The protracted dispute over whether the site of the Babri Masjid or mosque, which was demolished by Hindu extremists 11 years ago, was originally a Hindu temple is being sought to be resolved by a High Court in Uttar Pradesh state. However, the report of excavations at the ruins by the Archaeological Survey of India , a government agency, creates more confusion and appears biased.
|
|
|
Babri Mosque was destroyed by Hindu zealots in December 1992
|
What can archaeology do to prove “facts” in a protracted legal case that involves, among many other emotive issues, land, property rights and religion? Jurisprudence may be redefined in the ongoing litigation over the Babri Masjid (mosque) site in Ayodhaya, Uttar Pradesh state, now being heard by the Allahabad High Court. There may not be too many precedents in the world where such highly controversial issues are being sought to be settled by law.
The dispute revolves over who owns the site where the Babri Masjid, said to be built by the first Mogul Emperor in 1528, was destroyed by Hindu zealots 11 years ago. A key issue is whether this was a site where a temple existed prior to the construction of a mosque. The provocation was indeed strange. In February, Tojo Vikas International Ltd, a company assisting with ultrasonic underground mapping of Delhi to construct the metro railway, deployed some of its equipment in Ayodhaya and discovered “structural anomalies” beneath the surface. Who asked Tojo to conduct a task well beyond its brief is not known. But it is safe to assume that the company may have been susceptible to persuasion from the ruling BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) to conduct these tests.
The company reported that these structures bore witness to the remains of an edifice that predated the Babri Masjid. This is what prompted the court, which is nearing completion of its hearing on the title to the site, to order the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the structure and report back to it. It did this in a remarkably short time and produced a 574-page report even more quickly. Although this did not bear directly on the issues before the court, it was thought that this “scientific” exercise would be the least controversial aspect of the case.
It is important to recall that initially, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP, World Hindu Front) was lukewarm to the ASI’s excavation but later endorsed Tojo’s findings as being conclusive proof. The organization reported: “The report clearly mentions that a temple existed at the disputed site.”
According to the document released by the court, the ASI found signs of a temple dating back to the 7th to 10th century AD. A water body found at the site was said to bear “the distinct feature of contemporary temples”. Furthermore, there was alleged evidence of more structural activity during the early mediaeval or pre-Sultanate period, which dates back to the 11th to 12th centuries. There were indications of a massive temple-like structure of three structural phases. Finally, the report says that a mosque was constructed over this temple.
The VHP was clearly elated at this scientific vindication of their repeated assertion. Strangely, in its press conference held ten days before the ASI submitted its report to the court, the organization’s archaeologist, S.P. Gupta, appeared to have an inkling of the findings when he said: “The findings, apart from 70 pillar bases, include amalaka (a wheel motif found exclusively on temple roofs), three sculptures of makar (a crocodile, the goddess Ganga’s vehicle), a vallari (a meandering geometrical floral pattern found on temple doors)…The one-line high court mandate to the ASI was to find out whether any temple or religious structure existed before the demolition of the Babri Masjid. These findings prove yes.”
Disputed Findings
|
|
|
Babri Mosque before destruction
|
More reputable experts dispute these findings. Prof R.C. Thakaran from the History Department of Delhi University alleges that this was “a completely fabricated report”. He was observing the excavations for about a month with the High Court’s permission. “It was a constant struggle to get the ASI to note the extremely important finds like animal bones with cut marks and human skeletons…There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate their claim that a pre-Sultanate temple existed at the site.
“The ASI talks about pillars that support the theory of the temple. How do they explain the fact that these pillars are made at various levels and are made of different construction materials? How can they correspond to one temple structure? Moreover, they are fragile pillars not made for bearing load.”
One of the country’s most distinguished historians, Irfan Habib, who was former Professor and Head of the Center for Advanced Study at Aligarh Muslim University , cites how the presence of the animal bones and pieces of glazed pottery indicate that there were persons cooking, eating and throwing away bones, which “could hardly conform to the presence of a temple”. These are characteristic signs of Muslim habitation. He believes that there was an open site on which a mosque was later constructed. Prof Suraj Bhan, formerly of Kurukshetra University , notes how the so-called “pillar bases” of the temple have no religious symbols on them and are more likely brickbats used to support the mosque above it.
Hence, far from resolving the issue, the ASI’s findings have in fact compounded the confusion. Ironically enough, the ASI’s earlier excavations at the site were dismissed as being of no archaeological significance. However, in 1990, Dr B.B. Lal, a former ASI Director General, writing in – of all places –a journal of the Rashtriya Swayamasevak Sangh (RSS, the obscurantist organization, whose member assassinated Gandhi in 1948), referred for the first time to the “pillar bases”. Two years earlier, at a conference on the “new archaeology”, Dr Lal suggested that the best way to resolve the issue was to dig beneath the mound where the mosque once stood. This has been criticized by archaeologists as scientifically unsound, since it could permanently damage the ruins. It is an accepted practice not to threaten existing monuments (even destroyed ones, as in this case), notwithstanding the possibility that such excavation may yield material of historical interest.
Living History
|
|
|
Babri’s ruins
|
Thus it is not clear whether science has been subverted in this process rather than vindicated. As we have seen, the VHP itself was much earlier skeptical of the capacity of scientific analysis to prove its hypothesis, claiming (quite rightly) that it was a matter of faith, and faith alone. But the presence of a Hindu fundamentalist party governing the country has obviously influenced the “findings” of official agencies.
Other experts emphasize that irrespective of what the High Court does or doesn’t decide, there are property records to show that the mosque belonged to the Muslim community. “It doesn’t alter living history,” argues noted Supreme Court advocate Rajeev Dhawan. “The fact is that Babri Masjid existed and it was demolished by miscreants. Emotional archaeology is no justification for a criminal act. As far as the property suit in Ayodhaya is concerned, what lays under the ground has no bearing on who owns the property now.”
Historians cite how when Beirut was bombed out, layers of the city’s past were eviscerated and several “cities” below were exposed. Scholars reported these were neither Christian nor Muslim, but bore witness to a different history. The Mayor of Beirut, who had links with a construction firm, overruled the experts and ordered these sites to be built over, to be lost forever to scholars.
Thus, for a variety of reasons, obscurantist or motivated as the case may be, the capacity of archaeology to function as an objective, rationalist exercise, to establish the bottom line truth as a transparent process, is under attack. The contrary view of this science is that it may be mediated activity, where the ‘diggers’ openly acknowledge their purpose and find the ‘facts’ to bolster a pre-conceived objective. From all accounts, the ASI’s findings fall into the latter category.
|
