As a section of academics and historians have raised questions on the Archaeological Survey of India’s Ayodhya excavation report, former ASI director R. Nagaswamy, examined by the Allahabad high court as the key evaluator of the excavation results had stated that it “indisputably” showed the existence of a temple beneath the disputed structure (Babri Masjid).
Mr Nagaswamy, described by the HC as “examination-in-chief” on the ASI report, in his affidavit as well as during the cross-examination had said “the excavation at Ayodhya has shown indisputably that there existed a structure immediately beneath the disputed structure. It shows that the structure also had pillar bases. Pillar bases have been found in Mahasthan excavation in the Hindu temple area and that the Bangladesh archaeologists have shown those pillar bases were meant to support a porch of a Hindu temple.”
He further said: “From the perusal of the report it is clear that the layers are well-stratified and the periodisation has been done as per settled norms and the finds have also been recorded and interpreted properly.”
Mr Nagaswamy, 80, was cross-examined by the HC in 2006 and he had retired as ASI director in Tamil Nadu in 1988.
To a specific query of the court, he had said; “The temple at Ayodhya which I have mentioned, built in 11th century A.D. at the Janmasthan, was undoubtedly a classical temple. There are two temples 1 classical temple 2 non-classical temple.”
His services were sought by the HC to evaluate and understand the excavation results, ordered by it in 2003.
His affidavit and statements recorded on different dates had been included in “Annexure-III” from page 167 to 112 of the Ayodhya title suit judgment.
However, Sunni Waqf Borad counsel Zaffaryab Jilani and other lawyers for Muslim litigants, had raised questions on the excavation report itself. Mr Jilani in his affidavit raised a series of questions on the “authenticity” of the report.