|
Ayodhya excavation : Historians dispute ASI findings |
 |
The Archaeological Survey of India report after digging at the disputed site at Ayodhya that a temple like structure existed earlier, has sparked a major controversy. While the saffron outfits are happy that their claims had been “upheld” by the findings, leading historians have raised questions on the evidence claimed to have been found by the ASI.
The 574-page report consisting of written opinions and maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure (Babri Mosque). The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India, the report said.
The ASI has “twisted its own evidence” to reach conclusions to “support the fictions of the Sangh Parivar (RSS family) about the existence of a temple’’, historians claimed at a press meet organized by the anti-communalism group, Sahmat.
Irfan Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University and Suraj Bhan from the Kurukshetra University said there was no evidence that supported the ASI’s claim. “The decisive evidence that denies the existence of a temple is the presence of animal bones throughout the site,” Prof. Habib said. The ASI had not recorded the bones found in its field records although “the rules and conventions of archaeology stipulate that field records of an excavation site must cover all the evidence, not just some of it”.
Prof. Bhan said the ASI had failed to turn up evidence supporting the existence of a massive temple from the 9th to 12th centuries A.D. Typical temples from that period were in the ‘Nagar’ style, which were star-shaped. The ASI said that what it had excavated had large rectangular halls and resembled a building found in Sarnath that was accepted as a vihara or monastery, he said.
In his view what the ASI had found was, in all probability, the remains of an older mosque. Its plans, including the large halls, largely “agreed with the plan of the Babri Masjid”. `Nagar’ style temples, he said, had narrow chambers.
The pillar bases that the ASI has placed at the centre of its claim could also “not be relied upon”. They could not all be classified as pillar bases and they did not belong to the same period.
The other criticism of the ASI report was that it had presented as a “shrine” a circular structure, about five feet in diameter, without any evidence to substantiate the claim.
“Stray,” decorated stones had been presented as evidence to the existence of a temple. The only slab with an inscription, Prof. Bhan said, had been recorded as being from the 11th or 12th centuries. But on an inspection of the site in June he had found it lying face down among lime mortar filling. Ashok Dutta, an epigraphist of the Kolkata University, and an observer at the site, dated it to the 19th or 20th centuries, he said.
Prof. Habib said the ASI report also committed “period fraud”, juggling its own classification of periods and layers of the excavation to give credence to its claim of a temple built in the 11th or 12th centuries.
He concluded that the Babri Masjid had been “one victim of political vandalisation” and the report showed that the “ASI was another”.
In what could be a turning point in the Ayodhya dispute, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) earlier reported to the High Court that its excavations found distinctive features of a 10th century “massive structure” beneath the Babri Mosque site even as the Sunni Central Waqf Board (SCWB) termed the report “vague and self-contradictory”.
Limits of judicial route
The rival claims even amongst academics and historians expose the limits of the judicial route. The findings as expected earlier, has created more discord than the possibility of any resolution. The ASI contends that the structure unearthed, dating back to the 10th century, bears resemblance to ‘’temples of north India’’. As evidence, it cites implements and architectural trimmings. Pro-temple historians take this as vindication.
Others dispute the ASI’s interpretation. Irfan Habib, for instance, argues that the lime and mortar technique found is not characteristic of pre-Islamic architecture. And so it could go.
As the dispute fragments into archaeological nitty-gritty, a case must once again be made for a political, negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. Observers point out the political class cannot take the easy route by leaving it to the courts.
|
