KK Muhammed, renowned Archaeologist was Awarded Padma Shri. Moments his name featured in the list of Padma Shri awardees, congratulatory messages poured in, lauding him for “speaking the truth”.
The “truth” being referred to here is Muhammed’s claim that the Babri Masjid site was originally home to a temple.
As 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.
Muhammed is a known critic of leftist historians like Romila Thapar. He accuses leftist historians of preventing an easy resolution in the Ram Mandir dispute.
In his book Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I, an Indian) he writes 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”.
Muhammed has worked with archaeologist BB Lal, former director-general of the Archeological Survey of India who led the excavation team that first claimed to have unearthed the remnants of a Hindu temple at the Babri Masjid site in 1976-77.
In his lectures, Muhammed bashes the Left for not believing in the presence of Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
“An archaeologist speaks on the basis of verifiable things. At the time of Ayodhya excavations, I was part of the group. There was evidence of the presence of Ram, but the Left made a hue and cry,” he had said in one of the gatherings.
When he was asked in an interview, What is the proof that this second ASI excavation in 2003 was impartial?
He had replied that the excavation was completely videographed. Apart from ASI officials there were court-appointed judicial members.
There were the so-called experts of Babri mosque. Those who had filed the cases such as Zafaryab Jilani and their advocates were also overseeing the entire excavation process.
Besides, the excavation team comprised several Muslims who were senior archaeologists of the ASI. They included Ghulam Syeddin Khwaja from ASI, who retired as director Arabic and Persian epigraphy at Nagpur. There also was Atiqur Rehman Siddiqui who retired as superintending archaeologist of Agra.
Zulfikar Ali, who presently is the superintending archaeologist of Chandigarh circle and AA Hashmi, who retired from Chanderi were there.
They not only carried the excavation but they also were co-authors of the report which was submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which was highly fool-proof.
Their conclusion was simple – that there was a pre-existing temple below the Babri Mosque, dedicated to Lord Vishnu.
We found not one but 14 pillars of a temple at the Babri Masjid site. All these pillars had domes carved on them. The domes resembled those found in temples belonging to 11th and 12th century. In the temple architecture domes are one of the nine symbols of prosperity. It was quite evident that the Masjid was erected on the debris of a temple. I went on writing to several English dailies in those days about the finding. Only one news paper published my view and that too in the letters to Editor column,” says the book.
According to Muhammed that the Left historians even tried to mislead the Allahabad High Court on the issue. Even after the court had pronounced its verdict Irfan and his team were not ready to accept the truth. They simply questioned the logicality of the verdict.
In his autobiography he writes that, they had found not one but 14 pillars of a temple at the Babri Masjid site. All these pillars had domes carved on them. The domes resembled those found in temples belonging to 11th and 12th century.
In the temple architecture domes are one of the nine symbols of prosperity. It was quite evident that the Masjid was erected on the debris of a temple.
According to Muhammed that the Left historians even tried to mislead the Allahabad High Court on the issue. Even after the court had pronounced its verdict Irfan Habib and his team were not ready to accept the truth. They simply questioned the logicality of the verdict.
When asked by a report, is there not a chance that his book may instigate communal violence his reply was worth remembering,
He said, “I do not think so. Besides, communalism in Hindu religion is not fundamental in nature but a spontaneous reaction. Godhra was such an instance of such a reaction,”.
K.K. Muhammed is doing a great service not just by speaking truth but he is also taking the veil of communist historians faces revealing their true face.
Dr Sharanya Alva