Summary of Archaeological Findings at

Ayodhya
Publication: Ayodhya 2002-03 �Archeological Survey of India�
Vol - 1
Summary of Results
Excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhumi - Babri Masjid
was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March
2003 to 7 August 2003. During this period, as per the directions of
the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow, 82 trenches were excavated to
verify the anomalies mentioned in the report of the Ground
Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to
taking up the excavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with
sonic of their baulks were checked for anomalies and anomaly
alignments. The anomalies were confirmed in the trenches in the
form of pillar bases, structures, floors and foundation though no
such remains were noticed in some of them at the stipulated depths
and spots. Besides the 82 trenches, a few more making a total of 90
finally were also excavated keeping in view the objective fixed by
the Hon'ble High Court to confirm the structures.
The results of the excavation are summarized as hereunder:
The Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) using people were the
first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya. During the first
millennium B. C. although no structural activities were encountered
in the limited area probed, the material culture is represented by
terracotta figurines of female deities showing archaic features,
beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks
etc. The ceramic industry has the collection of NBPW, the main
diagnostic trait of the period besides the grey, black slipped and red
wares. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another
important find of this level. On the basis of material equipment and
14 C dates, this period may be assigned to circa 1000 B.C. to 300
B.C.
The Sunga horizon (second- first century B.C.) comes next in the
order of the cultural occupation at the site. The typical terracotta
mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpin,
engraver etc. represent the cultural matrix of this level. The pottery
collection includes black slipped, red and grey wares etc. The stone
and brick structure found from this level mark the beginning of the
structural activity at the site.
The Kushan period (first to third century A. D.) followed the Sunga
occupation. Terracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of
votive tanks, beads, antimony rod, hair pin, bangle fragments and
ceramic industry comprising red ware represent the typical Kushan
occupation at the site. Another important feature of this period is
the creation of large sized structures as witnessed by the massive
structure running, into twenty-two courses.
The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century A. D.) did not brine,
any qualitative change in building activity although the period is
known for its Classical artistic elements. However, this aspect is
represented by the typical terracotta figurines and a copper coin
with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta) and illustrative potsherds.
During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.
D.), too the site has witnessed structural activity mainly constructed
of burnt bricks. However, arson the exposed structures, there stands
a circular brick shrine which speaks of its functional utility for the
first time. To recapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan, it is circular
whereas internally squarish with an entrance from the cast. Though
the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision
for pranala, i.e., waterchute which is a distinct feature of
contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuna
plain.
Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh - twelfth
century A. D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south
orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived,
as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation
belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the
above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least
three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it.
The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive
structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs
were reused in the Construction of the monumental structure having
a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential
structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public
usage which remained under existence for a long time during the
period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level - twelfth to sixteenth century A.
D.) It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth
century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over
it. There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and
monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 x 30 m in
north- south and cast-west directions respectively just below the
disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar
bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by
sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the
present excavation in northern and southern areas also give an idea
of the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction with
which they are associated and which might have been originally
around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at present). The
centre of the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just
over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the
preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of
Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly
15x15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this central point a
circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large
sized brick pavement, signify the place where some important
object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and
found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are
associated with the structural phase.
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their
appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next
periods where they are accompanied by glazed tiles which were
probably used in the original construction of the disputed structure.
Similarly is the case of celadon and porcelain sherds recovered in a
very less quantity they come from the secondary context. Animal
bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods,
but skeletal remains noticed in the trenches in northern and
southern areas belong to the Period IX as the grave pits have been
found cut into the deposition coeval with the late disputed
structures and are sealed by the top deposit.
It is worthwhile to observe that the various structures exposed right
from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their
nature or functional utility as no evidence has come to approbate
them. Another noteworthy feature is that it was only during and
after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto Period IX (late and post
Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear in the
concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with
either structural debris or filling material taken out from the
adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose. As a
result of which much of the earlier material in the form of pottery,
terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of
Period 1 (NBPW level) and Period III (Kushan level) are found in the
deposits of later periods mixed along with their contemporary
material. The area below the disputed site thus, remained a place
for public use for a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) when
the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited
area arid population settled around it as evidenced by the increase
in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The
same is further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational
strictures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring
wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces etc. from Period IV
(Gupta level) onwards and in particular from Period VI (Early
Medieval-Rajput level) and Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level).
The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its
antiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth
century B.C. (1250 ± 130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates. The
lowest deposit above the natural soil represents the NBPW period
and therefore the earliest remains may belong to the thirteenth
century B.C. which is confirmed by two more consistent C14 dates
from the NBPW level (Period I), viz. 910 ± 100 B.C. and 880 ± 100
B.C.) These dates are from trench G7. Four more dates from the
upper deposit though showing presence of NBPW and associated
pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780 ± 80 B.C.,
710 ± 90 B.C., 530 ± 70 B.C. and 320 ± 80 B.C. In the light of the
above dates in association with the Northern Black Polished Ware
(NBPW) which is generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. to
300 B.C. it can be pushed back to circa 1000 B.C. and even if a
solitary date, three centuries earlier is not associated with NBPW,
the human activity at the site dates back to circa thirteenth century
B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only
archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of
the site.
The Hon'ble High Court, in order to get sufficient archaeological
evidence on the issue involved �whether there was any
temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was
constructed on the disputed site� as stated on page 1 and further
on p. 5 of their order dated 5 march 2003, had given directions to
the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site
where the GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which
could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which
could be confirmed by excavation . Now, viewing in totality and
taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive
structure just below the structure and evidence of continuity in
structural phases from the tenth century onwards upto the
construction of the disputed structure alongwith the yield of stone
and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple
and carved architectural' members including foliage patterns,
amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken
octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine
having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases in
association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which
are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north
India.

Ayodhya: Triumph of Truth

Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Vijayvaani.com
Date: October 2, 2010
URL: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?
id=1439
If there is a clear winner in the vexatious dispute over the Ram
Janmabhoomi, it is Truth (satya), which has triumphed in the face of
formidable obstacles placed by cussed political actors nurturing
communal votebanks, aided and abetted by an army of rapidly
secular (read viciously anti-Hindu) fellow travellers in media,
academia, and of course, the west-centric activists/busybodies.
Thursday's fractured verdict, unsurprising for a court judging around
20 different issues over a span of six decades, is laudable for the
fact that the three-judge bench exuded unanimity on the essential
issues - that the disputed spot was the birthplace of Sri Rama; that a
temple preceded the mosque removed by mob action on Dec. 6,
1992; and that Lord Rama would not be dislodged from His abode.
From 1528 to 1992 to 2010, it has been a long journey. The delivery
of the judgment on virtually the eve of Diwali is fraught with
poignant symbolism.
The judgment has taken the friendless Hindu community towards
closure, even though the verdict divided the land among the Hindu
Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Central Waqf Board. The
central dome where Ram Lalla Virajman is housed has been given to
the Hindu Mahasabha.
Sites known as Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra have been given to
Nirmohi Akhara, a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi Bairagi panth,
founded by Swami Ramanand at Varanasi in the 14th-15th
centuries. The panth claims direct descent from Swami Ramanuja;
its greatest proponent was Gosain Tulsi Das, who immortalised the
Lord in the Ramacharitamanas, written in the reign of Emperor
Akbar. Gosain ji popularized the enactment of Ramlila in public, and
personally participated in the performances. The panth appeared at
Ayodhya sometime after 1734 AD.
There was no way such a contentious case could be perfectly
unanimous. Thus, judges Sudhir Aggarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma
dismissed the title suits filed by the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi
Akhara as time barred, being filed in 1961 for an event which took
place in 1949; this automatically confirmed the title on the
Ramjambhoomi petitioners.

Justice D.V. Sharma further ruled that the building constructed by

emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam (being a place
of dispute) and did not have the character of the mosque (being
without minarets). It was constructed over a massive Hindu religious
structure as proved by the Archaeological Survey of India; Hindus
have been worshipping the place as Janm Sthan (birthplace) and
making pilgrimages there from time immemorial. The murtis were
placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the
intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.
Justice Aggarwal noted there was no clear evidence when the
mosque was built and by whom, but it existed when Joseph
Tieffenthaler visited Oudh area between 1766 to 1771. Justice S.U.
Khan agreed the mosque was built by Babur, but on the ruins of a
temple, and some temple material was incorporated in the mosque.
While Justice Sharma conferred the entire land on the Ram
Janmabhoomi petitioners, judges Aggarwal and Khan distributed it
among the three disputants arguing that Hindu pujas and Muslim
namaaz were offered in the same premises for many years; there
was no formal partition of the land between them; hence they were
held to be in joint possession. The last namaaz offered in the Masjid
was on Dec. 16, 1949.
The case is complicated enough to vex the most acute legal eagle.
To my mind, what is most striking about Ayodhya and recent high
profile cases like Jessica Lal murder, Ruchika molestation, Nitish
Katara murder, etc., is that the prolonged delay in the judicial
process ultimately gave justice to the beleaguered litigants. This is
because the cover-up / tampering with evidence and witnesses that
could have resulted in miscarriage of justice if rapid trials were held,
could not be sustained in prolonged litigation and petered out, even
as the social and political environment changed. It is a sobering
lesson for those in a hurry.
The greatest vindication at Ayodhya is of the Archaeological Survey
of India, whose experts work diligently to excavate and preserve the
truth of our heritage in the face of extreme nastiness from arid Lib-
Left academicians who grab state funding and western patronage to
denigrate India's civilisation and culture. At Supreme Court direction
in 2003, the ASI worked under the glare of a hostile media
disinformation campaign, to unearth the truth that recovered the
Ram Janmabhoomi as a Hindu heritage and validated Hindu
civilisational memory.
Special gratitude is owed to late Prof B.R. Grover, who single-
handedly researched the medieval archives in Faizabad and
discovered that Mughal-era revenue records listed the site as
Masjid-e-Janmasthan - a direct reference to Sri Ram. Late Prof
Swaraj Gupta assisted Prof B.B. Lal in his seminal work in Ayodhya,
and had the brainwave of bringing a radar team to scan the surface
below the ruins. The finding that there were man-made structures
below prompted the apex court to order excavations; the rest is
history…
The most positive aspect of the judgment is that a peaceful
settlement can be reached without political parties or Parliament.
Both the Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board are aggrieved and
plan to move the Supreme Court. The Muslim community would do
well to resist overt and covert incitement by badly beaten and
bruised secular fundamentalists who could barely conceal their rage
in television studios.
Muslims must accept with grace the basic letter and spirit of the
judgment - that the land belongs to Sri Rama. The Sunni Wakf Board
is open to negotiations, which is welcome, as it is difficult to
perceive a situation in which the apex court will overturn this verdict
and order ouster of Ram Lalla Virajman. We could borrow a solution
from the old Arab practice (enshrined in Islamic law) wherein
compensation can be offered to aggrieved parties. This would bring
closure to all without aggravating the sentiments of any community.

VHP welcomes Ayodhya verdict, demands

temple in entire area
Author: PTI
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 30, 2010
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/286761/VHP-welcomes-Ayodhya-
verdict-demands-temple-in-entire-area.html
Welcoming the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title
issue, VHP claimed on Thursday that the ruling has established
without doubt that the place where Ram's idol was existing was the
birthplace of the Lord.
Addressing the media here after the verdict was out, VHP
international general secretary Pravin Togadia, however, demanded
that a Ram temple should be built in the total area that comprises
the (formerly) disputed area as well as the land acquired by the
Central government.
"We salute and welcome the judgement of the Lucknow bench of
the Allahabad High Court. It has now been established that the place
where Ram's idol was existing was the birth place of the Lord. At
least faith of one billion Hindus that Lord Ram was born here was
also endorsed by the judiciary," he said.
While appealing all to maintain peace and calm, he said "At the
same time, our saints have clarified that the 110X90 feet (formerly
disputed area) and 67 acres acquired land both are part of the birth
place of Lord Ram and we hope that a grand temple will be built in
this total area".
When told that the court ruled by a majority verdict that the
disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among
Hindus and Muslims and if the VHP was consonance with this,
Togadia said "the court has accepted the site as the birth place of
Lord Ram. It has permitted puja to be performed.
"Moreover, the court has rejected the claim of the Sunni Wakf Board
that the disputed place be declared a mosque. I don't think anything
more needs to be said on that".
Asked repeatedly if this meant that the VHP only accepted the court
verdict partly, he said the contentious issue of the 110x90 feet area
of the site has been cleared and the organisation would speak
further after going through the copy of the judgement thoroughly.
Claiming that after the verdict the "Wakf Board does not have any
locus standi over the land", Togadia appealed to the people of all
sections of society to ensure that a Ram temple is built.
To a question on any target set by the VHP on the temple
construction, he said Rs 1.25 per person was collected for the Ram
Janmabhoomi movement since the 1980s, which summed up to over
Rs 88 crore.
"Of this amount, Rs 24 crore worth carved stones are ready and
almost 60 per cent of the work is over. Once we get complete
clearance, we will galvanise people for the temple construction," he
said.
Senior VHP leader Giriraj Kishore said, "this is an opportunity for
Muslims to forget the past and start (relations) afresh."
"The judgement is indeed a cause for great delight for the entire
Hindu community. It is also a historic opportunity for the Hindus and
the Muslims to come together and join hands in building a strong
nation," VHP international president Ashok Singhal told reporters in
Allahabad.
He said a meeting of saints' committee, held immediately after the
pronouncement of the verdict, has "welcomed the High Court
judgement whereby it has been ruled that worship of Lord Ram at
the Janmabhoomi would continue unhindered".
"We hold the view that Hindus have every right to celebrate the
occasion but this must be done in a sober and dignified manner.
Moreover, we would not like to look at the judgement in terms of
victory or defeat of either party as this is not an occasion to belittle
each other," Singhal said.
The VHP leader also appealed to the Muslim community "to come
forward and join hands with the Hindus in building a grand Ram
temple at Ayodhya. This is a historic occasion which presents both
the communities with a unique opportunity to come together and
build a strong nation".
Singhal asked the Centre to facilitate the construction of a temple
by handing over the 70 acres of land around the disputed site in
Ayodhya acquired by it in the 1990s as "the High Court has come
out with its verdict on only 130X90 feet of land which is just big
enough for building a sanctum sanctorum and not a grand temple
befitting the glory of Ram".
"We believe that while acquiring the 70 acres of land, the then
Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao must have had this fact in mind.
We are confident that the current regime will do the needful in this
regard. There are Hindus in all political parties and none of them
would like to see their revered deity being worshipped in a decrepit
make-shift structure," he said.
In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title
dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure, Justices S U
Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that the area under the central dome
of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram's idol exists belongs
to Hindus.
The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that
status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three
months.
Justices Khan and Agarwal decreed that the 2.7 acre land
comprising the disputed site should be divided three equal parts and
be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party
representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' (Ram deity).

udgement has paved way for Ram temple

construction: RSS
Author: PTI
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 30, 2010
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/286759/Judgement-has-paved-
way-for-Ram-temple-construction-RSS.html
The RSS today said the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya
title suit has paved the way for construction of a Ram temple on the
disputed site even as it appealed for restraint and said the order
should not be seen as anybody's victory or defeat.
In a statement after the verdict came out, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat
said, "The movement for Ram temple is not a reactionary one, nor is
it against any particular community".
"Hence this verdict, that facilitates building of a magnificent temple
for Maryada Purushottam Ram, should not be seen by the society as
a victory to any group or defeat to the other," he said adding "our
joy and happiness should find expression in a controlled, peaceful
manner".
Appealing for restraint, Bhagwat said, "this is an excellent
opportunity to rise above all past bitterness in the spirit of our
tolerant and inclusive national culture and strive to organise our
diverse, multi-lingual and multi-religious society into a united,
disciplined and conflict-free one inspired by a grand and sacred
vision".
When asked about the one-third land to be given to Muslims, he
said, "It is a matter of detail, the high-powered (sants') committee
will take a decision on that. We don't yet have the copy of the
orders. Once it is with us, we will carry out a detailed analysis".
Seeking the cooperation of all groups, including Muslims, in building
the temple, he said, "...I take this opportunity to heartily and
affectionately call upon all our countrymen, including the Muslims,
to forget all the ill-will and hard feelings borne out of the conflicts of
the past decades and welcome the verdict of the judiciary.
"...Thus becoming active collaborators in organising necessary
constitutional and practical means for building the magnificent
temple".
Asked what would be BJP's reaction to the verdict, Bhagwat said the
party will speak on the issue separately.
On whether there would be another movement for building a
temple, he said that would be decided by the high-powered
committee and RSS would support it.
 Click to Expand & Play

Lucknow: Sixty years after it first went to court, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High
Court has pronounced judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, saying Hindus and Muslims are joint
title holders.

The three-judge bench - comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V
Sharma - ruled in a majority judgment 2:1, that there be a three-way division of the disputed land
- one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the
party for 'Ram Lalla'.

Each of the three judges gave a summary of his own.

Justice Khan pointed to the unprecedented nature of Hindus and Muslims worshipping together
for centuries. (Read: Muslims, Hindus worshipped together, says Justice Khan)

• Rediff.com

• Twitter

• NDTV Social

• Live Messenger

• Gmail Buzz

• Print
And Justice Aggarwal observed that the inner courtyard of the building belonged to both Hindus
and Muslims. (Read: Inner courtyard area belongs to Hindus & Muslims, says Justice Agarwal)

The Ayodhya judgment

In an order that runs into over 8,000 pages, the High Court has said that the portion below the
central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods are placed in a makeshift
temple, belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome
should be allotted to Hindus.

The Nirmohi Akhara, the judgment says, would get the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. (Read the
judgement)

Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP leader and senior advocate appearing for one of the litigants, emerged
from court after the verdict to say, "this matter will be looked into in the next three months but
the important part here is that court has taken a decision with the consent of the majority and that
is that where Ram Lalla is (viraajman) is the birth place of Ram and that's what the Hindu's
believe and even (Justice) SU Khan has also said that Ram Lalla will not be moved out from that
place even when it will be divided into three."

Crucially, the court has said there shall be status quo at the site for three months.

There were two other majority findings, where one judge dissented and two agreed: that the
disputed structure was a mosque and that a temple was demolished to build a mosque. Justice SU
Khan held that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque at the disputed structure.
He said the mosque was constructed under orders of Babar over the ruins of temples lying in that
state for a very long time. (Read: Ayodhya dispute timeline)

The judgment observed that the idols were placed beneath the central dome early on December
23, 1949.

The court dismissed two major claims to the land - one filed in 1989 on behalf Ram Lalla, or the
infant Lord Ram, and the second by the Sunni Waqf Board filed in 1961. (Watch: Sunni Waqf
Board's suit dismissed, says lawyer) | (Read: Sunni Waqf Board to appeal in Supreme Court)

The Sunni Waqf Board has said it does not agree with today's judgment and will appeal in the
Supreme Court against it.

The chairman of the Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Trust, Nritya Gopal Das, too said they would
challenge the decision to provide one-third of the disputed land to the Sunni Waqf Board in the
Supreme Court. (Watch: The background to the Ayodhya dispute)

The dispute before the court was whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri
Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf
Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

It has been a protracted legal battle, and people across the country have spoken in one voice on
the need to maintain peace and harmony.

PM appeals for peace

After a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on security, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued
an appeal to "all sections of the people to maintain peace and tranquility and to show respect for
all religions and religious beliefs in the highest traditions of Indian culture... Let me also state
that Government on its part remains fully committed to upholding the rule of law and
maintaining peace, order and harmony... It is my hope that the response of the people of India to
the judgement will be respectful, dignified and do our country proud.

He said the "orders delivered by the three Honourable Judges need to be examined carefully."
"The correct conclusion, at this stage, is that the status quo will be maintained until the cases are
taken up by the Supreme Court," he said. (Read: PM appeals for peace after verdict)

Temple politics back?

Only a few hours after the Ayodhya verdict, top leaders of the BJP met at party patriarch LK
Advani's residence in New Delhi. After the meeting, Advani said, "In so far as the judgement
upholds the right of the Hindus to construct a temple, it is a significant step forward toward the
construction of a grand temple of the birthplace of Lord Ram." (Watch: Advani, Modi, others
react to verdict)

Advani said the BJP believed the verdict opened a new chapter for national integration and a new
era of inter-community relations and added that the party "is gratified that the nation has received
the verdict with maturity." (Read: A new chapter of national integration, says Advani)

No politics, please, said the Congress. Senior leader in charge of UP Digvijaya Singh said, "no
politics at this point." (Watch: Ayodhya verdict- Temple politics back?)

Political parties appeal for calm

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said the "judgement has paved the way for the construction of the
Ram temple in Ayodhya. The judgement is not a win or loss for anybody. We invite everybody,
including Muslims, to help build the temple." (Watch: Nobody's victory or loss, says RSS)

Bhagwat also said "joy and happiness over the verdict" should find expression in a "controlled
and peaceful manner" within the limits of law and constitution. "Uncalled for provocation must
be avoided," he added, saying the movement for a Ram temple was "not a reactionary one, nor it
is against any particular community."

Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC), too said,
"We hope peace and tranquillity will be maintained." Jilani said the "majority judgment is that
mosque and temple must coexist."

The Congress welcomed the Ayodhya judgment saying everyone should accept it and no one
should treat it as a victory or defeat. "Congress has held that the controversy should either be
solved through talks or the verdict of the court should be accepted. The court has given the
verdict. We should all welcome the judgement," party general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi told
reporters. (Watch: Everyone should welcome Ayodhya judgement, says Congress)

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said, "I welcome the court's decision and appeal to all to
maintain peace. We should all work towards harmony. I am happy that the judgement now paves
the way for building a Ram temple in Ayodhya. This judgement will work as a catalyst for the
country's unity." Modi's views were also echoed by senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi.
(Watch: Narendra Modi on Ayodhya verdict)

CPM's Sitaram Yechury asked the people of India to maintain peace and not fall prey to any
provocation. "This judgement requires to be fully studied. There may be questions on the nature
of the verdict," the CPM Politburo said in a statement.

UP Chief Minister Mayawati threw the ball in the Centre's court over the implementation of the
verdict and ensuring peace and harmony in the state. She alleged that the Centre had not
provided enough paramilitary forces for security

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ayodhya-verdict-allahabad-high-court-says-

divide-land-in-3-ways-56063?cp