THERE WAS A BABRI MASJID

THERE WAS A BABRI MASJID

The historicity of temple at Ayodhya attributed to birth place of Rama is a contested issue. The right wing organizations claim that literary as well as archeological evidences show that a magnificent temple was destroyed and replaced by a Mosque. In 1989 a group of historians at the Jawahar Lal Nehru University published a pamphlet “The political Abuse of History”. The pamphlet drew attention to the fact that present day Ayodhya could not be identified with the mythological Ayodhya of Rama because of the historical fact that Saketa came to be called Ayodhya in the later period of Guptas, and thus present day Ayodhya has nothing to do with Ayodhya of Balmiki and other earlier texts. The claim of Ram temple was structured on the basis of so called archeological evidence in the form of pillars and sculptures and other fabricated inferences from excavations near the Mosque. These so called irrefutable archeological supports were refuted and shattered in The Anatomy of Confrontation (Penguin India, 1991). Hindu Rightists further claimed that rubble of the Babri Masjid after its demolition provides evidence in support of the theory of Rama Temple. The claim of arbitrary digging up of a few sculpted stones by a group of kar sewaksdid not constitute archeological support and it could not be given academic consideration and sincerity.

The objects of Archeological excavations are called artefacts are placed in the contexts of the site and merely enlisting of them is not enough. A detailed and careful documentation of the excavated articles called site notebook is necessarily maintained. Excavated artifacts, articles and objects are mute and require experts’ interpretation and because of the fact that more than one interpretation is possible, archeological data is widely discussed. It is a normal practice and procedures to publish the archeological findings and their interpretations in a professional journal to be judged by experts, academics and specialists like all disciplines which are (nearly) scientifically researched. It is very unfortunate that much publicity has been given to a (biased) interpretation of the data that is in resonance with Rightists’ view.

The study of extensive site of Ayodhya was carried by B.B.Lal in 1955-56, by V S Dubey in 1969-70. In 1969-70 an archeological team of Banaras Hindu University lead by A.K. Narain, T.N. Roy and P. Singh carried excavations by opening three small trenches in different areas; the Jain Ghat, Lakshman Tekri and Nai Tila, and also parts of Kuber Tila. The brief accounts of the results were published in annual of the ASI (1969-70)-Indian Archeology-A Review, and the history of the town (now known as Ayodhya) was dated back to Northern Black Polished Ware period (from sixth century BCE to first century BCE). In 1975 B B Lal (now retired DG of ASI), with K.V. Sundra Rajan began excavations at so called Ramayana Sites and now this time Mosque premise and adjoining area was also chosen for excavations and exploratory studies. On the basis of the finding, it was established that after post Gupta period the habitation in the town ceased till the eleventh century CE. In his monograph T.N. Roy, (published in 1986), listed the findings of the third (medieval) period and remarked the existence of abundant construction activities with bricks but on the other hand team of ASI were of no special interest in medieval period levels for unknown reasons. It is note worthy that after this; no exploratory, professional, systematic or academic studies were carried in the town but it was told that in June 1992 stone carvings were uncovered 12 feet under the ground ‘during the leveling of the ground after the demolition of the Babri Masjid’.

It would be beyond the scope of this note to analyze and scrutinize the findings of the various excavations and exploratory studies carried in the town (now known as Ayodhya). We should grasp that archaeology has umpteen limitations and interpretations of the data could hardly be ascertained. It is said that ‘yet archeology is only about people, not about the mineral content of pottery clay. It is amenable to bad and sound interpretations. Much depends on the entities that we have derived and how we classify our material’ (Ayodhya Archeology after Demolition by D.M Mandal –Orient Longman).

The contestable archaeological evidence in support of the theory of alleged destruction of a temple could not be considered definitive as eminent archeologists have doubted the claim so (de)constructed. It is a matter of concern that a very issue that started with emotions and faith is claiming the historicity on the basis of contestable theories and evidences and moreover it is also very unfortunate that a section of column responsible for delivering justice on the basis of reasoning and rationality is looking otherwise.

(Asghar Mehdi Dec 6, 2010)