Q: What are your first reactions on SC judgment?

Q: How did you go about the excavation after Allahabad High Court’s directive to excavate the disputed site?

Q: How many days did your excavation work carry on for?

Q: What were the mechanisms adopted to ensure the whole process of excavation and submission of report was transparent and foolproof?

Q: What were your team’s findings?

Q: Did you and your team find any more clinching evidence of the structure being a temple?

Q: Union culture minister Prahlad Patel has announced that the ASI report authored by you and which finds extensive mention in the Supreme Court verdict would be published as a book for public consumption. How do you view it?

The Supreme Court, in its November 9 verdict on the Ayodhya issue, mentioned in detail the findings of the report prepared by a team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court said the structure below the disputed site at Ayodhya was not an Islamic structure and there was evidence of a temple-like structure existing before the Babri Masjid was built. It further said the structure was scientifically tested by the ASI team.TOI spoke with BR Mani , director of the team that excavated the site and main author of the report which was submitted to the Allahabad High Court in 2003. The report formed one of the bases for both the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Mani was a superintending archaeologist posted in Delhi when he was entrusted with the Ayodhya excavation . Later, he went on to become ASI additional director general (ADG). He retired as DG of the National Museum in August.A: A very solid team of the ASI had undertaken excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya in 2003. I was director of the excavation. It is my proud privilege to be associated with this excavation work. I welcome this judgment because it is unprecedented and it has solved a long-pending dispute very amicably without hurting the feelings of any section of society. It has created the same Ganga-Yamuni culture of which our country is proud. I am proud to be associated with the excavation. I feel particularly happy for ASI because its work has been proved correct. The decision was based on evidence which the ASI team submitted. I thank my team and department.A: In fact, I had suffered a stroke just before the order. Therefore, I was not too keen to go to Ayodhya. But the government told me that being a professional excavator and archaeologist, I must head the team. As team leader, I was sent to Ayodhya, initially with just 13 or 14 members in the team. When we reached, we found that the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS) had already been completed. We visited the area and divided it into different quarters. We launched excavations on the eastern side, We then extended our work to the northern and western sides, including the slope. Finally, we excavated the central area just 10 feet away from the place where Ram Lalla was situated.A: Initially we were given a month’s time for excavation and 15 days for submission of the report. But it was extended because we said a month’s time for excavation was not sufficient for the job as we had to dig upto the natural soil. According to the principle of excavation, we have to find out the cultural sequence of the site which is being excavated. The excavation took place for less than six months, starting March 2003. We closed it in August and in the same month submitted the report.A: There were 50 people in my team at any point in time -- all from ASI. The team comprised both Hindus and Muslims. Apart from this, the Allahabad High Court had directed that a proportion of labourers had to be Muslims. Two additional district judges were deputed to keep watch at the site. One of them was Hindu while the other was Muslim. Both were present at the site on all the days the excavation took place. We followed a procedure of preparing a brief report at the end of each day’s work. It mentioned the number of trenches we worked in and our findings. All the representatives of the parties and those present on that day had to sign the report.Also, there were representatives of 20 parties, of both Hindus and Muslims. These representatives were either advocates of those parties or their representative historians. I can say that many of them were paid representatives, and, therefore, had to follow the instructions of their parties. They used to give slips to the additional district judges who would pass them on to me for a response, which I would do. In total, we received about 20 such objections. The objections raised and our responses were also considered by the Allahabad High Court in its judgment. For instance, some of these parties claimed there was a Buddhist Stupa beneath the Babri Masjid. But I disputed it by stating that stupas are always solid structures, and we had not found a solid structure. Several such objections over pillar bases, carrying capacity of the super structure, etc. were raised. They also told the court that we had been asked to excavate upto a certain level while we had excavated upto 45 feet below the erstwhile mosque. We replied saying this was neccessary as per our principle. They were cross-questioned by the Hindu and Muslim parties in the high court in front of the judges.A: If we take it chronologically, our findings go back to 16th century BC where pre-Mauryan deposit is there. There are four or five Carbon 14 dates which range between 900 and 1600 BC. Some of the dates belong to 3rd and 5th century BC. That is the earliest period. We uncovered remains of the Mauryan, Shung and Kushan periods, when for the first time we found that large-scale construction took place with burnt bricks between 1st and 2nd century AD. Then we also found remains of the Gupta period. We found a copper coin of Chandragupta II who is traditionally associated with the site. We also found different terracotta articles belonging to the Gupta period, along with massive structures belonging to the same period. These structures were not house complexes.In the post-Gupta and Rajput period we found evidence of the start of construction of some religious structure. The earliest structure belonged to 9th or 10th century AD. It is a circular structure and it had a water channel from the centre of the circular temple and which went towards the northern side. From texts we know, and even if you go and see any temple, particularly the Shiva temple, you will find the ‘abhishek jal’ - water that is poured over the deity - always flows towards the north. From the ‘Varahamihira Samhita’ and other texts on temple architecture, we know there used to be a style of temple architecture which is circular in nature. Circular temples are also in existence in Madhya Pradesh, central India, parts of Uttar Pradesh and also different places in the south. Their origin is somewhere around 950 AD. That was indicative of an early temple. The most massive structure, which continued to run below the walls of the mosque, was about 60 metres in length. That construction had begun somewhere in 11th century AD. Probably, it was damaged or got damaged due to either natural reasons or due to an attack. Everything was cleared and the land was flattened for construction. It was further repaired, most probably in the 12th century. But the structures were present underneath and some of the pillar bases were still visible despite the presence of the mosque. The pillar had several pillar bases.This was the situation when the Babri mosque was constructed during Babur’s time. Since the mosque had already been demolished in 1992, we got permission from the Allahabad High Court to excavate the floors of the mosque. There we found the remains of 50 pillar bases. If we take into account the extent of pillar bases, they are 17 in a row and there are five such rows. The pillar bases are at equidistance and in alignment. This is indicative of the existence of an extensive ‘mandap’ of a temple. In the report which we submitted to the Allahabad High Court, we said it is a massive structure. Along with the circumstances and the objects we recovered, we could say that it was indicative of a North Indian style of temple. We found remains of temple architecture such as ‘amlak’ and highly decorative water shoots called ‘makar pranali’. These water shoots were reused in the walls on the mosque.A: We also studied the plaster remains and the radiocarbon dates. The important aspects indicative of the structures and the inhabitation just below the level of the mosque that was exposed clearly showed that the mosque was not constructed over any vacant land but was constructed over some early remains which pointed to a North Indian style of temple because of its massive structure.We submitted the report in two volumes consisting of more than 570 pages. This formed one of the bases on which the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgment in 2010. And now the Supreme Court has also based its verdict mainly on archaeological evidence.A: It is a good opportunity for everyone, including those who have some doubts, to get educated about the excavation work and the findings. From time to time, the court had asked us to give supplementary notes and clarifications. I hope these notes are included in the book.