By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or controverted. It has ended up supporting the Ramjanmabhoomi case.
In Chapter 15 (Recommendations), Page 978, Para 176.5, the Report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of inquiry 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.”
The Commission’s above recommendation given in the year 2009 are important. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) already took initiatives in this direction in the year 2002 and got extensive examinations done at the disputed site through scientific Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey and archaeological excavations. The details are given below:
Stand of the Court
One of the central or core issues to be decided by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Civil Suits regarding Ramjanmabhoomi, is as to whether the disputed structure, viz., Baburi masjid, was built after demolishing a Hindu temple? 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 exercise and submitted a report to the Court on February, 2003.
The report reads:
“In conclusion, the GPR Survey reflects in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations, walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological trenching.” (Final Report on GPR, Chapter-8, Summary of Results, Page 31. This Report is signed by Claude Robillard, the Chief Geophysicists).
After considering the above GPR Report, the High Court 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. Court provided certain safeguards to ensure transparency in the task of ASI. Besides others, the Court permitted the parties or their Counsels to remain present on the spot during the course of excavation proceedings. The ASI took about five months period 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 and 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, etc., day-to-day registers, antiquity register.
In this excavation report (Ayodhya 2002-03, Vol. I 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 huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”
In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography) page No. 23 the Liberhan Report says:
Para 9.1: “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birthplace of the Hindu God Ram and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city.”
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, travellers, tourists.”
Para 9.3: “Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ram Janam Bhoomi.”
Para 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 unequalled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travellers, pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”
Para 9.5 : “This Place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birthplace 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 success ruler 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 a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”
Page-26, Para-10.10: “The town is currently inhibited (sic) (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, Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kasushalya Bhawan……..”
Page 32, Para 12.12: “The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ramjanmabhoomi 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.”