With the Supreme Court currently conducting day to day hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi case, the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid issue is again in national focus and amidst all the din one man stands out - archaeologist K K Muhammed.
An acclaimed archaeologist who served as Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) regional director, Muhammed was involved in key discoveries including Akbar’s Ibadat Khana in Fatehpur Sikri.
His most notable contribution though has been reporting the presence of a temple below the Babri Masjid.
He was awarded the Padma Shri for his contributions and has been lauded for daring to speak the truth which has been uncomfortable for many entrenched in the leftist ecosystem.
One such instance was given by the author and scientist Anand Ranganathan.
Now in the latest interview, Muhammed has again reiterated his bold claims.
What Are K K Muhammed’s Claims?
Muhammed was part of the first ASI archaeological team led by B B Lal in 1976-77 and has strongly maintained that there is enough archaeological evidence to prove that there are temple remains below the Babri Masjid.
During the 1976-77 excavation, Muhammed found that 12 pillars of the controversial mosque were built out of temple remains. He discovered a Purna Kalasha structure shaped in form of a Ghada (water pitcher) part of the Ashtamangala Chinha in Hinduism which is found on the base of 12th and 13th century temples.
He adds that at an excavation in the western side of the Babri Masjid, the team uncovered various terracotta sculptures. This proves the temple’s presence as such structures are Haram (forbidden) in Islam.
ASI in 2003 had undertaken another excavation of the site, but matters were complicated with the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Despite this, Muhammed states that the survey found several structures underground.
While the first excavation had found 12 temple pillars, the 2003 excavation found over 50 pillars in 17 rows which proved the large (grand) nature of the structure which stood before the Babri Mosque.
As per Muhammed, this excavation also uncovered the temple Pranala which was used to bathe the deity. It also discovered a Makara Pranali (crocodile faced) which is an exclusive property of a temple.
He adds that the excavation also uncovered other parts of the temple like Amalka, Grivah and Shikhara, besides discovering 263 pieces of terracotta structures of Hindu gods and goddesses.
Taking On The Leftist Ecosystem
Muhammed has been a big critic of leftist historians like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar whom he accuses of preventing an amicable resolution in the Ram Mandir dispute.
He writes in his book Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I, an Indian) that the Babri issue would have been settled long ago had the Muslim community not fallen prey to the “brain washing by the Leftist historians”.
He states that historians like Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal supported by Irfan Habib, RS Sharma, D N Jha, Suraj Bhan and Akthar Ali argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century, who also called Ayodhya a Buddhist-Jain centre.
As per Muhammed, when the left historians falsely made this claim in the 1990s - he then wrote a column detailing his findings.
He also blasts the Leftist historians for making their “ignorant statements” and taking the Muslim community for a ride. He added that virtually no-one in this leftist team was an archaeologist thus they had no authority to state that they found no evidence of a temple below the Babri Mosque.
K K Muhammed’s Personal View On The Ram Mandir Dispute
Muhammed has time and again reiterated that the Ram Janmabhoomi is as significant for Hindus as Mecca and Madina is for Muslims. He thus has maintained that Muslims should have willingly handed over the piece of land to Hindus.
“Even now the time has not elapsed. Before the Supreme Court gives its judgment, Muslims should hand over the place to Hindus and create an example. That is my humble request to them”, Muhammed was quoted as saying.
With regards to the Supreme Court’s verdict, Muhammed states that archaeological evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a Hindu temple and he believed that the apex court’s judgement would not be to the contrary.