Evidence for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: BB Lal

Evidence for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: BB Lal

The evidence marshaled by Dr. BB Lal is emphatic. (B.B. Lal, 2008, Rama: his
historicity, mandir and Setu: evidence of literature, archaeology and other
sciences, New Delhi, Aryan Books International.)

There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.

The chapter in BB Lal’s book is titled: ‘Was there a temple in the
Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’
See the vivid photos and read the remarkable Chapter II of BB Lal’s work URL
reference: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Chapter-2ayodhyabblal

K.V. Ramesh’s note on Ayodhya Vishnu-Hari temple inscription on a stone
slab 115 cms x 55 cms. Read
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19263264/ayodhya1 Appendix
from BB Lal’s book (Inscription read by KV Ramesh) This is Appendix II
referred to in Chapter II of BB Lal’s book.

BB Lal’s summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in anguish, but
in subdued tones: “The evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in
respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya
preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no
further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a
certain category of historians and archaeologists – and others of the same
ilk – is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite
of them the truth has revealed itself.”


Govt. should file affidavit in SC: Swamy.

December 11, 2009.

*Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party. *

The Report of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, unwittingly and
ironically, supports the VHP’s case for a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

In Chapter 15 (Recommendations), Page 978, Para 176.5, the Commission
states: “…..The question whether a structure was a temple or a mosque can
only be answered by a scientific study by archaeologists, historians and
anthropologists.” This is precisely the VHP’s stated position for the last
25 years.

The Allahabad High Court on VHP’s petition in the year 2002 got
extensive investigation done at the disputed site through scientific GPR
Survey and archaeological excavations. Vide orders, dated August 01, 2002
and October 23, 2002, the High Court Bench asked the Archaeological Survey
of India (ASI) to carry out Ground Penetrating Radar Survey/Geo-radiology
Survey (GPR) of the disputed land, so as to ascertain possibility of proof
of remnants of some earlier structure. In compliance of these orders, the
ASI, with the help of Tozo Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. undertook this

The High Court thereafter *suo moto* passed a detailed order on March
05, 2003, issuing a commission to ASI to investigate into the matter by
excavating the relevant area of the disputed land. The ASI took about five
months in carrying out the excavation work and thereafter submitted a bulky
report in two volumes together with 45 site notebooks, 12 albums containing
329 black & white photographs, 28 albums having coloured photographs, 11
video cassettes, 6 DVD cassettes, registers of pottery, unsealed bones,
architectural objects stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual
list of 9 boxes containing bones, glazed wares, antiquities, day-to-day
registers, antiquity register etc., etc..

In this excavation report (Ayodhya 2002-03, Vol.1 text, Chapter-X,
Summary of Results, Page Nos. 268-269, 270, 271 and 272), the ASI states in
the last paragraph: “…….Now viewing in totality and taking into account the
archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed
structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from 10th Century
onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the
yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine
couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, Amlaka,
Kapotapali, Door Jamb, and semi-circular plaster, broken octagonal shaft of
black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having Pranala (water
chute) in the North, 50 pillar bases in association of a hue structure, *are
indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with
the temples of North India.**”*

Other observations of the Liberhan Commission too support the VHP case
for a Rama temple at the disputed site:

In Chapter No.2 (Ayodhya & its Geography) page No. 23 the Liberhan Report

Para 9.1: “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birthplace
of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical

Para 9.2: “Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life,
culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a
peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants,
monks, travelers, tourists.”

9.3: “Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, Khosla (sic) or Maha
Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ram Janam Bhoomi.

9.4: “Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram
believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The
place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers,
pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”

9.5: “This place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth
place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the
past with the present & the future, this religious fervour had kept the town
for centuries alive after successive rulers had gone by”.

Page 25, Para-10.3: “On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a
population of about 2,10,000. It has large number of temples mostly
dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”

Page 26, Para-10.10: “The town is currently inhibited (sic) (means
inhabited!) with a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims,
Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population
is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations.”

Page 29, Para 12.1: “There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines,
tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area:
rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”

Page 29, Para 12.2: “Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti
Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman
Garhi, Pr3eethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and
Kaushalya Bhavan…….”

Paga 32, Para 12.12: “The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya
town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed
structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi
in his statement with no contradiction.”

Hence, since the Union Government has accepted the Liberhan Commission
Report and this Report, read with the Supreme Court’s 1994 Constitutional
Bench judgment in the Farooqui case, that a mosque *is not an essential part
of Islam *but a facilitation center for reading of namaz, hence any
government can acquire any mosque for a public purpose and even demolish it,

I demand therefore the Government file an affidavit in the Supreme
Court declaring that it will acquire the disputed area in Ayodhya and hand
it over to the sants and sadhus associated with the VHP enable Hindus to
organize a Rama temple restoration at the original birth site of Lord Rama.


The Chapter 2 of BB Lal’s work ‘Was there a temple in the Janmabhumi
area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’ has
been reloaded with colour photographs. The new URL is:
– Hide quoted text –


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: