Archeological
Excavations And Temple
By
Asghar Ali Engineer
Centre for Study
of Society and Secularism
05 September, 2003
The
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.