Archaeologist K K Muhammed
Credit: DH Photo
K K Muhammed, former Region Director (North), Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), was the first to ask Muslims to hand over the Babar Masjid area to Hindus after finding evidence that the mosque was built on the remains of a temple.
DH’s ETB Sivapriyan spoke to Muhammed on the findings of the team that carried out excavation in the area, politicisation of the Ram Temple, controversy over Mathura and Varanasi mosques, and the way forward. Edited excerpts:
Q: What did the archaeological team led by Prof BB Lal in which you were an integral part find near the Babri Masjid area during an excavation exercise in 1976-77?
A: While we were exploring the area around Babri Masjid, we found that the structure was standing on 12 temple pillars. All the temple pillars had Purna Kalasha which is one of the eight auspicious symbols of Hinduism and also a symbol of prosperity. On the walls around the mosque, the team found engravings of Hindu deities which were defaced and there was a brick base on which the pillars were standing. We also found terracotta idols in the area, which you can never think of getting in a mosque area as these are prohibited in Islam. These were the initial findings on which we concluded that there existed a temple underneath the mosque.
On the walls around the mosque, the team found engravings of Hindu deities which were defacedK K Muhammed on findings of ASI survey
Q: The findings weren’t made public by Prof Lal and his team. How did the findings come into the public domain?
A: Prof Lal did not come out in that press because he felt that would have created a lot of problems in the country. But he had to naturally defend himself when Communist historians in 1990 claimed that the team led by Prof Lal didn’t find any materials associated with a temple in the Babri Masjid area. I was then working in Madras (now Chennai) and despite being on probation, I came out with a detailed statement on the findings and how we came to a conclusion that the mosque was standing on the remains of a temple. I had to debunk the historians and tell the truth to the nation as the historians didn’t have any domain competence to speak on a purely technical subject. They were not archaeologists and none of them visited the site either during the excavation or after that. In my statement, I also said Muslims should willingly hand over the site for the construction of a temple because the religious importance is only for Hindus and not for Muslims. Ayodhya is an important place of worship for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims.
Q: The Supreme Court accepted the findings of the team in which you were part of and allowed the construction of a temple in the disputed land. Now that the temple is being inaugurated, how do you feel?
A: This is a moment of great fulfilment and satisfaction, only for me, but for the entire country because this problem has been bothering the country for the last 500 years. We should all rejoice at the moment and welcome Lord Sri Ram to Ayodhya. Even in Ramayana, Lord Ram went for vana vash only for 14 years. But here, he is coming to Ayodhya after 500 years and we should give him an outstanding welcome.
Q: The temple consecration ceremony is highly politicised. What is your opinion?
A: I am only an archaeologist, not a politician. They (BJP) are taking political advantage and that cannot be helped. But one has to look at the larger Hindu Community, and not the BJP and RSS people. I don’t bother about politicians. I look at it from the point of view of the people of this country and I am happy that the Ram Temple has been built and a long-standing issue has been brought to a successful end. As far as the politicisation of the event is concerned, I don’t want to comment on it for now.
Q: There are demands to build temples in place of Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura after the Ayodhya judgment. Your opinion?
A: I have worked in these places and we know that they (Gyanvapi and Mathura) are converted temple places and they should be handed over to Hindus by Muslims. For Muslims, these mosques have no association with Prophet Muhammad or Khalifs of Islam, these are just another place of worship. But for Hindus, these places have larger significance as Lord Krishna was born in Mathura. Hindus cannot shift the temple, but Muslims can shift their mosques. I have been very clear that India remains a secular country only because it is a Hindu majority country. Muslims should voluntarily relinquish these sites and help Hindu community to construct the temple.
Q: Won’t this open a Pandora’s Box with demands for razing of mosques and construction of new temples in several places?
A: We should stop with Gyanvapi and Mathura and not go beyond the three places, which includes Ayodhya. Opening the Pandora’s Box will lead to a civil war in the country. Leaders of Hindu community should also step in and convince their people that no fresh demand (for razing of mosques) should be made. The two communities should come together and agree on a solution to the problem which has been bothering them for centuries together. Hinduism is a very liberal religion which gives numerous options to its followers and it is the responsibility of the leaders of the community to ensure that a common ground is found with Muslims.
Q: What do you feel is Central to the Hindu Muslim unity in India?
A: If the two places (Gyanvapi and Mathura) are given to the Hindu community, that will form the basic structure which will lay a firm foundation for further engagement between the two communities.
Q: Were you invited for the Pran Pratishtha ceremony of Ram Temple? Will you be attending the event?
A: The organisers were kind enough to invite me for the ceremony. I won’t be able to attend on January 22 but I plan to go to Ayodhya in March or April to visit the Ram Temple and I will do my own pooja.