The following letter was sent to TOI by professor Syed Ali Rizvi, chairman, department of history, Aligarh Muslim University, in response to an interview 'There is no doubt that a temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu existed below

' that appeared in TOI on October 5 :

claims that he participated in the excavations conducted at Ayodhya by BB Lal. He also adds that he was "the only Muslim member" of the team which excavated under BB Lal at Ayodhya. The fact is that he was NEVER a part of BB Lal's excavation team! Don't believe me, check the reports filed by BB Lal himself and published in the Archaeological Survey of India Annual Reports. His name occurs nowhere!

And how could it? The excavations were carried out in 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. As per a

on the AMU website, Muhammad completed his Masters course in 1975 and did a diploma in archaeology in 1976-77 from the School of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. In 1978, as per his personal file available in the department (and recently accessed by me as chairman) he was appointed as research assistant, a post on which he was confirmed in 1979. He served at the archaeology section of the department of history first as research assistant and then subsequently as assistant archaeologist till 1988 when he ultimately joined the Archaeological Survey of India.

So when and how was he involved in the

led by BB Lal? The only possibility-if he ever visited the site when it was being excavated-was as a diploma student for two or three days, as is the usual practice. If ever, he was taken on a site visit by his teachers as part of the diploma programme of the Institute of Archaeology. Thus, he was never part of the team excavating Ayodhya led by BB Lal, what to talk of being the only Muslim member of the team.

In case he is speaking the truth in this case, then probably he is not speaking the truth in his CV that he was doing a diploma at Delhi. His file at Aligarh testifies to his constant presence there from 1978 onwards. His MA degree is of 1976.

It is also factually incorrect that BB Lal discovered "pillars" or "pillar-bases" during the course of his excavations. All ASIAR reports are silent on this aspect. Not a word!

Yes, there were black basalt stone pillars with carvings fixed within the mosque but they could belong to any structure - not necessarily in situ.

Muhammad says Lal did not find any Buddhist remains. Maybe. But Cunningham, during his explorations in this area (and subsequent 2003 court-ordered ASI excavations) did reveal Buddhist remains. When in the summer of 2003 the ASI team led by BR Mani exposed a Buddhist stupa in a trench below the Babri Masjid, I was present at the site as a court appointed observer. It also finds mention in the ASI report submitted to the Lucknow Bench of the high court.

I am not going to deal with other blatant inaccuracies in the interview. For what actually was found below, please see the EPW essay of Jaya Menon and Supriya Verma. Please do google it and read! I will just point out one last thing: Yes, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. Muhammad says:

"It found that there were several structures below the ground. Many anomalies were reported. Anomalies meaning that you will be getting structures below the Babri Masjid."

A ground penetrating survey (GPR) can show obstructions in the ground, but they could be big stones. They could be structures. But whether the structure was a dwelling (found even by BB Lal earlier) or a mosque (see EPW paper cited above) or a temple, as claimed in the concluding para of the ASI report of 2003, can never be determined by this GPR.

I don't know what the SC will conclude, but remember one thing - the ASI report in its entirety is silent on the question of a temple, except in one line in the conclusion. Secondly, the type of pillar bases claimed in the report are defined as rough, weak and incapable of supporting a big structure when they were found earlier during Delhi excavations by the same BR Mani who excavated Ayodhya in 2003.

‘Excavated material doesn’t support view there was temple beneath mosque’

The following are excerpts from a letter to TOI by DN Jha, former professor and chair, department of history, Delhi University: Apropos the interview of KK Muhammed, who has mentioned my name, I would like to point out misleading statements by him and set the record straight. First of all, the historians (including me) who visited Ayodhya were not led by Professor Romila Thapar but by Professor RS Sharma. The group did not consist only of Left historians; one of them, Professor Athar Ali, was definitely not a Leftist. Those of us who went there were only historians, neither Leftists nor Rightists, but rationalists concerned with the preservation of a heritage structure. They were also independent of the government and the two contending parties.

Mr Muhammed speaks of two excavations at Ayodhya and says that he was a member of the excavating team of the second. But in all, there were four excavations, by Alexander Cunninham in 1861, in 1969 by AK Narain (BHU) assisted by TN Roy and Purushottam Singh, and a third by BB Lal in the 1970s. It was in this excavation that Muhammed claims to have participated; his participation, however, is unlikely in view of the fact that he was serving at AMU at that time. (The fourth was conducted in 2003 at the behest of the Allahabad high court).

Mr Muhammed refers to several architectural fragments as proof of a temple beneath the mosque. But most of these were found in the debris lying on the surface and do not constitute valid evidence; it could have been brought to the site by anybody. Mr Muhammed refers to a 12th century donative inscription to prop his temple thesis. But he does not refer to its reading by the chief epigraphist of the Govt of India, Dr K V Ramesh, who submitted to the Allahabad high court that it does not mention the birthplace of Rama but of the valour of the donor's family. In short the excavated material at Ayodhya does not support the view that there was a temple beneath the mosque.