Justice Chandrachud’s fresh remark, therefore, risks reigniting controversies which the judgment had carefully attempted to settle.

The Ayodhya dispute has always been one of the most sensitive and divisive issues in independent India. For centuries, the dispute over the Babri Masjid and the claim of it being the birthplace of Lord Ram caused tension, violence, and loss of life. After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court of India delivered its final judgment on 9th November 2019.

As an advocate and as the President of All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz Telangana, my stand at that time was neutral. Not because the judgment was universally fair, but because it was long pending, and because thousands of lives had already been lost to this conflict. Closure was necessary. Endless agitation and litigation would have only deepened divisions and harmed the country further.

When the judgment was delivered, all political parties and communities gave their consent to abide by it. The nation was placed on high alert fearing unrest, but Indian Muslims—despite their disappointment—cooperated peacefully.

Even during the inauguration of the Ram Mandir after prana pratistha (consecration)  in January 2024, Muslims once again displayed patience and tolerance. Many even participated in the ceremony as a gesture of goodwill. These actions demonstrated the mature and tolerant character of Indian Muslims.

Yet today, almost six years later, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has stirred fresh controversy with his remarks.

Chandrachud’s Controversial Statement

In an interview with Srinivasan Jain on Newslaundry, Justice Chandrachud said that the construction of the Babri Masjid itself was an “act of desecration,” meaning it disrespected something sacred that already existed at the site. Coming from a jurist of his stature, this statement naturally carries weight. But it also raises concerns.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, consciously avoided such language. The Court dealt with evidence, possession, and patterns of worship, without branding the mosque’s very existence as unlawful or sacrilegious. Justice Chandrachud’s fresh remark, therefore, risks reigniting controversies which the judgment had carefully attempted to settle.

Justice Chandrachud’s recent statement is deeply problematic on two fronts.

First, it directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s own findings. The 2019 judgment never established that a temple was demolished to construct the Babri Masjid. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had reported that remains of a 12th-century structure were found beneath the mosque, which itself was built in the 16th century—a gap of nearly four centuries.

Crucially, the ASI admitted it could not prove who destroyed the earlier structure, why it was destroyed, or whether the mosque was deliberately built over it. Recognizing these limitations, the Court made it clear that ownership of the land could not be determined solely on the basis of archaeology.

Despite this, Justice Chandrachud has now described the mosque’s very construction as an “act of desecration,” a remark that goes well beyond the careful balance of the judgment he himself had delivered.

Second, his words risk reigniting tensions that the Court had tried to settle. For Indian Muslims, the statement feels like salt rubbed into an old wound. The community has already borne immense pain and loss over the decades. To now be told that the very act of building their mosque was wrong from the beginning is not only deeply hurtful, but also threatens to undo the fragile peace and understanding that communities had painstakingly built in the aftermath of the judgment.

Justice Muralidhar’s Criticism

It is not just the Muslim community that finds fault with the handling of the Ayodhya case. Former Chief Justice of Odisha High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar, has also been critical of the 2019 verdict.

Justice Muralidhar observed that the judgment was effectively an “authorless judgment”. He also pointed out that sufficient time was not given for mediation. Given the centuries-old nature of the dispute, he argued, the mediation process could have been pursued more seriously to achieve a more consensual outcome.

When asked about this criticism in an interview with journalist Saurabh Trivedi on The Lallantop, Justice Chandrachud responded that the dispute was centuries old, had already claimed many lives, and that closure was necessary for the well-being of society. According to him, the intention of the bench was to end the matter so that the country could move forward.

Ironically, by making his recent statement about “desecration,” Justice Chandrachud has contradicted his own reasoning. Instead of bringing closure, he has reopened wounds and created new controversies.

A Blow to Judicial Credibility

When a retired Chief Justice speaks in ways that contradict a judgment he was part of, it inevitably raises questions about credibility—both of the individual and of the institution he once led.

Justice Chandrachud’s post-retirement interviews, where he repeatedly defends or expands on his judgments, have also come under scrutiny. Instead of clarifying, these interviews are worsening the situation. By taking a polarised stance, he is now being seen by many not as a respectable statesman, but as a controversial figure.

The judiciary is supposed to stand above politics. But such remarks blur the line between law and political narrative.

Illegal Acts Acknowledged, Yet No Accountability

The Ayodhya judgment of 2019 categorically held that both the installation of idols inside the Babri Masjid in December 1949 and the demolition of the mosque in December 1992 were illegal acts. Yet, in the aftermath of the verdict, several individuals—including Members of Parliament at that time—openly boasted on media channels that they were proud to have participated in the demolition.

What is even more shocking is that despite the Supreme Court itself declaring the demolition unlawful, all those accused in the case were later acquitted by a special CBI court, raising serious questions about accountability and the consistency of our justice system.

The Sufferings of Pasmanda Muslims

For Muslims, the Ayodhya judgment was already painful. Thousands of lives—mostly disproportionate Pasmanda Muslims—were lost in the riots and violence that followed the Babri Masjid conflict over the decades. Many Pasmanda Muslims lost their homes, livelihoods, and dignity in the aftermath of this dispute.

To now hear, years later, that the mosque’s construction itself was a “fundamental act of desecration” is not just painful—it is an insult to the memory of those who suffered and a reopening of wounds that had only just begun to heal.

The Absence of Pasmanda Representation in Judiciary

This controversy also forces us to look at a broader problem: the absence of Pasmanda Muslim representation in the higher judiciary.

In 75 years of the Republic, no Pasmanda Muslim has ever risen to the position of Chief Justice of India. In fact, Muslims as a whole are severely underrepresented in the higher judiciary. This absence matters. When decisions and remarks of great consequence are made about our faith, our history, and our future, the lack of Pasmanda voices at the table becomes glaring.

How can justice feel inclusive when entire communities are excluded from positions of power? The judiciary, like the legislature and the executive, must reflect the diversity of India. Otherwise, it remains an elite space dominated by a few privileged groups, leaving Pasmanda Muslims and other marginalized sections unheard.

Justice Chandrachud’s remarks were not just unnecessary—they were damaging. The nation had already moved forward after the 2019 judgment. Muslims, despite their pain, showed maturity, cooperation, and restraint. By reopening this matter, Justice Chandrachud risks disturbing the fragile social fabric once again.

The way forward is not to dwell on divisive statements but to demand greater inclusivity in our institutions. Pasmanda Muslims, who form the overwhelming majority of India’s Muslims, must step forward in education, in the Bar, in the Bench, and in public life. Until our voices are represented in decision-making spaces, justice will always feel incomplete.

India deserves a judiciary that not only delivers justice but also reflects the nation’s true diversity. Only then can peace and harmony be truly secured.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Only then will Muslims cease to be ruled in the name of fear—and start living as full citizens of a republic they help build every day.

Since 2014, Indian Muslims have been caught in a spiral of fear and political confusion. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s ascent to power was, for many, a moment of rupture—a decisive break from the past. The party that had once taken responsibility for the demolition of the 16th-century Babri Masjid was now ruling from the centre. The wound of 1992, which forever communalized India’s political terrain, had now translated into a permanent sense of existential siege for Muslims.

In this atmosphere, Muslim anxieties have increasingly turned toward one phrase: “leadership”. A leadership that would represent them, defend their interests, articulate their pain, and resist the Hindutva offensive. But what exactly is “Muslim leadership”? Who defines it, and on what grounds? What are its aims? These questions remain unanswered.

Muslim Leadership: A Floating Signifier

Today, to speak of Muslim leadership is to walk into a semantic maze. Does it mean clerical authority? Electoral representation? Civil society mobilisation? Each comes with its own contradictions.

Groups like the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), and All India Masjlid Ittehad-ul-Muslieen (AIMIM) represent sharply divergent visions of Muslim politics—religiously, regionally, and ideologically. The aspirations of an AIMIM voter in Hyderabad may carry no resonance in Kerala’s IUML strongholds or in the doctrinally distinct spaces of Jamaat. There is no singular “Muslim aspiration”. The imagined unity of the ummah dissolves the moment it is brought into contact with India’s vast regional, sectarian, and linguistic diversities.

Since the demolition of Babri Masjid, a deep sense of alienation and hyper politicisation has festered among Indian Muslims. Meanwhile, the state has since encouraged a version of “Muslim politics” that is either wholly apolitical (clergy-centric), tokenistic (electing a few symbolic figures), or hyper-nationalist (Muslims defending the Constitution louder than anyone else)  leaving virtually no space for any other form of articulation.

Crisis of Representation 

India’s secular-liberal intelligentsia has also contributed to the crisis. They have internalised the logic that Muslims must only be represented by Muslims—an echo of the very communal logic that partitioned the subcontinent. This view romanticises identity but ignores class, ideology, and material politics. It reduces Muslims to religious subjects rather than complex social actors.

This has led to a strange tolerance for performative religiosity among Muslim representatives. A Muslim Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) can openly celebrate Hindu festivals or avoid raising Muslim concerns altogether, and yet face no criticism—because their mere presence is deemed sufficient. As long as someone with a Muslim name occupies a post, the job is assumed done. This is not representation—it is throwing some crumbs so one of the them could sit amongst one of them.

Moreover, if Muslims demand their own leadership, can Hindus not do the same? Can the majority not claim the same right to religious self-organisation? This contradiction is rarely acknowledged. The logic of communal representation, if applied consistently, would end secular democracy altogether. It would lead us back to the very framework that justified Partition: that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations.

Leadership or Reaction? The Crisis of Political Imagination

Muslim leadership today is primarily reactive. It is shaped by Hindutva offensives and often exists only as their mirror image. If a bill is passed against Waqf properties, the one who tears it up in the legislature is seen as a leader. If a mosque is threatened, the one who files a PIL becomes the saviour. This reactionary instinct lacks a long-term political programme. It can mobilise anger, but rarely build anything substantive .

The truth is stark: there is no democratic, transparent, pan-Indian Muslim body that can claim to represent Indian Muslims. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is neither elected nor accountable. Political parties like AIMIM can only claim to represent a section of the Indian Muslims .

The Danger of Aspiration Without Direction

If the current trajectory continues, Muslim political energies will either be absorbed into Hindutva’s reactive machinery or dissipate into nostalgia and despair. The call for “our own leader” will remain an emotional impulse, not a strategic position. Worse, it will obscure the actual sites of Muslim suffering—education, housing, employment, incarceration.

There is no short cut. Muslims in India must participate not as a community but as citizens—in all their class, gender, and ideological diversity. They must build secular and democratic movements for justice, not reactive fronts for identity defence. The alternative is not another “Muslim party,” but an alternative from amongst the Muslims asserting themselves as the citizens of the largest democracy—shaping the future alongside others.

Conclusion: Representation is Not Redemption

The First-Past-the-Post system has no room for religious representation, and perhaps it should not. The solution to Muslim exclusion as citizens lies not in symbolic figures, nor in communally carved parties, but in becoming masters of their own fate and self introspection themselves as citizens.

To demand Muslim leadership is not wrong—but to mistake visibility for power, or identity for programme, is dangerous. Muslim leadership must cease to be a mythological hope projected onto charismatic individuals, and become a rigorous, grassroots, multi-class democratic project rooted in the struggle for dignity.

Only then will Muslims cease to be ruled in the name of fear—and start living as full citizens of a republic they help build every day.

With the judgement of Babri Masjid dispute case, the hearts of Muslims are filled with wounds, but where does the conscience justify this injustice?

Oh Muslims!

Turn to the Divine help of God: Set up mosques, repent from shirk and polytheism, become one for the sake of God and unite, since they are intoxicated with the power they posses.

And don’t be weak in the pursuit of the enemy, if you are suffering (hardships) then surely, they (too) are suffering (hardships) as you are suffering, but you have a hope from Allah (for the reward, i.e. Paradise) that for which they hope not, and Allah is Ever All Knowing, All Wise. (Quran 4:104)

Therefore be patient as did the Messengers of strong will and be in no haste about them (disbelievers). On the Day when they will see that (torment) with which they are promised (i.e. threatened, it will be) as if they had not stayed more than an hour in a single day. (O mankind! This Qur’an is sufficient as) a clear Message (or proclamation to save yourself from destruction). But shall any be destroyed except the people who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah). (Quran 46:35)

Allah has full knowledge of your enemies, and Allah is Sufficient as a Wali (Protector), and Allah is Sufficient as a Helper. (Quran 4:45)

So turn to Allah and Him alone, bow your head to Him alone, and do not leave the mosques for Allah alone.

May Allah be with us.

The disputed land of 2.77 acres has been a bone of contention between Hindus and Muslims since December 6 1992, each party claiming to be their place of worship.

However, the decades-long battle came to an end in a jam-packed Courtroom with the judgment delivered in 30 minutes by a five-judge Constitution bench.

Supreme Court received the appeals against a 2010 judgement by the Allahabad High Court which distributed the disputed land among Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

But when the amicable out-of-the-court settlement failed, Supreme Court started proceedings on August 6.

Supreme Court has now rejected the Nirmohi Akhara’s suit but asked the Central Government to give it representation in the Temple trust if they feel suitable.

Based on Press Trust of India.

His father had told us that ‘whenever you need to come to Delhi for matters related to the Babri Masjid case, my house will always be open for you.

The promise of a temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya has pushed litigants on either side of the divide to battle in courtrooms for over several decades now. But there is another promise that has been at work almost all this while — by AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi.

Since 1993, when the legal tussle began in Delhi over the Babri Masjid demolition at the disputed site — the Supreme Court is in the final phase of hearings now — Owaisi’s 34 Ashoka Marg bungalow in the national capital has served as the place of stay for the Muslim plaintiffs in the case.

But Owaisi doesn’t have any religious or political compulsion to offer shelter to Zafaryab Jilani, the main complainant in Supreme Court over the Babri demolition.

He has only kept the promise his late father Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi had made to Jilani, according to the latter.

Salahuddin had told Jilani that whenever he needed a stay in Delhi to pursue legal matters related to the Babri Masjid case, the Owaisi clan would make arrangements for him.

And so it has remained over the years.

Prod Owaisi over the issue and he doesn’t want to make too much of it.

“Jilani ji was a great friend of my late father and I would not like to talk about any guest staying at my home. This is against my Hyderabadi culture.

To speak about it will be disrespectful to my elders,” says the AIMIM chief.

As the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case until Thursday, Owaisi’s bungalow is again serving as the accommodation for Jilani and his associates.

“Reserved room“

Zafaryab Jilani, All India Babri Masjid Action Committee convenor and All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) member, talks highly of his hosts in Delhi.

“This kothi on Ashoka Road has been with Asaduddin Owaisi’s father since 1984. We have been staying here since 1993. His father had told us that ‘whenever you need to come to Delhi for matters related to the Babri Masjid case, my house will always be open for you’,” says Jilani, the litigant who travels from Lucknow for the case hearings in Delhi.

“Here all kind of lodging and food arrangements has always remained available for me as well as my associates. A room in this house has been especially reserved for us.”

Jilani also goes on to mention that “whenever a large number of guests come to the house, arrangements are made to accommodate them in a big hall”.

“On several occasions, the hearing in our case coincides with Parliament sessions or Asaduddin Owaisi’s stay in Delhi for political meetings. On such occasions we all stay together in the same bungalow. We also eat together. All of us sit in a drawing room inside the house and do our own work.”

Since Owaisi is “an advocate himself”, quite often he asks for updates related to the court hearings in the case, says Jilani.

“We also sit together and discuss about the future course of hearings.”

With the Supreme Court expected to deliver a verdict by mid-November, the AIMIM chief can rest easy that he kept his father’s promise.

Article first published on The Print.

The settlement envisages the renovation of 22 existing mosques in Ayodhya

The primary Muslim litigant in the title dispute case has informed the Supreme Court that it is willing to drop its appeals in the matter – and its claims to the land on which the historic Babri Masjid stood for centuries before it was demolished by Hindutva activists and leaders in 1992 – provided the Centre is willing to guarantee that all other places of worship in India will be protected from similar encroachment.

“Settlement has been filed. I cannot say more now,” a source familiar with the proceedings told The Wire on Wednesday morning.
The court, however,  continued with its hearings, and at the end of the day’s proceedings said it was reserving its judgment

Mediation proposal

The surprise development came on the last day of the hearings scheduled by the five judge-constitution bench of the Supreme Court. In virtually day-to-day hearings over the past few weeks, the bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had heard arguments from the two Hindu litigants in the case – the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas, controlled by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a front of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Nirmohi Akhara – as well as the Sunni Waqf Board.

Gogoi retires in the middle of November and the bench is expected to deliver its judgment in the landmark case by then.

According to informed sources, the Sunni Waqf Board and some but not all of the Hindu litigants have signed the settlement proposal, which has been submitted via the three-member mediation panel that the court had set up earlier this year.

Significantly, the VHP-backed Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas has not accepted the terms of the settlement.

Besides firm safeguards for all other mosques in India, the settlement envisages the renovation of 22 existing mosques in Ayodhya, permission to build another mosque in lieu of the Babri masjid at some other location, and the possibility of worship in a number of historic mosques which are currently under the care of the Archaeological Survey of India.

Headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice (retd) F.M.I. Khalifullah and comprising the respected advocate Sriram Panchu and the Art of Living founder Venkatratnam Ravishankar Ramanayakanpet (also known as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar), the mediation panel had earlier informed the court that an out-of-court-settlement could not be reached between the three parties to the dispute.

The Nyas and the Nirmohi Akhara want the land for the construction of a Ram temple, claiming the site as the birthplace of the Hindu god, and the former was earlier reportedly unwilling to accept any of the conditions that the Waqf board had mooted as part of any compromise.

Chief among these was an assurance that the Hindutva groups would drop their demands that other Muslim places of worship, especially in Mathura and Varanasi, be converted to temples.

Last month, however, the mediation panel informed the Supreme Court that were willing to take a second stab at mediation, largely at the urging of the Muslim side and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Asked what happens now that a settlement proposal has been formally submitted, sources familiar with the process said it was up to the bench to now decide how to proceed. “They could decide that having heard arguments for 40 days, they should adjudicate anyway. Or they may use the settlement agreement as the contours of their final orders.”

Asked if the bench could still rule in favour of Muslim claims to the title of the disputed land despite the Sunni Waqf Board’s willingness to compromise, the source said that the bench could disregard the settlement proposal altogether and proceed as it wished.

The Allahabad high court, in its judgment to the title suit dispute in 2010, had found some merit in the claims of each of the three parties and divided the 2.77 acres of land where the mosque stood equally between the three of them.

The 16th century mosque was built by the Mughal emperor Babar and became the subject of dispute in the 19th century, during British colonial rule.

Soon after independence, in December 1949, Hindutva activists surreptitiously placed idols of the baby Ram and Sita in the mosque, following which the premises were locked by the UP state government.

In February 1986, the locks were reopened as part of the erstwhile Rajiv Gandhi government’s policy of using communal politics for electoral gains. However, the biggest beneficiary of this strategy was the BJP, which used the Ramjanmaboomi issue to polarise society on religious lines and steadily enlarge its support base.

On December 6, 1992, senior BJP leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others were present in Ayodhya when a large mob of political activists who had been mobilised for the purpose climbed atop the mosque and began demolishing it, Within hours, it was reduced to rubble.

The criminal case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Advani and others has been languishing for years. Despite the apex court saying in 2018 that the trial be expedited, no verdict is yet in sight.

Article first published on The Wire.

There are actually older mosques under the Babri Masjid, says Supriya Varma who, along with Jaya Menon, has challenged the ASI’s findings for years.

In August 2003, following a six-month-long excavation, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Allahabad High Court that it had found evidence of there being a temple under the Babri Masjid, the 16-century mosque demolished by kar sevaks on 6 December 1992.

Two archeologists, Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon, accused the ASI of having preconceived notions ahead of the dig, and violating ethical codes and procedures during the excavation. Varma, professor of archeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Menon, who heads the history department at Shiv Nadar University, told the court that the excavation did not find anything that supported ASI’s conclusion. In 2010, they published a paper in the Economic and Political Weekly, challenging the methods used in collecting evidence and its interpretation.

The archeologists, who were observers during the excavation on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board, a party to the tile suit in the Ayodhya dispute, say the ASI, then under the Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP-led) National Democratic Alliance government, was under pressure to reinforce the Hindu right-wing narrative that Mughal emperor Babur’s general Mir Baqi knocked down a temple to build a mosque on the spot where Hindu god Ram was born.

Ahead of the 26th anniversary of the Babri Masjid’s demolition, Varma spoke to HuffPost India about the three key pieces of evidence found in 2003, why she thinks the ASI felt compelled to fabricate its conclusion, and procedural lapses during the excavation led by B.R. Mani, who was later replaced on an order by the Allahabad High Court. In 2016, the Modi government appointed Mani as the Director General of the National Museum.

Is there any archeological evidence that the Babri Masjid was built over a temple devoted to Ram?

No, there is nothing. Even today, there is no archeological evidence that there was a temple under the Babri Masjid.

What is the evidence on the basis of which the ASI is saying there was a temple?

There are three things. What the ASI has excavated is not evidence there was a temple underneath the mosque. One is this western wall, the second are these 50 pillar bases and third are architectural fragments. The western wall is a feature of a mosque. It is a wall in front of which you say namaaz. It is not the feature of a temple. Temple has a very different plan. Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.

Now, as far as these pillar bases are concerned, these are completely fabricated and we filed many complaints to the court about it. Our argument is that if you look at what they are claiming to be pillar bases, these are pieces of broken bricks and they have mud inside them. There is no way a pillar can even stand on it, it is so unstable. It’s a completely political issue. They wanted that report to say there are pillar bases and it said there are pillar bases.

Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.

What about the architectural fragments?

The third piece of evidence is these architectural fragments. They say there are some 400-500 fragments, which are pieces of architectural buildings. Of these, they say 12 are the most important. Of these 12, none of these were found during the excavation. These were recovered from the debris lying above the lime floor of the masjid. There is this one particular sculpture, which is closest to some kind of image, which they called a ‘divine couple.’ But even that is just one man and a woman and is half-broken. There is nothing else. A temple, a stone temple—supposedly this is a stone temple—has much more sculptured material than what they have found.

There is no archeological evidence that there was a temple under the Babri Masjid.

Can this sculpture not be dated?

The stone cannot be dated. What you date in archeology is the deposit, the layer in which the particular artefact has been found. In that also, you can date organic material. So, for example, a bone or a shell or charcoal. The ASI have got some dates. But this sculptured piece has not even come from a stratified deposit.

It could have come from anywhere?

It could have come from anywhere. There is no way of dating it. In other words, there is no evidence for a temple.

Can you date the pillar bases?

You can date those floor levels. They clearly belong, in my opinion, to the period from the 12th to the 15th century at different levels.

Does the ASI date the temple it claims was under the mosque?

No. They don’t say that. They just say there was a temple underneath. That’s all. They give it no precise date.

Doesn’t the report say the temple is from the 10th century?

On the one hand, they are claiming a massive temple with more than 50 pillar bases, but they are also saying that there is a circular shrine under these pillar bases, which is much smaller in size, about three to four meters in diameter, which they claim belong to the 10 century. But I have examined walls next to the circular structure, and the information mentioned in the site notebook of that particular trench, which mentions these walls belong to the Gupta period. And that is why this circular structure would also belong to the Gupta period around 4th-6th century AD.

How many excavations have there been in Ayodhya?

There is Alexander Cunningham who is the first Director General of the ASI, who, in 1861-62, does some kind of survey around Ayodhya region, and he mentions three mounds. And of these three mounds, two have some kind of Buddhist Stupa and one of them has a Vihara. He also said that there are oral traditions that say that three temples were destroyed, but in his account, there is no mention of a temple being destroyed on the site of the Babri Masjid.

That is the first time that archeologically some kind of survey had been carried out. Now, in terms of excavations, the story begins in 1969-70. The first excavation is carried out by the Department of Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University. They did not really conduct the excavations close to the Babri Masjid, but in the near vicinity. The only report that we have is in what we call IARs, which is the Indian Archeology Review published by the ASI, every year. It is not a very detailed report. There is a one-page description of what they found. They say it looks like it was inhabited in what we call the early historic period, which is about 6th century BC to 6th century AD. And they say that there is some medieval occupation, but they don’t really get into the details. That’s the end. Then, what happens is from about 1975 to about 1980, there is a project by B.B. Lal.

Who is B.B. Lal?

BB Lal was also the director general of ASI and he took early retirement in 1972 and joined the Archeology Department of the Jiwaji University in Gwalior. And from there he went as a fellow to the Institute of Advanced Studies in Shimla. And he came up with this project on the archeology of Ramayana. He also had a project on the archeology of Mahabharata. As part of the archeology of Ramayana, he excavated Ayodhya and a couple of other sites, which have been mentioned in Ramayana. He carried out excavations for a period of five years but a report is only available for two years in the IAR. He pretty much substantiates what is mentioned by the BHU. That there are occupations in the early historic period and there is some sign of desertion and you also find some floors from the medieval period. That’s all there is.

Then it is only in 1988, by which time the VHP has picked up this whole issue of temples having been demolished at three sites—Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi—and in 1988, B.B. Lal takes a photograph of pillar bases, which he says was taken and excavated at Ayodhya between 1975 and 1978, and publishes it in Manthan, which is the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) journal. He also presented the photograph at the World Archeological Congress in Croatia, saying that if excavations are to be carried then they will find evidence of a temple.

What does the photograph show?

The photographs are what he calls pillar bases, which are pieces of bricks put together in a half-squarish, half rectangular, half circular forms. There are three pillar bases that he marks out in that photograph.

Where does he find the pillar bases?

This excavation was carried out near the wall of the Babri Masjid.

What happened after Lal’s photo?

Then, the BJP picks up the Ayodhya movement and it becomes a political movement. In 1992, the mosque is demolished and they have paved the way for excavations. The title suit, that case of who owns the land, is carrying on in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Once NDA comes to power, which is in 1999, the court orders that now possibly we should excavate. In 2002, they would order the ASI, the government body, to carry out a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey. Certain signals are sent through a machine and if there are structures underneath the mound then it bounces back. On the basis of that report, the court ordered excavation be carried out. In March 2003, the excavations began and they ended in August. Then, they submitted the report.

How did you get involved?

Once the excavations began, there were a lot of apprehensions because the ASI comes directly under the Ministry of Culture. And also, because archeology as a discipline is fairly technical. At that point, the Sunni Waqf Board people thought that they should have an archaeologist who would be present and point out in case there are any procedures that are not followed the way it should be in terms of methods and recording. They contacted Irfan Habib, who is a professor of medieval history at Aligarh Muslim University, and he contacted us.

I, and I think I can speak for my colleague Jaya Menon, we were both quite keen. We both wanted to know what exists under the mosque. It is not as though we had any kind of bias either way. We went with an open mind. For us, it was an academic issue. We knew that we probably would never be able to get the chance unless we go there ourselves. It was at the cost of our professional careers as well. As an archaeologist, if I have to excavate any site, I have to get permission from ASI. So, if you antagonise the ASI, chances are that you are not going to get a permit, and that is why very few archaeologists were willing to even go.

You went as observers because the Sunni Waqf Board were petitioners in the title suit?

Just to note whether correct procedures were being followed or not. The NDA was in power. There was fear that the data would be manipulated. There was even fear that outside material would be planted over there. In fact, some of us also thought they would try and do it if they don’t find evidence for a temple. They might bring material from outside, some idol, some image, and put it there.

There was fear that the data would be manipulated. There was even fear that outside material would be planted over there.

Did you face any kind of backlash?

We were lucky that they lost the elections, and we went on to excavate two sites (not connected to the Ayodhya dispute). Today, if I apply, I’m not certain whether I will get permission.

What does the ASI say in the report?

If you read the entire report, there is no mention of any temple. It is a standard report. You have a chapter on the trenches, you have a chapter of chronology, you have a chapter on different structures, you have a chapter on pottery. What is missing is a chapter on bones and human skeletal remains. That is what they also found but they never published it.

What you will also find is that the names of the people who wrote those chapters is mentioned. But in the conclusion, there is no name mentioned. And in the conclusion, in the last paragraph of the report, they say that given the evidence of this western wall, and pillar bases, and some architectural fragments, there was a temple underneath the Babri Masjid. It is literally written in three lines. Otherwise, nowhere in the discussion, is there any talk of a temple being found. With the same evidence, we have interpreted that there were actually two or three phases of smaller mosques underneath the Babri Masjid.

With the same evidence, we have interpreted that there were actually two or three phases of smaller mosques underneath the Babri Masjid.

In your expert opinion, as of today, there was no temple under the Babri Masjid? What was under it?

There was no temple under the Babri Masjid. What there was, if you go beyond the 12th century and you come down to the levels of the 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, there seems to be a Buddhist stupa. So, there was Buddhist occupation here, and that is something even Alexander Cunningham has said. Outside the Babri Masjid, there are several other archeological mounds which seem to be sites of Buddhist stupas as well as monasteries. There was clearly a Buddhist community here, in the period, roughly from the 2nd century BC to 6th century AD. To us, it looks like this was then abandoned and reoccupied sometime around the 11th-12th century and possibly because there was a Muslim settlement that came up. And they had a small mosque, which was expanded as the community increased, in size and finally a much larger mosque was built by Babar in 1528.

So, there is no evidence of this narrative that Babar’s general Mir Baqi knocked down a temple to build a mosque?

There is no evidence but there is oral tradition that starts coming up in the late 19th century and it is recorded in a colonial period gazetteer. Even when Alexander Cunningham, he goes in 1861-62, he is traveling around and he does record oral traditions. He does not mention a temple being underneath the Babri Masjid. He talks about three temples, there is oral tradition of three temples being destroyed, but these are not underneath the Babri Masjid. They are some other temples in Ayodhya.

What impact did the report have on the title suit?

The bench comprised of three judges, two Hindus and one Muslim. The Muslim judge, S.U. Khan, clearly did not go into the archeological evidence. There was a strong viewpoint that this is a title suit and it does not matter who lived here before the present occupants. It is immaterial. And many of us also felt that they should have never dragged in history and archeology into a title suit. They should have just gone by what was the status when the first suit was filed in 1950. But the other two judges, D.V. Sharma and Sudhir Agarwal, much more Sudhir Agarwal, he did say that the ASI is saying a temple was there under the mosque and therefore we have to accept what the ASI is saying because they are the experts.

A generic temple?

Yes. Some generic temple. They don’t get into whether it was a Ram Temple and they don’t date it.

In the EPW report, you write about being concerned about certain procedures?

Yes. They are claiming that this is the site of Ram Temple, which is a Vaishnav temple, where generally, you would not expect to find any bones because of this vegetarianism etcetera, but when they started excavating, they started finding a lot of bones, animal bones. How do you explain finding animal bones in a Vaishnav temple? They clearly did not want that recorded. So, we noticed that the labour they had hired were just throwing the bones away. The other thing they were also doing, there is a certain pottery, ceramic type, which is known as glazed ware, which is generally associated with Muslim communities. They were finding a lot of this glazed ware. Those again were being thrown. So, we made a complaint, and they had to be recorded. You would not expect glazed ware in a Vaishnav temple. Procedurally, there was violation of an ethical code.

Procedurally, there was violation of an ethical code.

Did the ASI date the bones?

No, they did not.

Would it help to have a foreign team of archaeologists excavate the site?

As far as foreign archeologists are concerned, they know it is a political issue and they would not want to get entangled in it. If they wish to do any other archeological work in India, they would not want that to be jeopardised. And it is a political issue, it is clear to everyone.

Isn’t six months very short for this kind of excavation?

As far as the ASI, and the archeologists of the ASI are concerned, they really are now no longer considered to have any kind of expertise. They haven’t kept up to date with the latest methods, the recent theoretical developments, and they really just see it as more as an administrative job than as an academic discipline.

Article first published on HuffingtonPost.

Betwa Sharma is a Political Editor for HufftingtonPost India.