Archeological Excavations And Temple
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
05 September, 2003The Archaeological Survey of India at last submitted its report to the Allahabad High Court a few days ago. It has come to the conclusion that a "huge structure indicative of remains, which are distinctive features associated with the temples of north India" existed there. This report by ASI has of course gladdened the hearts of members of the Sangh Parivar. However, the report will be subject to different interpretations and would not go unchallenged.
Different opinions are already being expressed by different archaeologists. Suraj Bhan, a noted archaeologist, says that the report has not "taken into account" certain features of the western -wall of the pre-Babri Masjid chamber. According to him the burnt brick wall of the pre-Babri Masjid structure had a carved stone laid in the foundation. "This has not been taken into account. If it was, this could have precluded the possibility of the structure being associated with Hindus, since they never used carved stone in foundation", he says.
He also maintains that the pillar bases are not of the same type, "which means they were used in different structures", he says. Also, it was just a few days ago that a senior archaeologist involved with the project had said that nearly five months of excavation near the site of the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, said no evidence of a pre-existing temple has surfaced. Speaking to The Times of India on condition of anonymity, the archaeologist stated categorically, "There is no evidence of a temple. In fact, as we go deeper, we are seeing more evidence of Islamic influence."
He also said other than "enriching our team?s knowledge about the material culture of Ayodhya", the excavation had not helped the purpose the Allahabad high court had sought to address when it ordered the dig, the archaeologist said. When digging was ordered many historians like Irfan Habib had warned that excavation could not lead to a clinching evidence for existence of a temple. The artefacts could be interpreted differently. And this is precisely what is happening. The final report submitted by ASI seems to be highly controversial and is bound to be challenged.
On 22nd June The Indian Express had reported "The ASI, which has been carrying out excavations in Ayodhya, submitted its progress report for last fifteen days to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Saturday i.e. on 21st June, 2003. According to this AIS report, it found structural anomalies in some trenches during the digging, archaeologists argued that the anomalies did not indicate that a temple like structure once existed at that place."
In a six-page report, the ASI gave minute details about artefacts found at the site of the digging which included human figurines, pillar bases, animal structures, glazed tiles and small bone carvings. The report said structural anomalies were found in 46 of 86 trenches. The report also added that structural anomalies were found in some trenches near the sanctum sanctorum where the Ram Lalla idol is placed. Aniruddh Srivastava, former ASI archaeologist, said the findings so far did not suggest a temple like structure once existed there. "The pillar bases do not seem strong enough to be able to hold a big temple structure."
In some trenches some graves, terracotta and lime mortar and surkhi were also discovered which in fact indicated Muslim inhabitation and it was also surmised that there existed some mosque on the site and that Babri was built on the site of another mosque. Now we have final report of the ASI which says that there could have been a temple like structure below Babri Masjid? Is it not a glaring contradiction? All through the digging no definite indications of any temple like structure were found and suddenly the final report discovers temple like structure there.
R.C.Thankran of Delhi University, who also spent a long time in Ayodhya during excavation, says, "I have seen the material in the pillar bases. Pieces of early medieval bricks, thinner, smaller and less wide were found. Can it take a massive structure?" he asks. Supriya Verma of Punjab University, who spent months in Ayodhya as an expert of Sunni Wakf Board, has also pointed out glaring omissions in the report.
It is interesting to note that the ASI report talks about a shrine followed by a temple with different structural phases, it also talks of "animal bones recovered from various levels of different periods". If any shrine and a temple existed how can anyone account for the animal bones, Supriya Verma asks? She also maintains that stones and decorated bricks could have been used in any building, not necessarily only in a temple. Also, the carved architectural members have come from the debris and not from the stratified context.
According to Vinay Lal, B.B. Lal, the retired Director General of ASI had initiated a project on the archaeology of the Ramayana sites and in his reports that he submitted to the ASI in 1976-77 and 1979-80, he not only made no mention of any pillar-bases, he went so far as to say that though "several later-medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors(had) been met with", "the entire late period was devoid of any special interest". But later in 1990 Lal began to claim that certain brick bases he had excavated in the seventies were meant to support pillars and thus suggested, "the existence of a temple like structure in the south of the Babri Masjid."
Thus it will be seen from expert's opinions cited above that the ASI report cannot be treated as a final and authentic evidence of existence of a temple of 10th century at the site of Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. But the Sangh Parivar has already started treating the Report as a clinching evidence of existence of a temple. The RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav told Indian Express "The ASI report on excavation at Ayodhya site has confirmed and reinforced the existing historical and literary evidence besides the ground penetrating radar survey findings. With this final evidence forthcoming, the whole controversy should end. The judiciary should quickly dispose of the case and come out with its verdict, instead of allowing it to linger on", he said. He also said that "it is a slap on the face of our secularist friends and a section of the media which tried to spread the canard that the excavations had yielded no evidence to support the contention that a temple predated the Babri Masjid at the site."
However, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs (SCBW) termed the ASI report as vague and self-contradictory. Abdul Mannan, a senior lawyer representing the SCBW termed it as a "saffron report". And another lawyer of BW Zafaryab Jeelani said, "it was prepared under political pressure". Zafaryab Jeelani also told reporters in Lucknow, "The report talked about massive structures at the depth of 50 meters, but how can the ASI say so when it had not even dug so deep." Jeelani also said, "we have a team of six archaeologists who will study the report and file objections."
But the Sangh Parivar is preparing to revive Hindutva politics in U.P. The fall of Mayawati Government also leaves no other choice for BJP. The ASI report will be used enthusiastically for coming elections in five states or may be even in U.P. if no government can be formed. In fact Ramjanambhoomi has lost much of its lustre but now this report has given some life to the issue and the Sangh Parivar will not spare any efforts in this direction.
In fact some BJP leaders have been reported saying that the bomb blasts in Mumbai and the ASI report together have given us emotive issues to be used in coming elections. It is very unfortunate for our democracy that such communal issues are being exploited repeatedly and every election results in more and more polarisation between Hindus and Muslims. Several general elections since late eighties have been fought on this emotive issue. Whatever the verdict of the Court the Sangh Parivar has found yet again an issue to fight elections with.
The expert archaeological opinion may not give much credence to the ASI report but as far as the Hindutva supporters are concerned they hardly care for expert opinion. For them the report will serve as a final verdict. Mr. L.K. Advani went to the extent of saying in New Delhi that the ASI report has gladdened the hearts of crores of Rambhaktas in the country. If the Deputy Prime Minister of the Country so enthusiastically endorses the controversial ASI report without waiting for the Court?s acceptance or rejection, what of ordinary supporters of the Sangh Parivar. For them it is a sacred document and cannot be questioned.
The ASI should not have said in its report that a ?temple like structure was found but should have placed before the Court all the artefacts and objects discovered in different trenches. It should have been left for expert archaeologists to interpret the findings in all the trenches dug at the site. Use of word ?temple-like structure? certainly arouses suspicion in the minds of dispassionate and non-partisan observers as to the integrity of ASI officials.
Thus the ASI report has created another controversy rather than solving the problem. There will be claims and counter-claims in the court yet again. Thus wisdom requires that the issue be resolved through negotiations. Both sides should make a gesture and bury the controversy forever.