THE ABUSE OF HISTORY: A STUDY OF THE WHITE PAPERS ON AYODHYA 43 64). The paper insists that its claims regarding the existence of a Rama temple on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid can be substantiated by archaeology. The archaeological evidence is cited on pages 59-64 (BJP Paper) and it consists of its alleged findings of June-July 1992 and December 1992. These findings have been termed as the 'archaeological discoveries of the karsevaks*. The mere qualification of the finder tells about the authenticity of the so-called 'discoveries'. The claims of the BJP Paper for the Ramjanmabhoomi temple are based on doubts and fallacies.11 The two white papers give three different kind of evidences to project Hindu claims on the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Firstly, the papers raise the issue of the black-stone pillars that had been used inside the structure of the mosque. They alleged that these pillars were un-Islamic and therefore it can be assumed they are parts of the demolished Rama temple (See GOI Paper p. 13, 2.10; and BJP Paper, p. 69). The papers state that the temple was raised in the eleventh or twelfth century AD and the black-stone pillars had been used inside the temple. The mere fact that the black-stone pillars had been used inside the mosque supports the contention that the Babri Masjid had been raised on the site of the Rama temple after demolishing it. We could agree with the contention that the pillars that had been used inside the mosque are un-Islamic. We could also accept that these pillars had been used as decorative pieces and support for the structure of the mosque but it is difficult to agree that these pillars were part of the Rama temple that once existed in Ayodhya. In fact it is difficult to conclude that the carvings on the pillars are exclusively Hindu. The style of the carving can surely convey to us roughly the period when it was done but it cannot tell us the place to which it belongs. The carvings on the pillars indicates that it had been done during the period eleventh-twelfth century AD. It can also be said that the carvings demonstrate the style that was prevalent in the eastern parts of India.12 The style of carving on the pillars is typically Indian and therefore there is the possibility that these pillars could have been the parts of either a Buddhist or Jaina temple or of any other secular building. It could also be said that the pillars could have been lying unused at the time of the construction of the mosque. It is also probable that these pillars were used inside the structure of the mosque because of its intricate carvings and also because black-stone in that area was rare.13 Secondly, the accounts of European travellers, surveyors and administrators is given to strengthen Hindu claims on the site of the demolished mosque in Ayodhya. The GOI Paper again adopts a cautious position but nevertheless, continues to commit fallacies. It observed that the account of the Austrian Jesuit priest Tieffenthaler who was in Ayodhya from 1766 to 1771 AD, cannot be challenged and