|
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.
*
Darryl D’Monte is the founder President of the
International Federation of Environmental Journalists and is serving a
second term till 2003. He is also the Chairperson of the Forum of Environmental
Journalists of
India
(FEJI) and a syndicated columnist and freelance writer. He has published two
books: “
Temples
or Tombs? Industry versus Environment: Three Controversies”, Center for
Science & Environment,
New Delhi
, 1985 and “Ripping the Fabric: The Decline of Mumbai and its Mills”,
Oxford
University
Press,
New Delhi
, 2002. He was previously the Resident Editor of the “Indian Express”
(1979-1981) and of the “Times of
India
” (1988-1994) in Mumbai. Your emails will be forwarded to him by
contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net
|
