A report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has said that a large Hindu temple existed before the construction of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, signifying a tipping point in the contentious community conflict that may have far-reaching effects even as the trial of the underlying civil suit filed in 2021 is yet to commence.

In April 2022, a civil court ordered a controversial survey of the complex by an advocate-commissioner, which quickly ran into protests. The survey was finally completed in May that year, but not before the Hindu side claimed that a Shivling was found in the final hours of the exercise even as the Muslim side disputed this. The civil court secured the entire complex despite the Muslim side arguing that the structure found was a ceremonial ablution fountain.

Then, last July, the Varanasi district court ordered an extensive survey of the mosque by ASI to ascertain whether it was built over a pre-existing temple, while holding that a scientific probe was necessary for the truth to come out. The judge, however, excluded the section over which a dispute had arisen, which remains sealed under the May 2022 direction of the Supreme Court. Following three extensions, ASI submitted its report on December 18. The main findings of the report were made public on Thursday by Vishnu Shankar Jain, the lead lawyer for four Hindu women plaintiffs seeking regular worshipping rights in the mosque complex. The report raises several crucial points in the fractious communal dispute that awaits a final word from the court.

ASI report findings

The extensive report of ASI cited its in-depth study of the existing structures, and alluded to features and artefacts recovered from the site to conclude that “there existed a large Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure” in the 17th century.

Read Here | Temple existed at Gyanvapi: Hindu side cites ASI survey

The body, restrained by an order of the Supreme Court on August 4, 2023, from carrying out any excavation at the site or using any invasive method that may damage the existing structure, says it employed a raft of advanced technologies and instruments to carry out the scientific survey.

It used ground penetrating radar (GPR) , a method of gathering data about what’s below the ground using technology that sends electromagnetic energy signals into the subsurface. Other techniques used included differential global positioning systems (DGPS) and dating methods. While DGPS utilises differential correction techniques to enhance the quality of location data gathered using GPS receivers, dating is a method of calculating the age of very old objects.

“Based on scientific studies/ survey carried out, study of architectural remains, exposed features and artefacts, inscriptions, art and sculptures, it can be said that there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure,” stated the ASI report, relying on the tools it used.

The report highlighted some points to buttress its claims of the existence of a pre-existing structure upon which the Gyanvapi mosque was built.

Western wall and western chamber: “The western wall, which is made of stones and decorated with mouldings, is remaining part of an earlier Hindu temple,” declared the report. It cited existing architectural remains, decorated mouldings on the walls, “karma-ratha” and “prati-ratha” (something to depict Shiva and Parvati) of the central chamber, a large decorated entrance gate with ornamental skirting on the eastern wall of the western chamber, a small entrance with a mutilated image on the door jamb, birds and animals carved for decoration inside and outside, to suggest that the western wall is the remaining part of a Hindu temple. “Art and architecture of any building not only indicate its date but also its nature…Based on art and architecture, this pre-existing structure can be identified as a Hindu temple,” it maintained.

Read Here: Gyanvapi mosque panel reacts to ASI’s ‘pre-existing temple’ finding, says ‘not final word’

Pillars and pilasters: According to the report, ASI officials studied the pillars and pilasters used in the existing structure systematically and scientifically before holding that the parts of the pre-existing temple were used in the present structure. “For the enlargement of the mosque and constructing the sahan (courtyard), parts of the pre-existing temple including pillars and pilasters were reused with little modifications. Minute study of the pillars and pilasters in corridor suggest that they were originally part of the pre-existing Hindu temple. For their reuse in the existing structure, vyala (a Hindu mythological figure with the composite features of a lion, elephant, and sometimes, a horse and a bird) figures carved on either side of lotus medallion were mutilated and after removing the stone mass from the comers that space was decorated with floral design,” said the report.

Inscriptions: ASI heavily relied on the inscriptions noticed on the present and the pre-existing structure. “During scientific investigations/ survey of the existing structure a number of Sanskrit and Dravidian inscriptions were noticed on the pre-existing structure and existing structure. Most of these inscriptions which can be dated from 12th to 17th century have been reused in the structure, suggesting that the earlier structures were destroyed and their parts were reused in construction/ repair later,” the report said. It added that a comprehensive analysis of the data collected from these inscriptions revealed that they were mainly engraved by pilgrims sitting in the place spanning over three centuries — from the 15th to 17th century. These inscriptions, the report said, suggested that the pilgrims offered obeisance to their deity that involved burning a lamp. The 34 inscriptions examined, ASI said, suggested reuse of earlier inscriptions in the structure. “Three names of deities such as Janardhana, Rudra, and Uměśvara are found in these inscriptions. Terms such as Mahā-muktimendapa mentioned in three inscriptions is of great significance,” it said. The report further noted that the Arabic-Persian inscription found inside a room mentions that the mosque was built in the 20th year of the reign of Aurangzeb (1676-77). “Hence, the pre-existing structure appears to have been destroyed in the 17th century, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and part of it was modified and reused in the existing structure,” held ASI.

Read Here | BJP’s Giriraj Singh appeals to Muslim side: ‘Hand over Gyanvapi mosque to Hindus’

Marks: The ASI report also referred to the marks found on the structure, including the swastika and the trident. “The most common and most important mark is the ‘swastika’. It is known to be one the most ancient symbols in the world, and has been used in all old civilisations. In India this symbol is considered very auspicious by Hindus,” said the agency. Another important symbol is the ‘trishula’ (trident — the distinct weapon of Lord Shiva) said the ASI, adding this divine symbol is commonly used as one of the principal symbols by Hindus, particularly by Shaivites and also Shaktas.

Sculptural remains in cellars: According to the archaeological report, a series of cellars were later constructed to the east to create additional space and a large platform in front of the mosque for accommodating large number of people for prayers. “Pillars from earlier temples were reused while making cellars in the eastern part of the platform. A pillar decorated with bells, niches for keeping lamps on all four sides, and bearing an inscription of Samvat 1669 is reused in cellar N2,” said the report. Sculptures of Hindu deities and carved architectural members were also found buried under the dumped soil in one of the cellars.

The report added that the pre-existing temple had a big central chamber and based on the study of the existing structures and available evidence it can be concluded that it had at least one chamber to the north, south, east and west respectively.

“In the 17th century, part of the pre-existing structure was modified and reused in the existing structure. Animal figures carved on the pre-existing structure were not suitable for this purpose and therefore they were removed. A part of the pre-existing structure was utilised as the core of the existing structure,” claimed the report.

Read Here: Asaduddin Owaisi’s ‘handmaiden of Hindutva’ dig over ASI’s Gyanvapi survey report

Evidentiary value of an ASI report and the Ayodhya judgment

The 2019 judgment by a five-judge bench in the Ayodhya case sheds light on the evidentiary value of an ASI report during the trial in a civil suit.

When the Allahabad high court was seized of the trial of the suit in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, in October 2002, it ordered a GPR survey of the disputed structure to ascertain whether the mosque was built atop a pre-existing structure and the nature of that pre-existing structure. Later, in March 2003, the high court directed ASI to excavate the site to determine whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished, and a mosque constructed on the disputed site.

The ASI report in the Ayodhya case concluded that the mosque was over the top of a pre-existing construction , and constructed in the 16th century. There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure, the report said. It held that the mutilated sculptures and remains from the site are indicative of features “which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

But the ASI report refrained from giving any finding on whether any underlying temple or structure was demolished to construct the Babri Masjid at the site.

In its 2019 judgment, the Supreme Cout held that ASI is an expert authority whose credentials and expertise are beyond reproach. “In a matter pertaining to scientific investigation, the court lacks expertise on issues requiring domain knowledge which is why the Commissioner was appointed in the first place,” the five-judge bench noted, referring to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Editorial: Whose place of worship is it?

At the same time, the apex court was unequivocal that such reports cannot be relied as the sole evidence of proof in a trial. “The report, which has been submitted by ASI is an opinion; an opinion nevertheless of an expert governmental agency in the area of archaeology. The report constitutes the opinion of an expert. Expert opinion has to be sieved and evaluated by the court and cannot be conclusive in and of itself,” it declared.

According to the judgment, it lies within the jurisdiction of the court to decide whether the findings that are contained in the report of ASI subserve the cause of truth and justice on the basis of relevance and preponderance of probabilities. “Common sense ought to guide the exercise of judicial discretion, here as in other branches of the law,” said the court, adding it is always open for a contesting party to raise objections to such a report and cross-examine the commissioners during the trial.

In the Ayodhya case, the bench noted that it is crucial for the court to sift between what the report finds and what it leaves unanswered.

While the ASI report does find the existence of a pre-existing structure and concludes on the basis of the architectural fragments found at the site and the nature of the structure that it was of a Hindu religious origin, the top court underlined, “The ASI report has left unanswered a critical part of the remit which was made to it, namely, a determination of whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to pave way for the construction of the mosque.” The judgment added that ASI‘s inability to render a specific finding on this facet is certainly a significant evidentiary circumstance which must be borne in mind when the cumulative impact of the entire evidence is considered in the final analysis.

Opinion: Gyanvapi gets a political edge

In its final analysis, the Ayodhya judgment held that “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI” because it did not explain whether the earlier structure was demolished for the purpose of the construction of the mosque nor did it conclude that the remnants of the pre-existing structures were used for the purpose of constructing Babri Masjid.

Gyanvapi report goes a step further

Significantly, the ASI report in the Gyanvapi case plugs the gaps that the agency left in the Ayodhya case – it concludes that a large Hindu temple existed prior to the construction of the existing structure and that the parts of the pre-existing temple were used in the present structure.

While the evidentiary value of the ASI report is that of an expert opinion amenable to a challenge and scrutiny during trial, it does present a strong scientific view on the subject, arming the Hindu side with a document that they will certainly focus on while proving their claim of a pre-existing Hindu temple and an unbridled right to worship at the disputed site. Moreover, with the ASI report out in the public domain, the communally sensitive matter has suddenly become more delicate to handle for a trial court that is tasked with an adjudicatory function of unique dimension.