Born in an orthodox Muslim family in Calicut, Kerala, KK Mohammed has renovated more than 300 temples as a part of his professional life. He is proficient in six languages including Sanskrit and Pali.
In an interview to Ganesh Krishnan R, Shri KK Mohammed reveals that when the majority of Muslims was willing to hand over the disputed land to Hindus, it were the Leftists and Leftist affiliated Historians who sabotaged the peaceful transfer of the land. He believes, Ayodhya for a Hindu is as holy as Mecca for a Muslim. Excerpts:
The Supreme Court recently suggested an out of court settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. How do you see it?
We should consider it as a golden opportunity. It gives me immense hope that the Supreme Court has guaranteed that it will take the initiative. Hindus and Muslims can amicably settle the issue forever through dialogue process.
How can we reach a consensus through dialogue and settle the issue amicably?
For Hindus Ayodhya is as holy as Mecca for Muslims. I am talking about common men belonging to Hindu community. When I was in Ayodhya, I have seen barefooted devotees from all parts of the country thronging the temple premises even without proper clothing in bone-chilling cold only to have a glimpse of Sri Ram. We must take their emotions and sentiments into consideration.
Ayodhya has no connection with the Islamic faith or Prophet. So Muslims must handover Ayodhya to Hindus. India became an independent state after giving away an Islamic state, called Pakistan, to the Muslims. India still remains secular only because Hindus are a majority here. If Muslims were the majority, it would not have become a secular state. Muslims must understand this fact.
Being a member of the excavation team, what evidence have you got to establish that there was a temple under the disputed structure in Ayodhya?
The Ayodhya issue flared up on the national level in the early 1990s. Much earlier to that, an excavation was conducted by a team of archaeologists led by Dr BB Lal. I was part of the team. We unearthed the brick-made foundations of temple pillars. When we examined the site, we found temple pillars on the walls of the disputed structure. They were built of Black Basalt Stones. ‘Poorna Kalashams’ had been carved on the bottom of them. Such carvings are generally seen in the temples built between AD 11 and AD 12 centuries. We unearthed 14 such pillars. We had been there for two months.
We excavated the back and the other two sides of the structure. We also got brick-made platforms of the aforesaid Basalt Stone pillars. I said there was a temple on the basis of these pieces of evidence.
There have been excavations after 1978. What about the evidence unearthed in those attempts?
Numerous relics of the temple have been unearthed. The other vital archaeological evidence which cemented our assumption was found after the demolition of the structure during Karseva. The most important was the stone plaque of Vishnu Hari. It had been inscribed on the plaque that the temple is dedicated to Lord Vishnu- Sri Ram is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu-who killed Bali and the ten-headed (Ravan). In the research carried out by Dr YD Sharma and Dr KT Sreevastava in 1992, they found Vishnevite and Shiv-Parvati idols which date back to Kushan Period (AD 100-300). In 2003, the debris of over 50 temple pillars had been unearthed in an excavation followed by an order of the Allahabad High Court. The drainage for Abhisheka Jal (holy water poured over the idol of deity) or Makara Pranal and Amalka (seen on the top of temples) had also been recovered. These structures are the specialities of
temples that cannot be seen anywhere else including Mosques and Houses. In addition to that, it was mentioned in a report submitted by Dr Ragesh Tiwari, Director, Uttar Pradesh Archeological Survey, that 263 debris of a temple, dating back to Gupta Period, had been unearthed from the surroundings of the disputed structure. The India Today Magazine has published the photographs of the temple pillars with inscriptions being carried by Karsevaks. Archeological Survey of India insisted that the excavations should not appear to be in favour of or biased against either of the parties involved in the dispute. Among 131 members of the excavation team, 52 were Muslims. Moreover, all the experts on the list provided by the Babari Committee were included in the excavation team. And all the proceedings were closely monitored by a Munsiff and the Judge. What else can one do to make it more transparent and impartial? We have come to a conclusion that there was a temple based on these evidence.
So far all these facts have been snubbed by the Leftist-JNU historians and the Babri Committee. Some people allege that your comments and recent revelations have rekindled the debate. How do you see that?
Nobody can bury historical facts for so long. On December 15, 1990, I issued a public statement with
concrete evidence that there was a temple in Ayodhya. As a government official and archaeologist, I had just mentioned a historical fact. There had been a Hindu-Muslim divide over the issue far before that. Those were the days when Muslim outfits started thinking that the land be handed over to Hindus. But the Leftist-Communist historians intervened and made it an intricate issue and irreversibly altered the course so that the issue
remains unresolved.
A group of Communist-affiliated historians with Prof Irfan Habib in the forefront came to the help of Muslim fundamentals who were adamant on their stand that the place shall not be relinquished. Prof Habib was the then chairman of ICHR. Besides him, S Gopal, Bipin Chandra, Prof R S Sharma and other Leftist historians in JNU came up in arm against the historical facts and findings. They argued that there was no mention of such a temple in Ayodhya in the history before the 19th century and the Ayodhya was a Buddhist-Jain dominant area. The meetings of the Babari Masjid Action Committee were held in the premises of ICHR under the aegis of Irfan Habib. Dr MGS Narayanan, the then ICHR Member Secretary, was the only person who strongly came out against this gross misuse of Government machinery. For that, he had to face severe consequences too. They cornered and attacked him. At last, his life was also under threat.
Are you alleging that it was the Leftists who sabotaged the peaceful settlement of the issue?
No doubt. The Leftists and some historians in JNU escalated the issue and ensured that the issue should remain unresolved.
Besides some Islamic organisations, the Leftists have opposed the suggestion of the Supreme Court. Why do the same people who regard themselves as seculars take such odd stand?
As I said, if there were no Leftist interventions, the Ayodhya issue would have been settled far before. The Leftist Historians gave empty promises to Muslims. When the Muslims were willing to settle the issue, the Leftists were fishing in the murky water by questioning the historical veracity of Ramayana. It has created a confusion among Muslims. From their emotional outburst, it appears the Leftists are more concerned and sensitive in this matter than the Muslim League and Owaisis. They are the only hurdle on the path of a consensus. The leftists who claim to be in a war on Majoritarian extremism are in fact surrendering before Minority extremism.
A few words about your efforts to restore the temples in Chambal Valley.
It was in 2004, the government assigned me to a mission to restore the Bateswar temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. It is one of the largest temple complexes in Bharat. The temples, more than 200, were of AD 8 and AD 9 centuries. I renovated the temples with the help of Chambal dacoits. But after the restoration, with the dacoits withdrawing, a mining mafia tightened their grip over the region because the rocks surrounding the temple are very precious and it has a huge market in the foreign countries like US and UK. I sought for the intervention of the then State Government but there was no immediate action. At last, I wrote a letter to the then RSS Sarsanghchalak KS Sudarshanji. Within 24 hours of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter, the Government machinery hastened the action. There was a fierce battle between the Police and the mining mafia. They killed Narendra Kumar IPS, an efficient police officer who took stringent action against them. I was not attacked as I was supported by the dacoits. They have extended wholehearted support to our venture. For my letter to Sudarshanji, the then Union Cultural Minister Ambika Soni summoned me and sought an explanation. Maybe because of the support of the media, no action was taken against me.
Leave a Comment