The BRICS TimesThe former Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is making headlines. He appealed to the Muslim community to hand over the sites of Ram Janmabhoomi, Mathura, and Gyanvapi to Hindus.
Former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, K.K. Muhammed, has called for restraint in the temple-mosque dispute. He also highlighted three religious sites needing discussion. These sites include Ram Janmabhoomi, Mathura, and Gyanvapi.
‘These Sites Should Be Given to Hindus’
K.K. Muhammed offered advice to Muslims, suggesting these locations should be handed over to the Hindu community. Furthermore, he advised avoiding any more claims. Otherwise, these difficulties will never end. The former Regional Director’s statement comes when various petitions regarding claims on different religious sites are pending in the country’s courts. Muhammed stated that Ram Janmabhoomi, Mathura, and Gyanvapi are as essential for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims.
What Did He Say on the Ayodhya Dispute?
The former official recalled his involvement in the Babri Masjid excavation in 1976. This was under the leadership of B.B. Lal. He claimed a Muslim Communist historian escalated the dispute. This historian convinced the official to deny the evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. He mentioned the Muslim community favored resolving the matter then. They were open to permitting the construction of a temple. He further alleged the historian was not an archaeologist. He was not present during any excavation either. The historian spread many falsehoods regarding this matter.
Rejection of Claims on the Taj Mahal
The former official dismissed the claims concerning the Taj Mahal. He stated they are completely untrue. Muhammed explained it was Raja Man Singh’s palace initially. It was later transferred to Jai Singh, and then to Shah Jahan. Supporting documents for this transfer are safely kept in the Bikaner and Jaipur Museums. However, he voiced that the government has not met demands concerning cultural heritage. He termed this period a dark phase for the Archaeological Survey of India.
However, ASI Director General Yadubir Rawat rejected Muhammed’s claims. Rawat asserted that the ASI is highly active. “We have a sufficient budget,” he added. “We also have thousands of monuments to manage.” Rawat questioned why some individuals raise these issues after retirement. Why did they not raise them while they were employed? The ASI does not support any political side. The institution’s work is finding and collecting documents. It must document them properly.
Akshay Didwaniya
