Gujarat Pogrom

Communalism

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

Kashmir

Palestine

Iraq

Environment

Gender/Feminism

Dalit/Adivasi

Arts/Culture

 

Contact Us

 

'Digging Won't Resolve Ayodhya Dispute'

Talking with Professor Irfan Habeeb


As a special team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) begins excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya, as per the directions of the Allahabad High Court, the former chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Professor Irfan Habib, speaks to Humra Quraishi about the futility of the exercise. The noted historian who has authored several books, prominent among which are Agrarian System of Mughal India and An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, has also written extensively on the Babri Masjid.

Excerpts from the interview:

As a historian, do you think an excavation of the disputed site in Ayodhya would clear up the temple-masjid controversy?


In a resolution passed by the Indian History Congress by ''an overwhelming majority'' at its annual session on February 15, 1993 (the first ever after the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992), the principal organisation of Indian historians protested against the principle that ''a monument can be destroyed or removed if there are any grounds for assuming that a religious structure of another community had previously stood at its site.'' It went on to warn that ''such a post-facto rationalisation of what was done on December 6, 1992 would place in jeopardy the fate of numerous historical monuments all over the country, an increasing number of which are being targeted for destruction by the communal forces.'' It would seem that ten years later, the very principle that the historians had found so intolerable has received tacit judicial recognition. In this regard, I feel that today things have got more complicated and it will be a long fight.


Why is there so much controversy around Tojo Vikas International, the company that was earlier assigned to do the geophysical survey of the disputed site?


From the text of the order, it appears that the High Court had earlier ordered a geophysical survey through a ''Canadian'' company, Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt) Limited, Kalkaji, New Delhi. This company has no previous experience of archaeological surveying. Nor are the credentials of Claude Robillard, a ''Canadian citizen'' and the company's ''advisor and chief geophysicists'', any less doubtful. The company's report is singularly taciturn on what exactly it was required to find out. Geophysical surveying for archaeological purposes resorts basically to two kinds of instruments:

. magnetic, which essentially help locate metal artefacts and hearths;

. resistivity, which gives clues about filled pits,buried walls etc.

For reasons not stated, the company's survey was confined only to the resistivity survey, using ground penetrating radar. No magneto-meter was employed, so there was no possibility of locating hearths which would have indicated domestic habitations and, to that extent, could have narrowed the area where one might be looking for ''temple'' signs. While the Tojo Vikas team in its report does not refer to any background information about the dispute being furnished to it, it certainly lets slip the fact that it was somehow expected by certain quarters to trace ''pillars'' since the Parivar's late convert, B.B. Lal, in his second version (1989) of his original findings on the excavations near the Babri Masjid proclaimed his earlier secret discovery of certain aligned ''pillar bases'', which he thought had belonged to a large Ram Temple.

Curiously, on the other hand, they try to make no distinction between strong mortar-bonded rubble (indicative of Muslim construction) and loose debris, and between stones or baked bricks and sun-dried bricks, which one should have expected from such a survey as theirs.

In this latest excavation, would the Tojo Vikas company have a role?

It would. It is said the excavation is to be conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India, with the advice and assistance of Tojo Vikas.

Would you suggest that the ASI should conduct the excavation independently without any otherb body/bodies?

I can't say much about the ASI's competence to conduct rigorous, scientific and impartial excavations. For about ten years this organisation has not had a professional director-general and persons belonging to the administrative service have occupied this once highly prestigious position. One must remember that the archaeological finds are subject to a wide range of interpretations. If the search is for anything that could possibly belong to a non-Muslim shrine, then almost anything could be defined as a temple relic: a pre-13 century carved stone or image or even a Kushana period brick, though such might easily have come from a domestic house. In that case, the dispute could be
unending or could simply give the VHP the benefit of doubt.

What are your views on the demolition of the Babri Masjid structure?

The destruction of the 475-year-old mosque brought shame and dishonour to the country. It's not a question of Hindu or Muslim - the very destruction was an insult to the country and its citizens; an assault on the Indian secular consciousness.

As a historian, what is your opinion on this mandir-masjid debate?

There's no acceptable proof that the Babri Masjid had been built at the site of a Hindu temple. None of the 14 inscribed Persian verses of the time of the original construction (1528-29) even remotely mention this. As the 1991 Historians' Report to the Nation by R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan conclusively showed, there was no reference, in any of the several documents, of the mosque having been built on the site of the temple. Not until nearly 250 years after its construction, was such a claim made.

What about the Sangh Parivar's claims that they possess evidence that the Ram Janmabhoomi temple was originally there?

Once the destruction of the Babri Masjid had taken place, it began to be justified by the Sangh Parivar on various grounds, including that they possessed ''evidence''. Before one studies this ''evidence'', it is important to note that the securing of such evidence by the act of destruction was very much in the mind of the BJP and Sangh Parivar, much before the final act of vandalism. There was, till then, no acceptable proof that the Babri Masjid had been built at the site of a Hindu temple. They then turned to archeaology and to Professor B.B. Lal, who had dug near the Babri Masjid. In 1990, in an article in the
RSS mouthpiece Manthan, Lal said some ''pillar bases'' he had found had supported pillars of the extension of the original temple that the Babri Masjid had been built on. It was a sheer piece of speculation.

What about the claims of sculptures being found in a pit when the ground was being levelled in 1992?

It is strange that when these sculptures were ''found'', the ASI was not informed. The discovery was
suddenly announced by the VHP and pronounced by such ''experts'' as Swaraj Prakash Gupta as belonging to the 11th century. It seems certain that the sculptures do not belong to a single period at all but range from the 7th to 16th century, as testified by historian R.S. Sharma and thus could not have come from the same temple. Furthermore, as D. Mandal points out, the colouration of some of the objects suggests that they have remained only partly buried and could not have been taken out from a pit. There is every likelihood that these these sculptures were simply brought from outside at a time when the VHP and BJP, through the State Government, had absolute control of the site.

What about the inscribed slab that was found within the domes of the structure, on the very day of the
destruction?

According to the VHP's own witness, the slab, as it fell, was coated with mortar. But the slab that is now being presented is in a seemingly mint-fresh condition. There is no trace of mortar on it, nor are there any marks that must result if the strong medieval mortar was later removed from it. It must,
therefore, have come from some private collection, certainly not from Babri Masjid.

Your writings and viewpoints have often beencriticised as being Leftist.

There are no Left or Right wing historians. All this is a creation of the BJP. In fact, if anyone speaks with a scientific outlook, he's called Leftist by them.