TRUTH UNDER THE DOME

Dr. M. G. S. Narayanan
(Former Member Secretary & Chairman, ICHR)

Finally, it is solution for Ayodhya dispute…

Probably, nobody expected this verdict. Nobody thought that the court will
play with ‘Ayodhya Fire’.
Questions emerge in the minds of general public…
Was such a solution impossible earlier if our politicians cared a little?
Could we not have saved hundreds of lives?
Could we not have saved our country from the communal cauldron in which
it is in?
Why this did not happen?

Dr. M. G. S. Narayanan, the then Member Secretary of ICHR which was

supposed to advise the Government during those turbulent days, candidly
answers these questions…

“Prime responsibility of complicating this issue lies with the politicians who
tried to perpetuate the dispute for their political gains. The next in line is the
Communist historians. Common believers became puppets in their hands”

Q: - What is the role of historians here? The Marxian historians (whom you
target) have clarified that they work against distortion of history using
superstitions.

A: - Historians have to be impartial in their analysis. Sooner than the dispute

broke out, some historians took positions which caused provocation in a
particular community. They even published booklets, contemptuously
asking for evidence to show that Ram was born in Ayodhya in the ‘Treta
Yug’. At the same time they never questioned the authenticity of Babri
Mazjid.

The core of the Ayodhya dispute is not whether Ram is a historical figure or
not. No religious belief has firm basis. Most of the faiths are constructed on
illogical foundations. Evidences and documents are not of any value; only
faith counts there. Ram took birth in Ayodhya is a belief. If you can
recognize such beliefs in Islam and Christianity, you must do the same for
Hinduism also.

1
Whether Ram was born in the present day Ayodhya is the moot question.
Ram-worship is comparatively a recent phenomenon. Ram became
prominent with the invasion of Islam, more so because he was the hero who
defeated Ravana.

Many of the Budhist scriptures mention large provinces like Anga, Vanga,
Kashi, Kosal, Magadh, etc. Ayodhya (which was also known as Saket) was
the capital of Kosal. It is said that this place is on the banks of River Sarayu.

All these Budhist records were deliberately ignored by some of the

historians who handled the Ayodhya dispute. They discounted Hindu books
like Ramayan as mere stories. “How do you say that the present day
Ayodhya is the same place which is mentioned in Ramayan?”- they
questioned.

Q:- But that question is relevant…?

A:- Irrelevance of that question will be clear when you study the history
with due care. The disputed site was called Ayodhya since the Gupta period.
These historical facts were deliberately ignored by Marxist historians when
the Babri Mazjid dispute broke out. But they supported all the claims by
Muslims.

Either they are absolutely ignorant about archeological research or they had
willfully distorted the history. They argued that Ayodhya was a Jain city.
There are no evidences for this argument. None of the Ayodhya excavations
could bring out any evidence in this direction. These historians got support
from few politicians also. The politicians had vested interest in protecting
their vote banks. The fact was that a section of historians were fabricating
stories to suit their political motives. The Babri Mazjid action committee
became more belligerent because of this. In fact, the Committee was being
misguided by these historians. This was the root cause of all the troubles.

Q:- It is said that the British fostered this dispute so as to divide and rule…

A:- Muhammed Ghazni, Ghori, Allauddin Khilji, Aurangzeb, etc were

religious bigots, a fact which Communist historians always discounted as a
lie perpetuated by the British. They argued that these were stories fabricated
to aggravate Hindu-Muslim divide. It was wrong to hide such truths from
common man. It is a historical fact that Ghazni, Ghori and Aurangzeb

2
destroyed several Hindu temples in their religious zeal. This has been
recorded by their in house historians. A section of historians insisted that
such facts should be kept under wraps. That is not the way. We have to
understand the history; and then forgive and forget. If you conceal history, it
will rear its head one day. That is what happened in this case. The wrong
positions which historians took provoked the other side.

Q:- Ok, but how the left and leftist historians alone can be held responsible
for this?

A:- Marxists played a major role to bring things to this pass. I was the
Member Secretary of ICHR for some time from 1990. The then P.M.
Chandrasekhar made sincere efforts to bring peace in Ayodhya. He
suggested that let both sides form committees of historians of their choice.
Let both committees collect evidence to buttress their claims and exchange
such data. A permanent solution shall be worked out after careful
examination of all these evidences- this was his idea. It was a good
suggestion. At that time Prof. Irfan Habib was the Chairman of ICHR. He is
an expert but leftist historian.
Next day morning I saw the list of historians pronounced by Babri Mazjid
committee in news papers. The first name was that of Prof. Irfan Habib. The
other names were – Dr. R. S. Sharma (the first Chairman of ICHR), Prof.
Vipin Chandra, Dr. Satish Chandra (the then UGC Chairman) and Dr.
Ravindra Kumar (Director, Nehru Museum Library).

On the Ram Janambhumi side, there was Devendra Swaroop, Grover who
was a Senior Director and former Member Secretary of ICHR and few not so
well known historians.

The moment I saw the list, I phoned everybody whom I knew including Dr.
Sharma. Dr. Ravindra Kumar said – “I was not consulted before including
my name in the list. There is no question of my becoming a member of this
committee.” Dr. Satish Chandra also reacted similarly.

Everybody except Dr. Sharma withdrew from the committee. Sharmaji

expressed helplessness – “How can I refuse Irfan? My name was suggested
by him…” Further, Sharma said he wanted to see the documents of both
sides and this is possible only if he becomes the member of a committee. I
reminded him that he will lose his reputation as an ‘impartial historian’ if he
joins any side. “Ok, will do one thing. I will write to the Prime Minister

3
explaining everything” – and he sent that letter with the help of my office
stenographer. But there was no reply from the PM. And Sharmaji continued
in his post.

After a week when Prof. Irfan Habib attended office, I told him – “Being the
Chairman of ICHR, it was impropriety on your part to become member of
such a committee”. Mind you, it was not my personal opinion. ICHR has the
responsibility to advise the Union of India on historical issues. Such advice
has to be impartial and authentic. It will lack credibility if the Chairman of
such a body happens to be the member of a committee constituted to argue
the case of a particular side. I wanted to make this point. His first reaction
was that “I am entitled to do so because I am an independent historian”. I
left it there.

After few days he told me – “MGS, I feel you were right. The Chairman of
ICHR should not become member of a one-sided committee”. Consequently
he quit the committee. But R. S. Sharma continued. Also Dr. Athar Ali of
AMU, Prof. D. N. Jha of Delhi University and archeologist Suraj Bhan were
also included in the committee. Athar Ali was Sharma’s close friend, Jha
was Sharma’s student and Suraj Bhan was Jha’s student.

I think Prof. Irfan Habib might have given necessary guidance to the
committee even after his resignation. There are people who think that the
whole report was prepared by Prof. Irfan on behalf of the committee.

Reports from both committees were given to ICHR by the Central

Government. ICHR was asked to advise on the authenticity of both reports.

I read the reports and submitted my findings to the Chairman in writing

thus- “We have to analyze historical facts belonging to three different
periods. Old history related to the birth of Rama, medieval history in relation
with invasions of Babur; and the recent history. We must entrust this job to
our respective expert members of the Council. Or we may approach
historians outside the Council, on whom we have trust.”

But my suggestion was not accepted. Not only that, the Chairman sent his
own findings to the PM’s office. It was like the advocate pronouncing the
verdict. Fortunately or unfortunately the Government did not act on
Chairman’s recommendations. The Chandrasekhar Govt fell. I still feel that
if that government had continued for some more time, some solution to

4
Ayodhya dispute would have emerged. It could even have been based on the
recommendations of Prof. Irfan Habib. Nevertheless, some breakthrough
could have been achieved through dialogue.

Q:- Why did not you expose this earlier?

A:- It is improper to do that when I am occupying the chair of Member

Secretary. After my official stint, I wrote my first article on the issues related
to Babri Mazjid. My article ‘Truth is Far Away’ was written at the request of
a publication house. Though I wrote it earlier, it was published on the third
day of demolition. In the article, I made it clear that the media reports do not
reflect the actual happenings in Ayodhya. I also brought out the fact that the
historians of JNU and AMU along with politicians had vested interests in
keeping the Ayodhya cauldron boiling.

Q:- Political parties including Congress was interested in perpetuating the

Ayodhya issue…?

A:- Congress played a big role. They were considerably weakened in Uttar
Pradesh in those days. They wanted to reclaim the lost ground through
minority appeasement.
The Communists also had their hidden agenda. Marxists were not a force at
all in those areas. They calculated that Hindu-Muslim conflict would
provide them the required impetus. We saw how it worked. Communists
could take roots after the demolition. Subhashini Ali won the election. Also
Faizabad became a Communist constituency.

Q:- Why the historical evidences of this area were not considered?

A:- Though ASI does a commendable job, they have a haunting

preconceived notion which was prevailing since the British period. ASI did
not excavate any Hindu Puranic sites. But they excavate all sites mentioned
in Budhist scriptures. Their explanation is that the Hindu literature is less
authentic.

Shri. B. B. Lal, the Director of ASI, after his retirement, approached Prof.
Nurul Hassan for the permission to excavate six places mentioned in
Ramayan. He got permission as well as funds. When excavated outside the
Babri Mazjid, a series of parallel pillar bases were found. These extended up
to the foundation of the Mosque. Shri. Lal opined that further excavations

5
could lead us to the termination point of these pillars. Marxists and the
historians supported by them were the most vociferous against this
excavation.

The government intervened and banned publication of anything related to

the pillar bases. Shri. Lal was subjected to character assassination. The BJP
came to his rescue. That is how he reached the BJP camp. Even then he did
not publish his findings. He told me later that he was frightened. These
findings were published in 2002 when Prof. Settar was the Chairman of
ICHR. [Archeology and Historiography (2002) editor S. Settar] The
demolition took place somewhere in between. The excavation conducted in
the debris brought out a stone inscription hidden in sand between the twin
walls.

The Communists and their historians accused RSS of falsely fabricating this
evidence. The government restrained publication of the contents of this
inscription. The Chief Epigraphist of ASI was barred by the government
from visiting that area. Still, somebody with a sharp camera took pictures of
this inscription. I also had a chance to read that.

Q:- What was in it?

A:- It was written that a temple for Vishnu Hari was constructed by the
Kanouj King Govind Chandra at Ayodhya in Saket Mandala. Govind
Chandra lived in the 12th century. He was the harbinger of Hindu
renaissance. He was the descendent of King Jayachandra who was killed by
Muhammed Ghori in a battle. No epigraphist will say that the inscription
which indicates to the temple constructed by Govind Chandra is a fake. The
writing and language of those days cannot be produced fraudulently.

Q:- Is the pre-existence of a temple confirmed by the court?

A:- I am not aware of that. But, evidences to establish that there existed a
temple had amply been brought out by researchers. All these evidences were
authenticated through scientific examinations. The pictures of the idols
excavated from that area have been published in various books. (Ayodhya
2002-’03, Excavation at the Disputed Site – published by ASI).

But, one cannot be sure as to whether the temple was demolished to

construct the Mosque. Temple was constructed in 12th century and Babur

6
came after four centuries. It is possible that the temple was dilapidated by
that time.

Q:- Have you seen any evidence which shows that Babur constructed the
Mosque?

A:- There is no evidence to show that Babur constructed the mosque. He has
recorded whatever he did. His autobiography Nabur Nama is very good.
Only one manuscript of this book is available. Three wars are mentioned in
this book. Ayodhya invasion is subsequent to that. There is record that
Babur returned from Ayodhya after few months. Babur Nama gives details
of his arrival at the borders of Ayodhya. The details of his stay at Ayodhya
are missing. Someone has removed those particular pages from Babur
Nama. However, the possibility of constructing a mosque within such a
short period is remote. He might have laid the foundation stone. Anyway,
we are not sure of that period.

Q:- Your comments on the court verdict?

A:- This verdict is a good start. But, court verdict alone cannot solve this
problem. An atmosphere of amity is to be created by the ruling and
opposition parties and community leaders. India’s multicultural ethos will
prevail only if the believers do not ridicule and challenge each other. No
believer should hold that only his faith is true. Believers should not get
carried away by the propaganda of non-believers.

Interview by A. Sajeevan, Kala Kaumudi Weekly 10 October 2010

Translation by T. G. Mohandas
21 October 2010