Omar Rashid 
New Delhi: The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its survey report of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi has claimed that a “large Hindu temple” existed there prior to the construction of the existing structure (the mosque) and that parts of the temple were used in the construction of the Islamic place of worship.
The ASI carried out a court-approved scientific survey of the 17th-century mosque adjoining the Kashi Vishwanath Temple to determine if it was constructed over a pre-existing structure of a temple, as claimed by Hindu petitioners who have sought year-round access for darshan and pooja of Maa Shringar Gauri in the Gyanvapi Masjid compound. The Varanasi court had on January 24 allowed the findings of the ASI report to be made available to all parties.
While the full 839-page report is not yet accessible, some operative parts of the ASI report said it had concluded that “it can be said that there existed a large Hindu temple, prior to the construction of the existing structure”. The ASI said it drew the conclusion on the basis of scientific survey, study of architectural remains, exposed features and artefacts, inscriptions, art and sculptures.
The ASI based its findings on the observations and scientific study of the “central chamber and main entrance of the pre-existing structure in existing structure”. It claimed that there was “reuse of pillars and pilasters of pre-existing structure in existing structure” and that the “central chamber of the pre-existing structure forms the central hall of the existing structure”.
The western wall of the existing structure, the mosque, was the “remaining part of a pre-existing Hindu temple”, the ASI said.
“This wall, made of stones and decorated with horizontal mouldings, is formed by remaining parts of western chamber, western projections of the central chamber and western walls of the two chambers on its north and south. Central chamber attached to the wall still exists unchanged whereas modifications have been made to both the side chambers,” the report said.
The ASI also claimed that the pillars and pilasters used in the existing mosque were “reused with little modifications” for the enlargement of the mosque and constructing the sahan (courtyard).
Minute study of the pillars and pilasters in the corridor of the mosque “suggest that they were originally part of the pre-existing Hindu temple”, the ASI said. “For their reuse in the existing structure, vyala figures carved on either side of lotus medallion were mutilated and after removing the stone mass from the corners that space was decorated with floral design. This observation is supported by two similar pilasters still existing on the northern and southern wall of the western chamber in their original place.”
The ASI during its survey recorded 34 inscriptions on the “existing and pre-existing structures” and 32 estampages were taken. “These are, in fact, inscriptions on the stones of the pre-existing Hindu temples, which have been re-used during the construction/ repair of the existing structure. They include inscriptions in Devanagari, Grantha, Telugu and Kannada scripts,” the ASI said.
Reuse of earlier inscriptions in the structure suggest that the earlier structures were destroyed and their parts were reused in construction or repair of the existing structure, the ASI said, adding that three names of deities such as Janardhana, Rudra and Umēśvara were found in these inscriptions.
The ASI report said that the “temple” had a big central chamber and at least one chamber to the north, south east and west respectively. Remains of three chambers to the north, south and west still exist but the remains of the chamber to the east and any further extension of it could not be ascertained physically, as the area is covered under a platform with stone flooring, the ASI noted. This structure with thick and strong walls, along with all architectural components and floral decorations, was utilised as the main hall of the mosque, it claimed, adding that animal figures carved at the lower ends of decorated arches of the pre-existing structure were mutilated, and the inner part of dome is decorated with geometric designs.
Saurabh Tiwari, lawyer for Rakhi Singh, one of the five Hindu plaintiffs in the Shringar Gauri suit, told The Wire that the ASI findings “established” their claim that a part of the temple existed prior to the existence of the mosque and that a part of the temple structure was used to build the mosque. Tiwari has already filed a petition in the Allahabad high court pleading that the wazukhana (place of ablution) of the mosque, which was sealed in 2022 on the directions of the Supreme Court, be also subjected to a similar scientific survey.
“Our next step is to get a survey of the wazukhana as well as the garb griha of the old temple which was concealed behind walls. Our main evidence is there,” he said.
All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi reacted to the report on X (formerly Twitter) and said the conclusions of the ASI “wouldn’t stand academic scrutiny before any set of professional archaeologists or historians”. “The report is based on conjecture and makes a mockery of scientific study. As a great scholar once said, ‘ASI is the handmaiden of Hindutva,’” said Owaisi.
The Allahabad high court had in August 2023 paved the way for conducting a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid after it dismissed the Gyanvapi mosque committee’s petition challenging the Varanasi district judge’s July 21 order for a survey of the premises by the ASI. The district judge had in July directed the ASI director to undertake scientific investigation, survey or excavation at the site, excluding the areas (the ablution tank) sealed by the Supreme Court last year. The district court had also directed the ASI to conduct a detailed scientific investigation by using GPR Survey, excavation, dating method and other modern techniques of the present structure to find out whether it had been constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple.
The ASI on December 18 submitted in a sealed cover its report of a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid premises in a Varanasi district court.
The ASI had earlier urged the district judge to not make its report public for another four weeks, citing the December 19 judgment by the Allahabad high court in which it had dismissed several pleas of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the masjid committee challenging the maintainability of a 1991 suit seeking restoration of a temple at the site of the Gyanvapi Masjid.
“The dispute raised in the suit is of vital national importance. It is not a suit between the two individual parties. It affects two major communities of the country,” Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said as he set a six-month deadline for the completion of proceedings in a Varanasi court in the 1991 suit.
The high court ruled that the original suit of 1991 was not barred by provisions of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof. It declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue.
The original suit of 1991 was filed by the Hindu plaintiffs seeking possession of the Gyanvapi Masjid premises. The recent suit filed by five Hindu women led by Rakhi Singh seeks year-round access for darshan and pooja of Maa Shringar Gauri in the Gyanvapi Masjid compound.
The high court on December 19, 2023 also directed the ASI to submit its scientific survey report in the 1991 suit currently heard in the court of civil judge senior division, fast track. In case it was found that “further survey is required, which have been left out in the survey conducted by ASI, the Court below shall issue necessary directions” to carry out further survey in view of order dated April 8, 2021, the high court said.
On January 3, the ASI, in an application submitted to the district court, argued that its report was of “vital importance”. If the report “is unsealed and disclosed in public” before the submission of a copy of the report in the suit of the ‘Ancient Idol of Swambhu Lord Vishweshwar vs Anjuman Intezamia Masajid in the civil judge, senior division, fast track, there would be “more chance” of spreading “rumour and misrepresentation in public,” which may affect the work of the ASI, the ASI said.