December 06, 2018:
Archeologists who oversaw digging have clearly contradicted Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) claim of existence of a Temple.
In 2003, ASI had came out with the ‘proof ‘of a Ram Temple on the same location where the disputed Babri mosque once stood.
The ASI, which conducted an excavation at the site, then said that it discovered the bases of pillars which originally supported the roof of a temple at a layer below the mosque.
In the same year, the ASI had later submitted its 574-page report on the matter to the Allahabad High Court. However, two archaeologists, who oversaw the excavation, had objected to the report.
The duo – Associate Professor Dr Supriya Varma from Jawaharlal Nehru University & Professor Jaya Menon from Department of History at Aligarh Muslim University – had in 2010 published a paper questioning the ASI’s findings in The Economical & Political Weekly.
The Huffington Post recently conducted an interview with the two archaeologists.
They said, “Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.” The two historians were observers during the excavation on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board, a party to the tile suit in the Ayodhya dispute.
According to ASI, The discovery of terracotta figurines at the site to strengthened its claim. It said that the archeologists had discovered a ‘circular shrine’ which it supposed to have contained a Sivalinga. This fact, it said, fortifies the claim that there must have been a Ram temple at the site.
Citing a mutilated sculpture of a divine couple along with 50 pillar bases found at the site as evidences, the ASI said the structure had remains which have “distinctive features associated with temples of north India”.