lqj{kk esa yxh VqdM+h ds lkFk gqbZ

gksxh u fd mldh eq[; lsuk lsA dkfeymRrokjh[k esa Hkh bCu vFkhj

us dqrqcqn~nhu ds bl p<+kbZ dk mYys[k fd;k gS ftlesa mlus vusd dks

ekj Mkyk Fkk rFkk cfUn;ksa vkSj ywV ds lkFk ?kj okfil vk x;k FkkA

tc t;pUnz dks bldh lwpuk nh xbZ rks mlus viuh lsuk dks ,d=

djds eqlyekuksa ds {ks= esa izos'k fd;kA xgM+okyksa vkSj eqfLye lsuk ds

chp pUnoj ds eSnku esa ;q) gqvkA blesa t;pUnz Loa; gkFkh ij p<+dj

;q) dk lapkyu dj jgk FkkA fQfj'rk d s vu qlkj d qr qc qn ~nhu }

kjk pyk, x, ,d rhj l s t;pUn ekjk x;kA bld s ckn

Hk; adj ekjdkV g qb Z vk S j rhu lk S gkF k h ftUnk idM + fy,

x,A vLuh d s fdy s dk s y wV fy;k x;k ] tgk a ij xgM +o ky

jktkvk s a u s viu s lk su s&pk W an h rFk k jRuk s a d s H k.Mkj tek

dj j[k s Fk sA cukjl] tk s fgUn n s' k dk d sUn z ekuk tkrk

Fk k ] H k h y wV fy;k x;k vk S j ogk W ij yxHkx ,d gtkj

efUnj fxjk fn, x, vk S j mudh uh ao d s mij efLtn s a mBk

nh xb ZA e q f Lye bfrgkldkjk s a u s ;g l wpuk nh g S fd fgUn

d s jktk vk S j lkeUr vehj d s i z fr viuh v/k hurk trku s

d s fy, vkx s vk,A ns'k dk izcU/k ,d fo'oLr O;fDr dks lkSaik x;k

tks yksxksa dks U;k; ns lds vkSj ewfrZiwtdksa dks nck ldsA ysfdu eqfLye

bfrgkldkjksa us bl O;fDr dk uke ugha crk;k gSA ckn esa dqrqcqn~nhu

fnYyh dk jkT;iky fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj fnYyh esa mlus viuh

jkt/kkuh cuk yhA

xgM+oky jktoa'k ds bfrgkl dks fy[kus okys izk;% lHkh

bfrgkldjksa dk ;g er gS fd pUnoj ds bl ;q) ds ckn xgM+oky

lkezkT; /oLr gks x;k vkSj eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksaa ds ekxZ dh lcls

cM+h ck/kk nwj gks x;hA ysfdu bl izdkj ds fdlh vfHker dks lgh ugh

ekuk tk ldrk D;ksfd pUnoj d s ; q) d s ik ap&N% lky ckn

Hk h t;pUn z dk i q= gfj'pUn z i wj h jktdh; mik f / k;k s a d s

lkFk 'k klu dj jgk Fk kA tk Sui q j d s eNyh'kgj rglhy e s a

f ? klok ijxuk d s dk sVok uked x z ke l s ,d rke zi=k f H ky s[ k

4109

i z k Ir g qvk g S ftl ij jfookj ik S " k l qnh 15 fo0 l a0 1253

¼6 tuojh 1197 b Z 0½ dh frfFk iM +h g qb Z g SA blds vuqlkj

^ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf/kjkt ijes'oj] ijeekgs'oj v'oifr xtifr

ujifr jkt=;kf/kifr fofo/k fo/kk fopkj okpLifr Jh gfj'pUnz nso^ }kjk

iegf; xzke nku fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA bl iegf; xzke dh igpku

vfHkys[k ds izkfIr LFky ds lehi fLFkr iksgk uked xzke ls dh xbZ gSA

bl dkj.k ;g Lohdkj djus esa dfBukbZ ugh gksuh pkfg;s fd pUnoj

;q) ds ikap &N% o"kZ ckn Hkh t;pUnz dk iq= gfj'pUnz vius oa'k dh

lEiw.kZ jktdh; mikf/k;ksa ds lkFk 'kklu dj jgk FkkA

;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnoj d s ; q) d s le;

gfj'pUn z dh vk; q yxHkx 19 o" k Z jgh gk sx h D;k s afd

gfj'pUn z dk tUe 1175 b Z0 e s a g qvk Fk kA t;pUn z d s

cM s +lj nkui=k f H ky s[ k e s a] tk s j fookj Hk kn z cnh 8 fo0 l a0

1232 ¼10 vxLr] 1175½ e s a fy[kok;k x;k Fk k ] gfj'pUn z d s

tkrde Z dk mYy s[ k g S rFk k t;pUn z d s fo0 l a0 1232 d s

vk f'ou l qnh 14] fnu lk seokj ¼29 flrEcj] 1175½ d s

pUnoj vfHky s[ k e s a egkjkt i q= gfj'pUn z n so d s tkrk sRlo

dk mYy s[ k g S A bl izdkj eNyh'kgj ds nkui= dks fy[kokus ds

le; gfj'pUnz dh vk;q 22&23 o"kZ jgh gksxhA dqN bfrgkldkjks dk ;g

fopkj gS fd bl ;qod jktk us eqfLye vkdze.kksa dks dSls >syk gksxk bl

ij fopkj djuk dfBu dke gSA mUgksaus ;g lq>k;k gS fd lEHkor%

eqbTtqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh dh jktuhfrd nwjnf'kZrk ds dkj.k gfj'pUnz

dks ,d lkeUr jktk ds :i esa 'kklu djus dh vuqefr ns nh xbZ FkhA

vkj0 ,l0 f=ikBh dk ;g fopkj gS fd bl la?k"kZiw.kZ dky esa ckyd

jktk }kjk viuh LorU=rk dh ,d NksVh lhek dks Hkh cpk, j[k ikuk

vfo'luh; yxrk gSA ysfdu gfj'pUnz ds }kjk lHkh mikf/k;ksa dks /kkj.k

djrs gq, eNyh'kgj ds nkui= dks tkjh djuk ;g iznf'kZr djrk gS fd

pUnoj ds ;q) ds rqjUr ckn xgM+oky lkezkT; /oLr ugh gks x;k

Fkk] ;|fi mldh izfr"Bk dks /kDdk yxk FkkA xgM+oky lkezkT; ds

vusd lkeUrksa ds ys[k Hkh bl ckr dh iqf"V djrs gS fd os bl le; Hkh

xgM+oky vkf/kiR; dks gh Lohdkj djrs Fks u fd eqfLye vkf/kiR; dks A

mnkgj.k ds fy,] jk.kd fot;d.kZ dk ,d vfHkys[k fetkZiqj ftys ds

4110

csy[kjk xzke ls izkIr gqvk gS tks fo0 la0 1253 ds oS'kk[k lqnh 11 ¼29

vizSy] 1197 bZ0½ dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA blesa jk.kd Jhfot;d.kZ ds

jkt esa ,d O;fDr }kjk ,d LrEHk dh LFkkiuk dk mYys[k gSA blesa

gfj'pUnz dk uke ugh gSA fQj Hkh] ^dkU;dqCt fot;jkT;^ dk mYys[k

fd;k x;k gS ¼ijeHkV~Vkjd&bR;kfn jktkoyh½- - -

-v'oifr&xtufr&ujifr&jktf=;kf/kifr&fofo/k&fo/kk fopkj&okpLifr

& Jher~&dkU;dqCt fot;jkT;A

blh izdkj e/; izns'k esa ukxksn ftys esa mn~ny nsoh }kjk

fy[kok;k x;k ,d [kf.Mr vfHkys[k izkIr gqvk gS ftl ij 1237 b Z0

dh frfFk iM +h g qb Z g S A bl vfHkys[k dks egklkeUr jkt cjgnso dh

iq=h mn~nnsoh] tks dkU;dqCt esa iSnk gqbZ Fkh rFkk tks Jh egeUnnso dh

iV~VjkKh Fkh] us fy[kok;k FkkA ble s a foU/; s'oj f'ko d s e afnj d s

fuek Z . k dk mYy s[ k g SA egeUnnso xgM+oky jktoa'k ds Jh

vkMDdeYye dk lkeUr Fkk ¼Jhen~ xgM+oky&dqy&

fodlu&lglzka'kq&Jh vk ¼MDd½ eYy&lkekUr&'kj.k& vkxr&otz&

iatj&Jheu~& egeUnnso& iV~VjkKk& Jhmn~nynsO;½A ,slk yxrk gS fd

xksfoUnpUnznso us ftl le; foU/; {ks= esa dYpqfj jktk dks gjk;k Fkk

mlh le; xgM+oky oa'k ds fdlh jktdqekj dks ogka dk 'kkld fu;qDr

fd;k Fkk ftldk oa'kt vkMDdey Fkk A ;|fi bl vfHkys[k esa

dkU;dqCt ds xgM+oky jktoa'k dk mYys[k ugh gS fQj Hkh ;g

mYys[kuh; gS fd ml {ks= esa eqfLye vkdze.kksa dk dskbZ izHkko gqvk ugh

yxrkA blds vfrfjDr jksgrklx<+ ¼fcgkj½ ls fodze laor~ 1297 ¼1223

bZ0½ dk ,d vfHkys[k [kSjoky jktoa'k ds izrki /koy f}rh; dk izkIr

gqvk gS ftlesa mlus ;ouksa dks [ksy&[ksy esa gjkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA

¼tou&nyu&ekulyS%½A /koy jktoa'k Hkh xgM+oky ds v/khu FkkA

vr% xgM+oky jktoa'k dk lkezkT; pUnoj ds ;q) ds ckn ,dne

/kjk'kk;h gks x;k] bfrgkldkjksa dh ;g vo/kkj.kk lgh ugh yxrh A

eqfYte bfrgkldkjks ds fooj.kksa dks ns[kus ls ;|fi ;g t:j lwfpr

gksrk gS fd 1193 bZ0 ds pUnoj ds ;q) esa cukjl dks thr fy;k x;k

Fkk vkSj mlds ,d gtkj efUnj /kjk'kk;h dj fn, x;s FksA ysfdu ,slk

yxrk gS fd cukjl dh ;g ywV dsoy vLFkk;h gh fl) gqbZ vkSj

xgM+okyksa us ml ij iqu% dCtk dj fy;k FkkA rcdkr&,&ukljh ds

4111

vuqlkj bYrqrfe'k dh izkjfEHkd fot;ks esa cukjl dks Hkh 'kkfey fd;k

x;k gSA bl izdkj ;fn ;g ekusa fd gfj'pUnz us 1193 ds ;q) ds ckn

iqu% viuh jkt/kkuh dk'kh ij dCtk dj fy;k Fkk rks vuqfpr ugha

gksxkA eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa }kjk lEiw.kZ xgM+oky lkezkT; ij vf/kdkj

dj ysus okyh ckr fdruh [kks[kyh gS ;g muds mYys[kksa ds fo'ys"k.k ls

Hkh fl) fd;k tk ldk gSA 1193 ds pUnkoj ds ;q) ds ckn dUukSt

thrk ugha tk ldk Fkk] dsoy fQfj'rk gh ml o"kZ ds ;q) ds ckn ;g

dgrs gq, fd lqYrku us caxky dh lhek rd&{ks= dks vius vf/kdkj esa

dj fy;k Fkk] dUukSt dks foftr fd, x, uxjksa esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k

gSA ysfdu fQfj'rk dk fooj.k ckn dk gksus ds dkj.k fo'oluh; ugha

ekuk tkrkA rcdkr&,&ukljh Hkh ;g mYys[k ugha djrk fd eqfLye

lsuk,a dUukSt eas igqWaph ;k ughaA ysfdu og ;g vo'; crkrk gS fd

dkU;dqCt bYrqrfe'k ds }kjk fot; fd;k x;k rFkk bl volj ij u,

flDds pyok, x,A blds vfrfjDr rktmyekFkhj rFkk

dkfeymRrokjh[k tSls ledkyhu bfrgklksa esa Hkh 1193 bZ0 esa eqfLye

lsuk }kjk foftr uxjksa esa dUukSt dk mYys[k ugha feyrkA

rcdkr&,&ukljh esa dUukSt ds lkFk&lkFk cnk;wW vkSj v;ks/;k dks Hkh

bYrqrfe'k ds }kjk thrs tkus dk mYys[k feyrk gSA bl izdkj if'peh

mRrj izns'k esa cnk;wW] e/; mRrj izns'k esa dUukSt rFkk iwohZ mRrj izns'k

esa dk'kh vkSj v;ks/;k esa bYrqrfe'k }kjk fot; fd, tkus ds mYys[kksa ds

dkj.k ;g ekuuk iM+sxk fd bYrqrfe'k ds 'kkludky rd ;s {ks=

xgM+oky 'kkldksa dh lRrk Lohdkj djrs jgsA ;|fi ,d&vk/k Lfkkuksa ij

dgha&dgha eqfLye lsukifr;ksa dks tkxhj fn, tkus ds mYys[k feyrs gSaA

mnkgj.k ds fy, eqgEen bCu cf[r;kj dks 1196 bZ0 esa xaxk deZuk'kk ds

chp esa Hkxoku vkSj fHkmyh dh tkxhjsa fn, tkus dk mYys[k feyrk gSA

ysfdu bl izdkj tkxhjksa dks cuk, j[k ikuk cM+k dfBu dke gksrk jgk

gksxk D;ksafd pkjksa vksj fgUnw jktk vkSj lkeUr 'kklu dj jgs Fks tks

eqfLye lRrk dks pqukSrh nsrs jgrs FksA /khjs&/khjs fnYyh ds lqYrkuksa dh

lRrk vUrosZnh ds vkUrfjd {ks=ksa esa Hkh Lohdkj dh tkus yxh gksxh

ysfdu xgM+oky jktoa'k ds vafre ¼\½ 'kkld gfj'pUnz us dc rd

'kklu fd;k vkSj mlds ckn bl jktoa'k dk D;k gqvk blds fo"k; esa

fdlh Hkh lzksr ls dksbZ tkudkjh ugha feyrhA^^ (Pages 81-105)

4112

3870. The Sultanate and Mughal period is said to

commence not in the entire part of India but initially at Sindh

and thereafter gradually it increase to other parts. As such,

therefore, it may not be said that with the advent of Sultanate

period the territory of Oudh was ruled by Muslims. On this

aspect also in Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evem Puratatva (supra) at

Chapter-8, pages 109-113 some details have been given and the

same may be referred as under:

^^bLyke dh LFkkiuk ds ckn gh vkBoha 'krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa vjcksa

us HkkjrHkwfe ij lcls igys flU/k ij vkdze.k fd;k ysfdu ogka mUgsa

dksbZ cgqr cM+h lQyrk izkIr ugha gks ldh FkhA ogka ij dsoy ,dk/k

{ks=ksa ij gh mudk jkT; dk;e gks ldk tgkWa os yxHkx vKkr :i ls

rhu 'krkfCn;ksa rd viuk vfLrRo cuk, j[k ldsA bl chp e s a

bLyke u s ; wj k si l s y sdj phu rd d s fo'k ky Hk w&H k kx dk s

thr fy;k Fk k fdUr q H k k jr e s a flU/ k q d s vkx s o s viuk

foLrkj ugh a dj ld s Fk sA flU/kq unh dh ?kkVh esa Hkh bl chp esa

mudk vfLrRo MkWaokMksy gh jgkA 'kfDr'kkyh vCcklh [kyhQk ftl

HkkjrHkwfe dks ugha thr lds mUgsa vQxkfuLrku esa LFkkfir gksus okys

NksVs&eksVs rq#"d jktoa'kksa us 'krkfCn;ksa rd ckjEckj fd, tkus okys

iz;klksa ds ckn izkIr fd;kA uoha 'krkCnh esa vyeewu ds ,d lsukifr

rkfgj dks [kqjklku dk iz'kkld fu;qDr fd;k x;k rFkk cxnkn ds iwoZ

dk iwjk {ks= mlds 'kklu esa ns fn;k x;kA 'kh?kz gh rkfgj vkSj mlds

oa'ktksa us LorU=rk izkIr dj yh vkSj Hkkjr dh lhekvksa rd viuk

foLrkj fd;kA uoha 'krkCnh ds pkSFks pj.k esa v;wc bCu u;r vylQj

ds usrRo esa ,d u, jktoa'k dk mn; gqvk ftlus rkfgj ds oa'ktksa ds

LFkku ij vius dks LFkkfir fd;k rFkk dkcqy] tkcqy vkSj flU/k rd ds

izns'kksa dks thrkA nloha 'krkCnh ds vfUre n'kd esa 'kfDr'kkyh lkekuh

lkezkT; dks nks rq#"d jktoa'kksa us vkil esa ckaV fy;kA lkekuh lkezkT;

ds nf{k.k dk Hkkx ;kehuh jktoa'k ds yksxksa us izkIr fd;k] ftUgsa

vk/kqfud bfrgkl ds ys[kd xtuoh dgrs gSaA

lyrur dky

4113

;kehuh jktoa'k ds yksx vius dks Qkjl ds lezkVksa dk oa'kt crkrs gSaA

blh oa'k esa lqcqDrhxhu uked O;fDr dk tue gqvk Fkk ftlus xtuh esa

;kehuh jktoa'k dh uhao Mkyh FkhA ysfdu izkjEHk esa tc og dsoy ckjg

o"kZ dk ,d ckyd Fkk] iM+ksl ds ,d dchys }kjk cUnh cuk fy;k x;kA

HkkX; ds Qsj ls og dbZ ckj csps tkus ds ckn [kqjklku ds lkekuh

'kkld ds ,d vf/kdkjh vyIrxhu ds }kjk [kjhn fy;k x;kA 977 bZ0

esa lqcqDrxhu us vius 'klu dh LFkkiuk dh vkSj 'kh?kz gh mlus cLr]

nkoj] dqlnkj] rq[kkfjLrku rFkk ?kwj dks vius jkT; esa feyk fy;kA

mlds ckn Hkkjr esa mlus 'kkgh jktoa'k ds lkFk ;q) fd;k rFkk mlds

dqN {ks=ksa dks vius jkT; esa feyk;kA l qc q Drxhu dh e ` R; q 997 b Z0

e s a 58 o" k Z dh vk; q e s a cY[k d s lhekUr ij g qb Z A mld s ckn

mldk i q= ege wn xtuh d s fl ag klu ij 998 b Z0 e s a c SBkA

ml le; mldh vk;q ek= 27 o"kZ dh FkhA 1000 bZ0 esa mlus Hkkjr ij

igyk vkdze.k fd;kA mlds ckn mlus izk;% izR;sd o"kZ Hkkjr ij

vkdze.k fd,A Hkkjrh; bfrgkl esa og egewn xtuoh ds uke ls izfl)

gSA mlds vkdze.kksa dh izd`fr eq[; :i ls ywVus rFkk ijkftr jktkvksa

ls /ku olwyus dh FkhA

eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa us egewn xtuoh ds vkdze.kksa ds tks fooj.k

fn, gSa os vfrjaftr ekywe gksrs gSa vkSj muesa dsoy mldh lQyrkvksa ds

fooj.k gh feyrs gSaA bu fooj.kksa dks fdUgha vU; lzksrksa ls lefFkZr ugha

fd;k tk ldrk ysfdu izk;% bUgsa lgh eku fy;k tkrk gSA vkxs tks

fooj.k fn;k tk jgk gS og iwjh rjg eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa ds fooj.kksa ds

vk/kkj ij gh gSA xaxk&;equk dh ?kkVh esa mldk vkdze.k 1018 bZ0 esa

gqvk FkkA mlus 2 fnlEcj] 1018 dks ;equk unh dks ikj fd;k rFkk jkLrs

esa dqN igkM+h fdyksa dks thrrs gq, cju] orZeku cqyUn'kgj] igqWapkA ml

le; ogka dk jktk gjnRr Fkk ftlus egewn dk eqdkcyk fd;k ysfdu

ijkLr gqvkA mls lqYrku dks nl yk[k fnjge vkSj rhl gkFkh nsdj

laf/k djuh iM+hA mlds ckn egewn us egkcu esa ;kno jktk dqypUnz

dks ijkLr fd;kA rRi'pkr ~ eFk q j k mld s dk si dk Hk ktu cukA

eFk q j k uxj bl le; iRFkj d s i z kdkj l s f? kj k g qvk Fk kA

ftle s a vu sd fo'k ky efUnj Fk sA ble s a lcl s cM +k efUnj

uxj d s d sUn z e s a F k kA l aH kor% ;g d` ". k&tUeHk wfe dk

4114

e af Unj Fk kA bldh fo'kkyrk ls egewn vR;f/kd izHkkfor gqvkA mldk

vuqeku Fkk fd ;g efUnj de&ls&de nl djksM+ yky nhukjksa ls

cuok;k x;k gksxk rFkk vR;f/kd dq'ky f'kfYi;ksa us Hkh bldks cukus esa

de&ls&de nks lkS o"kZ dk le; yxk;k gksxkA bu efUnjksa dh vusd

ewfrZ;ksa esa ikap ewfr;kWa 'kq) lksus dh cukbZ xbZ Fkha ftudh vkWa[kksa es ,d

yk[k nhukj ds jRu tM+s FksA bu lHk h e wfr Z;k s a e s 68 ]300 fe"dy

Hk kj dk lk su k Fk kA pk W an h dh e wfr Z;k s a dh l a[;k 200

Fk hA ;g uxj fnYyh d s jktk d s v/k hu Fk k y sfdu] fcuk

fdlh l a? k " k Z d s ege wn u s eFk q j k ij vf/ kdkj dj fy;k rFk k

lk su s vk S j pk W an h dh lHk h e wfr Z;k s a dk s vf/ kdkj e s a y su s d s

ckn mlu s lHk h efUnjk s a dk s tykdj jk[k dj n su s dk

vkn s' k dj fn;kA bu e wfr Z;k s a dk s tku&c w>dj

V qdM + s&V qdM + s dj fn;k x;kA uxj e s a chl fnuk s a rd

y wVekj gk sr h jgh rFk k vf / kdk a' k H kou tykdj jk[k dj

fn, x,A

eFkqjk dks ywVus ds ckn egewn xtuoh us dUukSt dh vksj iz;k.k

fd;kA ;|fi ekxZ esa mls izfrjks/k dk lkeuk djuk iM+k] fQj Hkh og

dUuk St ig q W ap x;kA ;g uxj lkr n qxk sZ a l s ; q Dr Fk k ftle s a

nl gtkj ef Unj Fk sA egewn ds vkxeu dh lwpuk ikdj izfrgkj

oa'k dk jktk jkT;iky xaxk ds nwljh vksj ckjh uked LFkku es pyk

x;kA bl izdkj dUuk St dk s ege wn u s i wj h rjg y wVkA dUuk St

d s vf H k;ku e s a ege wn dk s nk s djk sM + fnjge] frjiu gtkj

cUnh rFk k rhu lk S ipkl gkFk h gkF k yx sA

egewn dUukSt ls vkxs ugha c<+k vkSj bl izdkj v;ks/;k mlds

vkdze.k ls cp xbZA ysfdu egewn ds eq[; vkdze.k ds vfrfjDr mldh

lsuk ds dqN lsukifr;ksa ds vkdze.kksa dks v;ks/;k dks vo'; >syuk iM+k

gksxkA egewn us 1025 bZ0 ds tuojh eghus ds e/; esa lkseukFk ij

vkdze.k fd;k vkSj mls ywVkA lkseukFk ds efUnj ds f'kofyax dks mlus

rksM+dj [kf.Mr dj fn;k rFkk nks djksM+ fnjge dk /ku Hkh ywVkA efUnj

dks Hkh /oLr dj fn;k x;k rFkk f'kofyax ds VqdM+ksa dks xtuh ys tk;k

x;k tgka ij mu VqdM+ksa dks tkeh efLtn esa }kj dh lhf<+;ksa esa yxk

fn;k x;kA bl tkeh efLtn dk fuekZ.k 1019 bZ0 esa dUukSt dks ywVus

4115

ds ckn djk;k x;k FkkA lkseukFk ds bl ;q) esa lS;~;n lkykj elwn Hkh

'kkfey FkkA ml le; mldh vk;q 12 o"kZ dh FkhA - - - - -

vCnqjZgeku fp'rh ds vuqlkj elwn egewn xtuoh dh cgu ekSyk

dk iq= FkkA blds firk dk uke lqYrku lkykj lkgw Fkk tks vius le;

dk izfl) bZjkuh ;ks)k FkkA lkseukFk ij vkdze.k ds le; elwn Hkh

egewn xtuoh ds lkFk Fkk vkSj ml le; mldh vk;q dsoy 12 o"kZ

FkhA lkseukFk dh ywV ds ikWap o"kksZa ds ckn elwn us bLyke ds uke

ij ,d lsuk ,d= dh vkSj vius firk lkykj 'kg dh lsuk ds lkFk

fgUnqLrku dks Qrg djus ds bjkns ls flU/kq unh dks ikj fd;kA elwn us

igys eqYrku ds 'kkgh jktk vuaxiky dks ijkftr fd;kA blds ckn

mlus fnYyh ds jktk efgiky ds fo#) ekspkZ fy;kA fnYyh ds ckn

elwn us esjB ij p<+kbZ dhA esjB vkSj dUukSt ds jktkvksa us mlds lkFk

;q) djuk Bhd u le>dj fe=rk dj yhA - - v;ks/;k ds fe;ka jtc

lkykj lSQqn~nhu us cgjkbp] vehj glu vjc us egwuk rFkk efyd

Qty us cukjl thr fy;kA lqyrk=qlyknhu vkSj ehj cf[r;kj nf{k.k

dh vksj dUuwj rd x;sA ysfdu ogka ehj cf[r;kj fgUnw lsuk }kjk ekj

Mkyk x;kA lkykj elwn us jtc ekl dh 14oha rkjh[k vFkkZr~ jfookj

14 twu] 1033 bZ0 ds fnu cgjkbp esa ckykdZ ¼cky lw;Z½ ds efUnj ij

vkdze.k dj fn;kA elwn dk o/k jktk lqgsy nso ds }kjk gqvkA bl ;q)

esa cgqr ls yksxksa dh tkusa xbZ ysfdu 22 o"khZ; lkykj elwn dh eR;q ds

ckn ;g vkdze.k fc[kj x;kA fp'rh u s l su kvk s a dh l a[;k cg qr

c< +k&p< +kdj fy[k h g SA mld s vu qlkj ] fgUn w l su k e s a chl

yk[k ? k qM +lokj vk S j rhl yk[k i Sny Fk s rFk k nk su k s a vk sj l s

yxHkx ik Su djk sM + l S fud yM + s F k sA y sfdu ; s l a[;k, a

vR;f / kd vfrj aftr g S aA vCn q j Z geku fp'rh u s

ehjkr&,&el wnh d s vUr e s a fy[k k g S fd &

lkykj elwn dh eR;q ds ckn vtesj esa eqtQ~Qj [kku

Hkh ekjk x;kA mlds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks fgUnqvksa us

ekj Hkxk;kAtks ewfrZ;ka rksM+h xbZ Fkha] os iqu% LFkkfir gks

xbZA

QStkckn xtsfV;j esa Hkh bldk fooj.k fn;k x;k gSA fLeFk us vyhZ

fgLV~hZ vko bf.M;k eas fy[kk gS fd &

4116

o"kkZ ds ckn elwn us viuh lsuk dks vtq/ku ¼v;ks/;k½ ds

fo#) lapkfyr fd;kA ;|fi mu fnuksa og LFkku o

mlds vkl ikl /kuh vkcknh Fkh fQj Hkh fcuk la?k"kZ ds

mls thr fy;k x;kA elwn vtq/ku ds ekSle ls dkQh

izlUu Fkk vkSj pwafd ;gka ij f'kdkj vPNs feyrs Fks

blfy, og vxyh o"kkZ rd ;gka #d x;k vkSj mlds

ckn fnYyh x;kA

lkykj elwn ds vkdze.k dk dkQh izfrjks/k gqvk vkSj mldh lsuk ds

yksxksa dks txg&txg ekj [kkuh iM+hA y[kuÅ QStkckn ds iqjkus ekxZ

ij elwn dh rFkkdfFkr dczksa ls bldh lR;rk dk Kku gksrk gSA egewn

dh lsuk dk ,d vU; lsukuk;d vgen fu;kYrxhu Hkh Fkk ftls egewn

xtuoh us iatkc lwcs dk vf/kdkjh cuk;k FkkA ,slk dgk tkrk gS fd

mlus 1034 bZ0 esa cukjl dks ywVk FkkA gUl csdj dk dguk gS fd ;k

rks mlus vFkok mldh lsuk ds fdlh vU; uk;d us bl volj ij

v;ks/;k ij vkdze.k fd;k gks ldrk gSA ysfdu gUl csdj ds bl dFku

dks ge dsoy mudh 'kqHk dYiuk ek= dg ldrs gSa D;ksafd bldk

dk sb Z H k h i zek.k ugh a feyrk fd fu;kYrxhu dh l su k d s

fdlh l su kifr u s v;k s/;k ij vkd ze.k fd;k Fk kA blds

vfrfjDr yxHkx ,d gh o"kZ iwoZ lkykj elwn v;ks/;k ds fudV cgjkbp

esa ekjk x;k FkkA oSls] vgen fu;kYrxhu ds bl vkdze.k dks Hkh ge

eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa dh ^xi* gh ekurs gSa D;ksafd rokjh[k&,&lqcqDrxhu

esa cSgkdh us ftl rjg ls bl ?kVuk dk o.kZu fd;k gS og cM+k lafnX/k

lk yxrk gS vkSj ,slk ,syrk gS fd fu;kYrxhu dh lsuk ykgkSj ls

fudydj vpkud cukjl igqWap xbZ vkSj nksigj rd ywVikV djds

uekt ds le; rd okil ykSV xbZA cSgkdh dk fooj.k bl izdkj gS&

mlus ¼fu;kYrxhus½ vius ;ks)kvksa vkSj lsuk ds lkFk 1033

bZ0 esa ykgkSj ls fudydj Bkdqjksa ls tcjnLrh [kwc jde

olwyhA ckn esa og xaxk ikj djds mlds ck,a fdukjs ls

uhps dh vksj py iM+kA ;dk;d og cukjl uke ds 'kgj

esa] tks xax uke ds jktk ds jkT; esa Fkk] vk igqWapkA blds

igys dksbZ Hkh eqfLye lsuk ogka rd ugha igWaqph FkhA uxj

nks Qjlax eqjCcs esa Fkk vkSj mlesa dkQh ikuh FkkA lsuk

4117

ogka losjs ls nksigj dh uekt rd Bgjh D;ksafd T;knk

Bgjus esa [krjk FkkA ctktksa rFkk xaf/k;ksa vkSj tkSgfj;ksa dh

cktkjsa ywV yh xbZ] ysfdu blls dqN vf/kd djuk

ukeqefdu FkkA lsuk ds flikgh Hkh blfy, v/khj gks x,

D;ksafd os vius lkFk ywV dk lksuk] pkWanh] vrj vkSj

tokgjkr ysdj lgh lykerh ykSV tkuk pkgrs FksA

bl izdkj fu;kYrxhu }kjk cukjl dh ywV dh ?kVuk fcYdqy

fo'oluh; ugha yxrhA

egewn xtuoh ds vUrosZnh ¼nksvkck½ esa bu vkdze.kksa ds ckn ;gka

ij ,d 'kfDr'kkyh lkezkT; dh LFkkiuk gqbZA xgMoky oa'k ds pUnznso

vFkok pUnzkfnR; nso us ftl lkezkT; dh uhao j[kh mlus yxHkx ,d

'krkCnh rd vUrosZnh dh lqj{kk dhA pUnznso vkSj mlds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa

ds vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xgM+oky oa'k ds lHkh jktkvksa ds

rq#"d vkdze.kdkfj;ksa dk lkeuk djds mUgsa ckj&ckj izR;kofrZr djuk

iM+kA dqekjnsoh ds lkjukFk vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd nq"V

rq#"d&chj ls okj.klh dh j{kk ds fy, Hkxoku fo".kq dks xksfoUnpUnz ds

:i esa vorkj ysuk iM+k ftls fy, f'ko us izkFkZuk dh FkhA xksfoUnpUnz

ds jkgu rkezi= ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us vle ;q) esa

gEehj dks 'k=qrk R;kxus ds fy, ck/; dj fn;k FkkA cnk;wWa ds y[kuiky

ds ,d vfHkys[k ls Hkh ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd mlds iwoZt enuiky us

gEehj ds nosunh ¼xaxk½ dh ?kkVh esa vkdze.k dks vlaHko cuk fn;k FkkA

xksfoUnpUnz ds iq= fot;pUnz dks Hkh gEehj dh xfrfof/k;ksa dks

lQyrkiwoZd jksdus dk Js; fn;k x;k gSA fnYyh&f'kokfyd LrEHk ys[k

esa fo'kkynso dks EysPNksa dk uk'k djus dk Js; fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj

vUrosZnh esa eqfLye vkdze.kdkjh yxkrkj iz;kl djrs jgs vkSj ;gka ds

jktoa'kksa us mudk izfrjks/k Hkh le;&le; ij fd;kA bldk mYys[k u

dsoy eqfLye bfrgkldkj djrs gSa cfYd Hkkjrh; jktkvksa ds vfHkys[kksa ls

Hkh budh lwpuk feyrh gSA blds vfrfjDr v;ks/;k ls vHkh gky gh esa

izkIr fd, x, ik"k.k Qyd vfHkys[k ls Hkh ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUn

pUnz ds 'kkludky esa fdlh izdkj dk vkdze.k v;ks/;k esa gqvk FkkA

1193 bZ0 esa pUnoj ds ;q) esa t;pUnz ds ijkftr gks tkus ds ckn

eqlyeku lsukvksa us okjk.klh dks u"V fd;k Fkk bldh rks lwpuk feyrh

4118

gS] fdUrq v;ks/;k esa Hkh mudk vkdze.k gqvk Fkk bldh dksbZ lwpuk ugha

feyrhA dqN bfrgkldkj ;g ekurs gSa fd eqgEen xkSjh ds ,d vf/kdkjh

e[knwe'kkg tqjku xksjh us v;ks/;k ij vkdze.k djds vkfnukFk ds tSu

eafnj dks rksM+k FkkA ysfdu mlus v;ks/;k ds fdlh vU; fgUnw eafnj dks

Hkh u"V fd;k Fkk bldh fuf'pr lwpuk ugha feyrhA xgM+oky lezkV ds

;q) esa ijkftr gks tkus ds ckn eqfLye lsuk,a lkjs xgM+oky lkezkT; ij

viuk iz'kklu LFkkfir dj ldh gksaxh bl ij Hkh fo'okl djuk dfBu

gS D;ksafd vusd txgksa ij LFkkuh; :i ls eqfLye lsukvksa dk izfrjks/k

tkjh jgk vkSj dgha dgha ij cgqr 'kfDr'kkyh izfrjks/k fd;k x;k] bldk

mYys[k ge ihNs dj vk, gSaA 1226 bZ- esa bYrqrfe'k ds iq= efyd

ukfl#n~nhu egewn dks vo/k dk iz'kkld fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj laHkor%

ml le; fgUnw izfrjks/k dks ,d /kDdk yxkA rcdkr&,&ukljh esa ;g

mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd v;ks/;k esa cjrwg uked ,d O;fDr us chl

gtkj eqlyekuksa dks ekSr ds ?kkV mrkj fn;k FkkA ysfdu ulh#n~nhu

egewn us vo/k ds bu dkfQjksa dks m[kkM+ QsadkA

vo/koklh ykyk lhrkjke us vius v;ks/;k dk bfrgkl esa fy[kk

gS fd pUnzoj ds ;q) esa t;pUnz ds ijkftr gksus ds ckn 'kgkcqn~nhu

xksjh us 1194 esa vo/k ij vkdze.k fd;k vkSj e[knwea'kkg tqjku xksjh

v;ks/;k esa ekjk x;k vkSj ogha mldh lekf/k cuhA ijUrq cf[r;kj

f[kyth us lcls igys vo/k esa jkT; izcU/k fd;k vkSj mls lsuk dk ,d

dsUnz cuk;kA blesa mldks bruh lQyrk feyh fd vklke rd dk {ks=

mlus vius v/khu dj fy;kA mlus viuh 'kfDr bruh c<+k yh Fkh fd

dqrqcqn~nhu dh eR;q ds ckn tc bYrqrfe'k xn~nh ij cSBk rks mldks

nkl le>dj mldh vk/khurk Lohdkj djus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA mlds

iq= fx;klqn~nhu us caxky esa LorU= jkT; LFkkfir dj fy;k fdUrq dqN

gh fnuksa esa v;ks/;k mldh v/khurk ls fNu xbZ vkSj cgjkbp vkSj

ekfudiqj ds chp dk izns'k fnYyh dh v/khu dj fn;k x;kA blls

fgUnqvksa esa cM+h izfrfdz;k gqbZ vkSj la?k"kZ esa cgqr ls eqlyeku ekjs x,A

fgUnqvksa dk neu djus ds fy, 'kkgtknk ulh#n~nhu dks fnYyh ls Hkstk

x;kA 1236 vkSj 1242 bZ0 esa dze'k% ulh#n~nhu egewn vkSj de#n~nhu

dsjku vo/k ds iz'kkld jgsA

1155 bZ0 esa lqYrku ulh#n~nhu dh eka eyd&,&tgkWa us dqryqx

4119

[kku ls fookg dj fy;k FkkA bl dkj.k dqryqx [kku dks vo/k dk

gkfde cuk fn;k x;k rFkk 16 Qjojh 1255 dks mls vo/k tkus dk

vkns'k fn;k x;kA bl chp esa myq?k [kku fnYyh njckj esa 'kfDr'kkyh

gks x;k Fkk rFkk mlus ckn'kkg ls ;g gqDe fudyok fn;k fd efyd

rktqn~nhu ekg is'kkuh dks cgjkbp dk gkfde cuk;k tkrk gSA bl ij

dqryqx [kku us efyd rktqn~nhu dks cUnh cuk fy;k ysfdu og Hkkx

fudyk vkSj cgjkbp igqap x;kA b/kj fnYyh njckj us iqu% dqryqx [kku

dks vo/k ls cgjkbp LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k ysfdu mlus bl vkns'k dks

ugha ekukA ckn esa 1256 bZ0 esa fnYyh ls lsuk vkus ij og xk;c gks

x;kA mlds LFkku ij vlZyku [kku latj dks vo/k dk gkfde cuk;k

x;k fdUrq 1259 bZ0 esa mlus Hkh fonzksg dj fn;k rFkk fudky fn;k

x;kA

blds ckn efyd ,frxhu eqbZ&njkt ¼yEcsa ckyksa okyk½] ftls

vehu [kku Hkh dgk tkrk Fkk] dks vo/k dk gkfde cuk;k x;kA cycu

us y[kukSrh ds rq?kzhy ds fonzksg dks nckus ds fy, ,d cM+h lsuk ds lkFk

vehu [kku dks Hkstk] ysfdu og gkj x;kA bl ij cycu dh vkKk ls

vehu [kku dk flj dkVdj vo/k ¼v;ks/;k½ ds }kj ij Vkax fn;k x;kA

blds FkksM+s gh fnu ckn Qjgr [kku dks vo/k dk gkfde fu;qDr fd;k

x;kA mlus 'kjkc ds u'ks esa ,d uhp dks ekj MkykA mldh fo/kok us

cycu ls Qfj;kn dhA cycu us Qjgr [kku dks 500 dksM+s yxok, vkSj

mls ml fo/kok dks lkSai fn;kA

lYrur dky e s a vo/k dk s gh fgUn q Lrku le>k tkrk

Fk kA cycu fnYyh ls vo/k ds ekxZ dks fu"d.Vd cukus ds fy,

iz;Ru'khy FkkA og nks ckn fnYyh NksM+dj dfEiy vkSj ifV;kyh esa

ikap&Ng eghus Bgjk ftlesa yqVsjksa vkSj Mkdqvksa ls fnYyh ls vo/k dk

ekxZ lkQ gks tk,A blds fy, dbZ iz;kl Hkh fd, x,A caxky esa rq?kzhy

ds fonzksg dk neu djus ds fy, tkrs le; og vo/k esa Bgjk Fkk rFkk

ogka ij lsuk esa dke vkus okys fofHkUu izdkj ds O;fDr;ksa] ;Fkk&?

kqM+lokj] iSny] ik;d] /kuq/kZj] dgkj] dSokuh] rhjUnkt] xqyke] ukSdj]

O;kikjh] nqdkunkj] vkfn dks nks yk[k dh la[;k esa ,df=r djk;kA

y[kukSrh fot; ds ckn cycu us cqxjk [kku dks ogka ij fu;qDr fd;kA

jkt/kkuh ykSVus ij mRlo euk;k x;k rFkk rq?kzhy ds leFkZdksa dks ekSr

4120

ds ?kkV mrkjus dk vkns'k fn;kA ;|fi dkth us dqN dks cpk fy;k

fdUr q bfrgkldkj cuh Z fy[krk g S fd r q ? k z hy d s leFk Zdk s a

e s a l s ,d v;k s/;k d s 'k s[ k Qjhn d s x at&,&'k kdj d s

tekr[k kuk e s a vk f Red 'k k f Ur iku s dh bPNk j[krk Fk kA

cycu ds ckn cqxjk [kku dk csVk dSdqckn fnYyh dk lqYrku

cukA m/kj y[kukSrh esa cqxjk [kku Lora= gks x;k FkkA cki&csVs nksuksa dh

lsuk,a vkeus&lkeus FkhaA ,d ?kk?kjk ds bl fdukjs ij Msjk Mkys Fkk rks

nwljk ?kk?kjk ds ml ikjA dkQh lans'kksa ds vknku&iznku ds ckn

firk&iq= ,d LFkku ij feys rks dSdqckn us vius firk cqxjk [kku ds

pj.kksa ij fxjdj mls vkalqvksa ls fHkxks fn;kA ckn esa nksuksa vius&vius

jkT;ksa esa ykSV x,A

Qjgr [k ku d s fudky s tku s d s ckn [k kutgk W a vo/k

dk gfde cuk;k x;kA mlh d s dky e s a vehj [k qljk s a nk s

o" k Z rd v;k s/;k e s a jgk vk S j ;gk a dh ck syh e s a

Qkjlh&fgUnh dk s' k [k k fydckjh dh jpuk dhA

tc f[kyth o a' k dh lYrur fnYyh e s a dk;e g qb Z rk s

bl o a' k d s l aL F k kid tyky qn ~nhu dk Hkrhtk vykmn ~nhu

vo/k dk 'k kld cuk;k x;kA vykmn~nhu bykgkckn ds fudV

dM+k esa jgrk Fkk tgka mlus /kks[ks ls vius pkpk dk flj dVokdj /kM+

dks xaxk dh jsrh esa fQadok fn;k vkSj [kqn lqYrku cu cSBkA

pkSngoha 'krkCnh esa f[kyth oa'k ds ckn rqxyd oa'k vfLrRo esa

vk;kA rkjh[k&,&fQjkst 'kkgh esa fy[kk gS fd eqgEen fcu rqxyd us

xaxk ds rV ij ,d uxj clkuk pkgk Fkk ftldk uke mlus LoxZ}kjh

j[kk FkkA l qYrku fQjk st r qxyd nk s ckj v;k s/;k vk;k Fk kA

igyh ckj 1324 b Z 0 e s a vk S j n wljh ckj 1348 b Z 0 e s aA mld s

le; e s a efyd flxfu vk S j vk;ku qy e qYd v;k s/;k d s

'k kld jg sA

eqgEen rqxyd dk iwoZ uke twuk [kku Fkk vkSj ;g dgk tkrk gS

fd mlh ds uke ij tkSuiqj clk;k x;k FkkA ckn esa tkSuiwj esa 'kdhZ oa'k

dk jkT; gqvk vkSj v;ks/;k muds 'kklu ds vUrxZr vk xbZA^^

3871. We may mention that the description of Salar Masud

about his alleged attack on Ayodhya is incorrect and has been

4121

admitted by Sri T.P. Verma in his cross-examination before this

Court also. We have already discussed this aspect while

considering the issues relating to period of construction of the

building. Rest of the historical events particularly the rulers and

their periods substantially could not be show incorrect by the

learned counsels.

3872. What actually appears from the above books that the

twilight zone when Hindu rulers came to be dominated by

Muslim rulers has been considered by some of the historians as

the commencement of the medieval period which some has

termed as early medieval and some as Sultanate period. With the

advent of Mughal Rulers the term has been called medieval and

that has been treated to be the end of the Sultanate period. It is

in this context we find ASI has taken a mid way and termed 6th

period as Medieval Sultanate, 7th as Medieval and have divided

the same centurywise, i.e., 11th and 12th century as Medieval

Sultanate, 13th to 16th century to be more precise upto 1526 AD

to be medieval and thereafter Mughal. In fact for more clarity

this division has been made. None of the alleged expert witness

has shown the said classification or periodization of ASI wholly

unknown to historians or perverse or something which could not

have been said or conceived by a person well conversant in such

matters.

3873. It brings us to the concept of periodization of Indian

history-particularly for Northern India as Ancient, Medieval and

Modern. By and large, in the present day usage, the Ancient

Period ends in the 7th century A.D., after the rule of Emperor

Harsh. Then starts the Early Medieval Period. It lasts till the end

of the 12th century. It is followed by the Medieval Period which

4122

starts in the 13th century. In fact, the 11th and 12th centuries form

the 'transitional stage', the stage between the Ancient and

Medieval i.e. early Medieval period. Earlier, in the history

books written in the first part of the 20th century, there was no

concept of “Early Medieval”, the “Ancient” ended in the 11th

century and “Medieval” started in the 12th century. Thus there is

absolutely no need of making sarcastic remarks against the

Archaeological Survey of India, as the historians themselves

have not been unanimous on this issue during the last one

hundred years. Earlier, even “Hindu”, “Muslim” and “British”

were the designations of the three-fold division of Indian

history.

3874. Many scholars have pointed out inadequacy of use

of the term “Medieval” in Indian history since this is imposing

the European concept on Indian history, the characteristic

features of say British Mediaevalism which was never present

otherwise in India. It is more systematic and precious to use

centuries, like 11th, 12th, 16th, 20th in the present context instead

of Ancient, Medieval and Modern. For this kind of division

there are several Radiocarbon Dates from the site, the list of

which is given in the Report. Periodization won't be a cut off

feature like on-off electric current by a switch. It is the flow and

merger of previous culture and power structure of the

immediately following period. Any specific data is only

suggestive of some event of significance which throws light

both on the past and the next.

3875. Professor R.S. Sharma mentioned in his book

“Perspective in Social and Economic History of Early India”

on page 228-229 an important problem in the general history of

4123

India is that of transition from the ancient to medieval, certain

dates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997 and 1206 have been

suggested as landmarks in political history. But since politics

was the preoccupation of a small section of society in early

times, it has to be shown whether any of the above mentioned

dates or whether any other date or point of time is equally

significant in the history of land system, crafts and commerce

polity, society, language, art, religion, etc. There has taken place

a lot of discussion whether Harsavardhana's death in AD 647

marks the end of one and the beginning of another era in India

history. The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of

Harsavardhana set in the process of decline of Indian history has

been ably refuted by a number of scholars, and especially by

H.C. Ray. But for those who wish to investigate patterns of

social and economic life, the real point to look for is not the

presages of decline and prosperity but the nature of change in

the existing way of life. If the change is of a fundamental nature,

it should be regarded as heralding the advent of new period. If it

is a minor change it would not necessitate any new

characterization of the period, even the question to the process

of change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how far

the decline of the existing system of life shows symptoms of the

rise of a new pattern of life. None of these points have been

taken into account either by V. Smith when he says that the

death of Harsavardhana in AD 647 brings a period of decline or

by those who try to refute his theory.

3876. On the grounds of dynastic and political history

H.C. Ray suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of

demarcation between the two periods in the history of northern

4124

India. In his opinion: “these may be called the ancient and the

medieval periods; but it would be perhaps more reasonable to

call them simply the Hindu period and the period of the Turks

and Afghans. A similar approach has been adopted by some

other scholars. In the fifth volume of the "History and culture

of the Indian People", it is said at one place that ancient India

came to an end in AD 997, (the period subsequent whereto

Mahmood Gazni invaded on the northern front) and again at

another, that in Indian history the medieval factor was

introduced in the thirteenth century. Both views are based on the

assumption that the Muslim conquest ushered in mediaevalism

in India. Does it mean that without the Muslim conquest there

would have been no mediaevalism in India? Does it imply that

the countries of Europe which escaped this conquest had no

mediaeval period in their history? In Europe it is difficult to

think of mediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature

of which have to be examined in the case of India.”

3877. In "The History and Culture of the Indian People",

Bhavan's Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan

Mumbai (first edition 1957), 5th Edition 2001, Vol. V, "The

Struggle for Empire" in the foreword written by Dr. K.M.

Munshi it is said that for over 2000 years, i.e., from before the

days of King Janmejaya Parikshita, referred to in the

Brahmanas, the culture of the dominant classes, developing in

almost unbroken continuity, had brought large sections of the

people within its fold. It was, however, disturbed on occasions,

for instance by the raids of Alexandar; by the influx of the

Bactrian Greeks, the Kushanas and the Sakas; by the invasion of

the Hunas; by the Arab incursions in Sindh. But these inroads

4125

were only temporary episodes; the vitality of the culture and

social organisation found it easy to absorb most of the alien

elements which were left behind in the country after they were

closed. It was based on the faith that Bharatvarsha, in its ideal

aspect often referred to as Aryavarta, was the sacred land of

Dharma, 'the high road to Heaven and to Salvation'; where 'men

were nobler than the Gods themselves; where all knowledge,

thought and worship were routed in the Vedas, revealed by the

Gods themselves; where the Dharmasastras prescribes the

fundamental canons of personal life and social relations; where

Chaturvarnya, the divinely-ordained four-fold order of society,

embraced all social groups; where, whatever the dialect of the

people, Sanskrit, the language of the Gods, was the supreme

medium of high expression. 'The Dharmasastras' and by that is

meant not only the Smritis beginning with the Manu-smriti, but

the Mahabharata and Ramayana have played a very big role in

the life of the country. Manu-smriti as the Dharmasastra of

divine origin, has had an all-pervading influence from the time

historical memory could reach back to moulding the mind and

the life of men, not only in India but in the India beyond the

seas, in Burma, Siam, Annam, Combodia, Jawa and Bali. With

the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, it has provided a

background of continuity to the social and moral life; modified

customary laws of tribes and communities in different stages of

civilization; and built up the Collective Unconscious of our

people that subconscious source of integrative vitality which

keeps a people together, leads them to feel and react as one in

the face of certain circumstances, and provides the urge to

collective action of a recurring character. Century after century,

4126

the system, first formulated by the Manu-smriti, was accepted

throughout the country, never by force of arms, less by royal

fiats than the sanction implied in the belief that 'God gave it and

the ancestors obeyed it'. It was found so acceptable because it

had a revealing basis of reality: of a frank recognition of the

temperamental inequalities of man; of the predominance of

hereditary influences over environments; of the need for a

synthetic framework for widely differing social groups in a vast

country where culture have been staggered from not only region

to region, but often from one group of villages to another. But

then the year AD 1000 was fateful year for Bharatversha. The

crucial age in Indian history began in AD 998 when the Turkish

conqueror Mahmood captured Ghazni and thereafter invaded

India for umpteen times. Generally it is believed that Mahmood

invaded Indian territory for 17 times and his last visit was in AD

1027. He drove India on enormous wealth and destroyed much

of its man power by repeated expeditions. This extortion of

economic resources and man power told upon the future

political destiny of India. Particularly the destruction of Shahi

Kingdoms which barred the gates of India against foreign

invaders dealt with a severe blow to its future independence.

The inclusion of Punjab and Afganistan in the kingdom of

Ghazni made Islamic conquest of India a comparatively easy

process. The northern part of India, however, soon recovered. In

Bihar area, i.e., Magadh, Tirabhukti and Mithila, sometimes

around AD 1097 Nanyadev of Karnataka dynasty established his

supremacy while Kannauj was taken by Gaharwala dynasty in

the later part of the 11th century. After 1034 AD till 1068 AD we

find no information about any military campaign by muslims

4127

against Hindustan. The cause might be the forceful dominant

military power of Parmar Bhoj and Kalchuri Karn who led

expeditions even into the heart of muslim territory of Punjab.

Bhoj died about 1055 AD and Karn died about 1072 AD

whereafter the military expeditions recommenced. Prince

Mahmood, the Governor of Punjab plundered Kannauj and

Kalanjar and invaded Ujjain between 1086 to 1090 AD. 42

inscriptions of Govindacharya's reign bearing dates extended

from AD 1114 to 1154 proving that his kingdom extended

atleast up to Banaras, Fatehpur and Kanpur districts on the south

Kannauj, on the west Gonda and Gorakhpur, on the north

Dinapur in Patna (Bihar) on the east. The last king in succession

who live peacefully for about 2 decades was Jaichand but was

defeated in the end of 12th century by Muizz-ud-din Muhammad

Ghuri who came after conquering Delhi and Ajmer by defeating

Prithviraj Chahmanas. Ghuri captured the fort of Asni in

Fatehpur district where the treasure of the king of Banaras was

despoted and then plundered Banaras city also. In 1197 it

appears that Harishchandra son of Jai Chandra retained his

power over Kannauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur district resting his

patron kingdom from the commands of muslims. He was,

however, killed by Malik Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah the

eldest son of Iltutmish in AD 1226 and the Kannauj was finally

conquered by Iltutmish. It may be added at this stage that

Muhammad Ghuri after his death was succeeded by Kutubuddin

Aibak in 1206 AD who establish the Turkish Sultanate in India

at Lahore later transferred to Delhi. It is in this context that the

Sultanate period is considered to have commenced in the first

half of 13th century.

4128

3878. Nothing is brought to our notice which may suggest

anything otherwise in the historical background referred to

above. We therefore find no reason whatsoever in the above

background to hold periodization determined by ASI as

mistaken.

3879. Moreover, we have no doubt in our mind that ASI,

as a premier institution of this country, is responsible for the

preservation, maintenance and discovery of ancient monuments

and sites, as well as archaeological survey and excavation. They

are experts of expert. No archaeologist in this country can

undertake an archaeological expedition at a historical site of

importance without permission or licence from ASI. The status

enjoined t ASI which we have already referred, empowers it to

control all these activities. The finds and researches as well as

the determination and conclusion of any archaeologist or other

expert in this field is not normally recognised unless it has been

scrutinized by ASI and after approval it is also published in the

regular journals of ASI. An individual at some point of time may

be said to have acted with some kind of bias, legal or factual as

the case may be, but to brandish the entire body or a large

number of its officials who belong to different religions

including Muslims also, that they have worked with

preconceived notions is not only an irresponsible attitude to

show some kind of pre-determined plan and scheme to atleast

create a clout on a remarkable and excellent work ASI it has,

otherwise performed. The result of a work, if it is not chewable

to one or more, will not make the quality of work impure or

suspicious. The self contradictory statement, inconsistant with

other experts made against ASI of same party i.e. Muslim, extra

4129

interest, and also the fact that they are virtually hired experts

reduces trustworthiness of these experts despite of their

otherwise competence. The allegations, need much more

material to substantiate. In the matter of stratigraphy/

periodization made by ASI, in the absence of anything to show

that what they have said is improbable, ex facie fake or incorrect

or that no person having adequate knowledge in the subject may

have formed such opinion, we have no reason to disbelieve or

discard it and instead accept version of interested and partisan

expert witnesses who at times have made contradictory

statements as we have already noticed to some extent above.

We, therefore, find no force in the objection with respect to

the stratification/periodization made by ASI.

Pillar Bases

3880. The next and the biggest objection is with respect to

the pillar bases. We thus proceed to consider the same. A serious

allegations of framing of certain structures in particular, i.e.

certain pillar bases have been levelled by submitting objections

dated 21.05.2003 and 07.06.2003 which we have already

discussed in detail. Normally, it would have been suffice to

mention at this stage that had there been any truth, the same

could not have gone unnoticed by such a large number of

persons present at the site particularly when two members of

Higher Judicial Services were also present there as 'Observers'

having been appointed by this Court. We have already noticed

that two expert archaeologist, i.e., PW 16 and 24 who have

given very long statements before this Court thrice and twice

respectively, both of them visited the site in June 2003 and Dr.

Mandal also visited again in Sept. 2003. Both of them admitted

4130

that in June 2003 they had no idea or information that any

structure was manipulated by the members of Archaeological

Team of ASI. However considering the seriousness and also the

fact that in the Court, the stand is slightly different, we would go

in further detail of these allegation.

3881. The ASI in Chapter IV commencing from page 48

has considered various structures it found during the course of

excavation. For the time being we leave other structures and

proceed with the pillar bases in respect whereto the reference is

on page 55 and onwards. It says:

"From the excavation it could be inferred that there

were seventeen rows of pillar bases from north to south,

each row having five pillar bases. Due to area restriction

and natural barriers, the pillar bases in the central part

occupied by the make-shift structure on the raised platform

could not be located. Out of excavated fifty pillar bases

only twelve were completely exposed, thirty five were

partially exposed and three could be traced in sections

only. A few pillar bases were noticed during earlier

excavation after which a controversy took place about their

association with different layers and their load bearing

capacity. The present excavation has set aside the

controversy by exposing the original the form of the bases

having calcrete and stone blocks arranged and set in a

proper manner over a brick foundation and their

arrangements in rows including their association with the

top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed

structure.

The seventeen rows of pillar bases were constructed

4131

along the north-south running brick wall (wall 16) on the

west. The distance of the first pillar base in each row from

the wall ranges from 3.60 to 3.86m. Seventeen rows of

pillar bases could be categorised in three different groups

on the basis of north-south distance which varies in

different groups whereas east-west distance from centre to

centre of each pillar base vary from 2.90 to 3.30m. Six rows

of the pillar bases on north and south were at the

equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30m. Central five

rows consisting twenty five pillar bases show different

equations-two rows on either sides of the central row were

placed approximately at the distance of 5.25m. whereas the

other two rows on either side of these three rows were at

the distance of 4.20 - 42.5 m. From this it could be easily

concluded that the central part of the pillared structure was

important and special treatment was given to it in

architectural planning.

In the southern area only one decorated sand stone

was found over a pillar base while in the northern area

many of the pillar bases were found topped by a plain sand

stone block set over the brick bat foundation having

calcrete blocks over them (Pl. 36). Top parts of stone

encasings had a projection in the middle. In the northern

area at a few places where the stone blocks were not found

sand stone slabs were found over the calcrete blocks of the

crick bat foundation of the pillar bases. The decorated

octagonal sand stone block on pillar base32 having floral

motif on four corners in trench F7 in the southern area is

the unique example at the site (Pl. 39) which definitely

4132

belongs to the twelfth century A.D. as it is similar to those

found in the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at

Sarnath (Pl. 40) which belongs to the early twelfth century

A.D. Seeing its cut or broken surface on one side its use as

the base of a neighbouring pilaster (Pl. 41) attached with

wall 16 in trench E6 cannot be ruled out."

3882. Thereafter the details of pillar bases have been

tabulated showing a total number of 50 pillar bases in different

trenches the relevant extract whereof is as under:

Pillar Base number given by ASI

Trench No. Pillar Base given by ASI

Trench no.

1. ZH3-ZH2 baulk 2. ZF2

3. ZG2 4. ZG2

5. ZH2 6. ZH2-ZJ2 baulk

7. ZF1 8. ZG1

9. ZH1 10. ZF1

11. ZG1 12. ZG1

13. ZH1 14. ZH1-H1 baulk

15. F1 16. F1-G1

17. G1 18. H1

19. H1 20. F2-G2 baulk

21. G2 22. F2

23. F2-G2 baulk 24. G2

25. F3 26. G5

27. H5 28. F6

29. F6 30. G6

31. F6-F7 baulk 32. F6-F7

33. G6-G7 baulk 34. E7-F7 baulk

35. F7 36. G7

37. F8 38. F8

39. G8 40. F8-F9 baulk

4133

41. F8-F9 baulk 42. G8-G9 baulk

43. E9-F9 baulk 44. F9

45. G9 46. G9-H9 baulk

47. E10-F10 baulk 48. F10

49. G10-H10 baulk 50. H103883. The learned experts who have appeared before this

Court rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have

sought to challenge this part of the report making serious

allegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,

actually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29,

32 and DW 6/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who

have deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties

complaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned

in the above excavation have also said simultaneously

something otherwise.

3884. PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180

has said:

“Excavation was conducted by a team of members

of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers

throughout the excavation. Besides these observers,

parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also

present during excavation. Day to day register was

maintained during excavation on day to day basis by ASI

but so far as site note book is concerned I don't know about

it. Day to day register was signed by parties or their

nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis.

Antiquity register was not maintained by ASI on day to day

basis. During my stay at the excavation site I did not sign

on the daily register. Since it was not compulsory to sign

this register therefore I did not sign this register, day to day

4134

register mentioned the antiquities found in various trenches

on daily basis . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified

by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded

on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the

register.” (Page 177-178)

“During excavation photography of trenches

along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was

three dimensional recording during excavation.

Videography was regularly done but I do not know that

videography of each and every trench was being dome or

not. I have not seen the C.D. Of video recording prepared

by the ASI. . . . . .I have seen the site note books prepared

by the A.S.I. And submitted in the court. Site note books

were prepared by the A.S.I. trenchwise on the basis of

regular excavation at excavation site. It is correct that

excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of

excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some

by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the

compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation

was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was

not sufficient because both types of excavation were

necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by

the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it's report along with

some plans and sections." (Page 179-180)

3885. Similarly PW 30, Dr. R.C. Thakran has said:

^^lkekU; rkSj ij Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo foHkkx ds mR[kuu dh Vhe ds

lnL; ftudks mR[kuu ds dk;Z dk lqijfot+u dk Hkkj lkSaik x;k Fkk] o s

uk sV ~l rk s y sr s Fk s] ijUr q ml rjg d s uk sV ~l ugh a fy; s

tkr s Fk s] ftl rjg d s uk sV ~l dh , slh ifjfLF k fr;k s a e s a

vko';drk gk sr h g SA uksV~l ysus ls esjk rkRi;Z [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku tks

4135

Hkh vo'ks"k izkIr gksrs gSa] pkgs os fdrus gh rqPN ut+j vkrs gksa] lHkh dh

mfpr izdkj ls fjdkfMZax gksuh pkfg, vkSj bl fjdkfMZax dk ys[kk&tks[kk

V~sap uksV cqd esa gksuk gh pkfg,] rkfd tc Hkh dHkh bldks dUlYV djus

dh vko';drk iM+s] rks fd;k tk ldsA e q> s bl ckr dh tkudkjh

g S fd ,0,l0vkb Z0 }kjk ,d M syh jftLVj e sUV su fd;k

tkrk Fk k ] ftle s a ' k ke d s oDr fnu&Hkj d s mR[kuu d s

nk S j ku mR[kuu drk Zvk s a d s vu qlkj tk s mYy s[ kuh; vo'k s" k

gk sr s Fk s] mudh fjdk fM Z ax dh tkrh Fk hA eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk

ekSds ij ^^lkbZV uksV cqd** esuVsu djrs ugha ns[kk FkkA ;|fi vkerkSj

ij ^^lkbV uksV cqd** mR[kuu ds nkSjku iz;ksx dh tkrh gSA^^ ¼ist 54½

“Generally, members of the excavation team of

Indian Archaeology Department who were assigned the job

of supervising the excavation work, used to take notes but

such type of notes were not taken down as are required

in such circumstances. By the words 'taking notes' I mean

that proper recording should be done of all the remains

which are discovered in course of the excavation,

howsoever trivial they seem to be, and accounts of this

recording should only be maintained in the note book in

regard to the trench so that it may be consulted whenever

such need be there. I have the information that ASI

maintained a daily register recording in the evening all

remains discovered in course of day-long excavation and

which the excavators take to be worth recording. I did

not see ASI taking site notebooks, though such notebooks

are generally used in course of excavation." (E.T.C.)

^^mR[kuu ds nkSjku tc eSa mR[kuu LFky ij ekStwn jgk Fkk] rc

e S au s ;g n s[k k Fk k fd mR[kuu l s i z k Ir tk s i q j ko'k s" k

mR[k fur fd, tkr s Fk s] mudh fjdk fM Z ax rk s gk sr h Fk h ] ijUrq

lHkh izdkj ds iqjko'ks"kksa dh leqfpr fjdkfMZax ugha gksrh FkhA** ¼ist 75½

4136

“In course of the excavation, when I was present at

the excavation site, I saw that the antiquities obtained

from the excavation were certainly recorded but a proper

recording of all sorts of antiquities was not done.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz'u& v;ks/;k esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku tks iqjko'ks"k izkIr gq, Fks]

D;k mudh baMsfDlax ¼uEcfjax½ dh xbZ Fkh\

mRrj& gkWa] eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS fd mR[kuu d s nk S j ku tk s

i q j ko'k s" k miyC/k gk sr s Fk s vk S j ftudk s mR[kuudrk Z

egRoi w. k Z ekur s F k s] mu i q j ko'k s" k k s a dh mR[kuu d s nk S j ku

ek fd Z ax dh tkrh Fk hA

iz'u& mijksDr iqjko'ks"k ftudh ekfdZax gksuk vkius vHkh crk;k gS]

D;k ;g ekfdZax fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr esd f'kQ~V LV~Dpj ds iwjc

fLFkr ,d CkM+s pcwrjs ij gksrh Fkh\

mRrj& gkWa] eq>s ;g tkudkjh gS fd mDr LFky ij fnu Hkj dh [kqnkbZ

ds nkSjku tks iqjko'ks"k ¼mR[kuudrkZvksa dh nf"V ls rFkkdfFkr egRoiw.kZ

vo'ks"k½ feyrs Fks] mudh ekfdZax vkSj fyfLVax ogkWa u djds fdlh vU;

txg ij dh tkrh Fkh vkSj mlds i'pkr~ bl rjg ls fyfLVax dh xbZ

iqjko'ks"kksa dh tkudkjh mR[kuudk;Z dks izfrfnu lekIr djus ls igys

mifLFkr i;Zos{kdksa ;k vU; mifLFkr O;fDr;ksa dks nh tkrh FkhA^^ ¼ist

76½

“Question:- Was the indexing done of the antiquities

discovered from the Ayodhya excavation ?

Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the antiquities

which were discovered in course of the excavation and

which were considered to be important by the

excavators, were marked in course of the excavation.

Question:- You have just told about the marking of the

afore-said antiquities. Was this marking done at a big

chabutra located east of a make-shift structure at the

disputed site ?

Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the marking and

4137

listing of the antiquities which were discovered as a result

of the day long digging at the said place (and which were

called important from excavators' point of view ), used to

be done at any place other than there. After that,

information regarding the antiquities thus listed, used to be

given to supervisors or the other present persons before the

end of each day's excavation work.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd v;k s/;k dh [k qnkb Z e s a vnkyr d s

vkn s' k k s a d s vu qlkj lHk h i{kdkj ,o a mud s uk feuh dh

mifLFk fr e s a gh dk sb Z etn wj ;k ,0,l0vkb Z0 Vhe dk dk sb Z

lnL; mR[kuu {k s= e s a tk ldrk Fk kA [k qnkb Z d s le;

vnkyr }kjk fu; qDr i; Zo s{ kd mifLFkr jgr s F k sA - - - - - -

- -eSaus ,d le; esa rhu] pkj V~sapst ls Hkh T;knk V~sapst esa [kqnkbZ gksrs

ns[kk FkkA eSaus vkB &nl] ckjg V~sapst es ,d lkFk [kqnkbZ gksrs ns[kk FkkA

[k qnkb Z d s le; e sj s lkFk e q fLye i{k d s ,d] nk s] rhu

,DliV Z & uk feuh jgr s Fk sA * * ¼ist 118½

"It is true that in the Ayodhya excavation, under

the orders of the court, any labourer or any member of

the ASI team could go to the excavation site only in the

presence of all the parties or their nominees. Court-

appointed supervisors used to be present at the time of

excavation. . . . . . . I had at a time seen the digging going

on in even more than three to four trenches. I had seen the

digging going together in 8-10 or 12 trenches. At the time

of excavation, I used to be accompanied with one or two

or three experts or nominees from the Muslim side.”

(E.T.C.)

^^[kqnkbZ ds le; i{kdkjksa es eks0 gkf'ke rFkk gkth egcwc [kqnkbZ

LFky ij jgrs Fks] buds vfrfjDr ogkWa ds tks LFkkuh; odhy jgrs Fks]

muds uke eq>s ;kn ugha gSa - - - - - ,slk ugha Fkk fd nks ohfM;ks dSejk]

4138

nks fLVy Q+ksVksxzkQ+j rFkk nks M~kQ+~VeSu [kqnkbZ okys gj V~saaaap ij jgrs FksA

[kqnkbZ ds oDr 'kke ds le; Msyh jftLVj esa ftrus vkfVZQSDVl feyrs

Fks] mudk bUnzkt bu vkfVZQSDVl dh izkfIr dh V~sap] mldh xgjkbZ rFkk

vkfVZQSV~l ds fooj.k ds lkFk fd;k tkrk FkkA jftLVj e s bUn z kt

U;k;ky; }kjk fu; qDr nk s I; Zo s{ kdk s a dh mifLF k fr e s a gk sr k

Fk kA jftLVj e s a bl bUn z kt d s ckn i; Zo s{ kdk s a rFk k

,DliV Z d s gLrk{kj gk sr s Fk sA e S au s H k h mDr M syh jftLVj

ij gLrk{kj fd, Fk sA ** ¼ist 119½

“Among the parties Mohammad Hashim and Haji

Mahmood used to be present on the excavation site at the

time of excavation. Besides them, local counsels used to be

there. I do not remember their names. . . . . . . It was not

that two video cameras, two still photographers and two

draftsmen used to be present at every trench of digging. All

the artefacts discovered in course of the excavation, used to

be entered in the daily register in the evening with the

name and depth of trench from where these artefacts were

discovered and with descriptions of artefacts. Entries in

the register use to be done in presence of two court-

appointed supervisors. After the recording of entries in

the register, they used to be signed by supervisors and

experts. I had also signed the said daily register.”

(E.T.C.)

3886. On the question of "Pillar Bases" Para 5 (5.1 to

5.16) contains the allegations and alleged irregularities, as

under:

5. THE MYTH OF SO CALLED "PILLAR BASES":-

5.1 That the so called pillar bases are one or more

calcrete stones resting upon brickbats, just heaped up,

though A.S.I. claims that mud-mortar was also sometimes

4139

used. In many of them 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 it has not been claimed that

there are any marks or indentations or hollows on any of

the calcrete stones to show that any pillar had rested on

them. The A.S.I. Report nowhere attempts to answer the

questions (1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at the

base, and (2) how mud-bounded brickbats could have

possibly withstood the weight of roof-supporting pillars

without themselves falling apart. It also offers not a single

example of any medieval temple where pillars stood on

such brick-bat bases.

5.2. That the Report's claim of these so called "pillar

bases" being in alignment and their being so shown in

infancy drawings (Figures 23, 23A and 23B), is not borne

out by the actual measurements and distances; and there is

indeed much doubt whether the plan provided by A.S.I. is

drawn accurately at all, since there are enormous

discrepancies between Fig. 3A (the main plan) and the

Table in Chapter IV on the one hand, and the Report's

Appendix IV, on the other.

5.3. That even those "pillar bases" that lie in the first

north-south "row" on the west, lie at different distances

from thick western wall: the distances varying between

3.60 and 3.86 m. The east-west distance between any two

features (center to center) can vary from 2.9 to 3.3 m

(difference of 40 cm) (p. 55) whereas in the north-south

4140

direction there is greater variation between each feature

and its neighbor: 3-3.3 m in the north and in the south, and

about 5.25 m in the central area. The use of the term

"rows", therefore, is incorrect.

5.4. That the entire manner, in which the A.S.I. has

identified or created the so called " pillar-bases" is a

matter of serious concern. Complaints were regularly made

to the Observers appointed by the High Court that the

A.S.I. 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, and there creating the so called "bases"

by clearing the rest of the floor of brick-bats. In this respect

reference may be made to the complaints dated 21.5.2003,

7.6.2003, 28.6.2003, 26.7.2003 and 2.8.2003 etc.

5.5. That the most astonishing thing, that the A.S.I. so

casually brushes aside, relates to the varying levels at

which the so called "pillar-bases" stand. Even if we go by

the A.S.I.'s own descriptive table (pages 56-67), as many as

seven of these so called 50 "bases" are definitely above

Floor 2, and one is in level with it. At least six rest on

floor 3, and one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since at

least Floors 1 to 3 are even recognised by the A.S.I. to be

floors of the Mosque, how can so many pillars be said to

have been erected after the Mosque had been built, in order

to sustain a so called earlier temple structure! Moreover, as

many as nine so called "pillar bases" are shown as cutting

through Floor No. 3. So, are we to presume that when the

Mosque floor was laid out, the so called "pillar bases"

4141

were not floored over? It is thus clear that the said

structures are simply not "pillar bases" at all, but some

kind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits, which continued

to be laid right from the time of Floor 4 to Floor 1.

5.6. That the comparative stratigraphy of these 50 alleged

bases also requires comment. The tabulation on p.p. 56 to

67 gives us the following data:-

2 bases (nos. 16, 26) were cut through Floor 4.

25 of them (from the Z- trenches in the north to the

G10 and H10 trenches in the south) rested on Floor

4.

6 of them on Floor 3 (nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 37).

1 ( no. 28) actually is said to rest "at the junction of

Floor 3 and 4".

2 of them cut through Floor 3 (nos. 12, 15).

7 of them project above Floor 2 (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

and 14).

We thus see that these 50 features belong to different floors

and therefore could not all have been functional at the

same time. They lack coherence as architectural features. It

is irresponsible, therefore, to repeatedly refer to "rows" of

these features, as has been done in the report.

Some of these features appear to incorporate all sorts of

material: pieces of brick, small stones and brick pieces,

long stone slabs, and D-shaped large stones, etc. This also

leads to the inference that all these structures could not

belong to any one period.

5.7. That even the table on pages 56-67 of the A.S.I.'s

Report may not correctly represent the layers of the pillar

4142

bases, since its information on floors does not match that of

the Report's Appendix IV, which in several trenches does

not attest to Floor No. 4 at all, which the said "pillar-

bases", in many cases, are supposed to have been sealed

by, or to have cut through or stand on!

5.8. That most of these so called pillar bases of the

northern side comprise of sqaure sandstone slabs, perhaps

resting on calcrete blocks (only one has been excavated

that reveals the calcrete block). The inner dimensions of

these pillar bases range from 48.5x43, 50x50, 47x46,

48x56, 49.5x49 and 51x51 cm. These dimensions are

completely different from those of the pillars that have

actually been recovered. The dimensions of the latter range

from 21x21 to 24x24 cm. Thus, the pillars that could be

said to have stood on the said northern pillar bases would

certainly not be the black stone pillars, used in the mosque,

or any other pillars of the same or similar type.

5.9. That the A.S.I.'s assumption is that the floor, with

which are associated these so called pillar bases in the

north, is the same as Floor 2 in the south. However, it

cannot be definitely said that the floors in E2, F2 or G2

can be easily correlated with E1, F1 or G1 or with ZF1 or

ZG1.

5.10. That the A.S.I.'s own information on the said pillar

bases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.

For example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in

Chapter IV, 50 'pillar bases' have been described and have

been illustrated in Fig. 3A. The number and the location of

these 'pillar bases', however, do not tally with information

4143

given in Appendix IV as illustrated in the following Table:-

Discrepancies on numbers of 'pillar bases'

Trench Number of 'pillar bases in Appendix IV

Number of 'pillar bases' in Fig. 3A and Tabulation in Chapter IV

E1 Brick wall/pillar base?-1

-

E2 Brick wall/pillar base?-1

-

ZF1 3 2

F1 'pillar bases'-unspecified

1

F2 1 1

F3 1 1

F4 1 -

F6 2 2

F7 1 4

F8 2 4

F9 2 2

F10 3 2

ZG2 'pillar bases'-unspecified

1

ZG1 2 3

G1 2 2

G2 3 4

G5 1 1

G6 1 1

G7 2 2

G8 1 1

G9 3 3

G10 2 1

ZH2 2 2

4144

ZH1 2 1

H1 2 2

H5 2 1

H10 2 1

J2 1 -

L1 2 -

L2 2 -

L3 2 -

L7 2 -

5.11. That, two 'pillar bases' are mentioned in H5, H10,

G10 and ZH1 whereas only one in these trenches have been

illustrated and described in the text. 'Pillar bases' in the L

series of trenches and J2 have not been indicated in the

Tabulation as illustrated above.

5.12. That on p. 55, distances between 'pillar bases' have

been given, that in the east-west direction, center-to Centre

distance was 2.90-3.30 m. However, the distance between

'pillar bases' 37 and 38 is 3.80 m. Similarly, these are not

always in alignment as is the case with 'pillar base' 30 in

Trench G6. 'Pillar bases' 37 and 38 in Trench F8 are also

not in alignment with each other.

5.13. That the dubious nature of the 'pillar bases' is

illustrated by the figures attached with the complaints. The

collection of calcrete and brickbats at a lower level than

the above has been ignored by the A.S.I. even though it

resembles their so called 'pillar bases'. At times, walls were

cut to make 'pillar bases' as in Trench F6. The confusion

between walls and 'pillar bases' is apparent in Trenches E1

and E2. The same is the case with 'pillar base' 27 in Trench

4145

H5. This is nothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.

5.14. That more serious problem has been created by

giving Figs. 23A and 23B, showing the 'pillar bases'

hypohetically. An incorrect impression is being created, by

showing some 'pillar bases' where no structure was

exposed at all and where no excavation was also done.

5.15. That there is an additional problem with the "pillar

base" interpretation. Load carrying pillar bases require to

rest on hard and resistant surfaces, on floor slabs or

rammed floors of say 30 to 40 cm height, or else to be set

into or enclosed in pits that are packed tight with filled

material. The various sections in the report indicate that

this is not the case (see, e.g., Figures 8,9,10 where the

features appear to have only been set without packing into

the ground, and interrupt the continuity of Floor 2, which

is only a few centimeters thick, and lies over a stratum not

said to be homogeneous earth filling, or of rammed earth.

Thus the very use of the words "rows" and "bases" is

incorrect and misleading. These features could in some

cases represent a pile of unused bricks, broken or entire. In

other cases, they may have been used to fill hollows or to

raise the level of the mound. In yet other cases they could

have been used to shore up a heavy wall or else to function

as an apron for a building.

5.16. That the A.S.I. should have surely looked about for

other explanations of these heaps of brickbats, before

jumping to its so called "pillar base" theory. There was

another clear and elegant explanation. When the surkhi-

lime mortar bonded Floor No. 4 was being laid out over

4146

the mound, sometime during the Sultanate period, its

builders much have had to level the mound properly. The

hollows and depressions then had to be filled by brickbats

topped by calcrete stones (the latter often joined 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 so

called "pillar bases" appear to "cut through" both Floors 3

an 4, at some places, while at others they "cut through"

Floor 3 or Floor 4 only. They are mere deposits to fill up

holes in the floors. Since such repairs were at times needed

at various spots all over the floors, these brickbat deposits

are widely dispersed. Had not the A.S.I. been so struck by

the necessity of finding pillars and "pillar bases" to please

its masters, which had to be in some alignment, it could

have found scattered over the ground not just fifty but

perhaps over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats.

3887. As we have already noticed, these objections were

prepared by PWs-29 and 32 as they themselves have admitted in

the affidavit filed by them supporting their stand taken in the

objections. There are some difference in their statement. PW-29

(Jaya Menon) in her affidavit in para 13 says as under:

A. That the ASI's own information on so called pillar

bases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.

For example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in

Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 so called 'pillar bases'

4147

have been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.

the number and the location of said 'pillar bases', however,

do not tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The

details have been provided in the Objections filed by the

Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP dated October 8th 2003.

B. That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so

called pillar bases in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (page 17

of Appendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no

mention of pillar bases in L1 (pages 76-85), L3 (pages 67-

75) and L7 (pages 54-66). Nor are there any pillar bases

mentioned in Site Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site

Note Books No. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between

various trenches in the L series.

C. That a study of the Site Note Books brings out

discrepancies from the information provided in the Final

Report. site Note Books Nos. 37 and 21 for Trench G7

make no mention of recovering any pillar bases. however,

the listing of so called pillar bases in the Final Report from

pages 56-67 has records of so called pillar bases in Trench

G7 (pillar base No. 26; pages 64-65) and in the G6/G7

baulk (pillar base No. 33; page 64). Appendix IV of the

Final Report on page 10 mentions so called two disturbed

pillar bases for Trench G7. It needs to be emphasized that

the Site Note Books are the result of hte trench supervisor's

observations and impressions. Interpretations may also

form a part of Site Note Books. But, here, we find that

trench supervisors make no mention of anything remotely

like a pillar base but these suddenly appear in the Final

Report.

4148

D. That the so called pillar bases are not in alignment

with each other as should be expected in a pillared hall. At

the same time, anything that has been found out of line with

their imagined alignment has been discarded as evidence.

A complaint was also filed which noted that structure was

exposed in the eastern part of J2/J3 baulk after excavating

a platform. Since it did not fall in line with the ASI's pillar

base in Trench J1 it was not considered as base. But in

physical appearance, made of calcrete and brickbats, this

structure resembles many of the ASI's so called pillar

bases. It is clear that this structure indicates nothing but

the manner in which the platform was constructed. This

shows the bias with which the ASI was working and their

selective use of evidence.

E. That is is clear that at times, walls were cut to make

so called 'pillar bases' as in Trench F6 and thus there is in

Appendix IV, a confusion between walls and so called

'pillar bases' in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case

with the so called 'pillar base' in Trench H5. This is

nothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.

F. That a more serious problem is showing the so called

'pillar bases' hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B. An

incorrect impression is being created, by showing some so

called 'pillar bases' where they do not exist.

G. That the ASI's assumption that the floor, with which

are associated these pillar bases in the north, is the same

as Floor 2 in the south, is baseless as there has been no

concordance of trenches in the north and south.

H. That according to the Report (page 54), Structure 4

4149

(the 'massive structure') "has survived through its nearly 50

metre long wall (wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed so

called pillar bases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the

floor of the last phase of Structure 4." However, several

sections provided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46)

clearly show that the floor to which they were supposed to

be attached sealed these so called 'pillar bases'. In Fig. 6,

the 'pillar bases' has cut through Floor 3 (the floor

associated with sub-period VIIB) and should have been

attached to Floor 2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly

shows Floor 2 intact over alleged 'pillar base' 31 which

means the supposed sandstone block with orthostats and

pillar could not have projected over Floor 2. This was the

case also with so called 'pillar bases' in Trenches F2, G2

and G5.

I. That these so called "pillar bases" are too flimsy to

have supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of

brickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that

would be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.

Diameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not

placed in courses as should be the case, but are random, in

many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats

varies from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not

lie only under the stone but also over the stone as in

Trenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure

unstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over

them. If these really were rounded bases, originally they

would have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks

instead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.

4150

J. That if these really were pillar bases, they should

have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.

In contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic

site of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,

made of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the

centre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,

constructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in

the case of Ayodhya. Three Photographs of these pillar

bases of Sanghol were filed as Annexures Nos. 2, 3, and 4

alongwith the Additional objection of Sunni Waqf Board

dated 3-2-2004.

K. That the northern area is the only area of the site

where pillar bases have been found. These appear to have

been part of a separate much later period structure. In an

area of about 10 x 10 metre, these were embedded in Floor

1 and hence were contemporary with Floor 1. These pillar

bases comprise of square sandstone slabs, of which only

one has been excavated with a calcrete block. The inner

dimensions of these pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x

50, 47 x 46, 48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These

dimensions are completely different from those of the black

stone pillars that have actually been recovered with

dimensions ranging from 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. Thus, the

pillars that would have stood on the said northern side

pillar bases were certainly not the black stone pillars.

These northern side pillar bases are the ones numbered 1-

8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.

L. That barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and 14, the ASI

has created so called 'pillar bases' in the rest of the site.

4151

Their creation has been actually observed during

excavation and complained about. The deponent has

personally witnessed the creation of so called " pillar

bases" in Trenches ZF1, F3, F6, G5 and F2/G2.

M. (i) That observations were made of the creation of

so called pillar bases in Trench ZF1 from 29th April to 30th

April 2003. Floor 1 was exposed at 40 cm bsl, Floor 2 at

57 cm bsl and Floor 3 at 80 cm bsl, all floors being lime-

surkhi floors. Floor 1 was reached on April 29th 2003 and

was cut through on 30th April 2003, exposing a complete

brickbat layer. But during excavation, when a stone was

observed as protruding out of the brickbats, the brickbats

in the area near the stone were left in a squarish shape

while the rest of the brickbats were removed and thrown

away. On April 30th 2003 when Floor 2 was cut through,

the same king of brickbat layer was exposed beneath it.

This brickbat layer can be easily observed by studying the

south-facing section in Trench ZF1. A complaint was

lodged about the creation of this so called "pillar base".

(ii) That the creation of a so called pillar base was

observed in Trench G5 from 24th - 30th of May 2003. Under

the Babri Masjid floor various alignments of brickbats

were excavated. By the 28th of May 2003, brickbats in the

north-western area were concentrated on because there

were traces of mortar on these. The mortar was probably

remnants from Floor1. By the 30th of May 2003, brickbats

were left in a somewhat circular shape because a few small

stone chips with traces of mortar on them were found. This

whole contraption was made into a so called pillar base by

4152

selective digging and partial removal of brickbats. It

appears that any co-occurrence of stone, even in the form

of chips, and brickbats was made into a so called pillar

base, as long as it is 3.30 m to 3.50 m away from the next.

Any stones along with brickbats found out of this alignment

was not made into a pillar base. A complaint was lodged

during excavation about the creation of this "pillar base"

also.

(iii) That the same situation of creation of so called pillar

bases can be seen in Trench F3. The relevant excavation s

took place from July 8th to 12th July2003. In this trench,

part of the wall of the northern dome of the Babri Masjid is

still standing. A sandstone slab was recovered in the north-

western corner of the trench at 2.30 m bsl. On excavation,

brickbats were found lying all over the trench and Floor 2

was partially seen below the brickbats at 3.08 m below

surface level (bsl). On the 9th of July 2003, brickbats were

selectively removed, leaving those only around the

sandstone slab. Further excavation down to Floor 3 at 3.35

m bsl revealed a similar layer of brickbats under it. Finally

the so called pillar base was created by heaps of brickbats

that had been left in place around a sandstone slab while

removing all the other brickbats in the rest of the trench. A

complaint was lodged during excavation about the creation

of this "pillar base".

(iv) That the construction of a so called pillar base was

observed in Trenches F2/G2 from the 23rd to the 26th of July

2003. The loose deposit under the Babri Masjid floor was

removed leaving brickbats in the north-eastern part of the

4153

trench in a semi-circular shape. By the 24th of July, the

entire area was cleared leaving brickbats in the eastern

area and a small patch in the south-western part. What is

important is that the eastern and western parts of the

trench were excavated carefully with knife and brush unlike

the rest of the trench that was excavated with a pick. This

was because it was in the eastern and western portions that

so called pillar bases had to be created, keeping their

distance from those constructed in Trench G1. It must also

be pointed out that in the clearing work, a collection

brickbats and sandstone in the north-western part of the

excavated area was removed because it did not fall in an

expected alignment of so called pillar bases. This

'structure' had been objected to earlier in a complaint filed

on 21st May 2003. By the 26th of July, brickbats in the

south-western part were recovered along with sandstone

chips. Digging under Floor 1 revealed brickbats in the

entire area, but the south-eastern and south-western areas

were excavated separately. It was very obvious that these

were going to be made into so called pillar bases, even

though brickbats had been found in the entire area. By

11.40 am, the area was cleared but further digging

revealed the same king of deposit of brickbats, mud, and

brick nodules. By afternoon, the so called "pillar base" in

the south-eastern area was created by removing brickbats

from its edges to give it a neat shape. Glazed were sherds

were found at this level. The so called "pillar base" in the

south-western part of the trench was cleared of brickbats of

make it equal in size to its counterpart and a piece of

4154

broken floor sticking to it was removed. Very obviously,

these so called pillar bases were created by selectively

removing brickbats that lie under each floor. A complaint

was lodged during excavation about the creation of this so

called "pillar base".

N. That it was observed that, during excavation,

brickbats were selectively removed so as to leave brickbat

heaps around stone piece and blocks. (There were

preconceived ideas about where so called "pillar bases"

were to be carved out of brickbats. If no sandstone or

calcrete blocks or slabs were noted, heaps of brickbats

were left at intervals of 3.00-3.30 m.) A clear attempt was

made to neaten the edges of so called "pillar bases" by

removing brickbats to give rounded/squarish shapes. It

appears that at the end of the excavation, when some so

called 'pillar bases' were found obviously out of alignment,

they were dismantled as in the case of the structure in the

north-west of Trench G2.

O. That the sections of a trench provide us direct

evidence of the brickbats layers that lay under individual

floors. (It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed

from the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of

G8/G9 baulk, north, south, and east-facing sections of F1,

north- and south facing sections of G1, north-facing

section of H1, and east-facing section H1/H2 baulk, south-

and west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section of G2

and east-facing section of F9.) In archaeology, whenever

sections are made during excavation, protruding artefacts

like antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are never

4155

scraped level with the section but are allowed to protrude.

This provides a correct picture of the section and its

cultural material. In the case of Ayodhya, the above-

mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where

brickbats have been removed.

P. That the so called "pillar bases" were only part of a

floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was

underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with

stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. The

intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and

brick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as

fillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final

Report), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and

platforms and so forth.

Q. That it seems that originally the aim was to create the

so called pillar bases all over the excavated area. 8 so

called 'pillar bases' were carved out in the L series of

trenches as can be seen by Appendix IV (page 17) of the

Final Report. As pointed out, there is no mention of these in

the individual Site Note Books of the L series of trenches.

These were probably not included in the final tabulation or

in Fig. 3B showing so called 'pillar bases' as they did not

fit in which the ASI' plan of a so called temple with a large

brick pavement in front. This brick pavement to the east

was considered as the entrance of the massive structure

and hence pillar bases would not have fitted into this plan

further to the east."

3888. PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) in her affidavit dated

27th March, 2006 has said:

4156

A. That the northern area is the only area of the site

where pillar bases have been found. In an area of about 10

x 10 m, these were embedded in Floor 1 and hence were

contemporary with Floor 1. These pillar bases comprise of

square sandstone slabs, of which only one has been

excavated with a calcrete block. The inner dimensions of

these pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x 50, 47 x 46,

48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These dimensions are

completely different from those of the black stone pillars

that have actually been recovered with dimensions ranging

from 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. There is a pillar lying in the

gully to the north of the mound that may have fitted on top

of these pillar bases. Thus, the pillars that would have

stood on the northern side pillar bases were certainly not

the black stone pillars. These northern pillar bases are the

ones numbered 1-8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.

B. That barring pillar bases 1-8, 13 and 14, the ASI has

created 'pillar bases' in the rest of the site. Their creation

has been actually observed during excavation was even

and complained about. The deponent has personally

witnessed the creation of "pillar bases" in Trenches G2, G5

and F3. Observations were made on the creation of "pillar

bases" in Trench G2 from May 16-20, 2003, in Trench G5

from May 27-30, 2003, and in Trench F3 from July 8-12,

2003 and complaints were filed on May 21, 2003, June 28,

2003 and July 26, 2003 respectively. These

complaints/objections were prepared by the deponent and

Dr. Jaya Menon and were filed under the signatures of

Muslim parties and their counsels.

4157

C. That a close observation of the excavation and

recording was done of Trench G2 from May 16 to May 20,

2003. It was found that brickbats randomly scattered over

the entire excavated area were selectively removed so as to

create a visual impression that the brickbats were confined

to only a portion of the excavated area. An examination of

the section will reveal the fact that brickbats lay in the

layer below Floor 1. When Floor 2 was dug through, once

again a whole layer of brickbats was exposed.

D.. That the so called "pillar bases" were only part of a

floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was

underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with

stone block blocks and slabs and other material as fillers.

The intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and

brick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as

fillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final

Report), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and

platforms and so forth.

E. That during excavation, brickbats were selectively

removed so as to leave brickbat heaps around stone pieces

and blocks. If no sandstone or calcrete blocks or slabs were

noted, heaps of brickbats were left at intervals of 3.00-3.30

m. It appears that at the end of the excavation, when some

so called "pillar bases" were found obviously out of

alignment, they were dismantled as in the case of the

structure in the northwest part of Trench G2.

F. That the sections of a trench provide us direct

evidence of the brickbat layers that lay under individual

floors. It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed

4158

from the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of

G8/G9 baulk, north-, south-, and east-facing sections of

F1, north- and south-facing sections of G1, north-facing

section of H1, and east-facing section of H1/H2 baulk,

south- and west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section

G2 and east-facing section of F9. (In archaeology,

whenever sections are made during excavation, protruding

artefacts like antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are

never scraped level with the section but are allowed to

protrude. This provides a correct picture of the section and

its cultural material.) In the case of Ayodhya, the above-

mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where

brickbats have been removed.

G. That the ASI's own information on the so called

"pillar bases" is highly confusing and marked with

discrepancies. For example, in the tabulation of "pillar

bases" in Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 "pillar bases"

have been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.

The number and the location of "pillar bases", however, do

not tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The

details have been provided in the Objections filed by the

Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP on October 8th 2003.

H. That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so

called "pillar bases" in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (p. 17 of

Appendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no mention

of pillar bases in L1 (pp. 76-85), L3 (pp. 67-75) and L7

(pp. 54-66). Nor are there any "pillar bases" mentioned in

Site Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site Note Books

No. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between various

4159

trenches in the L series.

I. That it seems that originally the aim was to create

"pillar bases" all over the excavated area. Eight so called

"pillar bases" were carved out in the L series of trenches as

can be seen by Appendix IV. (p. 17) of the Final Report. As

pointed out, there is no mention of these in the individual

Site Note Books of the L series of trenches. These were

probably not included in the final tabulation or in Fig. 3B

showing "pillar bases" as they did not fit in with in the

ASI's plan of a temple with a large brick pavement in front.

This brick pavement to the east was considered as the

entrance of the massive structure and hence so called

"pillar bases" would not have fitted into this plan further to

the east.

J. That a study of the Site Note Books brings out

discrepancies from the information provided in the Final

Report. Site Note Books Nos.37 and 21 for Trench G7 make

no mention of recovering any so called "pillar bases".

However, the listing of "pillar bases" in the Final Report

from pp. 56-67 has records of "pillar bases" in Trench G7

(pillar base No. 36; pp. 64-65) and in the G6/G7 baulk

("pillar base" No.33; p. 64). Appendix IV of the Final Reprt

on p. 10 mentions two disturbed "pillar bases" for Trench

G7. It needs to be emphasized that the Site Note Books are

the result of the trench supervisor's observations and

impressions. Interpretations may also form a part of Site

Note Books. But, here, we find that trench supervisors make

no mention of anything remotely like a "pillar base" but

these suddenly appear in the Final Report.

4160

K. That the so called "pillar bases" are not even in

alignment with each other as should be expected in a

pillared hall. At the same time, anything that has been

found out of line with their imagined alignment has been

discarded as evidence. A complaint filed on 24th July, 2003

noted that a structure was exposed in the eastern part of

J2/J3 baulk after excavating a platform. Since it did not fall

in line with the ASI's so called "pillar base" in Trench J1 it

was not considered as a base. But in physical appearance,

made of calcrete and brickbats, this structure resembles

many of the ASI's so called "pillar base". It is clear that

this structure indicates nothing but the manner in which the

platform was constructed. This shows the bias with which

the ASI was working and their selective use of evidence.

L. That it is clear that at times, walls were cut to made

so called "pillar base" as in Trench F6 and thus there is in

Appendix IV, a confusion between walls and "pillar bases"

in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case with the

"pillar base" in Trench H5. This is nothing but the southern

part of Wall 18B.

M. That a more serious problem is that of showing the so

called "pillar bases" hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B.

An incorrect impression is being created, by showing some

'pillar bases' where they do not exist.

N. That the ASI's assumption that the floor with which

are associated these so called "pillar bases" in the north is

the same as Floor 2 in the south is baseless as there has

been no concordance of trenches in the north and south.

O. That according to the Report (p. 54), Structure 4 (the

4161

'massive structure') "has survived through its nearly 50 m

long wall (Wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed pillar

bases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the floor of the

last phase of Structure 4." However, several sections

provided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46) clearly

show that the floor to which they were supposed to be

attached sealed these "pillar bases". In Fig. 6, the "pillar

base" has cut through Floor 3 (the floor associated with

sub-period VIIB) and should have been attached to Floor

2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly shows Floor 2

intact over "pillar base" 31 which means the supposed

sandstone block with orthostates and pillar could not have

projected over Floor 2. This was the case also with "pillar

bases" in Trenches F2, G2 and G5.

P. That these so called "pillar bases" are too flimsy to

have supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of

brickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that

would be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.

Diameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not

placed in courses as should be the case, but are randaom,

in many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats

varies from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not

lie only under the stone but also over the stone as in

Trenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure

unstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over

them. If these really were rounded bases, originally they

would have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks

instead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.

Q. That if these really were pillar bases, they should

4162

have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.

In contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic

site of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,

made of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the

centre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,

constructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in

the case of Ayodhya. The deponent had visited the said site

of Sanghol. District Ludhiana (Panjab) alongwith Dr. Jaya

Menon and Dr. Suchi Dayal in 2004 and Dr. Jaya Menon

and the deponent had taken the photographs of the said

Sanghol site (3 of which have already been filed as

ANNEXURES Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Additional objection

dated 3-2-2004 filed by the Sunni Waqf Board against the

A.S.I. Report.)

3889. After very careful considerations of the above as

also the arguments advanced before us including ASI report, it

appears to us that the report of ASI sought to be criticized by the

plaintiffs (Suit-4) as if ASI was supposed to satisfy them about

its finding and not the Court. Several fanciful objections have

been made just to multiply and add the list of the objections.

3890. Under the heading "The Myth of so called pillar

bases", paras 5.12, 5.16, in a general way, all the pillar bases are

sought to be discredited though a number of pillar bases, we

have already demonstrated, are admitted by the experts of the

muslim parties. Complaints in respect to some of the pillar

bases, which were made on 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003

have already been discussed above and that itself is sufficient to

discard the objections of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect.

However, we propose to throw some more light on the subject

4163

of pillar bases.

3891. In the cross examination, the Expert (Archaeologist)

plaintiffs (Suit-4) have also said something about pillar bases.

PW-16 (Surajbhan) said:

^^bu rFk kdfFkr fiyj c sl st + ij e afnj k s a d s dk sb Z fpUg

vFkok flEcy ugh a g S aA * * ¼ist 149½

“There are no signs or symbols of temples on these

so-called pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)

^^cuHkksj okys LVksu ds fiyj cslt+ ckcjh efLtn ds mRrjh Hkkx

esa mR[kfur fd;s x;s fiyjcslst ls dqN fHkUu FksA ysfdu tks bZaVksa ds

fiyj cslst crk;s x;s gSa mu lcdk okLro esa fiyj csl gksuk lafnX/k

gSA mu fiyj cslst+ ds lkFk dzkllsD'ku ugh fn;k x;k gS] ftlls ;g

VsLV fd;k tk lds fd og NksVk <kapk okLro esa iw.kZ:i ls ,d fiyj

csl gh flesV~hdy dEcSd cuk;k x;k Fkk vFkok ;g bjjsxqyj gS vkSj

dzkllsD'ku ds cxSj ;g tkuuk lEHko ugha gS fd ;g [kqnkbZ esa

,DldsosVj us x+yrh ls ;k tkucw>dj ,slk :i rks ugha ns fn;k

gSA**¼ist 150½

“ Pillar bases of the Banbhor stone were slightly

different from the pillar bases excavated in the northern

part of the Babri mosque but it is doubtful that what have

been reported to be brick-built pillar bases are all actual

pillar bases. These pillar bases have not been provided

with cross section enabling it to ascertain whether that

small structure was actually built completely as a

symmetrical come-back(?) of a pillar base or whether it is

an irregular structure. Without the cross section, it is not

possible to know that the excavator has not by mistake or

deliberately given it such a shape in the

excavation."(E.T.C.)

^^eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj & 2 dh nwljh iafDr esa

4164

^^loZ fn fyfeVsM ijit+ vkQ+ fMfxax** fy[kk gS] blls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS

fd th0ih0vkj0 lo sZ u s tk s ,ukeyht fgUV dh Fk h ] mue s a

l s d qN ij mR[kuu e s a okYl] fiylZ vk S j Q ~ +y k sl Z rk s fey s

Fk s] ^^ ¼ist 153½

“By the words 'serve the limited purpose of digging'

which I have written in the second line, I mean to say that

at some places in respect of which anomalies were

hinted at in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors

were discovered in the excavation" (E.T.C.)

^^eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= ds i"B 6 yxk;r 8 izLrj 11 ds i"B

7 ij fn;s x;s va'k ^^fn lks dkYM fiyj cslst gSo uks flEckfyd

Qhpjl vku nse** ls lk{kh dk rkRi;Z D;k gS\ lk{kh us crk;k fd

bll s e sj k rk Ri; Z e afnj k s a dh rjg fiylZ d s okgd LVk sUl

e s a dk sb Z fp=dkjh ] dk sb Z fMt +kb Zu ] fdlh ;{k vk fn dh

vkd ` fr;k s a l s g S A

iz'u&fdlh Hkou ds fuekZ.k djrs le; D;k mlds vk/kkjf'kyk

¼QkmUMs'ku LVksu esa½ fpf=r iRFkj Mkys tkrs gSa\

mRrj& fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ;g rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst izk;% Q+'kZ ds Åij

ekStwn crk;s x;s gSa vkSj uhao [kksn dj j[ks ugha crk;s x;s gSa] u gh

buds lkFk ds dksbZ vU; Q+'kZ ledkyhu fn[kk;s x;s] blfy, ;gh

le>k tk;sxk fd bu fiyj cslst+ ds Åij okyk <kapk ;fn eafnj Fkk rks

budk Q+'kZ oky ua0 16 o 17 okyk Q+'kZ gh Fkk vkSj bu ij Hkh dksbZ

flEcy vFkok dksbZ fMt+kbZu mRdh.kZ feyuh pkfg, Fkh] ojuk dfFkr

fo'kky eafnj ds Hkou esa ;g dq:irk dks gh tksM+saxsA** ¼ist 226½

“ On being asked what the witness meant to say by

the words 'the so called pillar basis have no symbolic

features on them', which words find mention on point -7 of

para-11 given on pages 6 to 8 of the affidavit in the

Examination-in-Chief, the witness stated – By the said

words I meant to denote any drawing, any design and

any figure like that of Yaksha engraved in the stones

4165

sustaining the weight of the pillars looking like those of

temples.

Question:- Are engraved stones used as foundation stones

while constructing any building ?

Answer:- As per the report these so called pillar bases were

often said to be present on the floor and they have not been

laid after digging up the base, nor was any other floor

shown to be contemporaneous to them. Hence it will be

taken to me only that if the structure above these pillar

basis was a temple then the floor of wall no.16 or 17 was

certainly their floor and there ought to have been an

engraving in shape of symbol or design on them also, or

else they will be giving an ugly shape to the building of the

alleged large temple” (E.T.C.)

^^bl l ajpuk dk s n s[ ku s l s , slk ugh a yx jgk g S fd

fdlh Q +' k Z dk s cukdj mld s Åij dk sb Z fiyj c sl cuk;k

x;k gk s vkSj u gh bl rFkkdfFkr fiyj csl ds lkFk ;gkWa dksbZ Åij

ds fiyj ds VqdM+s gh fn[kkbZ ns jgs gSa] tks bls izekf.kr djrs fd ;g

okLro esa fiyj csl FkkA** ¼ist 229½

“From the site of this structure, any pillar bases do

not seem to have been erected after building a floor, nor

even pieces of any upward pillars are seen along with this

so-called pillar-base, which fact would have been capable

of demonstrating that it was really a pillar base.” (E.T.C.)

^^bu fiyj c sl st e s a l s d qN dk s e S au s fook fnr LFky

ij n s[ k k Fk kA fook fnr LFky d s mRrj rjQ + tk s okLrfod

fiyj c sl st fn[k kb Z n s jg s Fk s] mue s a p wu k&l q[k h Z ekV Z j d s

rk S j ij bLr se ky g qb Z eky we n sr h Fk hA**

¼ist 230½

“I saw some of these pillar bases at the disputed

4166

site. Lime and brick powder appeared to have been used

as a mortar in the actual pillar bases seen on the north

of the disputed site.” (E.T.C.)

^^mRrj& pwafd eSa vusd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst+ dks lgh ugha ekurk]

blfy, fiyj cslst+ dk dky crkuk rks lEHko ugha gSA ;fn dksbZ

okLrfod fiyj cslst eq>s fp= esa fn[kk,a tk,a vkSj mlds lkFk Q~+yksj

ysfoYl vkSj mlds lkFk dzkl lsD'ku fufnZ"V gks] rks ;g crkuk lEHko

gksxkA fQj Hkh ;fn rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst+ ds dky dh gh tkudkjh

ysuh gS] rks eSa Q~yksj rFkk dzkl lsD'ku ds lkFk mlds lEcU/kksa dh tkap

djds crk nWwaxkA

iz'u&fcuk fiyj cslst+ ds v/;;u ds gh vkius buds lanHkZ esa

^^rFkkdfFkr** 'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k gS] blds ckjs esa vki d;k dgsaxs\

mRrj& ;g dguk lgh ughaa gksxkA D;ksafd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst dbZ

Q+'kksaZ ds lkFk fn[kk, x, gSa] tSlk fd vkblksesfV~d O;w okys fp= esa Hkh

lkQ nh[k iM+ jgk gS] blfy, buds vk/kkj ij ckcjh efLtn ds iwoZ ds

Hkou dk vkadyu ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj ;gh ctg gS fd eSaus ckcjh

efLtn dh if'peh nhokj ds uhps tks if'peh nhokj ns[kh Fkh vkSj muds

lkFk Q+'kZ tks eSaus ns[ks Fks] muds vfrfjDr eq>s dksbZ vkSj izekf.kd vk/kkj

ugha fn[kkbZ fn;k] tks LVªDpjy Q+slst vFkok dkyksa dks fu/kkZfjr djus esa

enn dj ldrkA** ¼ist 230&231½

“Answer:- Since I do not take many of the so-called pillar

bases to be real ones, hence it is not possible for me to date

such pillar bases. If any actual pillar base is shown in a

picture and floor levels and cross section are also specified

along with it, it will be possible for me to determine its

antiquity. However, if the antiquity of the so called pillar

bases is to be ascertain, I will tell about it after examining

their floors and their relations to the cross section.

Question:- Even without having any study of these pillar

bases, you have used the word 'so-called' in reference to

them. What would you like to say in this regard?

4167

Answer:- It will not be correct to say so, because the so

called pillar bases have been shown with several floors, as

are seen even in the picture having an isometric view.

Hence, on the basis of this the building situated on the east

of the Babri masjid cannot be assessed. This is the reason

why I did not, except for the western wall and its

accompanying floor, which I had seen below the western

wall of the Babri masjid, see any other reliable basis,

which could have been helpful in determining structural

phases and their timings.” (E.T.C.)

^^,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 ds IysV la[;k& 46 ns[kus ij

iz'u fd, tkus ij crk;k fd xk sy vkdkj d s fiyj tSlh vkd ` fr

dk ;g Li"V fp= g SA bls fiyj csl eSa blfy, ugha dg ldrk]

D;ksafd blds lkFk fdlh fiyj dk ,lksfl,'ku vFkok mlds VqdM+ksa

dh ,lksfl,'ku ugha fn[kkbZ nsrk vFkkZr~ fiyj csl ge mls dgrs gSa] tks

fdlh LrEHk dk vk/kkj gksA** ¼ist 231&232½

“When plate no.46 of the ASI report volume-2 was

shown to the witness, on being questioned he stated – This

picture clearly shows a figure like cylinder-shaped pillar.

I cannot style it a pillar base because its association with

any pillar or its pieces is not visible. I mean to say that

what we term as a pillar base is a base supporting a

pillar."(E.T.C.)

3892. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) about pillar bases has said:

"A.S.I. has also mentioned about pillarbases in its

report. The total number of pillarbases mentioned in the

A.S.I. report is 50 in relation to particular phase of

structure. . Some of the pillarbases have been reported by

the A.S.I. in the sections also. I don't know the exact

number of pillarbases mentioned in the sections." (Page

4168

181)

"I think one pillar base was found in the section in

the northern part of the disputed site. . . . . That 8 pillar

bases are projected over floor no 2. So far as floor no. 3 is

concerned I can not make out the exact no. of so called

pillar bases. Approximately they are 6 in number. It does

not appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so

called pillar bases from 3 have penetrated down to floor

4." (Page 204-205)

"The plate no. 46 and 47 in Vol. II of ASI reports

have been shown to the witness who stated that they are not

pillar bases. The plate no. 48 shows some structure but the

same is not pillar base. I do not know what it is. This is

wrong to suggest that plate no. 48 shows a pillar base and

this is also wrong to say that I am not making the correct

statement . Plate no. 45 also does not show nay pillar

bases. The pillar bases shown by ASI in plate nos. 42 and

43 are not pillar bases. These are the part of the floors. In

reference to plate no. 43, the witness stated that the pillars

base have been created by removing the brick bats around

it and the photograph shows the alleged pillar base after

removal of brick-bats. In Plates no. 46 and 47, the lower

floor is visible. Besides decorative stones, decorative bricks

were also recovered. Plates No. 95 and 96 are decorative

bricks.” (Page 230-231)

“Pillar base means base of the pillar. . . . . Since I

am not an engineer, therefore, I am unable to reply that if I

am required to build a pillar base a foundation will be

required or not. ” (Page 248)

4169

3893. PW-30 (R.C.Thakran) about pillar bases has said:

^^tc rd e S a [k qn kb Z LFky ij jgk ] , slk ugh a g S fd ,

0,l0 vkb Z0 okyk s a u s fiyj c sl cuk, gk s a] ckn esa vxj mUgksaus

dqN fd;k gks] rks eq>s bl ckr dk Kku ugha gSA ;fn lHk h V ~ s ap st e s a

yxkrkj oh fM;k sx z kQ +h gk s jgh gk s] rk s fiyj c sl cukuk

lEH ko ugh a g S ] - - - ^^ ¼ist 118½

“As long as I was present at the excavation site, it

was not that the ASI men might have erected pillar

bases. I do not have any knowledge if they may have done

so later on. If all the trenches are being constantly video-

graphed, it is not possible to erect pillar bases. ." (E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k dh [kqnkbZ esa rFkkdfFkr lHkh fiyj cslst ij LVksu

LySc ugha gSaA t;knkrj dfFkr fiyj csl ij LVksu ugha gSa] ftu ij

LVksu fey jgs gSa] os dSfY'k;e vkSj dkcksZusV ls cus LvksUl feys gSa] tks

detksj gksrs gSa A ,sls iRFkjksa dks dSYdzhV LVksu dgrs gSaA - - - IysV ua0

46 esa fiyj csl vk/ks Q+yksj ij gSA bls] tSlk ns[kus esa yx jgk gS]

isMLVy LVksu ugha dgsaxs] ysfdu vxj bldh [kqnkbZ esa iwjk csl gks] rks

isMsLVy LVksu dgk tk ldrk gS] ;kfu vxj vkSj [kqnkbZ djus ij uhps

LvksUl dh iwjh ,d irZ feys rks mls isMsLVy LVksu dgsaxsA - - - -

eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ vkifRr;ksa dks i<+k gS]

- -eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd eSaus lHkh vkifRr;kWa i<+h gSa - - - - -eq>s ;g

Hkh ugha ekywe fd dqy fdruh vkifRr;kW fjiksVZ ds fo:) QkbZy dh xbZ

FkhaA - - - - -eq>s ugha ekywe gS fd mijksDr nksuksa vkifRr;ksa esa bl ckr

dh vkifRr dh xbZ Fkh fd fiyj cslst+ dks tgkWa rd [kksnk x;k Fkk] ml

fiyj csl dks fMLesaVy u fd;k tk,A- - - - - tc rd e S a [k qn kb Z

LFky ij jgk e q> s ;kn ugh a g S fd fiyj c sl d s lEcU/ k e s a

, slh dk sb Z vkif Rr nh xb Z ;k ugh aA ** ¼ist 117½

“As revealed from the Ayodhya excavation, stone

slabs are not there at all the so called pillar-bases. Stones

are not there at most of the so called pillar-bases. The

stones which have been discovered, are made of calcium

4170

and carbonate and they are very week. Such stones are

called calcrete stones. . . . . In plate no. 46, the pillar base

stretches up to half of the floor. Keeping in view what it

looks like, we would not call it pedestal stone but if on

being excavated it is found to have full base, it can be

called pedestal stone. That is to say, we would call it

pedestal stone if we discover a full layer of stones below on

further excavation being carried out. . . . . I have gone

through the objections raised against the ASI report. . . . .I

also do not know how many objections were filed in all

against the report. . . . . . I do not know that in the afore-

said two objections it was objected to the pillar bases not

being dismantled up to the extent to which they were dug

up. . . . . I do not remember whether or not any such

objection was filed in regard to the pillar bases as long

as I was present on the excavation site.” (E.T.C.)

3894. PW 32 about pillar bases has said:

“Except the pillar bases in the north all the pillar

bases at different levels have been created, some of whom I

saw personally with my own eyes and complaints were filed

in the case of trenches G2, G5 and F3. These complaints

were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints

were handed over to muslim parties and their

counsels.”(Page 79)

“...except pillar bases in the north, as I have stated

already, the remaining have been created by the

ASI.”(Page 80)

“I do not agree with the report of the ASI that there is

any pillar base in trench G-8. By saying that ASI people

4171

created pillar bases, I mean that while excavating, they

removed brick bats selectively from some portion leaving

the other portion to give shape of a pillar base and it is

because of this reason that the shape of the pillar bases as

also the size and depth vary from pillar base to pillar base.

I do not agree with the suggestion that the pillar is round in

shape and the brick bats set in regular courses and having

two stone slabs in the middle. However, it is true that two

concrete slabs are there in the middle. I do not agree with

the ASI report that it is a pillar base.” (Page 114)

"Since I do not accept that any pillar bases were

found during excavation except in the northern area, I do

not agree with ASI report that pillar bases were found in

the area of the 39 anomalies having been pointed by the

GPR survey report. The pillar bases which are acceptable

to me form part of Z series of trenches. The area of the Z

series of trenches was surveyed by the GPR surrey team but

I am not hundred percent sure as to whether they had

covered that area or not.” (Page 120)

“Prof. Mandal has referred to the findings of pillar

bases of Prof. B.B. Lal and he has contradicted Prof. Lal's

theory of pillar bases.” (Page 131)

"The ASI has reported about the existence of 50

pillar bases at one place and perhaps 67 at other place but

according to me, the number does not seem to be correct as

there is no consistency.” (Page 131-132)

“I clarify that no pillar base was exposed by ASI.

Rather it were floor bases that were exposed and partially

cleared and partially it was left exposed and then labelled

4172

as so called pillar bases.” (Page 132)

“An archaeologist can create pillar bases even in the

section by pulling out brick bats from the section while

excavating and preparing the section.” (Page 132)

“Such so called pillar bases appearing in the

section were not created in my presence but from the

close study of the section, I could say that there were

created pillar bases.” (Page 132)

“It is wrong to suggest that it is not possible to create

a pillar base in a section of baulk; rather it is very easy to

do so. Pillar base shown in the baulk of F2 G2 was created

in my presence and I lodged complaint against ASI

observations. It was created between 16 to 20 May, 2003.

Besides me, Mohd. Abid was also present at the time of

aforesaid pillar base being created. This pillar base and

pillar base no. 21 were created during aforesaid period of

five days. I complained against the ASI to the observer

about both the aforesaid pillar bases. The complaint was

lodged in writing. I completely disagree with the suggestion

that I am making a wrong statement to the effect that the

aforesaid pillar bases were created by ASI.

I do not know whether the GPR report has revealed

anomalies exactly on the spot where subsequently ASI has

shown the pillar bases. I do not know whether ASI has

indicated 22 pillar bases exactly on such spot where

anomalies were shown in GPR report. No doubts the ASI

has sketched a chart in its report indicating the places of

pillar bases allegedly found on the spots on the anomalies.

Since I do not accept the very existence of pillar bases, I

4173

did not considered it necessary verify the genuineness of

ASI report on the basis of GPR report." (Page 133-134)

"In the second line of para 14 of my affidavit I have

used the words created 'pillar bases' because in my opinion

and observation floor bases were cut and pillar base

created. In my opinion barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and

14, all other pillar bases were created by ASI. According

to me this creation of pillar bases was right from the

beginning of the excavations till the end of it. When I was

at the site in April 2003 no pillar bases had been excavated

when I returned to the site around 10th May 2003 some

pillar bases had already been excavated from 10th May

onwards I begin observing and between may 16th and 20th I

found that pillar base was created in trench G-2 and on

may 21st a complain was filed in this regard. Except the

complaint which are mentioned in para 14 of my affidavit

some other complaints were also filed by Dr. Jaya

Menon.”(Page 155-156)

“I do not agree with the suggestion that in plate 43 of

the ASI report Vol. II pillar bases have been shown. In fact,

the pillar bases asserted by the ASI are part of the floor

base.” (Page 165)

“As a matter of fact, they were crated before me. I

did make complaint regarding creation of pillar bases by

ASI. The complaints made by me were given to the Muslim

parties, who passed it to the observers, present

there.”(Page 166)

3895. The ASI has discovered 50 pillar bases during

excavation out of which twelve were completely exposed, thirty

4174

five partially and three were traced in section. The pillar bases

traced in section were F2, G2 in baulk (pillar base no.20), F8 F9

in baulk (pillar base No.40) and trench No.F8 F9 in baulk (pillar

base no.41). Confirming GPR survey report, twenty pillar bases

have been excavated in trenches no.E2, E9, F8, F9, ZG1, G2,

G5, G8, G9, ZH1 and H5. In all these trenches, one pillar base

each was discovered. Besides, in Trench F-6, three pillar bases,

Trench G-2, two pillar bases and Trench H-1, two pillar bases

have been found. Foundation of these pillar bases are circular,

square, oval or irregular in shape. Pillar base no.3 shows square

sandstone block with orthostats provided on its four sides,

contemporary with floor 2. Multiple courses of brick bats set in

mud mortar incasing rectangular blocks of calcrete stone fixed

with lime mortar were provided as foundation to the pillar bases.

Figure 3A shows alignment of pillar base and details of

respective distances. The important feature pointed out is that

there were seventeen rows of pillar bases from North to South,

each row having 5 pillar bases. There is no North-South row of

the West of wall 16 and17, as is being read and suggested by the

aforesaid experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4). Though we are not

agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the

pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as

claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr.

Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2

and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one

Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will

not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other

pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is

there.

4175

3896. Archaeology provides scientific factual data for

reconstructing ancient historical material culture, understanding,

archaeology for the past is a multi disciplinary scientific subject

and requires a team of workers for effective results. Excavation

of ancient sites is one of the major works of Archaeologists. As

it is a scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its

working. All archaeological excavations are and also at the same

time destructive; revealing in the sense they yield unknown data

like structures, antiquities etc., destructive that as one digs layer

after layer, the upper layer have to be removed to go deeper and

deeper to know more and may cause destruction of the site for

any future excavation at that place.

3897. The term "Archaeology" came to be considered by

Apex Court in Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR

1965 SC 1514 and in paras 13 and 14 it observed:

“13. The Constitution itself, as we have noticed earlier,

maintains a clear distinction between ancient monuments

and archaeological site or remains; the former is put in

the State List and the latter, in the Concurrent List.

14. The dictionary meaning of the two expressions also

brings out the distinction between the two concepts.

"Monument" is derived from monere, which means to

remind, to warn. "Monument" means, among others,"a

structure surviving from a former period" whereas

"archaeology" is the scientific study of the life and

culture of ancient peoples. Archaeological site or remains,

therefore, is a site or remains which could be explored in

order to study the life and culture of the ancient peoples.

The two expressions, therefore, bear different meanings.

4176

Though the demarcating line may be thin in a rare case, the

distinction is clear.”

3898. The Court also held that Ancient and Historical

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration

of National Importance) Act, 1951 apply to ancient and

historical monuments referred to or specified in Part 1 of the

Schedule thereto, which had been declared to be of national

importance.

3899. In this case, ASI did not work on an unknown

subject and site but was backed by a scientific investigation

report of GPR Survey which is a well known scientific system

used in such matters. The survey has pointed out a number of

anomalies underneath. The actual excavation needed to confirm

and verify those anomalies and their exact nature to avoid any

doubt. Regarding Pillar Bases, a number of such anomolies were

already pointed out by GPR Survey and ASI simply found the

existence of pillar bases so as to confirm the anomalies pointed

out by GPR Survey at those places. If we look carefully to GPR

Survey, as also the pillar bases confirmed by actual excavation

of ASI, a total number thereof we find comes to about twenty.

They are:

Sl. No. of the report

Trench No. of the Report/ (GPR)/ Page No./ Report

Pillar Bases (with depth) P.B.

Page no. of the report

Confirmation of Pillar Bases with pillar base No.

25 E-2/P. 23 1. Rectangular Pillar Base (1.80 m.)

23 *

29 E-9/ P. 24 1. Pillar Base (0.60 m.) 29 43, 6535 F-6/ P. 25 1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.)

2. Pillar Base (0.55 m.)3. Pillar Bases (01.60 m.)

25 40, 41, 65

4177

36 F-8/ P. 25 1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 25 38, 6537 F-9/ P. 26 1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26 44, 6638 ZG-1/ P. 26 1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26 8, 55, 11, 5839 G-2/P. 26 1. Pillar Base (2.20 m.)

2. Pillar Base (2.20 m.)26 21, 60, 24, 61

42 G-5/P. 27 1. Pillar Base (2.50 m.) 27 26, 6245 G-8/ P. 27 1. Pillar Base (0.90 m.) 27 28, 39, 6346 G-9/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 28 45, 6647 ZH-1/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.55 m.) 28 8, 5848 H-1/ P. 28 1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.)

2. Pillar Base (1.50 m.)28 18, 60, 19

52 H-5/ P. 29 1. Pillar Base (0.820 m.) 29 27, 62

3900. Interestingly, we find that in the two major

complaints dated 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003 submitted to

the Observer when the excavation was going on, the allegations

of creation of pillar base mainly were made in those very

trenches where the GPR Survey has already detected anomalies

in the form of pillar bases etc. The complaints were already to

some extent aware of likelyhood of finding pillar bases in those

trenches. Trenches No.F1, F6, F8, F9, G1, G2, G5, G8, G9, H1,

ZG1 and ZH1 are in that very category. In other words, it can

easily be appreciated that the mind of two experts instead

working for the assistance of the Court in finding a truth, tried to

create a background alibi so that later on the same may be

utilized to attack the very findings. However, this attempt has

not gone well since some of these very pillar bases have been

admitted by one or the other expert of plaintiffs (Suit-4) to be

correct.

3901. Sri M.M.Pandey, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of defendant no.2/1 (Suit-4) while justifying ASI report

in respect to the various pillar bases, submitted that centre to

centre distance can not be measured correctly, except for those

4178

found complete topped by sandstone blocks and attached to

floor. It is not possible to fix the point where the finished sand

stone block would have been placed on top of the calcrete

blocks. Two pillar bases that have been found in sections (Fig. 8

& 9) demonstrate vividly that the sandstone block was not

necessarily placed in the centre of the calcrete block and

brickbat foundation rather was shifted as per the requirement of

alignment. Exposition of a structure that exist is done in an

excavation. The question of creation of any structure including

pillar base does not arise. Nothing was ignored during the

excavation. Utmost care was taken to ensure that each and every

find is documented and mentioned in the Report. No "calcrete

topped brickbat heap" is either found or identified as pillar

bases. Brickbats in the pillar bases are not heaped up rather they

are carefully laid in well defined courses. It is to be remembered

that pillar bases, except those found complete with sandstone

blocks in the northern area whose existence and genuineness is

admitted by Sunni Central Board of Waqf and its companion

parties, are essentially the foundation part required to remain

buried in ground. Once this fact is borne in mind then the

picture may be clearly understood. When the floor of sub-Period

VII B is "weathered enough to be replaced, debris of brick

structures was leveled to attain the desired height. In this deposit

foundations to support pillar or columns were sunk" to different

levels. Floors 1, 1A, 1B and 1C belonged to the disputed

structure (Period VIII & IX), Floors 2, 3 and 4 belonged to

period VII and the brick-crush floor existed in the earlier Period

VI. There appears to be some attempt on part of the plaintiff to

twist the facts and mislead by creating some sort of confusion.

4179

The transition from "calcrete topped brickbat heaps" through

"brickbat heaps" to "some kind of loosely-bonded brickbats

deposits" is very clear. The plaintiff at least accepts some sort of

bonding in brickbats which cannot be in case of "heaps"

(random deposit). This at best may be termed as self

contradicting argument.. Floor (F1.2) around most of the pillar

bases is found broken with pillar base foundations in much

disturbed condition.: (p.42, 2nd para). The evidence of broken

floor above most of the pillar base foundations, complete

finished pillar bases and the evidence of finished pillar bases

partly excavated and partly visible in section when combined

together point to the fact that all these 46 pillar bases belonged

to the one and the same period and were constructed in

association of wall 16 and F1.2. The pillars that have actually

been recovered are from the debris of the disputed structure.

Further, nowhere in the report it is said or hinted at that these

stone pillar were standing over these pillar bases. It is nothing

but wilful negation of the evident fact, nothing more can be said

in this regard. Layer of pillar bases are clear from the perusal of

the report. The objections of the plaintiff regarding creation of

pillar bases, distances and alignments and its interpretation is

without any substance. It is well established in archaeology that

walls can not be cut and shaped like pillar bases. The walls

alleged to have been cut and shaped like pillar bases are at the

maximum 0.55 m wide, whereas the pillar bases show much

bigger dimension which prima-facie falsifies the objection of

the plaintiff. The plaintiffs challenging the identity of pillar

bases alleged that unused brick broken or entire have been used

to fill hollow to raise the level of ground or to function apron for

4180

a building. In this connection it may be mentioned that a perusal

of report shows that most of the pillar bases are attached with

the floor 2, 3 & 4. If "hollow" is a synonym for foundation pit,

then certainly it is a good explanation. But 'fill' would be wrong

expression, as the brickbats are laid in defined courses. Raising

of ground is done uniformly and throughout and not as if "a pile

of unused bricks" or "to fill hollows". It is surprising to note that

the "heavy wall" disappears without leaving any trace except the

"pile of unused bricks" to "shore up". As "apron" for which

building? Apparently all the objections tendered above are

emanating from technically ignorant persons and willful attempt

to mislead the Court. All the interpretations were reached after

exploring all the possible explanations. ASI conducted

excavation at the behest and orders of this Court as Court

Commissioner and submitted its scientific Report to the Court

and did not engage in creation and that too in the presence of

judicial officers.

3902. The pillar bases traced on spot makes 64 squares in

between 17 rows of 5 pillar bases each. The seventeen rows of

pillar bases were constructed along the north-south running

brick wall (wall No. 16). The distance of the first pillar base in

each row from the wall 3.60 to 3.86 m. Seventeen rose of pillar

bases could be categorized in three different groups whereas

east-west distance which varies in different groups whereas east-

west distance from the centre of centre of each pillar base vary

from 2.90 to 3.30 m. Six rows of the pillar bases on north and

south were at the equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30 m.

Central five rows consisting of twenty-five pillar bases show

different equations- two rows on either side of the central row

4181

were placed approximately at the distance of 5.25 whereas the

other two rows on either side of these three rose were at the

distance of 4.20-4.25 m. The pillar bases are in alignment. The

ASI unit report in figure 23B has given an isometric view of the

pillar bases and in figure 23A the isometric view of the

excavated site with different floors and pillar bases.

3903. The foundation of the pillar bases are circular,

square, oval, or irregular in shape and the foundation has been

filled with brick bats covered with orthostat which prima facie

establishes its load bearing nature. It is also clear from the report

that all the fifty pillar bases, more or less are of similar pattern

except the orthostate position. The factual position is that the

pillar bases of northern side which are admitted by the plaintiffs

and other objectors to be pillar bases are undisturbed and

unexposed whereas the pillar bases of the southern side are

damaged and exposed but in any way there is no basic

difference between the two. The isometric view is a geometrical

drawing to show a building in three dimensions. The plan is set

up with lines at an equal angle (usually 300) to the horizontal,

while verticals remain vertical and to scale. It gives a more

realistic effect than an axonometric projection, but diagonals

and curves are distorted. The existence of pillar bases was

challenged by the objectors on the ground that the distance

between the pillar bases, the spot position is not common as

such the same may not be considered pillar bases. In this

connection reference may be given of plan of Ukha Mandir

temple converted in to a Masjid published at surveyor general

office Calcutta in 1877 in which square pillars were found with

different angles and distances. Similarly in temple of Vishala

4182

Devi pillar bases of different sizes with different distances were

found which to has been lithograph at the surveyor general

office Calcutta in July 1877. Examples of plan of Shiva Temple

at Bastar, Shiva Temple at Shighanpur, Shiva Temple at

Chindgaon, Shiva Temple at Chitrakoot, Shiva Temple at

Narayanpur are relating to 10th Century A.D. may be given. A

perusal of photographs of the pillar bases, videography and the

time of excavation also falsify the allegations of the objectors

regarding creation of pillar bases.

3904. A perusal of the report particularly at page 54 shows

that all the 50 exposed pillar bases are attached with floor 2

dateable to 1200 A. D. and most of them are resting over floor

no. 4 which has the earliest floor,. The carbon dating report

referred at page 69 of the report also proves that in a trench ZH-

1 the date reported between floor 2 & 3 is between 900-1300

A.D. which prima facie makes it clear that floor 2 was not made

after 1300 A.D. and not before 900 A.D. while floor 3 was made

before 900 A.D. It is also clear from the report that all the pillar

bases exposed are attached with the floors existing prior to the

floor of disputed structure. Pillar base is reported from the same

trench, i.e. ZH-1 along with the floor which confirm the

association of floor 2/3 and pillar bases along with C14 date

between floor 2 & 3 (S. No. 47 of pillar base in page no. 28) The

same pillar base of ZH-1 was predicted as an anomaly in the

GRP Survey. Therefore, it is clear that floor 4 which support the

foundation of pillar bases was the most extensive floor belong to

period VII A (page 42 of the report & fig. 23 & plate 35). The

timing of period VII-A is the beginning of 12th century (page 41

of the report.).

4183

3905. It is clear from the report that floor 4 which support

the foundation of pillar bases was a floor of a Temple. It cannot

be the floor of Idgah or Kanati Mosque because pillars are

always absent in Idgah so that maximum persons could be

accommodated in minimum space for offering prayer.

3906. Association of pillar bases has been reported at page

56 to 68 and a perusal of the same shows that pillar base no. 1,

2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 total 8 are projected over floor no. 2, pillar

base no. 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30 total 8 are projected over floor

no. 3 which have penetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2

and pillar bases no. 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

total 29 pillar bases are projected over floor 4 which have

penetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2 & 3. In addition to

above pillar base no. 20, 40, 41 are pillar bases in the section

whereas pillar base no. 4 and 25 are not associated with any

floor due to damaged condition.

3907. We find substance in the submission of Sri Pandey.

We may also notice at this stage that though most of the pillar

bases were excavated at earlier point of time but complaint

thereof particularly about so called creation was made after

much gap. To start with, the first complaint of 21st May, 2003

was confined only to one pillar base found in trench G-2 but a

number of such pillar bases were included in the second

complaint dated 7th June, 2003, when both the so called authors

of the objections were not on the site. On the basis of record

these details can be shown in the form of a chart as under:

Pillar Base/ Trench

Shape/Size in cm

Site Note Book No./ Page No.

Date of Excavation/ Date of

Name of Supervisor

4184

objection, if any

1/ZH3-ZH2 baulk

Square/63x61.5x9

41/43 22.4.03 S.K. Sharma

2/ZF2 - 7 15.05.03 G.L.Katade

3/ZG2 Rectangular/60x53.5x7

30/36 13/14.05.03 A.R.Siddiqui

4/ZG2 Square (?) 30 13/14.05.03 A.r.Siddiqui

5/ZH2 Square/61x60x11 including the thickness of missing western orthostat

41 19/22.04.03 S.K.Sharma

6/ZH2-ZJ2 Baulk

Square/58x56 including the thickness of missing northern orthostat

7 11.06.03 G.L.Katade

7/ZF1 Square/55x55x6.5

30 29.04.03, 3/13.05.03

A.R.Siddiqui

8/ZG1 Square/59x61.5x5

30/31-39 03/16.05.03/07.06.03

A.R.Siddiqui

9/ZH1 Probably square foundation/125x105x75

41/25-26 14/15 to 20.04.03/07.06.03

S.K.Sharma

10/ZF1 Irregular shaped foundation/150x100x40

30/24-29 depth 65 cm

29.04.03 13.05.03/07.06.03

A.R.Siddiqui Plaintiff occupied by barbed wire. Only southern

4185

portion excavated

11/ZG1 Circular (?) foundation partially exposed/97x94x26

30 03/04/16.05.03

A.R.Siddiqui

12/ZG1 Circular (?) foundation badly damaged and partially exposed/NS 55 Ht 60

30/31-35 03/04/13.05.03/07.06.03

A.R.Siddiqui

13/ZH1 Square/Also available in section. Top 54.5x46.5 foundation EW 122 Ht. 69 (from top to bottom)

41/25-27 14.04.03 to 20.04.03/07.06.03

S.K.Sharma

14/ZH1-H1

Square/63x63x6.5

30 12.07.03 A.R.Siddiqui

15/F1 Rectangular (?) foundation square top/130x138

30/14-21 depth 98 cm

22.04.03 to 27.04.03/07.06.03

A.R.Siddiqui

16/F1-G1 Irregular baulk/130x120x55 foundation partially exposed

30 22/27/18/23.04.03

A.R.Siddiqui

17/G1 Square foundation

30/5, 6, 7, 8

19/20.04.03 18.06.03/07.

A.R.Siddiqui

4186

partially exposed/140x125x45

06.03

18/H1 Square foundation partially exposed/150x130x56

41/3-9 11-14

12.04.03/07.06.03

S.K.Sharma

19/H1 Square foundation partially exposed/78x110x38

41/3-14 06/18.05.03/07.06.03

S.K.Sharma

20/F2 G2 Baulk

Partially exposed/NS 55 Ht.22

7-8, 32, 45

08.07.03 17.07.03 02.08.03 24.05.03 03.06.03 10.05.03 20.05.03

Zulfiquar Ali, G.L.Katade, C.B.Patil, S.K.Sharma

21/G2 Square (?) foundation partially exposed/EW 140 Ht. 28

32/49-54 27-85

10/20.05.03/07.06.03 21.05.03

S.K.Sharma Zulfiqar Ali

22/F2 Square foundation/122x115x25

7-8 08/17.07.03

23/F2-G2 baulk

Square (?) foundation partially exposed/105x72x33

7, 8, 32, 45

-

24/G2 Oval foundation partially exposed/150x125x32

32 20 45/22 49 37 30

17.07.03 02.08.03 10.05.03 20.05.03/ 07.06.03

Zulfiqar Ali S.K.Sharma

25/F3 Square (?) 16 21.05.03 Sujeet

4187

foundation partially exposed/65x145x55

30.05.03 19.07.03

Nayan

26/G5 Irregular foundation with square top partially exposed/120x165x90

13/1 22 23 24.05.03 21.05.03

10.06.03 /07.06.03

Sujeet Nayan

27/H5 Square (?) foundation partially exposed/100x25x35

40 26/30.04.03 Bhuvan Vikrama

28/F6 Irregular foundation partially exposed/148x147x54

23 24.05.03 01.06.03

Zulfiqar Ali

29/F6 Rectangular foundation partially exposed/76x170x51

19/3-4 29.04.03 to 06.05.03/07.06.03

G.L.Katade

30/G6 Rectangular foundation partially exposed/83x55x40

33 07/11.05.03 G.L.Katade

31/F6-F7 baulk

Elliptical foundation partially exposed/126x198x38

15, 19, 23 -

32/F6-F7 Irregular foundation partially

15-F-7 19-F-6, 23

19.04.03 10.09.03 19.04.03

G.L.Katade Zulfiqar Ali

4188

exposed/95x155x40

06.05.03 24.05.03 01.06.03

33/G6-G7 baulk

Square (?) foundation /70x40x35

21 -

34/E7-F7 baulk

Square or Rectangular foundation partially exposed/100x100x34

12 05.04.03 08.05.03 14.05.03

Zulfiqar Ali

35/F7 Rectangular(?) foundation partially exposed/170x160x38

15/ 1 to 31 19.04.03 to 13.05.03/07.06.03

G.L.Katade

36/G7 Square (?) foundation partially exposed/80x40x40

21 20.05.03 09.07.03 10.07.03 07.08.03

N.C.Prakash

37/F8 Circular foundation /170x170

44/ 2 to 45 15.04.03 to 23.05.03/07.06.03

Sameer Dewan

38/F8 Circular (?) foundation partially exposed/700x145x37

44/13 15.04.03 to 23.05.03

Sameer Dewan

39/G8 Circular foundation /42x130x30

30 10/86 to 90 10

24.06.03 to 27.06.03 09.05.03

10.05.03/07.06.03

A.R.Siddiqui N.C. Prakash Sujeet Nayan

40/F8-F9 baulk

-/EW-120 Ht.33

44 -

41/F8-F9 -/EW-80 18 10/19/17/30. N.C.Prakash

4189

baulk Ht. 35 04.03 Sujeet Nayan

42/G8-G9 baulk

Circular foundation/ 43x120x28

30, 10 24.06.03 27.07.03 09.05.03 10.05.03

A.R. Siddiqui Sujeet Nayan

43/E9-F9 baulk

Rectangular foundation /55x130x20

22, 35 04.07.03 20.04.03 07.05.03

Sujeet Nayan

44/F9 Square foundation /95x142x30

18/ 3-34 08.04.03 to 30.04.03/07.06.03

Sujeet Nayan

45/G9 Circular foundation /Dia- 118 Ht. 34

10/3-9 14-22

06.04.03 to 09.04.03 to 11.05.03 14.05.03/07.06.03

N.C.Prakash Sujeet Nayan

46/G9-H9 baulk

Square foundation partially exposed/110x80x45

10 06.04.03 09.04.03 11.05.03 14.05.03

N.C.Prakash Sujeet Nayan

47/E10-F10 baulk

Circular foundation partially exposed/140x55x48

9 18.05.03 22.05.03

Zulfiqar Ali

48/F10 Circular base and square top of the foundation/155x145x40 square 90 Ht. 12

9/37 to 45 38 45

18.05.03 to 22.05.03/07.06.03

Zulfiqar Ali

49/G10-H10 baulk

Square foundation/ 115x120x5

- -

4190

0

50/H10 Circular foundation/ 115x90x48

- -

3908. This chart would reveal that most of the pillar bases

were found during excavation in the months of April and May,

2003 which could have cleared to anyone having an idea on the

subject as to what inference those excavations is likely to cause.

It appear that in these circumstances under the Expert's advice

the complaints were made as a ground, so as to utilize later. It

cannot be doubted that as and when the pillar bases have been

excavated on that very day mentioned in the site notebook.

3909. We have very carefully perused the site note book,

day-to-day register as also more than twenty five video cassettes

as well as the photographs but find nothing unusual which may

create any suspicion in what the ASI has said in respect to pillar

bases in his report. Except of minor typographical mistake,

which is quite understandable in the manner they have worked

and with the pace with which have accomplished such a gigantic

job, that too under unusual circumstances where they were

constantly watched by huge number of persons and officials of

the Court.

3910. We may reproduce at this stage some part of the

statement of PW-29, 30, 31 and 32 again which would show that

in general, the finding of ASI about pillar bases, not found

incorrect:

3911. PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon- She said:

"In my opinion 10 pillar bases were found in the

northern side of the disputed site. All these 10 pillar bases

4191

on the northern side were beyond the disputed structure.

…” (Page 204)

“…I think one pillar base was found in the section in

the northern part of the disputed site. I remember that one

pillar base was identified by the ASI in the baulk of the

trenches F2 and G2 and two so-called pillar bases were

identified by the ASI in the baulk of trench F8 and F9 but

according to me these were not actually pillar bases. …”

(Page 204-205)

“…approximately they are 6 in number. It does not

appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so

called pillar bases from floor 3 have penetrated down to

floor 4. Approximately 25 so called pillar bases have been

shown in figure 23a as associated with floor 4 and floor 4a.

I do not remember whether floor 2 and 3 were carbon

dated by ASI from 900 to 1300 AD or not. In my opinion

floor I is the floor of Babri Masjid which is approximately

dated to the 16th century. Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were

associated with the pre Babri Masjid structure. I don’t have

separate dates for floors 2, 3 and 4 but approximately these

floors may be dated from the end of the 12th century to the

16th century AD. According to me walls and structures

prior to 12th century were found in excavation but no floor

prior to 12th century was found at the site. According to me

the oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third

century AD. And the oldest structure found would be

structure 5 which may be of 6th century AD.” (Page 205)

3912. Dr R.C. Thakran (PW-30) admitting the existence

of pillar bases stated that:

4192

^^eSa ml fjiksVZ esa fy[kh bl ckr ls lger gwWa fd fiyj cslst iRFkj ds

iSMsLVYl ij fVds gq, FksA - - - eSaus v;ks/;k dh [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku lHkh

fiyj cslst dks ns[kk FkkA mlesa iSMsLVYl LVksu dgha ij ugha gSaA dsoy

ek= lhrk dh jlksbZ dh rjQ dqN fiyj cslst+ ds Åij iRFkj ik;s x;s

gSaA tks isMsLVy ls fHkUu gSaA - - -tc rd eSa [kqnkbZ LFky ij jgk] ,slk

ugha gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 okyksa us fiyj csl cuk;s gksa] ckn esa vxj

mUgksaus dqN fd;k gks] rks eq>s bl ckr dk Kku ugha gSA ;fn lHkh Vªspst

essa yxkrkj ohfM;ksaxzkQh gks jgh gks] rks fiyj csl cukuk lEHko ugha

gSA^^¼ist 116@118½

^^ - - -efLtn esa tks fiyj cuk;s tkrs gSa] muds fy, fiyj cslst dh

vko';drk gksrh gSA mijksDr /kkjk 22 esa bu fiyj cslst+ ds lEcU/k esa

ppkZ dh x;h gS rFkk fiyj cslst ds Åij tks fiylZ [kM+s fd;s x;s gSa]

mudh Hkh ppkZ gSA** ¼ist 176½

“I agree with the fact mentioned in that report that the

pillar bases rested on pedestals of stone ….. I had seen all

the pillar bases in course of the Ayodhya excavation.

Pedestal stones were nowhere in them. Only towards Sita

Rasoi, above some pillar bases have been found stones,

which are different from the pedestals…. As long as I

stayed at the excavation site, it is not that the A.S.I men

carved pillar bases; but if they did so later on, I do not

have knowledge about that. If all the trenches are

constantly being videographed, it is not possible to carved

pillar bases.” (Page 116/118)

“…For pillars to be carved in a mosque, there is

requirement of pillar bases. The aforesaid para 22

discusses about these pillar bases and also about the

pillars which have been erected above the pillar

bases.”(Page 176)

3913. Dr Ashok Dutta (PW-31) admitting the existence of

4193

pillar bases underneath of the disputed structure stated as under:

“…Plate no. 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. II were shown to

the witness who stated that stones slabs are possibly of

black basalt with some decorative motifs can be seen in

these plates. Black basalt is a kind of rock, which is

igneous rock. …” (page 109)

“…Learned cross examiner drew the attention of the

witness towards paper no. 200 C-1 after seeing

photographs no. 122 and 123 the witness stated that it

appears to me from the photographs that the stones used in

stole pillars is possibly black basalt. It appears that the

pillars which are seen in paper 122 and 123 are similar to

that as shown in plate 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. 2. …”

(page 110)

“…As an archaeologist at least I have that amount of

knowledge to differentiate between mosque and temple. I

don’t have any idea whether this type of stone slabs having

decorative motif were used in the mosque or not. In plate

no. 83 there are flower designs on the stone slab lower part

of this stone slab is not distinct and clear. After seeing plate

no. 83 with the magnifying glass the witness stated that

some objects are visible in this stone slab. They appear to

be lower part of a figure. But whether it represents human

being or any thing else is difficult to ascertain because the

foot is shown in different way than the man. In the centre of

this plate it gives an impression of a ‘Ghat with flower’. I

don’t have any idea whether these type of decorative motifs

are used in mosque. …” (Page 110-111)

“…I know that the depiction of human and animal figures

4194

is prohibited in the Muslim architecture.

So far I remember there was no figure of human beings on

the black basalt pillars. …” (Page 140)

“…I believe the theory of ‘Super imposition’. I believe that

according to the theory of ‘super imposition’ creation of the

pillar bases in the trenches is impossible but in certain

cases some super imposition is found. …” (Page 266)

3914. Dr Supriya Verma (PW-32) stated as under:

“16. That the so called “pillar bases” were only part of a

floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was

underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with

stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. …”

(Page 12)

“…It was for the first time in the year 1989 in an article

published in a magazine, namely, ‘Manthan’ that the

existence of pillar bases was mentioned by him (Prof. B.B.

Lal). …” (Page 127)

3915. Prof. Suraj Bhan (PW-16) who visited the site for

three days only, as mentioned by him at page-34, admitting the

existence of pillar bases, stated as under:

^^v;ks/;k ds bl LFky ij ckcjh efLtn ds <kaps ds rqjUr uhps okys <kaps

ds lkFk okys Q'kZ vkSj fiyj csl dk ,d lkFk QksVks fy;k tk ldrk

Fkk c'krsZ fd bl nf"V ls [kqnkbZ dh x;h gksrhA - - -** ¼ist 227½

“At this site of Ayodhya, the floor appurtenant to the

structure immediately below the structure of the Babri

Mosque could have been photographed, provided

excavation had been done from this angle…”(Page 227)

^^fo}ku ftjgdrkZ vf/koDrk us lk{kh dk /;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ O;wywe

2 ds IysV la[;k 42 ij vkd`"V fd;kA lk{kh us bls ns[kdj iz'u fd;s

tkus ij crk;k fd bl IysV esa nks ,sls dULV~d'ku gSa tks fiyj csl

4195

ds :i esa eku fy;s x;s gSa] ijUrq budks izekf.kr djus ds fy, dzkl

lsD'ku Bhd ls ugha fn[k ik jgk gSA** ¼ist 228½

“The learned cross-examining counsel drew the attention

of the witness to Plate no. 42 of the A.S.I. report, volume 2.

After looking at this the witness on being questioned

replied that in this plate there are two such constructions as

have been taken to be pillar bases but cross section,

capable of establishing them, is not properly seen.”(page

228).

^^,d nhokj dks 'kk;n dkV dj ftls fiyj csl dgk tk jgk gS 'kk;n

mls cuk;k x;k gSA** ¼ist 229½

“What is being termed as pillar base, is perhaps carved out

from a wall.”(Page 229)

^^fiyj csl ge mls dgrs gSa tks fdlh LrEHk dk vk/kkj gksaA losZ dh

fjiksVZ ds eqrkfcd izks0 ch0ch0yky ds mR[kuu esa ik;s x;s dULV~d'ku

dks blfy, fiyj csl dgk x;k gS D;ksafd muds vuqlkj mu ij

rFkkdfFkr efUnj ds LrEHk [kM+s ekus x;s FksA** ¼ist 232½

“We term as pillar base what is the base of any pillar. As

per the survey report, the constructions discovered at the

excavation carried out by Prof. B.B.Lal have been termed

as pillar bases because the pillars of the so called temple,

in his opinion, rested on them.”(Page 232).

^^IysV la[;k 46 ds ckjs esa lk{kh us bls ns[kdj iwNus ij crk;k fd

eSaus ;gkWa ;g dgus dk iz;kl fd;k gS fd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst ij u

rks dksbZ flEcksfyd vkd`fr;kWa gSa vkSj u gh muds lkFk ,d Hkh iRFkj dk

LrEHk vFkok mlds VqdM+s feysA** ¼ist 234½

“On being queried about plate no.46, the witness, after

looking at the same, stated that here he had tried to say

that there are no symbolic shapes on the so –called pillar

bases and not a single stone pillar or its fragments were

4196

discovered with them.”(Page 234)

^^eq>s bl le; ;g ;kn ugha gS fd mijksDr fQxj 3, esa nf'kZr 50

fiyj cslst esa ls fdrus esjs fujh{k.k ds le; ,Dlikst gks pqds FksA

Lo;a dgk] buesa ls dqN LV~sDplZ mRrj esa] dqN if'peh Hkkx esa rFkk dqN

nf{k.k esa LV~sDplZ ikVZyh ;k iwjh rjg ,Dlikst gks pqds gSa] ftUgsa fiyj

cls dgk tk jgk gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk iznf'kZr fiyj cslst esa

,ykbUesUV rks fn[kkbZ nsrk gS ijUrq fQj Hkh buesa vUrj rks gS gh vkSj

fjiksVZ esa Hkh ;gh fy[kk x;k gSA** ¼ist 464½

“At present I do not remember how many of the 50 pillar

bases shown in the aforesaid figure 3A had been exposed at

the time of my observation. (Stated on his own) Out of these

structures, some have been partly or completely exposed in

the north, some in the western part and some in the south,

which structures are being called pillar bases. Alignment is

certainly seen in the pillar bases shown by A.S.I., but they

definitely have differences, and this very fact is written in

the report.”(Page 464)

^^izk;% ;g dULV~D'ku Q'kZ cukus ds fy, Hkjh x;h feV~Vh ds yscy dks

esUVsu djus ds fy, Fkh ;k fdlh vkSj ijit ds fy, izek.k vHkh ugha

gSA

iz'u&bu fiyj cslst ds lEcU/k esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk izLrqr Vsap

uksVcqd] Mk;jh o Mk;jh jftLVj vkfn dk Hkh vkius fiyj csl ds

lEcU/k esa dksbZ tkudkjh fd;k gS vFkok ugha\

mRrj& eSa rks fjiksVZ ds v/;;u ls gh vkSj lkbZV ij foftV djds rFkk

vius bUVj,D'ku }kjk gh viuk er cuk;k gSA bu lqijokbtjks dh

Mk;jh ;k ,UVhD;wVh jftLVj dks eSaus ugha ns[kk gSA fjiksVZ esa Hkh mudk

dksbZ fo'ks"k mYys[k ugha gSA** ¼ist 470½

“As of now, there is nothing to show whether these

constructions were often meant to maintain the level of

soil for floor making or for any other purpose.

Question- Whether any inquiry in respect of these pillar

4197

bases, has been made by you or not of the Trench notebook,

diary and diary register etc. submitted by ASI ?

Answer- I have formed my opinion on studying the report,

visiting the site and by my interaction. I have not seen the

diary of Supervisors or the Antiquity Register. There is no

special reference of these in the report as well." (Page 470)

3916. Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal (PW-24) who was again

examined as expert witness after excavation by Sunni Central

Waqf Board, appreciated the work of ASI and its methodology,

nowhere alleged anything against ASI or manufacture of pillar

bases by them. Rather he admitted the existence of pillar bases

and the reference of the same in the report. Prof. Mandal stated

that:

^^fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj 50 rFkk&dfFkr LrEHk vk/kkjksa ¼pillar bases½ ds

uho dh igpku dh x;h gSA mUgsa Floor 2 ( ;k Structure 4 dh

vfUre voLFkk½ ls lEc) dgk x;k gS (ASI Report, Vol.I, p.54).

bl dFku ls ;g Li"V ladsr feyrk gS fd mudk fuekZ.k Floor 2 ds

le; gqvk gksxkA bl fLFkfr esa nksuksa ijLij ledkfyd gq,A ¼ist 118½

"According to the report, the foundations of 50 alleged

pillar bases have been identified. They have been termed as

attached to Floor 2 (or the last stage of Structure 4) (ASI

Report, Vol.1,p.54). This statement clearly indicates that

their construction would have taken place at time of Floor

2. In such situation both of them are mutually

contemporary. " (page 118)

^^iqjkrRo foKku ds vuqlkj ftl lrg ls ;g [kkbZ [kksnh Pit tkrh gS

og mlds fuekZ.k dky dk ledkfyd ekuk tkrk gSA - - - - fjiksVZ esa

yxHkx 14 LrEHk vk/kkjksa dk lsD'ku rFkk Iyku izdkf'kr gSA** ¼ist 118½

"According to the archaeology, the level from which this

4198

pit is excavated, is considered to be contemporary with its

period of construction.......... The section and plan of about

14 pillar bases have been published in the report." (page

118)

“…eSaus dy vius c;ku ds ckn th0ih0vkj0 losZ fjiksVZ rFkk mlesa

mfYyf[kr ftu ,ukfeyht+ dh iq"Vh ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk dh xbZ gS mlds

lanHkZ esa fjiksVZ dk iqu% voyksdu ugha fd;k gS] blfy, eSa vkt Hkh ugha

crk ldrk gwWa fd th0ih0vkj0 fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr ftu ,ukfeyht+ dh

iqf"V ,,lvkbZ us mR[kuu }kjk dh gS] og fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr gSa vFkok

ughaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 esa viuh fjiksVZ esa fiyjcsl dk vkblksesfVd O;w fn;k

gS ftldks eSaus ns[kk gSA ,,lvkbZ }kjk fn, x, bl vkblksesfVd O;w esa

nf'kZr fiyjcsfll dk lR;kiu eSaus fookfnr LFky ls ugha fd;k gSA

fookfnr LFky ij tks LVªDpj ik, x, gSa] mudk fooj.k ,0,l0vkbZ0 esa

vius fjiksVZ okY;we 1 ds fQxj 3 vkSj 3, esa fn;k gSA fookfnr LFky ij

ik, x, ftu LVªdpjl~ dk mYys[k Qhxj 3 rFkk 3, esa fd;k x;k gS]

og fookfnr LFky ij gSa] blls eSa lger gwWaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh

fjiksVZ esa pkj Q~ykslZ dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlls eSa lger gwWa ijUrq

tgkWa rd ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fn[kk, x, Q~yksj 4, dk iz'u gS] mlls eSa

lger ugha gwWa D;ksafd bldk mYys[k ,,lvkbZ dh fjiksVZ okY;we 1 ds

i"B 37, ¼VsUVsfVo ihfj;Mkbt+s'ku vkWQ fn fMLI;wfVM lkbV ,V

v;ks/;k½ esa Hkh ugha gSA Q~yksj 1 fMLI;wfVM LVªDpj dh Q~yksj gSA Q~yksj

2] Q~yksj 1 ls iwoZorhZ Q~yksj gS ftlesa fjiksVZ esa lHkh fiyjcslst+ o

LVªDplZ dks fn[kk;k x; gSA Q~yksj 3] Q~yksj 2 ds iwoZ dh gS] ,

0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa Q~yksj 3 ls vVSPM tks okWy rFkk fiyj

cslst+ gSa mldks fn[kk;k gS] ijUrq eSa mlls lger ugha gwWaA okWy ds laca/k

esa esjh vlgerh ugha gS …” ¼ist 275½

"…....After my yesterday's statement, I have not re-perused

the report in context of the GPR survey report as well as

the anomalies mentioned therein, which have been verified

by ASI. As such even today I cannot tell whether the

anomalies mentioned in the GPR report and verified by ASI

4199

through excavation, have been mentioned in the report or

not. The ASI has given isometric view of the pillar bases in

its report, which has been perused by me. The verification

of the pillar bases appearing in this isometric view given by

the ASI, has not been done by me from the disputed site.

The details of the structures found at the disputed site have

been given by the ASI in Figure 3 and 3A of Volume 1 of its

report. I agree that the structures found at the disputed site

and mentioned in Figure 3 and 3A, are at the disputed site.

In its report, the ASI has mentioned about four floors, with

which I agree, but so far as the Floor 4A shown by ASI is

concerned, I do not agree with the same because it has not

been mentioned even at Page 37A(tentative periodisation

of the disputed site at Ayodhya) of Volume 1 of ASI report.

The Floor 1 is the floor of the disputed structure. The Floor

2 is anterior to the Floor 1, in which all the pillar bases

and structures of the report have been shown. The Floor 3

is anterior to the Floor2, in its report the ASI has shown

those walls and pillar bases which are attached to Floor 3,

but I do not agree with the same. I have no disagreement

regarding the wall......"(Page 275)

“…fookfnr LFky ij gq, mR[kuu esa dqy fdruh fnokjsa feyha Fkha]

mudh la[;k eSa ugha crk ldrkA dqy 50 fiyjcslst+ mR[kuu ds nkSjku

feys FksA dqy fiyjcslst+ lsD'ku ls tqM+s gq, Fks] mudh la[;k yxHkx 14

gSaA…” ¼ist 276½

"…....I cannot tell the total number of walls found in the

excavation at the disputed site. A total of 50 pillar bases

were found during the excavation. Few pillar bases were

attached to the section, their number is around 14

4200

…......"(Page 276)

“…mijksDr fQxj 3, esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku tks Hkh nhokjsa vkfn feyh gSa]

mudks ,,lvkbZ }kjk iznf’kZr fd;k x;k gSA ;g okWy rFkk LVªDpj vius

LFkku ij gh fQxj 3, esa iznf’kZr gSa ;k ugha] bldks fcuk bUoSLVhxsV

fd, ugha crk;k tk ldrkA eSaus bl ckjs esa vkt rd dksbZ bUosLVhxs’ku

ugha fd;k gS fd fQxj 3, esa tks nhokjsa rFkk LVªDpj fn[kk, x, gSa]

os ;Fkk LFkku bl fQxj esa iznf’kZr gSa vFkok ughaA----pwafd eSaus fQxj 3,

esa LVªDpj rFkk nhokjksa ds ;FkkLFkku fn[kk, tkus ds ckjs esa dksbZ v/;;u

ugha fd;k gS blfy, eSa bl ckjsa eas ugha crk ikÅWaxkA””¼ist 276&277½

"…..The walls etc. found during excavation, have been

shown by ASI in the aforesaid Figure 3A. Whether this wall

and structure have been shown at their respective place or

not in the Figure 3A, cannot be told without being

investigated. I have not carried out any investigation in this

behalf till date as to whether the walls and structures

shown in Figure 3A have been shown or not at their

respective places in this figure........ Since I have not

carried out any study regarding the depiction of structures

and walls at their respective places in Figure 3A, as such I

will not be able to reply in this behalf. "(Page 276-277).

3917. One of the objection with respect to the pillar bases

is that nothing has been found intact with them saying that the

pillars were affixed thereon. The submission, in our view,

thoroughly hollow and an attempt in vain. The other parties i.e.

Hindus categorically claimed that the erstwhile structure was

removed i.e. demolished so as to construct the disputed

structure. If we assume other cause to be correct for a moment,

in case of demolition of a construction, it is a kind of childish

expectation to hope that some overt structure as it is would

remain intact. There cannot be any presumption that the pillar

4201

bases was remained intact along ancillary material. Whatever

has been found that has to be seen in the context and not what is

not found. All the things have to be seen carefully and nothing

independently and in isolation. The pillar bases were detected by

B.B.Lal also in 1976-77 when he made excavation on the

western and southern side of the disputed site along with a wall

structure. The Archaeologist said that the matter needs further

investigation. It is thus further investigation which has infact

fortified and explained the earlier structure also. The pillar bases

in general were found during excavation in regular bases for

columns constructed in a proper pattern with equal distance

pattern in regular style. The calcrete stones were topped by

sandstone blocks over which pillars must have rested. Brickbats

were used in their foundation in the same manner as brick

aggregates were used in foundation of walls. The brickbats

course of the foundation rested under the ground. The question

of falling apart of the brickbat foundation could not have arisen.

The calcrete blocks topped by the sandstone blocks is capable of

supporting pillar bearings, the load of the roof. Even if there is

some minor variation in the measurement of the pillar bases that

would not invite the approach of total rejection of something

which is otherwise apparent from the existence of the above

pillar bases. There may be a reason for having variation in the

measurement of the pillar bases that the actual centre of the

pillar bases could not have been pointed out since the top

sandstone blocks are missing from most of them. Figure 3A in

any case has been confirmed to be correct by most of the

Experts (Archaeologist) of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

3918. In general, therefore, we do not find any substance

4202

in the objections relating to pillar bases and the same is hereby

rejected.

3919. The next objection is with regard to the Walls and

Floors. This has been complained by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) under

the title "Archaeological Evidence of Massive Structure" Para

4.1 to 4.14 in the objections dated 28.10.2003. It says:

"4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF "MASSIVE STRUCTURE":-

4.1 That the theory of a so called "massive structure"

below "Babri Masjid" (P. 54), given by the A.S.I., is based

mainly upon nearly 50m long wall (wall 16) in the west

and the dumps of brick bats which it claims to be "pillar

bases", to its east. According to the A.S.I. they found 17

rows of the so called pillar bases from North to South; each

row having 5 pillar bases while actually they have referred

to 50 only, out of which only 12 were said to be completely

exposed, 35 were said to be partially exposed and 3 could

be traced in section only. The A.S.I. also asserts that the

central part of the pillared structure was important and

special treatment was given to its architectural planning.

The A.S.I. also claims that the so-called pillar bases found

in these excavations have settled the controversy regarding

association of these so-called pillar bases with different

layers and load bearing capacity while the report fails to

give any details about the actual regular layers and

accurate depth of all these so called pillar bases. The

remarks of the A.S.I about the central part of the pillared

structure also seem to be without any evidence. On what

basis the A.S.I. is saying that this part was important and

4203

special treatment was given to it in architectural planning,

is also not evident from the report.

4.2. That the A.S.I. failed to take into account that any

medieval temple in classical style would be expected to

have a Central portion with thick internal walls to support

a high superstructure like a Shikhara, while the Key Plan

of Structures shows, in H1, two lengths of a narrow wall or

two walls, each less than a metre long, with a gap of about

70 cm. Between them. No further information is given to

convince us that there is an " exposed entrance" as stated

on P. 69.

4.3. That the A.S.I. Report itself describes traces of inner

walls having a width of 0.48 m to 0.55 m, attached with the

earliest activities alongwith wall 16. These internal walls

not only appear to be narrow and not more than two or

three brick courses high, but also consisting of brickbats

only. They are plastered over the sides and upper surface

and it is difficult to infer that they were load bearing

walls:

4.4. That regarding the said wall 16, an unexplained

anomaly is that from the inner side its first phase of 10

courses is said to be plastered while on the exterior side

plaster was provided in the second phase of its raising

( four courses).

4.5. That no single example is offered by the A.S.I. of any

temple of pre-Moghal times having such a lime–Surkhi

floor, though one would think that this is an essential

requirement when a purely Muslim structure is being

appropriate as a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has

4204

occurred (page 41), we are then asked to imagine a

"Massive Structure Below the Distputed 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 if 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

A.S.I.'s Report, this massive structure with "bases" of 46 of

its alleged 50 pillars now exposed, was built in Period VII,

the Period of the Delhi Sultans, Sharqi rulers and Lodi

Sultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the alleged 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 distorted view of

medieval Indian history, must have been a bitter pill for the

A.S.I.'s, mentors to swallow; and, therefore, there has been

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" attached to Floor 4, have been found; and it

is astonishing that this should be sufficient to ascribe them

10th -11th century and to assume that they all belong to one

structure. That structure is proclaimed as "huge",

extending nearly 50 metres that 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-loved" (Report, p.

4205

269). All of this seems a regular part of the Mandir

propagandist archaeology rather than a report from a body

called the Archaeological Survey of India.

4.6. That the four alleged pillar bases dated to 11th -12th

centuries are said "to belong to this level with a brick crush

floor". This amounts to a totally unsubstantiated claim that

surkhi was used in the region in Gahadavala times (11th -

12th centuries). No examples are predictably offered. One

would have thought that Sravasti (Dist. Bahraich), from

which the A.S.I. team has produced a linga-centred Shavite

"circular shrine" of the said period for comparison with the

so-called "circular shrine" at the Babri Masjid site, would

be able to produce a single example of either surkhi or lime

mortar from the Gahadavala-period structures at Sravasti.

But such has not at all been the case. One can see now why

it had been necessary to call this period (Period V)

"Medieval-Sultanate" (p. 40) though it is actually claimed

to be pre-Sultanate, being dated 11th - 12th century. By

clubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, the

surkhi is sought to be explained away; but if so, the "huge"

structure too must come to a time after 1206, for Delhi

Sultanate was only established in that year. And so, to go

by A.S.I.'s reasoning, the earlier allegedly "huge" temple

too must have been built when the Sultans ruled!

4.7. That the way the A.S.I. has distorted evidence to suit

its temple theory is shown by its treatment of the mihrab

(arched recess) and taq (niche) found in the western wall,

which it turns into features of its imagined temple. The

absurdity of this is self evident and particularly so when the

4206

inner walls of the niche are also found plastered, and the

A.S.I. is able to produce no example of similar recess and

niche from any temple.

4.8. That the structure denoted by wall 17 and a brick

Crush floor in Period VI has not been allotted any number

by the A.S.I. and the A.S.I.'s claims about the attribution of

the walls and floors of " Periods VI and VII" to two

successive temple structures can not be accepted. The

A.S.I.'s report in this respect also is full of contradictions

and other infirmities.

4.9. That the reason why would the western wall to be so

massive (1.77 m) and the other walls so thin ( 0.48-0.55) is

quite obvious. It should be noted that Wall 17 also was 1.86

m wide. Such wide western walls are a features of mosque

construction and not of temples. Temple walls, in fact, are

of uniform thickness. If, as the A.S.I. points out, the Babri

Masjid used this Wall 16 as a foundation for its western

wall, then this Wall 16 can only have been the foundation

of the Babri Masjid itself. Moreover, no Hindu temple has a

long continuously straight western wall-this is only a

feature of the mosque in India. In the case of a temple, a

plinth or raised platform would be required and the walls

would be broken by offsets, providing a cruciform plan to

the temple form. Moreover, the temple would have

mandapas in front of the grabagriha (the sanctum

santorum) and any at the side of the latter would be very

small and insignificant in nature. According to Krishna

Deva, "the main compartment of the temple are axially

articulated." ( See Temples of India by Krishna Dewa,

4207

1995, Vol. I ) In this case, as being suggested by the A.S.I.,

the central area now under the makeshift structure was the

garbagriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple structure

should have mainly projected towards the east, and not to

such an extent to the north and south ( as in Fig. 23A or

23B). The kind of structure as indicated in Fig. 23B

indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can

only be the case in a mosque.

4.10.That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has some

decorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and

calcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the

construction of a foundation where any available motley

material would be used, as the foundation would not be

visible. It has been pointed out by the A.S.I. (pp. 68, 269-

70) that material, from the structure associated with Wall

17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been

the case, decorated blocks would have been used for the

upper portions of walls rather than in the foundation. To

corroborate their statement of the reuse of decorated

blocks, the A.S.I. gives the examples of the

Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi of the 12th

century A.D. at Sarnath. However, as can be seen in Plates

27-28, decorated blocks were used not for the foundations

but in the enclosure wall of a vihara. Moreover, this

structure was a vihara and cannot in any way be compared

with a Hindu temple.

4.11. That it can also be pointed out here that Krishna Deva

mentions ( on P. 11) that a temple customarily has a

vedibandha consisting of moulded courses. Even if the

4208

southern part of Wall 16 has not been excavated on its

outer face to indicate the presence or absence of

mouldings, we have the evidence of the outer face of Wall

16 in Trench ZE 1, to the north, where no mouldings are to

be seen. This kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches

on its inner face can only be a mosque/ Eidgah wall.

4.12. That On p. 68 are described two niches in the inner

side of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 m I trenches E6 and

E7. These were 0.20 m deep and 1 m wide. A similar niche

was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area and these

have been attributed to the first phase of construction of the

so called 'massive structure' associated with Wall 16. Such

niches along the inner face of a western wall, are again

characteristic of mosque/ Eidgah construction. Moreover,

the inner walls of the niche are also plalstelred (as in Plate

49) which indicates that the plaster was meant to be

visible. A temple niche (and if found, would be on the outer

wall) would not be plastered if it were to hold a sculpture

or a relief. In the first phase of construction, the supposed

massive structure was confined to the thin wall found in

Trenches ZE1-ZE1 in the north and E6-H5/H6 in the south

(p. 41). How then does one explain the location of niches

outside the floor area of the said massive structure ? This is

typical of a mosque, which has a long, wide north-south

wall, with niches at intervals on its inner face and there

may be a small covered area in the center. Which would

have narrow demarcating walls.

4.13. That according to the A.S.I. (p. 42), the massive

structure in sub-period B collapsed and its debris of brick

4209

and stone was levelled to attain height. " In this deposit,

foundations to support pillars or columns were sunk which

were overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor, which had a grid of

square sandstone bases for pillars projecting out, only a

few still survive."

If, as implied, the structure of sub-period B had collapsed

and another floor constructed with another set of pillar

bases, then these are not phases of construction of a

structure but three separate structures. What is perhaps a

more plausible explanation is that in the beginning of the

13th century, some Muslim structure was built with a well-

polished lime surkhi floor. There was a low enclosure wall

(0.40-0.50 m wide) demarcating the area from E6 to ZE!

And extending east to the H series of trenches. Within this

enclosure was probably a small central covered area of

which the northern wall with a niche can be seen the

Trench F2. This wall was narrower (0.35-40 m ) thick.

Probably this was wall structure only as can be seen by the

narrow walls with no deep foundation. When this

collapsed, the entire area was filled in with brickbats, stone

slabs, calcrete blocks, brick nodules and mud to raise the

level in order to construct the next lime-surkhi floor. This

floor probably now functioned as an Eidgah or so as no

structural activity has been observed in association. When

this floor was degraded, another floor was raised, both

floors being of poor quality.

4.14. That wall recesses or niches are observed in the

mosque/ Eidgah structure in a highter stratum also (P. 53)

but the report fails to discuss about the same.

4210

3920. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) however in para 11 and 12 of

affidavit on this aspect has said:

A. That the Period VI structure according to the ASI

consisted of a 50 metre long wall and a brick crush floor,

and had 4 (so called) pillar bases associated with it.

However, nowhere are any specific (so called) pillar bases

associated with the brick crush layer.

B. That the brick crush layer was not a floor but a

levelling mechanism to level the area for the building of

subsequent structures. This is because the brick crush layer

can be seen to be of varying thickness in different trenches.

C. That Structure 4 to the ASI essentially seems to

consist of a massive western wall and (so called) pillar

bases and has been considered to have been a (so called)

temple. The important point is why should the western wall

have been so massive (1.77 metre) and the other walls so

thin (0.48-0.55 metre)? Such wide western walls are a

feature of mosque construction and not of temple

construction. Temple walls, in fact, are of uniform

thickness.

D. That the western wall of the Babri Masjid had a

slight tilt towards the east which is a feature of the western

wall of the mosques in India because of the direction of

Mecca. If, as the ASI points out, the Babri Masjid used Wall

16 as a foundation for its western wall, then this Wall 16

could only have been the foundation of the Babri Masjid

itself as it shows the same tilt. It should be noted that Wall

17, supposedly associated with the Period VI structure,

also had this tilt and was 1.86 metre wide. Also, if Wall 16

4211

and 17 were temple walls, why should they have had the

same tilt towards the east?

E. That no Hindu temple has a log continuously straight

western wall-this is only a feature of the mosque in India.

In the case of temple, a plinth or raised platform would be

required and the walls would be broken by offsets,

providing a cruciform plan to the temple form. Moreover,

the temple would have a linear alignment with mandapas

in front of the garbagriha (the sanctum sanctorum) and any

at the side of the latte would be very small and insignificant

in nature. In this case, as being pointed out by the ASI, the

central area now under the makeshift structure was the

alleged garbgriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple

structure should have mainly projected towards the east,

and not to such an extent to the north south. The king of

structure as indicated in Fig. 23B of the Final Report

indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can

only be the case in a Eidgah mosque.

F. That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has

decorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and

calcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the

construction of a foundation where any available motley

material would be used, as the foundation would not be

visible. It has been pointed out by the ASI (pages 68, 269-

270) that material, from the structure associated with Wall

17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been

the case, decorated blocks would have been used for the

upper portions of alleged temple walls rather than in the

foundation.

4212

G. That temple walls customarily have mouldings on the

outer face. The outer face of Wall 16 in Trench ZE1, to the

north, is available to view where no mouldings are to be

seen this kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches on its

inner face can only be an Eidgah or mosque wall. On page

68 of the Final Report are described two niches in the inner

side of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 metre in trenches E6

and E7. These were 0.20 metre deep and 1 metre wide. A

similar niche was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area

and these have been attributed to the first phase of

construction of 'massive structure' associated with Wall 16.

(Such niches, along the inner face of a western wall, are

again characteristic of Eidgah or mosque construction.)

Moreover, the inner walls of the niche are also plastered

(as in Plate 49) which indicates that plaster was meant to

be visible.

H. That two Mughal coins were found in Trench K5 in

layer 3 "below (sic) the brick pavement" and from layer 3

in Trench L7. According to the ASI, the brick pavement

extended east from Trenches J4, J5 and J6 upto the

junction of the K and L series of trenches. The pavement

has been accorded great ritual significance by the ASI and

has been dated to Period VII, i.e. Medieval/Medieval-

Sultanate (end of 12th century to beginning of 16th century

AD/ before AD 1526). (Final Report pages 41-42).

However, if the brick pavement is pre-Mughal, it is

impossible for later period (Mughal) coins to be found in a

stratified context under it. Thus, clearly, the brick pavement

cannot be of pre-Mughal date.

4213

I. That the ASI's sections in Figures 5 and 19 of the

Final Report make no mention of "the massive structure"

(their so called temple) and only to "the disputed structure"

(the Babri Masjid), which means the hypothesis of a temple

was added at a later stage of the writing of the Report."

3921. Sri D.Mandal PW-24 has mainly confined his

objection with regard to stratification. Sri Suraj Bhan -PW16

has made a general statement against the conclusion of ASI that

underneath the disputed building there was a temple structure.

PW 30 R.C.Thakran and 31 have not said anything about

various walls excavated by ASI.

3922. The excavation of 28 walls by ASI virtually has

been admitted by the experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. PW-16 at

pages 153, 199, PW 29 at Pages 146, 147, 158, 159, 163, 164

and 181. PW-32 Dr. Supriya Varma very categorically on page

137 has said:

"from walls 16 to 28 except wall 18D are the walls

underneath the disputed structure."

3923. PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran specifically at page 190

page 46/190 said:

^^eSa ;g ekurk gwWa fd tgka&tgka th0ih0vkj0 rduhd ds }kjk

,ukeyht dh rjQ b'kkjk gS] ogka & ogka dqN Bksl lClVkUl ;k oLrq

izkIr gqbZ gSaA** ¼ist 190½

“I hold that wherever anomalies have been alluded

to through the G.P.R. technique, some solid substances or

objects have been discovered.” (E.T.C.)

3924. The ASI has discussed the walls and Floors as

under:

"Excavations in trenches D6, E6, F6, D7, E7 and F7

4214

brought to light the remains of foundation wall and floors

of the southern square chamber (Pl. 21, Fig. 4) of the

disputes structure (structure 3) which internally measured

6.14 m in north-south and 6.10 m in east-west direction

with its western wall (wall 5) measuring 3.0 m wide having

five courses of calcrete blocks with occasional use of sand

stone blocks as veneers filled in the core with brick-bats.

There is a recess of 0.75 m depth and 2.10 m in length in

the wall 5 in the inner side. Two decorated sand store

blocks from an earlier structure, one having the damaged

figure of a possible foliated makara-pra āla were found

reused in the foundation of wall 5 on its outer face (Pls. 22-

23). The wall 5 of the structure 3 was found resting directly

(Pl. 24, Fig. 5) over an earlier plastered brick wall (wall

16) having a foundation of five to six courses of calcrete

and sand stone blocks. Some of them reused from yet

another earlier structure as they are decorated ones with

foliage (Pls. 25-26) and other decorations. Similar nature

of wide brick walls with plain and decorated stone

members of earlier structures reused in their foundations

(Pls. 27-28) have been noticed at the Dharmachakrajina

Vihara of Kumāradevī, queen of Gahadwal ruler

Govindachandra of the twelfth century A.D. at Sarnath

exposed after excavation conducted in 1907 and 1908. The

wall 16 has externally as well as internally plastered

surface (Pl. 29) below the level of the twin floors of

structure 3.

The southern foundation wall (wall 6) of structure 3

directly rests over two pillar bases of earlier period (PB 34

4215

and PB 35) below its middle and south-eastern corner (Pl.

30). It has three courses of calcrete blocks and a width of

1.55 m with 0.15 m off-set and the length in east-west

direction of 10.70 m out of which 4.0 m in south-west is

disturbed and damaged. It takes a turn from south-eastern

corner towards north forming wall 7 of the front side

(eastern side) of the southern chamber of the structure 3.

The wall 7 of structure 3 in front of its southern chamber

rests over three pillar bases of the earlier period (PB 29,

PB 32 and PB 35) which were attached through floor 2 of it

to the wall 16 (Fig. 6). The width of wall 7 is 1.54 m and

there was an entrance to the southern chamber in the

middle of the wall having a gap of 2.65 m. There was a

northern wall or wall 8 of the southern chamber of

structure 3 measuring no less than 8.53 m in length and

whose width could not be determined due to debris on the

raised platform. Through wall 8 there was an entrance to

the central chamber of the structure 3.

Due to close proximity of the Ram Lala on the raised

platform, the central chamber could not be exposed fully,

but only a small cutting of 3 x 2 m in between trenches F4

and F5 was made to collect more evidence and to verify the

anomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey report and the

floor of the central chamber was found besides earlier

floors. In an area of 2.50 x 2.50 m in F3 also the same

floors were encountered with parts of the inner faces of the

southern wall (wall 10) and eastern wall (wall 11) of the

northern chamber of the structure 3 (Pl. 31). Ten extant

courses of calcrete blocks of wall 10 and eight courses of

4216

wall 11 were noticed with three such courses in the

foundation.

Parts of the western, eastern and northern walls

(walls 5, 11 and 12 consecutively) of the northern chamber

of structure 3 were found in trenches E2, F2 and G2. Wall 5

at the north western corner seems to be 2.40 m in width

made of reused bricks and brick-bats having two courses of

calcrete and sand stone blocks in its foundation. This part

is raised over the earlier brick wall (wall 16). Three

courses of calcrete blocks were found in the foundation of

the eastern wall (wall 11) of the northern chamber with its

extended lime floor over it in the courtyard and floors 1

and 1A in the inner side with decorative coloured cemented

surface painted with black and buff coloured arched

rectangles pointing towards west, a feature of the mosque

(Pl. 32). The width of wall 11 is 1.60 m and its two courses

of calcrete blocks plastered from inside were found in

trench F2. While laying the foundation of the wall, the

pillar base 23 was cut as noticed in the baulk between F2

and G2.

The northern wall (wall 12) of the structure 3 has

four courses of calcrete blocks in its foundation with one

course of bricks above the last courses of foundation

blocks. The wall over the foundation was plastered with 4

cm thick lime plaster. Width of the wall is 1.70 m and there

is a recess in the middle of the wall, 0.70 m deep and 2.50

m in length. The total length of wall 12 is 8.38 m (Fig. 7)

which in trench F2 rests just over the pillars base 22.

As mentioned earlier, remains of an outer wall was

4217

found in the section facing north in between trenches E10

and E11. Exact nature of the wall could not be studied, but

it seems to be the wall enclosing the outer pathway which

led to the back of the structure 3. In the western side the

damaged wall (wall 14) was traced partly in trenches D6,

D7 and D8 attached with a lime floor pathway. On the

northern side similar wall (wall 15) running in east-west

direction as noticed in the section facing south in the baulk

between ZF1 and ZF2. The C14 date from the

contemporary deposit of the foundation of the disputed

structure is 450±110 BP (1500 ± 110 A.D.) which is quite

consistant as determined from the charcoal sample from

trench G6.

The Massive Structure Below the Disputed Structure

As stated earlier the disputed structure or structure 3

was found directly resting over an earlier construction,

structure 4 (Pls. 33-34) which has survived through its

nearly 50 m long wall (wall 16) in the west and 50 exposed

pillar bases to its east attached with floor 2 or the floor of

the last phase of structure 4 (Pl. 35).

A square sandstone block placed at the top and the

orthostats provided on its four sides, contemporary with the

floor 2 was the prima facie nature of the pillar base which

primarily served as base for the pillar erected over it. Their

foundations were circular or square or irregular in shapes

made of brick-bat courses laid in mud mortar, most of them

resting over floor 4, top of which was provided with sand-

stone or calcrete blocks in lime mortar, these blocks were

also encased with brick-bats and somewhere sandstone

4218

chips were used to get the desired height and level." (Page

51-54)

"The wall 16 having its existing length around 50 m,

with its unexposed middle part, is 1.77 m wide. Its ten

lower brick courses are original and belongs to the first

phase of its construction, but the upper six courses as seen

in trenches E6, E7 and E8 are added at a later date- four

courses during the second phase of construction and top

two courses when its southern length outside the disputed

structure was utilized in later constructions by reducing the

width of the wall for the new structure along with the

structure 3. It is also noticed that the first phase of wall 16

has been plastered in the inner side with lime plaster while

on the outer side the plaster was provided in the second

phase of its raising. There are a few square cavities at

intervals on both the faces of the wall in the second phase

which might have been used for providing reinforcement to

the wall. At an interval of 4.60 m in the inner side of the

wall 16 in its first phase of construction two recessed

niches were found 0.20 m deep and 1.0 m wide along the

face of the wall and 0.78 m wide at its deeper side with

0.02 m thick lime plaster in trenches E6 and E7. The niche

in E6 was exposed while the niche in E7 was found

attached with the E7-E8 baulk. A similar niche was found

in ZE2 in the northern area with same dimensions (Pl. 49).

All of these three niches were closed during the second

phase of construction when the floor level was raised and

wall was raised above the ten original courses. A band of

decorative bricks was perhaps provided in the first phase of

4219

construction or in the preceding wall (wall 17) of which

scattered decorated bricks with floral pattern were found

reused in the wall 16. Walls 16 and 17 were found running

on almost the same alignment in north-south orientation in

trenches ZE1 and ZF1 (Fig. 14). Measurements of bricks of

bricks of wall 16 comprise 22x14x5, 24x16x5.5, 26x17x5.5,

29x19x6 and 28x14x5 cm. Due to restrictions in an area of

about 15x15 m comprising trenches D3 to F3, D4 to F4

and D5 to F5 forming the central part of raised platform,

the precise arrangement of the central part of the

construction below the level of the disputed structure and

also the elevation of the super structure of the former

construction cannot be ascertained. A layout plan of

trenches showing index of various sections can be seen at a

glance in Fig. 15.

The wall 17 which is a brick wall was found to be

1.86 m wide having the maximum of four courses in the

northern area (Pl. 50) and six courses in southern area. It

was found to be of the same length as that of wall 16,

through having a slight deviation in its orientation in the

cardinal direction. Thus, it runs in the lower level than that

of wall 16, almost parallel to it in the northern area and

comes out below the wall 16 in the southern area as

noticed in trench D7 where in the northern part it is

projected 0.74 m below wall 16 and in the southern part it

is projected 1.07 m below wall 16 having provided

decorated stone blocks on its top and also refixed in its

veneer (Pl. 51), probably at the time of the construction of

wall 16 to serve as its foundation. A thick floor of brick

4220

crush (Pl. 52) spread over a large area in northern and

southern areas with varying thickness was found associated

with wall 17. The floor was cut for foundation trench of

wall 16 with which were associated three lime floors

raising the ground levels in three different phases described

earlier in chapter III. Amongst the three lime floors

associated with this wall 16, the lowest was found in a

limited area within the inner walls 18A, 18B and 18C. The

upper two floors (Pls. 53-54, Fig 16) were found spread in

the area along wall 16 and show signs of repair patch

works (Pl. 41). Thus the evidence of three phases of the

structure 4 suggests its long span of existence. The

available C14 dates from the deposit between floors 2 and

3 in the trench ZH1 is 1040±70B.P (910±70 A.D.) having

the calibrated age range of A.D. 900-1030. The early date

may be because of the filling for leveling the ground after

digging the earth from the previous deposit in the vicinity.

A pavement no less than 29.25 x 6 m of large square bricks

in the eastern area as described in chapter III is associated

with the period.

Attached with the earliest activities along with wall

16 are traces of inner walls having a width of 0.48 m to

0.55 m having one exposed entrance to the east found in

trench H1. The inner walls are attached with the wall 16 in

the northern as well as southern areas. In northern area

the inner wall (Pl. 55) or wall 18A runs to a length of about

15.0 m in east-west direction and takes a turn to south in

trench ZH1 (Fig.8). It was traced upto a length of 6.0 m

(wall 18B) after which due to the existence of the

4221

barricaded gangway it was not possible to dig further. The

two parallel running walls 18C and 18D were traced in

trenches E6-F6, G6 and in E7 respectively. Traces of a

retaining brick wall (wall 19) with eroded outer face were

noticed in trenches ZE2, ZD2, C1 and C2.

Just below the levels attached with wall 16 and

possibly associated with wall 17 are remains of brick

structures located in parts of trenches ZH1 (P1. 56), G2,

F3, G5, J5 (Pl. 57) and F8 in the forms of walls, platforms

and brick foundations (structures 6 to 11 respectively). A

structure of calcrete blocks with calcrete block flooring was

found in trench G5 (structure 9). The exact nature and plan

of these structures could not be studied due to existence of

structures and floors of later phase resting above their

levels. Some skeletons lid in north-south orientation with

their faces turned towards west, which are apparently in

Muslim graves excavated through the top floor and sealed

by layer 1 were found in northern (Pl. 58) and southern

areas." (Page 67 - 70)

"The wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (wall 20)

which is 0.62 m wide having damaged with which seems to

be attached a brick floor to its north. The end of another

wall (wall 21) attached with the section facing south in

trench F8 was found whose length was traced upto 1.39 m

where it goes in the section facing west. The minimum

distance of this wall from the structure 5 at the corners of

the walls is 0.51 m. Still another wall (wall 22) of six

courses of bricks running to a length of 5.43 m in east-west

direction and its western part going below the foundation

4222

of wall 16 (Pl. 62 was exposed along the section facing

north with a passage, 0.55 m wide, between it and wall 19A

(Pl. 63) seems to be an earlier wall than the structure 5.

Parts of two more brick walls (walls 23 and 24) attached

with sections facing east and west respectively in trench G7

belong to the same level. Although their width could not be

confirmed as they were attached with the sections, the wall

23 was found to be a brick wall of six courses having

broken length of 1.60 m. The wall 24 was noticed having

only two extant courses, the corner of which was found

attached with section facing west which is 0.75 m projected

from the section.

Layer 5A has contemporary deposit of structure 5

below which lie walls 19A and 20 respectively datable to

post-Gupta and Gupta periods. The layer below their

working level is layer 7 from which the charcoal sample

from trench E8 has been dated to 1810± 80 B.P.(or 140 ±80

B.C.) on C14 determination of which the calibrated age

range is A.D. 90-340.

Two more walls noticed in J6 belong to the Gupta

periods. The wall 25 (Figs. 19-20) runs in east-west

direction having only four extant courses of brick-bats, the

dimensions of which could not be seen as it was attached

with the section. Same is the case of another earlier wall,

wall 26 which also runs in east-west direction and which is

made of 17 courses of broken bricks. 52 cm below the

course of wall 26 was noticed wall 27 (Pl. 64) which seems

to be a wall of the Kushan period having 22 courses of

bricks of the size 38 to 41 to 43x25 to 27x5 to 7 cm running

4223

in north-south direction. The length of the wall in the

trench is 3.90 m though it runs further on either sides.

Attached with this wall was a floor like level having huge

calcrete blocks (Fig. 21) which at one place had three such

blocks resting one over the other. This construction also

seems to be a large one and not an ordinary house

complex. Working levels of Kushan period were noticed in

the trench J3 (Pls. 65-66).

Structural activity of Sunga period is represented by

a calcrete stone wall (wall 28) in the trench J3. It was not

found in the two excavated trenches in the respective levels

(Fig. 22) during NBPW period but can be inferred from the

presence of brick-bats from both the Sunga and NBPW

periods and reed impressions (Pl.68) from NBPW levels on

burnt clay, the latter suggesting constructions of hut like

structure of wattle and daub. Pictorial views of upper

levels of excavated trenches showing conjectural

representation of the disputed structure and deposit below

it. Figs. 23-24 give a fair idea of the succession of

structural activity at the site." (Page 71-72)

3925. Let us examine the manner of recovery of the walls

and the inference which may be drawn.

3926. During excavations, in all 28 walls were traced as

shown in Fig. 3A out of which wall no. 1 to 15 are either

cotemporary to the disputed structure or belong to disputed

structure. Walls no. 16 to 28 are earlier to the disputed structure

and were found underneath of the disputed structure. The details

of the walls found in excavation and their relative position, with

reference to the report, is as under:-

4224

Wall No 1 & 2 = of Modern time (p.48 of the report)

Wall No 3 & 4 = of 1856 (p.49 of the report)

Wall No 5 = (3 m. wide & 6.10 m. in east-west

direction is the foundation wall of the

southern chamber of mosque towards

west side and its north-south direction as

foundation of southern chamber is seen

in p.21) (p.51 & 52 of the report). Two

decorated sand stone block from an

earlier structure one having the damaged

figure of the possible foliated maker-

pranala were found resued in the

foundation of Wall 5 on its outer face

(pls. 22-23, page 52 of the report)

Wall No 6 = It is a north-south direction wall

which was a foundation wall of southern

chamber or str. 3 (p.52 of the report)

Wall No 7 = It is the extension of wall 6 in the eastern

side, therefore it is also a foundation

wall of the southern chamber of the

mosque towards east (p.52 of the report)

Wall No 8 = It is the northern wall of the southern

chamber of the mosque.

Wall No 9 = (8 m, in east-west direction) is the

southern enclosure wall of the disputed

structure (after 1526 A.D.) (p. 49 of the

report)

Wall No 10 = Southern wall of the northern chamber

of the mosque (p.53 of the report)

4225

Wall No 11 = Eastern wall of the northern chamber of

the mosque (p. 53 of the report)

Wall No 12 = Northern wall of the northern chamber

of the mosque (p.53 of the report)

Wall No 13 = (is also like wall no. 9) i.e. wall of 1526

or after 1526 (p.49 of the report)

Wall No 14 = South-north direction wall, present west

of southern chamber (fir. 3-A) p.54 of

the report.

Wall No 15 = As wall no. 14 are present in west, like

that wall no. 15 is present on northern

chamber running east-west direction

contemporary to mosque (1500+110

A.D.) (p.54 of the report)

Wall No 16 = Wall no. 5 is the wall of the mosque

which is directly resting over 50m. long

wall no. 16 running in north-south

direction (p. 52 of the report)and further

projects towards north and south beyond

the excavated area.

Wall No 16 = (1) Wall no. 16 is attached with floor no.

2 (page 52 of the report) belong to

period VII-A i.e. end of the 12th century

A.D. (page 52 & 54 of the report) and 50

pillar bases to the east of wall no. 16 is

attached with floor 2 (page 54 of the

report)

Wall no. 16, Floor No. 2 and 50 pillar bases were

contemporary and belong to period VII-A i.e. end of the 12th

4226

Century A.D.

Wall No. 16 has 16 course of brick constructions relating

to three phases (page 67 of the report)

(1) Its 10 lower brick courses are original and belong to its

first phase of construction (page no. 67 & plate 52 of the

report)

(2) But the upper 6 courses are of second phase of

construction, out of which 4 courses are of 2nd phase and

top 2 courses are of letter construction (page 67 of the

report)

(3) The lower phase i.e. 6 courses of wall no. 16 has been

plastered in the inner side only i.e. towards east by lime

while upper 4 courses of wall no. 16 has been plastered by

both inner & outer side i.e. both in the east & in the west

(page 67 of the report)

(4) At interval of 4.60 meter in the inner side of wall no.

16 two inches were found in the lower phase of its

construction towards east (page 68 of the report)

Wall No 17 = Wall no. 17 is of the same length as that

of wall no. 16 (50 m) in north-south

direction below wall no. 16 though

having a slight deviation in its

orientation in north-east direction (p. 68

of the report). When wall 17 was not in

use, it served as a foundation of wall 16

(page 64 of the report)

(1) It is a 1.86 meter wide wall (plate 50)

(2) It function as a foundation wall for wall no. 16

having decorated stone blocks on its top and also re-

4227

fixed in its veneer (surface covering) (page 51 &

page 68 of the report)

(3) Since wall no. 17 in the foundation of wall no.

16 (period VII-A) therefore it belong to period VI

(1100-1200 A.D.)

Wall No 18-A = In northern position, this wall is in

north-south direction, attached with the

same floor of wall no. 16 (p. 69 of the

report)

Wall No 18-B = In northern portion this wall is 15 m.

long in east-west direction and

perpendicular to wall No. 16 like wall

No. 18-A (pl.55) (p. 69 of the report)

Wall No 18-C = In southern portion this wall is in east-

west direction and attached with

westerly wall No. 16 like wall No. 18A

& B this wall also runs perpendicular to

wall No. 16.

Wall No 18-D = This wall is parallel to wall No. 18-C is

southern portion (p. 69 of the report)

Wall No 19-A = In east west direction outside circular

shrine.

Wall No 19-B = In south-north direction outside circular

shrine.

Wall No 19-B = is sealed by layer 5A, which is

contemporary layer of structure 5 or

circular shrine (p. 70 of the report)

Wall No 20 = Wall No. 19-A rests over wall no. 20 in

east-west direction (Gupta period p. 72

4228

of the report) therefore, wall no. 20 is

earlier than wall no. 19-A (p.71) A brick

floor in north is attached with wall No.

20

Wall No 21 = 1.39 meters east-west direction wall

towards north side of the circular shrine.

Wall No 22 = 5.43 meters long wall running east west

direction south to circular shrine, and

entered below the foundation of wall no.

16 in west (p. 71 of the report) This

shows that wall no. 22 is earlier than

wall no. 16.

Wall No 23 = Running south –north having broken

length of 1.60 m (p. 72 of the report)

Wall No 24 = Present in sections, therefore, direction

is not traceable (p. 72 of the report)

Wall No 25 = Run east-west direction of Gupta Period

(p.72 of the report) in east of disputed

structure (J-6)

Wall No 26 = It is an earlier wall to wall no. 25, in

east-west direction in east of the

disputed structure (J-6)

Wall No 27 = 52 cm below the course of wall No. 26,

a wall No. 27 is present running north-

south direction of Kushan Period. (page

72 of the report) Huge calcrete block is

attached. with wall no. 27 of Kushan

Period (p. 72 of the report)

Wall No 28 = Calcrete stone wall in J-3 of Sunga

4229

Period (east of disputed structure).

3927. As the main wall of the disputed structure i.e. wall

No. 5 was filled with brick bats, it implies that it was

constructed with reused material. These brick bats prima facie

establish that they must be of the previous structure. Structurally

the date of the designing of pillar bases has also been confirmed

with example of Sarnath in which decorated octagonal stone

blocks were found in Trench F-7 belonging to 12th century A.D.

(page 56 & pl. 39 & 40 of the report). Plate 45 shows disputed

structure resting over pillar base No. 29. Wall No. 6 (foundation

wall of southern chamber of mosque) was directly rests over

two pillar bases no. 34 & 35 (Pl. 30). Wall No. 7 (foundation of

southern chambers of mosque towards east) is resting over 3

pillar bases (No. 29, 32 & 35) (P. 52) read with Fig. 6. Wall No.

12 (Northern wall of Northern Chamber of the Mosque) rests

just over the pillar base No. 22 (P. 53).

3928. The statements of Experts (Archaeologist) of

plaintiffs (Suit-4) in respect to walls and floors have already

been referred in brief saying that there is no substantial

objection except that the opinion ought to this or that, but that is

also with the caution that it can be dealt with in this way or that

both and not in a certain way. In other words on this aspect

witnesses are shaky and uncertain. We, therefore find no

substantial reason to doubt the report of ASI in this respect.

3929. The next serious objection is about "Circular Shrine"

which has been detailed in para 6 (6.1 to 6.10) as under:

6. THE ALLEGED "CIRCULAR SHRINE":-6.1. That the sub-heading given to the discovery of a

structure of burnt bricks as "The Circular Shrine" at page

70 is indicative of the mindset with which the A.S.I. team

4230

did the excavation work. The A.S.I. team should have just

said "The circular structure" because there is no evidence

to make this structure a shrine. Just by comparing it with

certain temple structures and not with circular walls and

buildings of Muslim construction one can not come to the

conclusion that the circular structure was a Hindu shrine.

No object of Hindu worship was found on this layer. The

story of "pranala" is also a sheer figment of imagination

and a conjecture without any evidentiary basis. The

comparison at page 71 is irrelevant and also unrealistic.

The layer on which this circular structure was discovered

did not throw up any material to justify the naming of this

circular structure as a shrine. The surviving wall, even in

A.S.I.'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 building also.

6.2. That the scale of the Plan (as given in Figure 17 of

the Report), would have an internal diameter of just 160

cms. or barely 5 ½ feet. Such a small "shrine" can hardly

be worth writing home about. But it is, in fact, much

smaller. The plan in Fig. 17 shows not a circle (as one

would have if the wall shown in Plates 59 and 60 are

continued) but an ellipse, which it has to be in order to

enclose the entire masonry floor. No "elliptic (Hindu)

shrine" is, however produced by A.S.I. for comparison: the

few that are show are all circular. As Plate 59 makes clear

the drawing in Fig. 17 ignores a course of bricks which juts

out to suggest a true circle, much shorter than the elliptic

4231

one: this would reduce the internal diameter to even less

than 130 cms. or just 4.3 feet ! Finally, as admitted by the

A.S.I. itself, nothing has been found in the structure in the

way of image or sacred piece that can justify it being called

a "shrine".

6.3. That "the southern part of the said structure was

found resting over a 0.75 m wide brick wall (Wall 19A) of 9

courses belonging to earlier period which runs in east-west

direction and joins the end of the north-south oriented

brick wall (Wall 19B) having 7 extant courses of bricks and

a width of 0.55 m, making the south-western corner of the

earlier structure."

"The Wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (Wall 20)

which is 0.62 m wide".

Another wall (Wall 21) is about 0.51 m away from

Structure 5 and northeast of it.

Wall 19A and Wall 20 are considered to belong to the

Post Gupta (Period V) and Gupta (Period IV) periods

respectively. It appears from their description and from

Plate 59 that the 'circular shrine' was built over existing

walls without removing the walls. These earlier walls were

of the preceding period as well as the same period. These

earlier walls could not have been used as the foundation

for the structure as they are of completely different

dimensions and shape.

6.4. That the size of Structure of 5 has an outer diameter

of 1.6 m and measures 0.6 m in the inner area. The

entrance is 0.5 m wide and length of the 'passage', from the

entrance to the inner area, is 0.4 m. Comparisons are being

4232

made with circular brick temples at Sravasti, Kurari,

Masaon, Tinduli and Chandrehe (p. 71, Fig. 18). The outer

diameter of these structures range from 6.1 m (Masaon),

5.8 (Chandrehe and Chirenath), 5.5 m (Tinduli), 4.9 m

(Kurari I) and 3.6 m (Kurari II) (See Fig.18). The inner

area of Kurari II, the nearest in size to the Ayodhya

structure is 1.4 m, Kurari I is about 1.8 m and Chirenath is

2 m. The entrance measurements are 0.9 m for Kurari II

and 0.7 m for Kurari I. The length of passage is 0.6 m for

Kurari II and 1.5 m for Kurari I.

6.5. That all the circular shrines have a mandapa except

for the Kurari temples. Kurari I is also on a plinth with

steps on the east. The closest in size to Structure 5, Kurari

II, is more than double the former structure. The inner area

of Structure 5 is too small to even allow anyone to enter it.

Where is the possibility, then, of performing any kind of

abhisekha?

Out of all the temples illustrated in Fig. 18, four have

the entrance from the west, one from the north and one

from the east. Thus, it seems that the comparison between

Structure 5 and these shrines is being stretched too far.

Structure 5 has been dated to the 10th century AD.

However, as will be evident from the Report, the layers

associated with this structure have mixed material,

preventing any chronological determination of the

structure.

6.6. That if, as pointed out by the A.S.I., subsequent

structural activity (in Period VI) damaged the circular

shrine, it is surprising that a later so called temple would

4233

destroy an earlier Hindu religious structure. Moreover, a

later temple could easily have incorporated an earlier

temple into its plan and maintained the sanctity of the

earlier structure. Instead, what is being suggested is that

the central part of the later temple is much further away to

the north, about 20 m away. Thus, it seems highly unlikely

that this structure was a Hindu religious shrine.

6.7. That Structure 5 could well have been a stupa,

belonging to perhaps the 6th or 7th century AD. Figure 24

giving a bird's eye view of the structure, shows a slight

difference in diameter between the first few lower courses

of bricks and the courses above them. This difference

recalls the two parts of the stupa, the medhi (or the drum)

and the anda (or the higher rounded portion of the stupa).

The 'opening' towards the east could well have been a

niche for a Buddha figure. One of the reasons for

consisting this structure as a stupa is that it is too small to

enter, which one would not have to do in the case of a

Buddist stupa. These religious structures symbolizing the

Buddha are meant to be walked around and not entered.

6.8. That According to the Table placed after Page 37

(A.S.I. Report) this period V is represented by layers 6 and

5. Layer 6 is a flood deposit and layer 5 belongs to Gupta

period. So the formulation of Period V assigned to Post

Gupta – Rajput times is arbitrary. Thus whatever structures

are said to have belonged to Period V, in fact, they belong

to Period IV (Gupta Period).

6.9. That the Text says that layer 5 A is a contemporary

layer of the shrine (structure 5) "below which lie walls 19A

4234

and 20..........The layer below their working level is layer

7..........."(page 72 of A.S.I. Report). There is existence of

only one layer between layers 5A and 7, the layer 6 (A.S.I.

Section, F8, Fig 16). Layer 7 has been dated to 140-80 BC

on 14c determination. The calibrated date reads AD 90 –

340 (Page 72 A.S.I. Report). The range of calibrated date

is extremely wide. However, on its maximum range it reads

about 4th C. A.D. While layer 7 is dated to 4th century A.D.

and layer 5A is being said to be contemporary to the Shrine

which has been dated to 10th century A.D. The shrine on

stylistic grounds has been dated to 10th century A.D. (Page

71, A.S.I. Report). The concerned two layers (i.e. 5A and 7)

is intervened by only one layer. That is layer 6. Could this

lone layer represent a temporal duration of about six

centuries? It is ridiculous and fantastic. It is simply not

possible. Thus the dating of the shrine to about 10th

Century A.D. is arbitrary. The structure 5, whatever it may

by either a simple structure or a Buddha circular Stupa, in

view of the radiocorban data seems to have belonged to

slightly later than circa 4th Century A.D. That is Gupta

Period.

6.10. That there is yet another important feature of the so

called Shrine that needs comment. It is about it's suggested

water channel. Stylistically, its northward orientation has

been marked to have some special significance.

The channel does not have a uniform width

throughout. It does not have even a gradually decreasing

width from south to north. It becomes suddenly very narrow

at nearing its end. Thus it appears that it was not made for

4235

the purpose it has been suggested. It seems to have taken

the existing form by the removal of mortar during

excavation as was filled therein.

It did not function for draining water from south to

north is evident by the fact that there is no evidence of

slope towards the direction in question. It has been

measured by the levelling instrument at three different

points of the channel. It was found that there is no slope on

its surface.

Further, had the so-called channel been in use for

draining water for a longtime, then there should have been

the remains of water residuals in the channel. Such

evidence could be expected on the northern side of the

circular wall corresponding along to the area of water

discharge. But there is no such evidence either in the

channel or on the surface of the wall in question.

3930. ASI has recorded its finding on 'Circular Shrine'

from page 70 to 71 as under:

"A partly damaged east facing brick shrine, structure 5

(Pls. 59-60, Fig. 17, 24 and 24A) was noticed after removal

of baulk between trenches E8 and F8. It is a circular

structure with a rectangular projection in the east, the

latter having been already visible before the removal of the

baulk. The northern part of the circular part has retained

its lower eight courses above the foundation of brick-bats

while the southern half is damaged by constructional

activity of the subsequent phase whose brick-bats have

damaged the structure upto its working level. The structure

was squarish from the inner side and a 0.04 m wide and

4236

0.53 m long chute or outlet was noticed on plan made

through the northern wall upto the end where in the lower

course a 5.0 cm thick brick cut in 'V' shape was fixed which

was found broken and which projects 3.5 cm outside the

circular outer face as a pranala to drain out the water,

obviously after the abhisheka of the deity, which is not

present in the shrine now. The entrance of the structure is

from east in the form of a rectangular projection having a

twelve course of bricks interlocked with the circular

structure and having a 70x27x17 cm calcrete block fixed in

it as the threshold. Two sizes of bricks were used in the

construction of the shrine measuring 28x21x5.5 cm and

22x18x5 cm. The rectangular projection of entrance is

1.32m in length and 32.5 cm projected towards east. The

southern part of the structure was found resting over a 0.75

m wide brick wall (wall 19A) of nine courses belonging to

earlier period which runs in east-west direction and joins

the end of the north-south oriented brick wall (wall 19B)

having 7 extant courses of bricks and a width of 0.55 m,

making the south-western corner of the earlier structure.

The north-south length of wall 19B was exposed upto a

length of 2.72 m when it joins section facing south in the

trench E8. It is sealed by layer 5A which is contemporary

layer of the structure 5.

The brick shrine is similar (fig. 18) on plan to the

Chirenath brick temple at Sravasti exposed recently by the

Archaeological Survey of India though which is larger

(approximately 5 m in diameter including its projections).

Its central part is 2.20 m square where a Siva Linga is

4237

placed in the centre (Pl. 61). It has also affinity with

circular Siva temples near Rewa in Madhya Pradesh at

Chandrehe and Masaon belonging to C. 950 A.D. and a

Vishnu temple and another without deity at Kurari in

Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh and Surya temple at

Tinduli in Fatehpur district. V.V.Mirashi thought that

temples having circular garbha-griha where a speciality of

the Chedi country and were built for the first time by the

Acharyas of the Mattamayura clan as in the case of

Chandrehe temple which was built by Prasanta siva as per

the Chandrehe stone inscription of 972 A.D. Thus on

stylistic grounds, the present circular shrine can be dated

to c. tenth century A.D. when the Kalachuris moved in this

area and settled across river Sarayu. They possibly brought

the tradition of stone circular temples transformed into

brick in Ganga-Yamuna valley." (Page 70-71)

3931. 'Circular Shrine' more virtually its existence that it

was found by ASI has been admitted by most of the Experts

(Archaeologist) of Muslim parties though a reluctant attempt

has been made for diverting the identity by suggesting that it

may be a "Buddhist Shrine" or a tomb of erstwhile Islamic

religious structure. PW-30 has categorically admitted it on page

15 and has said that his statement in para 14 of the affidavit was

not after looking to the shrine at the spot but on the basis of its

photo only.

3932. Circular shrine has been admitted by the experts of

plaintiffs (Suit-4). PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran on page 150 and

129 as said:

^^eq>s ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ okY;we & 1 ds i"B & 70, ij

4238

Q+hxj & 17 ds uhps okys fp= esa nkfguh vksj ,d iryh lh ukyh

fn[kkbZ iM+ jgh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl Q+hxj & 17 ds

vuqlkj ;g ukyh mRrj dh vksj tk jgh gSA ;g Hkh dguk lgh gS fd

mRrj dh vksj tkrh gqbZ ,slh ukyh ckS) Lrwi es ugha gksrh gSA - - - - - -

- ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVz okY;we&2 ds IysV

la[;k&60 es ckbZ vksj ,d rhj dk fu'kku cuk gqvk gSA bl IysV esa ,d

iryh lh ukyh ut+j vk jgh gSA** ¼ist 150½

"A slender drain is visible to me on the north side in

the picture below figure 17 on page 70-A of the ASI report

volume-1. It is correct to say that as per this figure 70, this

drain is going northwards. It is also correct to say that the

Buddhist stupas do not have such north- bound drains. .. . .

. . . . . It is true to say that there is an arrow mark on the

left side in plate no.60 of the ASI report, volume-2. A

narrow drain is seen in this plate.” (E.T.C.)

^^ldqZyj Jkbu] ftldk mYys[k eSaus viuh c;ku gYQh ds izLrj

&14 esa fd;k gS] mldks eSaus O;fDrxr :i ls ns[kk ugha gS] cfYd Q+ksVks

ns[kdj eSaus ;g c;ku fn;k gSA** ¼ist 129½

"I have not personally seen the circular shrine of

which I have made mention in para 14 of my sworn

statement; but I have given this statement after seeing the

photograph.” (E.T.C.)

3933. PW 32-Dr. Supriya Verma on page 147-148 (page

14) said:

“...it is correct to say that plate no. 60 is insitu

photograph of circular shrine. It is true that Budha stupa

is always solid. The structure shows a Pranal but Experts

who visited site and measured the angle of slope with the

help of sprit Level had found that the slope which was

necessary for the water to pass out was not there. It is

4239

correct that I was not present when this structure was

exposed nor I have visited this spot there after but I can

express my opinion on the basis of information given by

expert as well as the information in the final report and site

notebooks. Prof. D. Mandal, Prof. Ratnagar and Prof.

Suraj Bhan have given this information.”(Page 147-148)

3934. PW 29 (Dr. Jaya Menon) on "circular shrine" said:

"Since circular shrine” was not found in my

presence, I have not seen its stratigraphical association. In

my view “circular shrine” was probably a Buddhist Stupa.

There appears a hollow space within the excavated

“circular shrine”. Stupa is not always solid. It is generally

made of bricks or stone and mud brick bats. . . . . .It is a

non-Islamic structure. . . . It is probably of Gupta or late

Gupta period." (Page 202-203)

“In my opinion, the finding of ASI report regarding

circular shrine as recorded at page 73 is not based on any

result of carbon-dating. In my mind, the ASI report on the

point is not clear at page 72 of the report. I do not agree

with the ASI report that it was a circular shrine mentioned

from pages 70 to 73 with figures 24 and 24-A. In my

opinion, the alleged circular shrine structure dates back to

around 6th century AD. . . . . . . It is correct to say that the

alleged circular shrine shown in plates 59 and 60 belongs

to Sixth century AD, although ASI's report says that it

belongs to post-Gupta period." (Page 225-226)

3935. During excavation at the disputed site between

trenches E-8 & F-8 a circular structure of burnt bricks facing

east was recovered, commonly termed as "circular shrine",

4240

detailed at page 70 to 72 of report, volume 1, and shown in

figure 17, 24, 24A, and plates 59, 60 & 62 (volume 2) of the

report. The bricks used here are of two sizes: 28x21x5.5 cm and

22x18x5 cm. The bonding material was mud mortar. On its

eastern side, there is a rectangular opening, 1.32 m in length and

32.5 cm in width, which was the entrance of the structure. A

calcrete block, measuring 70x27x17 cm, has also been found

here, fixed, obviously, as the door-sill.

3936. An extremely important feature of this structure is

the provision of a gargoyle (Pranala) made in its northern wall.

The ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 cm long,

projecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is 'V'

shaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall. In

this connection it may be mentioned that in books of history, in

Sanskrit Literature, reference of circular shrine and Pranala

finds place. A famous book styled as "Aaprajit Prichchha" by

Bhuwan Dev in its book in chapter 207 at serial no. 23 mentions

about it.

3937. The elevation, as shown in the drawing (Fig. 17 of

the ASI Report) suggests that this structure was built on a raised

platform, viz. adhisthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was

provided on the northern side. The structure may be dated to 9th-

10th century A.D. (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from

this level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 A.D. and

1030 A.D.)

3938. This was an independent miniature shrine. The

architectural features suggest that, that it was a Shiva shrine.

3939. It is unthinkable that inspite of these clear features

of Shiva shrine, the objectors are identifying the same as a

4241

Muslim tomb.

3940. Secondly, it is too small a structure for a tomb, from

inside it is only 4.4 ft. square. Neither could it accommodate a

grave in its interior, nor a Qiblah-Mihrab on its western wall ;

Qiblah was an integral and essential part of tomb-structure

during the Sultanate period (1192-1526 A.D.) as is illustrated by

numerous examples all over northern India.

3941. Thirdly, there is no trace of an arch required for

constructing dome over the tomb. There are no hook-shafts to

bear and no structural trace to suggest any lateral thrust of the

mihrab. It may be noted that the sub-structure of the mihrab is

built massively on the edges of the four corners, to counter the

lateral thrust. One wonders, if it was a tomb without any arch or

dome, and without even a grave?

3942. Thus, on the one hand the dimension of this

structure are too small for a tomb and on the other the gargoyle

was never in tombs while it was an integral feature of the

sanctum of Shiva temples to drain out water poured on the

Sivlinga.

3943. Shrine is a holy place where worship is performed.

It is a structure where holiness is enshrined. Denial for the sake

of denial should not be allowed. "No evidence to make this

structure a shrine" and "a sheer figment of imagination and a

conjecture without any evidentiary basis", such comments

grossly lack technical acumen and clearly show the dearth of

logical thinking. These themselves are mere arguments lacking

"evidentiary basis". By these and many like arguments show the

'ostrich attitude' of the plaintiff.

3944. A structure is identified by its shape and/or by the

4242

use it was put to or by the function it was supposed to perform.

This circular structure was found with a well defined 'Pranala'

(water chute to drain out ablution liquids).The pranala could

well have been denoted as drain but the area from where it was

issuing was only 40 x 60 m (including the squarish hollow

chamber for fixing the object of worship and the small entrance

of the east) which could not be used for bath room or for

kitchen, a few alternatives where water is required to be drained

out, thus, the only valid explanation was it being a 'pranala' of a

shrine, small only a subsidiary one and not the main shrine

holding central/main deity.

3945. Circular Shrine is found resting over wall 19A and

others, this single fact, does not make the 'Circular Shrine'

Contemporary to the said walls, as the working level for the

'Circular Shrine' is much higher, and only foundations of

Circular Shrine rest over the existing walls, which have been

incorporated as foundation of Circular Shrine, these walls

definitely are not made for providing foundation to the circular

Shrine. Apparently, when the Circular Shrine was built the wall

19A and others were all buried under the ground and foundation

of the circular shrine were just reached upto that level.

3946. Circular shrine is compared with other pre-existing

and published circular shrines of proven dates found at different

places, primarily to compare the style and not size. These

circular shrines are not the exact replicas of one another. All the

shrines reproduced in comparison are independent shrines while

the structure 5 shrine is of subsidiary nature. Layers producing

mixed material are dated on the basis of the latest material found

in their milieu. Therefore, the period, of Circular Shrine (Str. 5)

4243

is stratigraphically placed in the correct period much earlier to

early medieval period.

3947. The Circular Shrine which was stated to be "not a

circle but an ellipse" (para 6.2 of the objection) has also been

alleged to be a "Stupa"; a circular Buddhist stupa in which on

the east was a niche to support image of Buddha. Logic given in

support is that "it is too small to enter". There are several

miniature shrines which are even smaller in dimension and

under worship. In such miniature shrine, often called subsidiary

shrines, devotee is not supposed to enter but offers his/her

worship from out side.

3948. The famous writer of classical Sanskrit literature

Varahmihir in his book "Brihat Samhita" has described 20 types

of temple in which besides kunjara and Guhraja types which are

apsidal nature, circular temple such as samduga, padma, Vrish,

Ghata and Vritta have been mentioned. Padma is shaped like a

lotus but other three types samduga, Vrish and Vritta are clearly

Circular Shrines.

3949. A circular brick temple has been noticed recently at

Sikhara Kohanda in Siddharthnagar district, about 6 m from

Domariyaganj, where eight brick structures- four circular and

four square have been noticed and have been roughly dated to

approximately eleventh century A.D. Another prominent

circular brick temple has been excavated at Chirenath in

Sravasti whose sikhara is missing but on plan the temple upto its

jangha portion is circular from exterior having a circumference

of 14.70 m. with three niches in all the three cardinal directions

and entrance in the west. The garbhagriha is roughly square,

measuring 2.10 x 2.10 m. with a 1.70 m high Sivalinga of red

4244

sandstone in the middle (IAR 1997-98 p. 193-95 p. 136).

3950. "The temple's interior is square (side 6 ft. 8 in.) and

the exterior is circular –stellate having 16 bhadra-facets and 16

karna-projections. Of the bhadras four are sham and four are

real, each separated from the other by an acute-angled

projection produced by turning the square. The doorway which,

originally was preceded by a praggriva, faces north, while the

three bhadras face the remaining cardinal directions.

3951. The hypaethral and circular temples of yoginis are

well known in north and Central India. They have been

mentioned by Krishna Deva as at Dudhai in Jhansi district,

Mitaoli in Morena district. Bheraghat in Jabalpur district,

Ranipur Jharial in Bolangir district and Surada near Kalahandi

and Hirapur near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. They range from

16.72 m to 39.52 m in outer diameter, with 65 to 81 peripheral

chapels and a principal shrine, normally in the centre of the

courtyard. Inscribed yogini images from Central India suggest

more such temples and one such shrine has been excavated and

identified as Golakimatha in Jabalpur district (Krishna Deva

1999). The proliferation of circular temples with their

identification with the types mentioned in classical treatises

require further investigative studies of their origin and

developmental process.

3952. In the overall view we find no reason to doubt the

findings of ASI on this aspect also and the objections otherwise

are accordingly rejected.

3953. Then comes two items i.e. “The Divine Couple and

Other Architectural Members” referred to in para 7 (7.1 to 7.8)

and “Figurines” (Para 9.1 to 9.3) which are as under:

4245

7. THE "DIVINE COUPLE" AND OTHER

ARCHITETURAL MEMBERS:-

7.1. That the stone "mutilated sculpture of a divine

couple" (p 272 ) is described on p. 130. (Reg. No. 1184)

and Plate 235. The lower portion alone is present, below

the waist. The piece is so damaged that it is almost

undecipherable. What aspects of this incomprehensible

piece make it a "divine" couple, we are not told. Thus the

report shows clear bias in the use of the adjective "divine"

and also "couple".

7.2. That further, and more important, the recorded

findspot (p. 130) of this piece is Trenches K3-K4 (in the

east) and the recorded layer is "Debris". Clearly, this piece

of sculpture does not come from a stratified context, leave

alone the strata of Period VII.

7.3. That so too, a black, schist pillar with a square base

and octagonal shaft and intricate carving comes from

surface debris above the topmost floor (Floor I) in Trench

F3 (p. 140), which is also of no relevance.

7.4. That regarding the octagonal stone that was said to

have been carved in twefth-century style, it may be noted

that according to the text (on p. 56), it was found in Trench

F-7, on pillar base 32 but as per table (on P. 63) that was

"resting on Floor 2", in Trench F-6-F-7, while its

foundation was resting on floor 4. It may be noticed that in

the Section Facing South Sest-East (E-F), no floor marked

"Floor 4" is indicated.

7.5. That the theory of the so-called temple rests on some

other reported architectural fragments also. Out of about

4246

380 pieces have been tabulated, 205 are featureless with

only marks of dressing or in some cases are completely

undressed stones. To give examples, No. 122 (Reg. No. 882)

kept in Manas Bhawan is a rectangular piece with pecking

marks and partially polished (p. 129), No. 131 (Reg. No.

953) is a "rectangular slab with one of its sides nicely

polished" (p. 129), No. 3 (Reg. No. AYD-1/74) kept in the

tin shed at the excavated site is "a rectangular partly

dressed sand stone slab with an open groove meant for

dowel" (p. 131). The majority of these came from the dump

or fill and were in many cases part of the Masjid walls.

There were numerous others (particularly of calcrete) that

were removed from the dump from trenches, during

excavation, that were thrown away and are not tabulated.

Out of 383 architectural fragments, only 40 came from

stratified contexts. Out of this 40 too, none were specified

to a temple, even the 8 that have been separately

mentioned: pillar, doorjamb, octagonal shaft of pillar,

amalaka, divine couple, slab with srivatsa motif, lotus

medallion and a re-chiselled slab with lozenge design, are

of no significance. The srivatsa design is associated with

Jainism and the lotus design could as well be Buddhist or

even Muslim. The lozenge design could well belong to a

Muslim structure. It is also interesting that the floral design

on the architectural fragment in Plate 90 matches the lower

portion of the Arabic inscription in Plate 92. The latter

depicts a floral design and the design, as sell as the method

of carving, in the two pieces are very similar. It is also

mischievous to label a sculpture showing the waist portions

4247

of two human figures as representing a divine couple.

Moreover, all the above noted 8 pieces came from the

debris. The octagonal shafts has, in fact, not even been

tabulated. Many of the architectural fragments are, as

admitted, of different materials (pink sandstone, buff

sandstone, spotted red sandstone, calcrete, and so forth),

and it is well known that temples do not use stones of

diverse colours and types for decoration.

7.6. That report admits that there are few architectural

members (plates 92 to 94) which can clearly be associated

with Islamic architecture and on stylistic grounds which

might belong to 16th century A.D. onwards. (page 122). On

the same page in earlier sentences the report described

certain architectural members. The photographs of these

architectural members appear on plates 79, 80, 81, 84, 85,

86, 87, 89, 90. The report says that stylistically these

architectural members in general and pillars in particular

may be placed in a time bracket of 10-12 century AD. In

Indo-Muslim architecture elements of early Indian

architecture which were consistent with Islamic traditions

were freely used. Foliage, floral and geometric designs as

found in early Indian architecture were copied and used in

the Indo-Muslim architecture and this is the important

feature which distinguished Indo-Muslim architecture from

that of Arbian Land and Persia. The elements and designs

in plates 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89 and 90 are found in

many Muslim religious and other buildings. Lotus

medallian as in pl. 70 are found as apex-stone in domes.

On what basis the style and design contained in plate

4248

no. 93, 94 is attributed to 16 century, is also not mentioned.

The architectural members shown in plate no. 79, 80,

81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, and 90 do not contain any carving

of a Hindu deity. Such elements and designs have been

used in Indo-Muslim architecture and hence these

architectural members may have been parts of a Muslim

structure. On what basis the A.S.I. remarks that these

"emphatically" speak about their association with temple

architecture", is not known. What is the basis for placing

these architectural members in time bracket of 10-12

century A.D. is also not given in the report. Plate No. 81 is

not amalaka but a part of petal design. It has to be noted

that the so-called amalaka (pl. 81) is a surface collection

found in debris above floor -1 (Page 141 Sr. No. 125)

7.7. That the octagonal stone block having so-called

floral motif has been dated to 12th century A.D. on its

alleged similarity with that one found in the

Dharmachakrajina Vihar or Kumardavi at Sarnath (Plates

39 and 40). Even a cursory inspection clearly reveals that

there is not the least similarity between the two. The

Sarnath Specimen is rectangular on plan while the

Ayodhya one is Octagonal. Again the Sarnath specimen

has depiction of floral motif but the Ayodhya specimen has

a different motif. Further, apart from the stylistic

dissimilarity there is dissimilarity in their architectural

technique as well. On the Sarnath Specimen the depiction

of motif is in slightly low relief while on the Ayodhya one it

is in very bold relief.

There is of course one very distinct similarity

4249

between the two. Both belong to the category of reused

material. The Sarnath Vihar in question has been built

mainly by reused earlier materials such as broken bricks,

stone architectural members, both plain as well as

decorated etc. The stone pilaster as cited for comparison

with octagonal stone block is also a reused specimen. It,

thus, cannot be contemporary to the builder of the builder

of the Vihar in question. There is no question on the date of

Kumardevi. It is early 12th century A.D. But there is of

course a big question over the date of the pilaster cited for

comparison. It is certainly of some earlier date it could be

even of Gupta period.

So it is obvious that of the listed architectural

members (stored in Manas Bhawan as well as in the Tin

Shed at the excavation site, mostly collected from the

surface or debris above floor 1) majority of them are

fragmentry and plain in nature. It is also obvious that they

cannot be dated on stylistic ground.

7.8. That in view of the evidence drawn from the

depositional history of the site there was no habitation at

this site after Gupta period for a long time. It was

reoccupied after a long desertion in 13th century A.D.

Under this situation, many of the remains of architectural

members having so called association with temples, as

alleged, could have belonged to Gupta period. Some of

these said to have belonged to 10th - 12th century A.D.,

could have been brought here to be used as building

material from some neighbouring sites. This is the

situation also of the decorated / moulded bricks. Needless

4250

to mention that moulded bricks were quite prevalent in

Gupta Period.

Figurines

9.1. That during the excavation, the A.S.I. found 62

human 131 animal figurines. These discoveries are

irrelevant to the question under inquiry. A large number of

them belong to ancient period. The A.S.I. unnecessarily

took pains to give details of terracotta figurines and to

include their 33 plates (Pls. No. 104 to 136) knowing well

that these figurines, most of which belong to ancient

periods, were not at all relevant to the question contained

in the Hon'ble Court's order. The chart below gives an idea

of this exercise in futility. It is possible that the A.S.I. gave

detailed description of human figurines and their

photographs to lead credence to its theory of an alleged

temple-like structure beneath Babri Masjid.

Plate No. Period of the Figurine Page of Vol. 1

104 Late level (period not specified) 177

105 2nd Cent. A.D. 179

106 1st Cent. A.D. 179

107 2nd Cent. A.D. 177

108 2nd Cent. A.D. 183

109 3rd Cent. A.D. 181

111 3rd Cent. BC 177

112 Gupta level 180

113 Gupta level 182

114 6th Cent. A.D. 182

115 1st Cent. A.D. 184

116 4th Cent. A.D. 184

1

4251

123 3rd Cent. BC 185

124 Pre-Mauryan 184

125 3rd Cent. BC 185

126 3rd Cent. B.C. 176

That there are a large number discrepancies also in the

description of these Terracotta finds, which also create

doubts upon the bonafides of the A.S.I. Team giving such

incorrect descriptions. It is true that when archaeological

deposits are disturbed, it is not surprising to find earlier

material in later levels. This happens when construction or

leveling activities require the bringing in of soil from

peripheral areas or the clearing and mixing of older

deposits. On the other hand, the reverse is impossible, that

is we cannot, in an earlier stratified context, find material

of later periods. However, the latter appears to be the case

at Ayodhya in the context of terracotta figurines as seen in

the tabulation provided on pp. 174-203. We find in

numerous cases figurines of later periods in far earlier

levels, as is evident from the following Table:-

Table of Discrepancies in stratigraphy in relation to

terracotta figurines

Artefact details Discrepancies

S. No. 50 R. No. 1027. Part of human figurine. Mughal level. G5, layer 2, below Floor 2

Layer 2 below Floor 2 belongs to Medieval period. It is impossible for a Medieval period layer to have material from Mughal period which is later

S. No. 52 R. No. 393. Animal figurine. Late Medieval period. E8, layer 5

Layer 5 in E8 is Post Gupta (7th - 10th centuries AD). It is impossible for late medieval (Mughal) period material to be found in an earlier period.

4252

S. No. 67 R. No. 549. Animal figurine. Early Medieval. F9, layer 5

F9 layer 5 is Post Gupta. It is impossible for Early Medieval period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 69 R. No. 594. Animal figurine. Medieval. E8, layer 5

E8 layer 5 is Post Gupta. It is impossible for Medieval period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 71 R. No. 607. Animal figurine. Mughal. E8, layer 6

E8 layer 6 is Post Gupta. It is impossible for Mughal period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 73 R. No. 628. Animal figurine. Mughal. E8, layer 6

E8 layer 6 is Post Gupta. It is impossible for Mughal period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 76 R. No. 689. Animal figurine. Early Medieval. F8, layer 5

F8 layer 5 is Post Gupta-Rajput. It is impossible for Early Medieval period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 84 R. No. 739. Animal figurine. Post-Gupta. E8, layer 8A

E8 layer 8A is Gupta level. It is impossible for post-Gupta period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 85 R. No. 762. Animal figurine. Post-Gupta. E8, layer 9

E8 layer 9 is Gupta/Kushan level. It is impossible for Post-Gupta period material to be found in Gupta/Kushan period which is earlier

S. No. 86 R. No. 767. Animal figurine. Post-Gupta. F8, layer 7

F8 layer 7 is Gupta level. It is impossible for post-Gupta period material to be found in Gupta period which is earlier

S. No. 90 R. No. 793. Animal figurine. Medieval. H4/H5, layer 4

H4/H5 layer 4 is Early Medieval. It is impossible for Medieval period material to be found in Early Medieval period which is earlier

4253

S. No. 114 R. No. 1087. Animal figurine. Gupta. G7, layer 10

G7 layer 10 is Kushan. It is impossible for Gupta period material to be found in Kushan period which is earlier

S. No. 115 R. No. 1088. Animal figurine. Gupta. G7, layer 10

G7 layer 10 is Kushan. It is impossible for Gupta period material to be found in Kushan period which is earlier

S. No. 119 R. No. 1152. Animal figurine. Kushan. G7, layer 13

G7 layer 13 is Sunga. It is impossible for Kushan period material to be found in Sunga period which is earlier

S. No. 122 R. No. 1177. Bird figurine. Early Medieval. G8, layer 5

G8 layer 5 is Post-Gupta-Rajput. It is impossible for Early Medieval period material to be found in post Gupta period which is earlier

9.3. That it may also be pointed out that on p. 93 the

Report mentions that shapes like sprinkler appear in

Period IV (Gupta period). However, on p. 80, sprinklers

are mentioned from Period II (Sunga level) that evolved

into their diagnostic forms in the subsequent Period III or

Kushan period. So also on p. 41, it is stated that layers 5,

6 and 7 in Trench G2 belong to the Medieval Sultanate

level. In the schematic cross-section and tentative

periodization, layer 2 and 3 belong to t he Medieval level.

Hence, what is then layer 4?

3954. The rest of the two items i.e. "Archeaological

members and Figurines" are mentioned in Chapter VI and

chapter VII, description thereof is as under:

"Consequent upon laying of a lay out for

archaeological excavation of disputed site at Ayodhya,

various architectural fragments consisting of pillars,

pilasters, broken door jambs, lintels, brackets and etc. were

4254

retrieved as disjecta membra, ranging from surface of the

mound to a considerable depth of various trenches. In this

regard, the Fig. 58 shows spatial distribution of fragments

of architectural members.

These architectural members have been wrought on

calcrete, black schist and sand stone. The last one does

betray different colours like those of dull brown, pinkish as

well as deep red with buff spots.

Majority of these architectural members are

fragmentary and plain in nature except for a few intact

members like pillars, brackets and neatly dressed masonry

slabs, etc. As such it becomes very difficult to identify the

functional utility of all these members.

A noteworthy aspect of some of these architectural

members is the presence of mortises/open grooves of

varying dimensions on the body of slabs which serve the

purpose of providing dowels/clamps as binding factor. In

many a cases iron dowels have been found in situ. Besides,

there are also symptomatic features to the effect of reusing

the earlier architectural members with decorative motifs or

mouldings by re-chiseling the slab (Pls. 79-80, Fig. 59). A

few intact architectural members like Amlaka (pl. 81, Fig.

59) pillar with Ghata-pallava base with dwarf beings as

weight-bearers and Kirtimukhas (Pls. 82-83, Fig. 59) to

mention a few, have also been recovered. Besides, there are

a number of architectural members which have been

decorated with deeply carved foliage motifs. This pattern is

a distinct one resembling like that of "stencil" work (Pls.

86-87). It may be pointed out that the various architectural

4255

members with similar decorative designs have been found

used in the foundation of one of the major brick structures

(wall 16) ) exposed in these excavations.

The aforesaid pillars and other decorative

architectural members of this site like fragment of broken

jamb with semi circular pilaster (Pl. 85) fragment of an

octagonal shaft of Pillar (Pl. 84), a square slab with

Srivatsa motif (Pl. 88) fragment of lotus medallion motif

(Pls. 89-90) emphatically speak about their association

with the temple architecture. Stylistically, these

architectural members in general and pillars in particular

may be placed in a time bracket of tenth-twelfth Century

A.D. It is also pertinent to note that there are a few

architectural members (Pls. 92-94), which can clearly be

associated with the Islamic architecture on stylistic ground,

which might belong to sixteenth century A.D. onwards.

In addition to the architectural fragments, a highly

mutilated sculpture of divine couple seated in

alinganamudra has also been recovered. The extant remain

depicts the waist, thigh and foot (Pl. 235). (Page 121-122)

3955. Thereafter a complete chart is also given which is

not necessary to mention here. The "terracotta figurines" are in

Chapter VII page 174 which says:

"During the excavation 62 human and 131 animal

figurines were found. In the consonance with the prevailing

practice in the Gangetic valley, these figurines are the

products of both handmade as well as moulding techniques.

These terracottas are assignable from the pre-Mauryan to

the previous century. They are both religious as well as

4256

secular, the former being represented as cult objects viz.

mother -goddess. As a majority of them is fragmentary,

save for a few, they could not be dated precisely on the

stylistic grounds. The effigies of the mother-goddess exhibit

archaic features and conspicuous girdle, whereas the

Sunga, Kushan and Gupta specimen are varied and show

stylistic affinity to their stone counterparts. But this cannot

be applied to 'Archaic' figurines for want of their stone

parallels. From the post-Gupta period onwards they are

made of coarse clay with considerable admixture of husk.

They were often slipped/washed with admixture of mica as

the main gritty material to avoid cracking. The excavated

clay figurines are described below mentioning their levels

from which they were recovered. The appearance of the

terracotta figurines of earlier periods in late levels was

mainly due to large scale constructional activities like

raising of massive walls; floor level especially during and

post-Kushan period."

3956. With respect to figurines Statement of PW 29 (Jaya

Menon) said:

"It is correct to say that the figurines of elephant,

tortoise and crocodiles – all made of terracotta, were

recovered during the excavation. . . . . . . . I know that the

crocodile is the seat/vehicle of Hindu holy river Ganga. I

agree that tortoise is the vehicle of holy river Yamuna. With

reference to the plate 129 of the ASI report, Vol. II, I can

say that the snake is significantly attached with the name of

“Lord Shiv” (Page 42)

"In reference to page no. 112 of the above report, the

4257

witness stated that this terracotta figurine is just a human

head.” (Page 74)

"Terracotta figurines are figures of animals and

human-beings made of fired clay. . . . . Terracotta figurines

have been found possibly as far back as 5000 B.C. . . . .It is

correct to say that such terracotta figurines were also in

vogue in the 11th and 12th centuries. It is correct to say that

such terracotta figurines also depicted Hindus Gods and

Goddesses but not always.” (Page 165)

3957. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma for some of the such

figurines said:

“It is true that ASI in the course of excavation found

62 human figurines and 131 animal figurines but I am not

sure about the number and also its identification.” (Page

161)

“It is correct that in plate 105 of the ASI report Vol

II, bust of a female with ornament decoration is

shown.”(Page 173)

“...female bust shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the

ASI report could be a lady, who may be either Buddhist or

of any important lady of high stature. There was no

practice in Budhhism or Jainism of worshipping terracotta

female figurine shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI

report. However, there is depiction of 'Yakshi' in stone of

early historical period. It has function of protector. It was

sign of protection of humans. It is wrong to say that use of

'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is only limited to Hindu

Dharmashashtra. In fact, it is also associated with

Buddhist religion. I am not aware that apart from Buddha

4258

religion, whether 'Yasksh' or 'Yakshi' was used or

not.”(Page-174)

“It cannot say whether the word 'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is

referred or mentioned in any religious book of

Buddhism."(Page 174)

“It is correct that this human figurine shown in plate

108 is holding a perforated disc.” (Page 176)

3958. The identification and appreciation of the excavated

material like human or animal figurines etc. is a matter of

experts. None of these eight experts (Archaeologist of Muslim

parties) claimed to be the experts in this kind of branch in

Archaeology. Even otherwise their stand in respect to these

finds is varying. One witness says that these finds were not at all

recovered from the layers they are claimed while others says

otherwise. We have seen photographs of many of such artifacts

and find and in generality there is no such inherent lacuna or

perversity in the observations of ASI or other identification

which may warrant any otherwise comment from this Court or

may vitiate there report. It is not in dispute that no Islamic

religious artefacts have been found during excavation while the

artifacts relating to Hindu religious nature ware in abundance.

For some of the items, it is claimed that it can also be used by

non-Hindu people but that would not be sufficient to doubt the

opinion of ASI. Plate No.50 (Kapotpalli), Plates No.51 and 62

(floral motifs shown in walls 16 and 17), (Sravats) Plate No.88,

Cobra hood (Nag Devta) Plate No.129 and various other Gods

and Goddesses in human shape (Plate Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107,

108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,

123, 125, 126) to our mind were quite clear and admits no

4259

doubt. Three witnesses namely Sri Arun Kumar (OPW-18), Dr.

R. Nagaswami (OPW 17) and Sri Rakesh Dutt Trivedi (OPW-

19) were produced who supported the findings and report of

ASI. They are retired officers, holding senior position in ASI.

Their statements are sufficiently lengthy and extremely detailed.

Since they have supported ASI report, we have not mentioned

their statements in detail for the reason that we intended to test

the objections raised against ASI report in the light of what the

witnesses of plaintiff (Suit 4) have deposed and only when we

would have some doubt, we would refer to and compare the

statement that of OPW 17 to 19. In totality we find no substance

in the objection with respect to the figurines etc. and the same

are accordingly rejected.

3959. For the nature of artefacts, the witnesses of plaintiffs

(Suit-4) said:

(A) PW-29, Dr. Jaya Menon

“The motif of Ghat (pot) is visible on this pillar. It is true

that Ghat is also known to be as “Kalash”. Normally, this

kind of ‘Ghat’ on the pillar is not found in mosque.” (Page

41)

“It is correct to say that the figurines of elephant, tortoise

and crocodile – all made of terracotta, were recovered

during the excavation. Such figurines were found in more

than one trench. I know that the crocodile is the

seat/vehicle of Hindu holy river Ganga. I agree that

tortoise is the vehicle of holy river Yamuna.” (Page 42)

“This Makar Pranal is non-Islamic feature…” (Page

194)

(B) PW 31, Dr. Ashok Dutta

4260

“As I have mentioned that the Muslim people do not

believe in the idol worship, hence there is no question of

associating terracotta figurine with the Muslim culture. So

far I know and my knowledge goes, the question of

terracotta figurine to be associated with Muslim culture

does not arise”. (Page 175)

"It is true that such animal figurines are not allowed to be

kept in the mosque." (Page 176)

"Makar Pranal is one of the part of the Hindu temple

architecture. I am not very sure whether Makar Pranal has

any association with mosque or not. I have not seen any

mosque having any Makar Pranal in it." (Page 203)

“Generally the material which are used for filling of a

floor are not sorted out in the filling material any artifacts

of outside may be found if the material is taken from

outside.” (Page 289)

(C) PW-32, Dr Supriya Verma

“I have heard the word ‘Kalash’. Kalash is not found in

mosque…” (Page 35)

“Wall No. 16, according to me, was used as a wall prior to

the construction of the disputed structure. In this way, Wall

16 was wall of some other construction which was existing

prior to the constriction of the disputed structure.” (Page

140)

“However, it is true that Wall No. 17 was constructed

earlier to Wall No. 16.” (Page 143)

“I know crocodile. It is also very important for the temples.

It is called ‘Makar Mukh’. I have not seen Makar Mukh in

any mosque…” (Page 143)

4261

3960. One of the objection, which has been raised very

seriously is the non examination of bones. Though ASI has

referred in the report, about the bones recovered during

excavation but it does not appear that any examination thereof

was made. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs that in absence of any scientific examination of the

bones, entire report of ASI gets tainted. The objection under this

heading is in para 11 (11.1 to 11.2) which are:

11. GROSS OMISSION: EVIDENCE OF ANIMAL

BONES:-

11.1 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 the

possibility of a temple existing at the site at the relevant

time. As no record of bones was being maintained by the

A.S.I. Team, the plaintiffs and moved application and

thereupon directions were given by the Hon'ble High Court

to the A.S.I. to record "the number and size of bones and

glazed wares" (Order dated 10.4.2003). 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. There should,

indeed, have been a chapter devoted to animal bones/

remains. But despite the statement in its "summary", there

is no word about the animal bones in the main text of the

Report. This astonishing omission is patently due to the

4262

A.S.I.'s prejudiced mindset with which the excavations

were carried out and fear of the fatal implications held out

by the animal bone evidence for its preconceived temple

theory. A partial table is being provided of animal bones as

found in the various trenches at different levels as noted by

the nominess of the plaintiffs (which may also by verified

from the Day-to-Day register) and it is shown how these

are found at all levels all over the site. The A.S.I. perhaps

knows that sacrificial animals' bones (if we are dealing

here with a temple where animals were sacrificed, which,

incidentally, has not been claimed for any Rama temple)

cannot be represented by bone fragments with cut-marks

strewn all over, but need to be found at particular spots,

practically whole and entire, which is not here at all the

case in even a single instance.

11.2. That the statements of Pages 45, 55, and 271 etc. of

the report, suggesting that probably this site was not a

habitational site and had stratified coutural material only

from the first seven periods or that it was only during and

after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto Periods IX

(Late and Post Mughal level) that the regular habitational

deposits disappear and the area below the disputed

structure remained a place for public use for a long time

till the Period VIII (Mughal level) stand belied and

negatived by the animal bone evidence and perhaps that is

why the Animal bones were totally ignored.

Given below is a Table of animal bones found in various

trenches at various levels, from records maintained by

nominess during the excavation and more detailed and

4263

accurate Table may be prepared and filled by the A.S.I.

with the help of day to day register.

Table showing Examples of finds of animal bones:-

Trench, Layer and Depth Affiliated Period

E8, 8: 280-85 Gupta

E7, 7: 245-60 Gupta

G7, 7: 228-45 Gupta

E9, 4: 96-124 Early Medieval

F9, pit, s/b 5:195 Early Medieval/Post Gupta

E8, 5:230-68 Post Gupta

G7, 7:248-83 Gupta

E8, 6:168-86 Post Gupta

F6, 2, below Floor 2: 48-77 Medieval

G7, 8: 285-90 Gupta

E8, 6: 186-215 Post Gupta

F6, 2: 77-123 Medieval

G8, 6: 135 (changed to layer 5)

Post Gupta

G8, 5: 185 Post Gupta

G8, 5: 230 Post Gupta

F4/F5, dump s/b 5:182-220 Post Gupta

G7, 20: 1140-1170 NBP

G7, 21: 1167-1207 NBP

G4/G5, pit s/b Floor 2: 93-113

Medieval

J5/K5, 2: 45-80 Fill

J6/K6, 2: 45-80 Fill

ZE1, 2:180 Medieval

G7, pit s/b 21: 1207-1240 NBP

G4/G5, filling: 113-140 -

G2, 1, below Floor 1: 22-35

Mughal

4264

J3/K3, 1:73 Fill

G2, 1: 30-45 Mughal

J3/K3, 2: 30-70 Fill

E1/ZE1, 3: 90 Medieval

G8, 6:135 Post Gupta

G8, 5:230 Post Gupta

E1/E2, 2:30-40 Medieval

K5, 3:92-103 Mughal

K3, 2:30-25 Late and Post Moghal

F4/F5, 2:26-46 Medieval

F4/F5, 4, pit s/b 4:140-166 Early Medieval/Medieval

F3, below Floor 4:364 Early Medieval/Medieval

G7, 18, 19:1050-1115 NBP

G1/ZG1, 3:100-165 Medieval

G7, 20:1115-1140 NBP

E6, 2:53-70 Medieval

G9, below Floor:15-20 Medieval

[All measurments given above are in meters and

centimeters based on the information given by the A.S.I. at

the site]

11.3.That from the above table it is clear that animal bones

have been found in NBP, Gupta, post Gupta, Early

Medieval, Medieval and Mughal levels, in other words,

practically from all levels. It should also be clear bones

were also found from the central supposedly significant

area, as in Trenches F3 and F4/F5. In the case of F3,

bones are coming from Early Medieval levels and in F4/F5

from Early Medieval and Medieval levels. If, as according

to A.S.I., post-Gupta levels onwards are not residential in

4265

nature but attest to levels with temples, and these levels are

supposedly stratified, it is to be wondered at as to why

animal bones were found even from the central part of the

alleged temple.If, as the A.S.I. says, soil from earlier levels

was used for construction, then it is surprising that for the

construction of a temple, no sorting or sieving was done, as

bones and other such materials are regarded as highly

polluting.

3961. ASI has referred to the bones on page 270 and said

as under:

"Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of

different periods, but skeletal remains noticed in the

trenches in northern and southern areas belong to the

period IX as the grave pits have been found cut into the

deposition coeval with the late disputed structures and are

sealed by the top deposit."

3962. PW-16 Surajbhan on the question of bones stated:

^^[kqnkbZ LFky ls tks gfM~M;ka feyh Fkh] mudks eSaus ugha ns[kk] ;|fi

ikVjh ;kMZ esa gfM~M;ksa ds dqN VqdM+s j[ks gq, FksA** ¼ist 388½

“I did not see the bones discovered from the

excavation site, though few pieces of bones had been kept

in the Pottery Yard.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz'u& vkius ftu cksUl dk mYys[k fd;k gS] os fdu&fdu tkuojksa ds

ckjs esa fd;k gS\

mRrj& ;g esjs v/;;u dk fo"k; ugha gS] ijUrq ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ

esa gh ;g dgk x;k gS fd gfM~M;ka mR[kuu LFky ls ikbZ xbZA** ¼ist

388½

“Question- The bones mentioned by you, relate to which

animals?

Answer- It is not the subject matter of my studies, but in