AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF

ARCHAEOLOGY

A Critique of the ASI Report

Against Communalisation of

ARCHAEOLOGY

A CRITIQUE OF THE ASI REPORT

SAHMAT

A(iAINST COMMliNALlSATION 01' ARCHAEOLOGY; A CRITIQlJE 01' THE ASI REPoRT

Compiled by Archana Pra sad and Andrew Nash

Copyright © Authors and SAHMAT

First Edition September 2003

ISBN llHI6219-46-3

Rs. 20

Published by

Samar Hashmi Memorial Trust 8 Vithalbhai Patel House

Raft Marg

New Delhi 110001

Tel: 23711276.23351424 e-mail: sahrnal@vsnLcom

Cover Cartoon: Unny Krishnan. Courtesy: .Indian Express Printed by: Ishtihaar, New Delhi

Preface

On 5 March 2003 the Ayodhya dispute took a new tum when the Allahabad High Court ordered the excavation of the site around the Babri Masj id in order to ascertain whether the Babri Masjid had been built on a demolished temple in the 16th century.' The Archaeological Survey ofIndia (ASI),

, .

which was directed to carry out the excavations, submitted its report on

the 22 August 2003. I n the Report it conci uded that it has unearthed evidence that is "indicative of remains associated with the temples of North India" (AS! Final Report. Volume 1 p.272). This conclusion has raised important questions about the role of the ASI. the process that it has followed in excavations, the misinterpretations of evidence and its legal implications. This booklet is an attempt to present the current scenario to people in a simple and non-technical manner so that they are able to seethe vicious

game behind the pointless exercise of excavation. 'i"

The futility of the excavations of2002-2003 can also be seen b/the,,,, fact that these were not the first digging exercises on the Babri site. The earliest excavations were conducted in Ayodhya under the leadership of A:K. Narain and T.N. Roy In 1969-70. After this the project "Archaeology of the Ramayan Sites" was inaugurated in 1975 and ended ill 1986 under the leadership of B.B: Lal, While nothing ill Lal's investigations before 1990 revealed a temple below the Babri Masjid, his article of 1990 claimed that he had found "pillar bases" in his digging of 1975. Significantly this article was published in the RSS journal Manthan in 1990-91 with L.K. Advani's Rath Yatra. Several prominent archaeologists and academics criticised the nature of the excavations and criticised Lal for making his finds public 15 years after he had dug the site. The political motivation for his writings became clearwhen Lal became a prominent advocate of the

-. ._

4 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

temple theory between 1989-90 and in 1991 ,even demanded more largescale excavations at the Babri site. In his article Ayodhya: A Review of Archaeological Evidence K.hl. Shrimali has pointed out that the excavations were carried out in a manner that ran bulldozers over the site and claimed to unveil pillar bases and relief sculptures of "Vishnu's incarnation". The report was subsequently published in a booklet entitled Ramjanma Bhumi Ayodhya: New Archeological Discoveries (1992) and argued that these New Discoveries were chance finds. It would therefore be illogical to apply scientific principles of ' pit digging', stratification and so called sealing layer to this evidence. This outrageous claim was subject to severe criticism by professional archaeologists and historians prominent amongst whom were D. Mandai, Suraj Bhan, D.N. Jha and R.S. Sharma. Along with the method of investigation the conclusions arrived at were also subject to vigrous debate. Suraj Bhan, R Champaklakshmi and D Mandai, all made detailed critiques of the conclusions and showed that the excavations had yielded nothing that would help establish a temple under

the Babri Masjid. '

It is in this context that the Indian History Congress of 1993 passed a resolution that protested against the principal that "a monument can be destroyed or removed ifthere are any grounds for assuming that a religious structure of another community had previously stood at its site." The resolution also stated that any "post facto rationalisation of what was done on '6 December 1992 would place in jeapordy the fate of numerous historical monuments all over the country, an increasing number of which are being targeted for destruction by communal forces." Ten years later the High Court order on the excavation of the Babri Masjid site has once again opened the same pandoras box that will fuel further demands for the excavation of other historically important sites without yielding any con~lusive results. Keeping this in mind SAHMAT initspress statement of8 March 2003 cautioned that the order and the subsequent investigation would disturb the secular fabric of the country, Thereafter on 17 June 2003 it once again questioned the way in which the excavations were being engineered to suit the interests of the Sangh Parivar. The Report of the excavations at Babri Masjid have only served to confirm the fears of SAHMA T and the intellectuals who have been protesting against the vandalisation of the Babri Masjid over the years. It has also raised the

PREFACE 5

question. whether this excavation was necessary in the first place when enough archaeological evidence had already been unearthed and debated in the previous years. Like other debates in archaeology, this debate has also shown that the conclusions reached in archaeology can not be as definitive as the ASJ Report has made them out to be. Rather they are always open to debate and interpretation.

This booklet provides answers to some of these questions and attempts to throw some light on the saffronisation of archaeology in contemporary India.

References

• Sarvepalli Gopal, Anatomy of a Confrontation: The Babri Masjid - Ramajanmabhumi Issue, Viking, Delhi, 1991.

• . R.S: Sharma, M Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Sura] Bhan, Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians Report to the Nation, People's Publishing House, New Delhi, 1991.

• D. Mandai, Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1993.

• K.M. Shrimali, 'Ayodhya: A Review of Archaeological Evidence' in K.N. Pannikar, TJ.· Byres and Utsa Patnaik eds, The Making of History: Essays Presented to Irfan Habib, Tulika Books, Delhi 2000, 607-622.

Saffron ising Archaeology

SAHMAT's Statement on the Excavation Report of the Archaeological Survey of India

The Allahabad High Court in its order of 5 March 2003, directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the disputed site of

:\ ~ 1

Ramajanmbhoomi and Babri Masjid at Ayodhya. Through the excavations

. I . ~ "

the Court wanted to ascertain "whether there was any temple/Structure,

which was demolished; and mosque was constructed on the disputed site".

This order has marked an important landmark in the Ayodhya dispute and has once again tested the credibility of the ASI to work in a scientific and impartial manner. The Report ofthe AS! submitted to the High Court on 22 August 2003 and made available to the litigants on 25 August 2003 has shown that the AS! has failed this test. This point was highlighted in a press conference held by SAHMA Ton 29 August 2003 in the Constitution Club presided over by Prof Prabhat Patnaik and addressed by Prof Irfan Habib, Prof Suraj Bhan and eminent Lawyer Rajiv Dhavan. All speakers pointed out that the Report was motivated and did not follow the acceptable conventions of archaeological investigation. Instead the Report has served to demonstrate that the Sangh Parivar has succeeded in saffronising the AS! and will not stop at any length to prove its untenable claim that there was a temple under the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Undemocratic ahd ·Non-Consult.tive Process

At the very outset SAHMA T had doubted the feasibility of excavation of the Babri site. In its press statement of 8 March 2003 it stated that the Court's order was "inexplicable" and said that the order "raised widespread concerns about the basic ethics of how the whole matter ofBabri Masjid was being dealt with." It questioned the very basis of the GPR report,

SAFFRONISING ARCHAEOLOGY 7

which provided the foundational information on which the excavations began. It said that Tojo-Vikas International, the firm that had contracted to do the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, was inexperienced in the task and that its survey methods could be questioned. Once the excavations began, SAHMAT again issued a statement protesting against the way in which the excavations were proceeding on 6 May 2003 after the second interim report of the ASI. Here SAHMAT stated that the only structural remains that the ASI actually found were those of a mosque associated with the period of Muslim habitation. On 17 June 2003 the organisation issued a further statement asserting that the Mosque complex and much of its surrounding area had been covered by the ASI excavations. This meant that it had destroyed what the "karsevaks had not demolished" in 1992.

During the excavations experts representing the litigants; objected to the way in which the excavations were being done. For example a complaint filed on 21 May 2003. requested the Court that ASI was creating an "inaccurate visual impression" through "partial digging and inaccurate recording method". A month later another complaint was filed on 7 June 2003 which stated that the ongoing excavations in Ayodhya were marked by "the lack of accuracy and transparency [in recording] both structures and artefacts". The inaccuracies in the Report show that the ASI ignored these objections and complaints and continued its work in the same manner as before, by flouting all accepted conventions of archaeological excavation as has been pointed out by many experts. And once its conclusions were finalised it did not even care to address the questions raised by the experts representing the litigants. This just shows that the ASI was not interested in carrying out an impartial and correct investigation. Rather it was concerned with pleasing its current political masters and this demonstrated that the ASI, like other institutions is being used by the Sangh Parivar to settle political disputes.

Selective Interpretations

In line with its method of working, the ASI has conveniently overlooked all the evidence that goes against the existence of the temple and not included it in its detailed Report. This is all the more clear when we recognise that some of these elements have been recorded in the Report,

8 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

but their interpretation has not been integrated into the larger findings. Some examples 'are given below:

The most important evidence that goes against the "temple" conclusion is the widespread existence of the lime-surkhi floors, which cou Id have led to the conclusion that the structure below the Masjid was built at the earliest in the 13th century. Instead of recognising this the ASI systematically goes about trying to confuse and destroy the evidence, as is evident in the complaint of 7 June 2003 which was made to the independent observers in the High Court. The complaint stated that an accurate recording of the evidence would have shown "lime plaster and mortar above the brickbats as part of the same floor. Lime surkhi floors appear to have been laid over a combination of stone blocks and brickbats." Instead the ASI chooses to, as the complaint points out, selectively remove brickbats so as to "create a visual impression that the brickbats, were confined to only a portion of the excavated area .... Bricks that would also have been used in the walls of the mosque were thrown away while modern fresh bricks, without mortar and plaster (moulded with the number ZKR33)'had been collected".

• Similarly the existence of the much debated glazed pottery has not been associated' with other artefacts found during excavation for fear that their mass production may be identified with the Sultanate period, and thus contradict the motivated conclusion that the ASI wants to reach.

o The existence of animal bones has been recorded in the summary but finds no mention in the detailed report that interprets this evidence.

These .are some of the most important instances of numerous others that have been cited by analysis of experts'. But they only go to show that recording of evidence was done in a way that it would erase the signs of anything that goes against the conclusion that there was a temple under the mosque on the Babri site.

Motivated Conclusions

" The conclusions that ASI report reaches have confirmed the worst fears of the experts who have been raising objections about the method

SAFFRON ISING ARCHAEOLOGY 9

followed by the official archaeologists. As the 7 June 2003 complaint pointed out "inaccurate recording of artefacts recovered in excavation is equally worrying, as it will impact eventual interpretation and archaeological evidence". This can be seen as the summary conclusions of the ASI state that the evidence found is indicative "of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India" (AS! Final Report p.270). The main evidence on the basis of which the ASI makes this conclusion are:

• The first evidence of the temple is deemed to be the pillar bases with figurines that have been found at the site. The "pillar bases" theory has already been. debunked by the analysis of the evidence in the previous excavations (see S. Gopal Eds. Anatomy of Confrontation, pp.225-232). The arguments against this have also been confirmed and extended by the analysis of expert archaeologists and historians after the Report was made public. For the bases that have been found belong to different periods in time and are not similar in their construction or nature. Thus does the ASI report mean that temple, if at all it existed was standing on incomplete pillars, or was built over a period of few centuries as the remains of the so called bases have been found in different levels representing different periods of history. Clearly this explanation is illogical.

• The second fantastic conclusion that the ASI has manufactured is that there was "massive structure" just below the Babri Masjid, and that could be traced to the l Oth century. Its main conclusion is that in association with the pillar bases this can be seen as the remains of a temple. But again the correlation of evidence by historians before and after the excavations has shown the structure that was found can only be dated between the 13th and 15th centuries (D. Mandai, Ayodhya:

Archaeology after Demolition). Further the construction plan and alignment of this massive structure is close to the plan ofMasjid that was destroyed by the karsevaks in 1992. Is then this structure a mosque or a temple? Perhaps the ASI should correlate its evidence and findings of the lime-surkhi floor and re-date this structure in accordance with acceptable archaeological and historical conventions to answer this question.

• Finally the ASI makes a third important claim about the existence of a

10 AGAINST COMMUNALI$ATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

circular shrine which can be correlated with the Shaivite and . Vaishnavite shrines of Hindu temples. Clearly the ASI's own documentation and photographs show that there is no evidence of Hindu idols in it. For example there is no place for a Sivalinga.

All-these things go to show that the ASI was neither sincere nor honest in its effort to excavate the site. They also raise a larger question of whether excavation can solve a larger political dispute and the grave threat that the composite and plural cultural fabric of our nation faces today. The Sangh Parivar has used the ASI in its effort to manipulate the courts and evidence in favour of its temple theory. Thus it is no coincidence that this Report comes at the time when both assembly and general elections are on the anvil. This Report is a further attempt to egg on divisive Hindutva forces to pursue votebank politics.

Bad Method, Poor Result A Critique of the ASI Report

Suraj Bhan

Professor Sura) Bhan retired as a professor of archaeology from Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at the Kurukshetra University. As a trained field archaeologist he is also known for his excavations in Lothal, Balu and Mithalal. Professor Bhan has also been an important commentator on the excavations on the Babri Masjid site ever since the controversy started in the early 1990s. In 1991 he coauthored a book along with M Athar Ali, D.N.Jha and R'S. Sharma entitled Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians Report to the Nation (People's Publishing House, New Delhi, 1991). This report firmly countered B.B. Lal's assertion that there was a temple under the Babri Mosque. In . this article Professor Bhan reviews the AS! Report in the context of his. long experience as a field archaeologist. He explains the basic methods of

'good' and conventional field archaeology to his readers and shows why the ASI Report does not meet these standards. He also shows why the AS! evidence does not support a "temple theory" and attempts to reinterpret the AS! evidence. The article is important because it exposes the fundamental flaws in the AS! method of excavation.

Excavation at Ayodhya was undertaken by the ASI from 12 March 2003 for nearly five months. The Babri site was to be excavated by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) order after obtaining the GPR Survey indicating anomalies below the Babri Masjid. It is believed that

12 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

these anomalies indicate the possibility of existence of architectural remains (such as the floors, pillars etc). The ASI, after excavating the Ram-Janma Bhoorni-Babri Masjid site extensively, has now submitted its report on the excavations to the High Court. In this article J look at how credible the conclusions of the ASI Report are in the light of established and accepted conventions of the archaeological method and whether the evidence that the ASI has unearthed supports the Hindutva theory of the existence of a temple under. the demolished Babri Mosque;

Summarising the Main Findings

According to the Report the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid site was occupied first in the Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) period around c.l 000 Be. Its habitation continued until the Gupta or post Gupta period (600-1000 AD.) after which the site was put to public use. An important structure of Period V found was a circular 'shrine' with less than two metre diameter and dated to 'c.1 000 AD'. It was square on plan internally and provided with a 'water-chute (Parnala), in the north. There was exposed a 'massive' burnt-brick structure in Period VII comprising a massive fired brick wall (1.77m wide), lime floors and 'pillar bases' over an area extending 50m North-South and 30 m East-West. The 'massive' burnt brick structure was found associated with 'pillar-bases' (once supporting stone pillars constituting 1 or 2 halls), a Ghata-Iike depression cut into the brick floors (suggesting its use for keeping an important object) and the debris of the structure underlying the floor of the Babri Masjid. It has been identified as a 'Temple' built in the 12th century AD. and which continued to exist until early 16th century when tli~ Babri Masjid was constructed on top of it in 1528. The Western Wall of the Masjid layover the western massive burnt brick wall of the 'temple'. In the late and postMughal Period IX, the Ram Chabutra platform was constructed over a smaller one overlying a tank. According to the Report the Chabutra revealed five phases of its construction (including the Hauj of the Babri Masjid).1t is to this last structural phase that the graves containing skeletons in the North and South of the complex belonged.

How are Ancient Mounds Formed: Some Basic Principles

The ASI's claims, as I have described them, have wide-reaching

A CRITIQUE OF THE ASI REPORT 13

implications for the secular polity of our country and therefore it is important to test their empirical and scientific veracity. In order todo this it will be worthwhile to give here an idea of how the ancient mounds are formed and how the archaeologists go about their investigations. Archaeology is a modern scientific discipline that studies cultures of the past from the material remains left by mankind ever since its huntingfood-gathering stage. With the advent of agriculture there emerged settled life. The growth of technology and, specialised crafts led to the socioeconomic changes, trade, the rise of the state and cities, The constructional activities over a continued period of habitation in cities and villages resulted in the accumulation of artefacts and debris raising the height of the settlements. When deserted, the mounds (Tilas) sometimes looked like earthen hi llocks, But the same people did not always occupy the settlements, In semi-nomadic societies the settlements were shifted quite often and new comers occupied the old mounds. The conquests also resulted in the establishments of new cities and settlements or the occupation of certain localities, They introduced new cultural patterns bringing in new languages, scripts, styles of art and architecture, religious beliefs and rituals.

The tangible remains of human activities thus lie buried in the ancient mounds. The architectural remains such as the 'forts, palaces, temples, mosques, tom bs and houses constructed of bricks and stones partially survived in the form of the foundation walls, floors, etc. along with the artefacts associated with the floor level. The collapse of super- structure such as the domes and Shikharas covered the floors, foundations and artefacts lying in their original form (in situ). Thus archaeological excavations can reconstruct the history of any structure lying under the mound by exposing the sequence of structural debris overlying the antiquities on the floor and the associated foundation walls of the structure. The superstructure of the building can be reconstructed by the discovery of fragments of architectural remains found in the debris layer. A careful study of the ash deposits on the floor and in the debris can give an idea about the causes of the destruction of the structure. The objects found on the floor-level in situ can throw light on the functional aspects of the structure. The foundation walls will help reconstruct the plan of the structure.

14 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Defining the Principles of Scientific Excavations

But the remains of the erstwhile structure can be unearthed and information collected only by a trained archaeologist when he/she applies archaeological methods of scientific excavation, recording, analysis and interpretation. While digging a trench at the site the archaeologist will cut through the deposits of the Tila layer by layer. A layer or stratum is a

/

deposit of earth formed at one and the same time. The ancient objeots Of!

artefacts found in the layer are called associated finds and belong to the, same time. Thus, the differentiation of the layers from top to bottom in the! trench is called stratification of the deposit. The study of the relationship' of layers associated with particular floors, structures, pillars or antiquities in time and space at the site is called stratigraphy. It helps understand the I periodisation or. cultural sequence of the site. The associated artefacts'll features, characteristic types of pottery, tools, weapons, their technology and architectural. style help us understand the culture of the period. The stratigraphical digging, thus, is the essence of archaeological excavation and un-scientific excavation of the site once for all destroys and disturbs the deposits of the site andfor that matter the cultural heritage of that site.

The archaeologist, therefore, has to scientifically record the excavation pmcess; sections of the trenches; structural features along with their plans, elevation and cross sections; antiquities; artefacts and ecological remains. The archaeological record comprises of the diary of the trench supervisor, photographs including video film to record the process of excavation and stratigraphical context of important discoveries and structural remains. The layers are labelled in the trench. The antiquities, pottery, bones, structures,etc. are also labelled.The sections of the trenches as well as the plans and elevations of the structures and other features are also drawn according to the scale to give necessary details. All the data collected and the record made forms the primary source of studyby archaeologists and other scientists.

The ASI's Ayodhya Excavation 2002-2003

The ASl excavation on the Babri site must be considered in the light of the above discussion. We know that the ASI had not undertaken this excavation to solve any archaeological problem such as to establish sequence of cultures, to know the conditions oflife of the people and or to

A CRITIQUE OF THE ASI REPORT 15

understand the questions of culture change. Here the issue for examination, with the help of GPR survey, was if there existed any temple/structure below the Babri Masjid and if it was destroyed to construct the Babri Masj id in 1528 AD. Naturally the question was a minor one and did not require extensive horizontal digging which destroyed all the Mughal period remains at the site. Previously too, the ASI has dealt with such queries while undertaking conservation of monuments. They do limited vertical trenching and then expose the structure where necessary in the light of the hypothesis. This could have avoided undue expenditure of time and energy. This is what the High Court perhaps wanted them to do. Let me also point out that the excavation was in fact not.at all called for, in this case. The problem of the title suit has no relevance to the history of political and social conflicts of the past. We have to take lessons from history to be wiser not to allow' history to repeat itself today.

An archaeologist happens to be at the centre of any excavation work.

Why he/she works the way he/she does depends upon his/her training and perspective. Stratification of the deposits and recording of the artefacts, structural features and the facts related to ecology, if done scientifically, can help collect useful data duly stratified contextually. In its absence, the excavation will become chaotic and mix up the finds of different periods and locations. The clubbing together of the pottery of Periods VII, VIII and IX in the ASI Report illustrates this point and is. an example of such un-scientific digging and recording. Similarly the 'pillar bases', structures and the floors are not correlated accurately. Doubtful stratigraphy also leads to the rejection of pottery in the reconstruction of cultural periods as seems to have happened in the case of medieval (Islamic) glazed pottery, that was reported from the beginning of Period VII onwards, but ignored by the Report in its interpretation of the evidence. This in turn resulted in the wrong placement of the beginning of the burnt brick structure (No. 16) in the pre-sultanate period and its identification with a temple supporting the VHP claims. Similarly, the early dates of the NBPW period on the basis of a few C.14 dates analysed by only one laboratory could be misleading. By attempting to push back the NBPW date, the ASI, has in fact, showed its eagerness to push back the antiquity of 'Ramayana era' itself. It may be recalled that B.B. Lal and J.P. Joshi had similarly pushed back the dates of PGW culture for enhancing the antiquity of the

16 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

'Mahabharata age'. Similarly the Age of the Rigveda has also been backdated back by B.B. Lal, on no reasonable grounds, in order to make it coeval with the Indus civilisation to prove the identity of two separate cultures. This is the general trend within the school of historians busy 'Rewriting History' or doing tradition based motivated archaeology.

Why There is No Temple Under the Sabri Masjid Site

It is evident from the Report that the 'pillar bases' were nowhere found associated with stone pillars or even their fragments. They have no symbols to establish their identity with Hindu temple. On the other hand the occurrence of animal bones from these levels precludes the possibility of the structure being a temple. Moreover, the use of sculptured stones in the foundation wall of the 'massive' burnt brick structure would also lead us to a similar conclusion. Hindus normally immerse the old or disused temple remains in water rather than bury these in the ground or in the foundations. Hence it is not possible to agree with the conclusion of the Report that there was a temple below the Babri Masjid in the absence of proper evidence.

In the light of archaeological methods it is possible to state that there is no dispute that the habitation at the site began in the NBPW period. But the established dates of the NBPW period are c.600 Be - 100 BC. The report pushed back the antiquity of the NBPW period at Ayodhya to c.l QOO BC. (with a possibility of being even earlier), completely ignoring the established chronology of North Indian Archaeology. The C.14 dates can be erratic unless we have cluster of dates and that too from different laboratories. It also depends upon the stratigraphical accuracy of the samples analysed.

B.B. Lal had already pointed out the desertion of the habitation at the site in the Gupta and the early medieval period in his short report on Ayodhya in 1976-77. But the recent Report gives an impression as if the area was allocated for public use (religious use) until the Mughal period, when Babri Masjid was constructed and people settled around it. But it should not be forgotten that the cities in north India were already in decay after the Kushan times. Sometimes people shift from higher ground to lower ground on high ancient mounds for the sake of convenience also. One cannot, therefore, depend only on the absence of solid constructions

A CRITIQUE OF THE ASI REPORT 17

to reach a conclusion in the case. It is necessary that soil samples be tested to find out ifthere was an occupation of the site by the marginalised sections of society with ordinary huts and shelters.

A damaged circular burnt brick structure with rectangular projection for a door called circular shrine, has been reported in the upper levels of Period V (c.600-1000 AD.) at the site. But what is intriguing is the absence of any stratigraphical context of the structure. The Report mentions no icon or Sivalinga from the floor of the structure. Nor is there a hole for the Sivalinga in the floor. The Saivite character of the structure is solely based on the supposed existence of a water-chute to the north.

No one doubts the existence of a burnt brick wall of the so-called 'temple' on the west of the site. It runs north to south to the length of 50 metres. It is also associated with a I ime and surkhi floor extending over 50 metre x 30 metre area. Some structures give the impression of being circular and squarish 'pillar bases'. But these show no integral relationship with this structure or its floors. What is also not amenable to reason is the absence of the foundation walls and the plan of a Nagar style of temple, prevalent in North India between 9th and 12th centuries.

Secondly, the so-called 'pillar bases' (reported no less than 50) are nowhere found associated with the stone pillars which are supposed to have stood over them. Besides, these 'pillar bases' show no religious symbols on them. It becomes doubtful in the absence of their stratigraphical. context to talk of the relationship between the walls, floors and the 'pillar bases'. Further more the 'pillar bases' have not been plotted on the site plan to make their alignment trustworthy. Some of the clusters of brickbats have been removed and not taken into account since these lay outside the alignment. How could it be possible to make more than 40 'pi lIar bases' coeval without any stratigraphical correlation shown by the Report? Instead of giving conjectural isometric view of the structure, it was necessary to illustrate through plans the contemporary features of the burnt brick structure. Reproducing cross-sections adequately could have showed their correlation. The Babri Masjid foundation walls and the associated floors of period VIII are shown in some of the illustrations. But how is it that no cross section connects the Babri Masjid with the water reservoir, and the 'pillar bases' of the period? The later and post Mughal Period IX in the Report has brought to light two Chabutras, graves on the north and

18 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

south and the upper most floor of the Babri Masjid. But their stratigraphical relationship is either not recorded or not illustrated in this Report.

What Lies Under the Babri Masjid?

If there was no temple beneath the Babri Masjid, then what could be the character of this structure? No final word can be said about it without studying the full relevant records of the excavation, much of which has not been included in the Report. However, one thing is certain that it was not a temple as discussed above. But there is a great possibility of the structure being a mosque of the Sultanate period. Its plan broadly corresponds with that of the Babri Masjid in the layout. Its Western wall and the southern chamber lie below the western wall and the southern dome of the Babri Masjid. The extensive floor areas of the courtyards of the-two structures also broadly correspond with each other giving rise to the speculation that an older mosque may have existed on the Babri site.

ASI Report Unveiled

Irfan Habib

Professor Irfan Habib is an eminent historian and the former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research.' He has also been at the forefront of the campaign against the misuse of history and archaeology by the Sangh Parivar to meet its own political ends. This article was published just afew days after the Report of the ASI was made public on 25 August 2003. The article appeared as a column in Sahara Times on 6 September 2003. The article lays out the contours of the critique and provides an important and secular perspective for analysing the Report.

The AS! Report on the Ayodhya excavations has been widely acclaimed by the RSS and VHP spokesmen for giving the official stamp of approv~1 . to their claims of the previous existence ofa temple at the Babri Masjid site .. But it is also true that the hand that wields the. official stamp is controlled by the very same people who do the applauding. And it is another matter whether what the AS! says in its Report is true. An important handicap to the ASI in the present case has been that the entire excavations were constantly watched by a team of independent archaeologists of the ASI because of the High Court's orders. The result is that whereas in its ordinary excavations the ASI works without the constraint of having any monitoring eye, it has been otherwise in the case of these Ayodhya excavations. Everything that was dug up, and how it was dug up and recorded, was seen and often verified by the litigants' nominees. The result is that one can cross check what the ASI's claims and the inferences it has drawn from them. For the first time, really, the ASI's methods and integrity have been put to a public test.

20 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

How, then, has it fared in this public test? The ASI claims that the High Court asked it to determ ine "whether there was any temple/ structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site". The ASI, however, proceeds in its Report as if the word "whether" was not used at all by the Court, and its task was simply to prove that a temple had indeed, existed at the site - not only just a temple, but a very grand one.

The first thing 'it has therefore done is to brush aside altogether any evidence that could go against the presence of a temple. First, take the total omission of any examination of animal bones. It is casually admitted in the Summary of Results on page 270 that "animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods". But in the main Report there is no examination and description of the animal bones at all. For example there is no identification of the species of animals (mostly, apparently, sheep and goat), and no tabulation by trench and level at which the bones, especially those with cut-marks (attesting to meat consumption on the spot), were found. The motive is obvious: their presence everywhere at all (not just "various") levels is destructive of any thesis of there having been any temple at the site previous to the mosque. Animals are surely not eaten and their bones deposited in a temple. Bones are organic material and can also be carbon-dated. It is strange, then, that the bones at the Babri Masjid site were not carbon-dated, since their dates could have definitely settled the issue ofthe possibility of the temple at the site during the period they were deposited.

Another important factor negating the presence of the temple is the finding of medieval ('Muslim') glazed ware beneath all floor levels, including the floor attributed to the temple by the Report. Yet even when some of these are listed (p.l 08 onwards) there is no reference to the actual level where they were found. Nor is there any tabulation level-wise of glazed ware fragments. The reason for such omissions again is obvious enough. Such tabulation was bound to show the presence of glazed ware below the imagined "temple -floor", and thus would have exposed the fiction about a temple.

While the ASI has thus brushed under the carpet all the evidence directly contradicting the temple theory, it has gone on to invent the evidence for what is now called a "Massive Structure below the Disputed Structure". When one sits down to examine the theory closely, one

ASI REPORT UNVEILED 21

immediately finds how fantastic it is. Four floors have been discovered; all of them have lime-mortar bonding, a sure sign of Sultanate and postSultanate construction. It is obvious from the presence of lime-mortar in the floor and attached walls that Floor 4, the lowest floor, belongs to the Sultanate period. A mihrab found in an attached wall (ignored in the Report), is a certain indicator, that this belongs to a pre-Mughal open (qanati) mosque or idgah.ln order to tide over this difficulty and make the early mosque-floor into a temple floor, the Report creates a period unknown to history - "Period VI, Medieval-Sultanate Level" - which it proceeds to place in "the eleventh-twelfth century" (pAO). Our ASI is so knowledgeable these days that it does not know that the Delhi Sultanate itself was established in 1206, i.e. in the thirteenth century, to which alone the limemortar floor could have belonged at the earliest. There was no question of its having been used in the 11 th and 12th centuries (the Gahadavala period).

It is further to be noted that in this supposedly "huge structure" (of a temple) only four so-called "pillar-bases" have been found; and the Report concedes ruefully that the construction of the temple must have been incomplete ("short-lived") (Report, p.269). All the remaining 46 "pilIarbases" belong, therefore, to the period after 1200. They contain not only mud bonding but also lime mortar and thus follow Muslim methods of construction. Are we, then, to suppose, following the ASI's inferences, that the great temple was built under Muslim rulers, the Delhi Sultans and the Sharqi rulers of Jaunpur? The "50 pillar bases" are the only argument left for a temple, even if 46 of these have to be dated to the Sultanate times. These are curious "pillar bases", indeed, in that they have no association anywhere with any pillar! They generally comprise calcrete stones resting on loose or mud-bonded brickbats. How such a "base" could ever carry a stone or brick pillar that has to sustain a masonry roofing strains one' credulity.

Despite the claim and fancy drawings (Figures 23, 23A and 23B, following p.42) these are not actually in alignment. The ASI report omits the elementary requirement of detailed grid-plans for a simple reason: these can be checked for the trenches are still not closed, by the Court's orders. Not only are they badly aligned, if aligned at ali, these "pillar bases" are sealed by, or they themselves pierce, either Floor 3 or Floor 2 of the Mosque, as already shown by ASl's own earlier reports. It would have

22 AGAINST COM MUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

been a shaky structure indeed, which was held up by pillars resting on heaps of brickbats at different levels! The fact is that these are neither pillar bases nor "structural bases" (the description in ASI's interim report of work upto 24 April).

To my friend Dr Ashok Dutta ofKolkata, an experienced archaeologist, who himself watched these excavations, I owe the most satisfactory explanation of their presence. They are remains of brickbats put into hollows of ground in order to make it level. Calcrete stones were put at the top to press them into place, and then the floor was laid out. As time passed and the mosque had to be refloored, brickbats were again put in to close holes and depressions in the old floor in order to layout a new one. That is why they are all over the place and under practically all the floors, and so at different levels. The ASI simply ignored those heaps which its team considered too far out of "alignment" for their purposes. Otherwise, they could well have marked a hundred or more of such heaps. But they sustained no pillars, they only provided level ground for mosque flooring.

I end with another absurdity. Much is made out of the "Circular Shrine" (AS! Final Report, pp.70-71), with fanciful drawings (Figs.24 and 24A). Comparisons with other circular Hindu shrines are made (Fig.18) though not, of course, with any Muslim circular domed buildings! When a careful reader looks at the Plan of the Circular Shrine on Fig.17, thankfully drawn to scale, its total diameter (inclusive of the thick wall) is found to be just 180 ems or less than 6 feet! Moreover, the wall does not even make quarter of a circle, so that even this smallest of "circular shrines" is just a piece of the ASI's own imagination.

The ASI's Report on Ayodhya is no credit to its authors. It may serve its short-term purpose in giving the saffron forces something to exult over. But inso doing it has done immense harm to the good repute and credibility of what was once a great organisation, the Archaeological Survey of India,

The Babri Masjid:

Subterranean Fishing Expedition

Rajeev Dhavan

As we have seen in the earlier articles the ASJ's Final Report is full of fancifulspeculation and outright misrepresentation and, rather than bringing professionalism to an emotionally charged debate, has in fact worsened the climate surrounding this issue. It is for this reason that a history of the dispute since its inception in J 885 must be made available for concerned citizens. The irony of the Ayodhya dispute is that, while ostensibly about an alleged ancient temple and its alleged destruction nearly five centuries ago, it is really nothing more than a modern legal and political odyssey. It began as a trespass and property dispute in the late J 9th cen- . tury and over time assumed politicalsignificance due to the efforts of Hindu communalists. This history, while known in part by many people, is usually left unexamined in public discussions of Ayodhya. Thus, the intention of this article, written by legal luminary Rajeev Dhavan, is to provide a brief history of the legal issues, summarise the role of communal organisations, examine the judiciary's actions, and provide a framework for an analysis of the Final Report.

The old disputes: T(espass. property and prayer .

The Babri case has taken a wrong turn. What started off as an untenable claim has become a fishing expedition. Controversies over the Babri Mas j id arose in the 19th century and were effectively settled in 1885 with some degree of mischief. On 29 January 1885, MahantRaghubar Das, claiming

24 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

to be the Mahant of the Ramjanmasthan, filed Suit No. 61/280 seeking to construct a temple over the chabutra. On 24 December 1885, Sub-Judge Pandit Hari Kishan favoured the 'Hindu' claim for the chabutra and outer courtyard without granting relief. On ] 8 March 1886, District Judge Col. F .E.A. Chamier further complicated the controversy after expunging SubJudge Kishan's remarks about vesting the title in the 'Hindus. He added that "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land held sacred by the Hindus.but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it was too late to remedy the grievance; all that can be done is to maintain the status quo".

Judge Chamier' s comments were unfortunate, even if they underm ined the 'temple-destroyed-to-build-masjid' (or 'temple destroyed') theory. On 1 November 1886, the Judicial Commissioner of Avadh dismissed appeal

No. 27 of 1886 by making it clear that' there is nothing whatsoever on

the record to show that the plaintiff is the woprietor of the land in

question'. The status quo was maintained and there the controversy ended, or at least went into dormancy for six decades.

Following the 1886 ruling, apart from a dispute in the 1940s between groups of Sunnis and Shias for control of the waqf that ended in Sunni victory, the Babri Masjid avoided controversy until the so-called miracle of the idols in 1949. Even then, the controversy would have remained minor, but for the aggressive fundamentalism following Partition. Throughout north India, mobs of Hindu activists took over mosques, though, due to Nehru's intervention, this did not occur on a wide scale in Delhi. In Ayodhya, on the night of 22-23 December 1949 several Rama idols were 'discovered' inside the Babri Masjid - and immediately proclaimed as a miracle. The idea was to take over the masjid as a Hindu place of prayer. A suit filed .by Gopal Singh Visharad (No.2 of 1950) sought a permanent injunction preventing the removal of the illegally placed idols and the right to perform puja and darshan. Likewise, the Param Hansa suit (No. 25 of 1950) sought the right to do customary puja and darshan and prevent the removal of the idols. Thus, the perspective in 1950 was to support a 'foot-in-the-door' policy of securing approval for the trespass in so far as it related to prayer. By 1959, however, the Nirmohi Akhara made wide claims for possession and delivery of the property. In 1961,the,Sunni Board responded by asserting its own claim to the site. But the issue

THE BABRI MASJID 25

remained essentially forgotten until the BJP and its allies made Ayodhya an issue in the 1980s. In 1989, Deoki Nandan filed a further suit on behalf of Lord Ram to expand the issues.

What we have here is a property dispute that had really been decided in 1885, followed by an attempt to legitimate a gross act of trespass in 1949-50. A claim and a defence oftitle were set up in 1959-1961. Then came a lull. And then came the case of 1989 which tried to enlarge the dispute by converting Lord Ram into a litigant and widening the case. But, at the end of it all, the real legal issues concerned the' act of trespass' of 1949 and the property claims of 1959-61.

Such a sorry and disturbing case should have been brought to an end through a combinationofthe constitutional, secular politics and decisive, impartial judicial decision making. But, the BJP and its allies have unleashed a fundamentalist j uggernaut. Too much was at stake. The BJP's rise as a political party depended on the Ayodhya controversy. In the meanwhile, more and more social stakeholders entered the controversy to make the situation ugly, unmanageable and criminal - culminating in the Babri Masjid's destruction on 6 December 1992. In 1991, Parliament had reached the sensible decision that there would be status quo at all sites as they stood on 15 August 1947. But, the Places ofReligious Worship Act 1991 made an exception of the Babri Masjid, since the case was going on in the courts. Following the mosque's destruction, the Ayodhya Act of 1993 tried to take over the dispute by acquiring the land surrounding the' Babri Masjid, But, the Supreme Court in 1994 refused to accept a solution that would have amounted to a 'political auction' whereby the government would have been able to entirely take over the dispute and the land. Instead the Supreme Court insisted that the controversy between the parties should be determined by the due process of law. Meanwhile, responding to the Congress Government's White Paper, the BJP's White Paper of 1993 squarely located the 'Hindu' case in the politics of 'historical revenge' - seeking restoration of alleged temples allegedly destroyed centuries ago.

Politics demanded that the 'old' legal controversies (which, in fact, had been settled) be revived. The basis of the 'new' turn was to politicise the dispute by appealing to 'history' and 'archaeology' to mobilise antiMuslim sentiment.

26 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

New Disputes and Archaeological Fishing Expeditions

The new dispute is overtly political. Realising that the legal case was weak, a new tack had to be invented. It had various emotional trajectories, namely that (a) the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama, (b) the site was originally the site of a temple, and (c) a temple had been destroyed to build the Babri Masjid. Although interconnected, each of these claims is distinct and can raise the fundamentalist temperature, as well as quickly transition from one to another - upgrading the claims from the 'birthplace' assertion, to the 'temple' claim and then to the 'destruction' theory. In reverse, this meant that if the 'destruction' argument failed, recourse could be sought to the 'temple' argument; and, if that failed, refuge could be sought in the 'birthplace' argument. What was abundantly clear is that there was no relevant legal issue on anyone of these claims - which do not belong in the legal arena.

But, these new disputes were inducted into the legal dispute in any event. In 1989, an attempt was made to effect a compromise through discussions between the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the All India Babri Masj id Action Committee (AIBMAC). These discussions took a wrong turn at the start when, on 12 December 1989, the VHP played the 'sentiment' card (thinking only of their own sentiments) and demanded:

To keep its demand at a modest level, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has asked to hand over only three shrines to the Hindus out of thousands that have been destroyed during the Moghul period. Is it unreasonable by any standard? A cool thinking is needed. Is it too high a price to win the hearts of Hindus? More so when it does not go against the tenets of Islam. So how is the Muslim community a loser? Three out of thousands is a very small number.

With such a prelude, fruitful talks can hardly take place. But the Muslims were very conciliatory - seeking proof It was clear that there was little convincing proof that this site itself was the birthplace of Lord Rama even after the exchange of documents between the VHP and AIBMAC.

So, once the actual 'birthplace' argument collapsed, the other two arguments (namely the 'prior temple' and 'destruction' arguments) came to the fore. In the fresh round of discussions in 1991-92 the VHP became

THE BABRI MASJID 27

rigid in its approach on the 'birthplace' argument - refusing to examine documents by the AIBMAC (see AIBMAC letterof25 January 1991). As the 'kar sewa' campaign was accelerated in 1992, in its letter of 16 October 1992 the VHP moved to the 'destruction' argument as the only relevant argument by asking;

Was the disputed structure (the so-called Babri Masjid) constructed after demolishing an earlier Hindu temple standing on the site?

Negotiations broke because of the relentless build-up of the kar sewa campaign resulting in the destruction of the mosque in December 1992.

Although the VHP felt that the 'destruction' argument was morally superior, there was considerable doubt if it could prove this. Thus, the rhetoric always swung back to the 'birthplace' and 'prior temple' argument. For this, they found some surprising support from the Government's Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court in 1994. After an elusive Preamble, it queried 'whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to this construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-BabriMasjid (including the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?'

Here there was duplicity - if there ever was. The 'destruction' argument was not emphasised. The temple argument was diluted so that the existence of 'any religious structure' on the site was asserted as adequate and acceptable to validate the 'Hindu' claim. It did not matter if some part of the earlier structure (even an inner or outer courtyard) overlapped with the Babri site. To bolster the 'moral claim', it was.assumed that Ram Janma Bhumi was the same as the Babri Masjid. Fortunately, this mischievous 'any religious structure' approach found no validation by the Supreme Court, which refused to answer the question which had to be decided by the civil courts and not by the Supreme Court in a reference.

Around the time of the Kumbh Mela of 200 1, the VHP and its allies demanded that a temple simply had to be built on the site. Following the mela, these 2001 bullying tactics were temporarily deferred. In 2002 and 2003, the Supreme Court intervened to prevent the bullying from becoming nasty. Threat followed after threat. What the 'Hindus' needed was the revival of old legitimations for new purposes. Within the broad rubric of the argument that majoritarian Hindu sentiment had to be respected, all

28 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

the previous arguments came alive. Since the exact 'birthplace' argument was the weakest, it was kept as sentiment whilst the others were accelerated for recognition.

The only way to add some tenuous - even if otherwise incredible - weight to the claim was to somehow advance the 'prior structure or temple' and 'destruction' arguments and find new proof for them. But, the powder had run dry. The only way in which this could be done was to try and inveigle the Courts back into the fray.

The Courts take on the mantle

The Allahabad High Court got drawn into becoming the investigation agency of the 'Hindu' litigants. It should not have.

One of the issues raised in the case was 'whether there was any temple structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site'? That this issue cast open other dangerous issues is selfevident. It now had to be shown that some temple or structure existed earlier and was destroyed to build the mosque at the site - perhaps not contemporaneously. By itself, this was a tall order. Here, we are not concerned with the manner in which the issues are framed since such issues reflect what either one of the parties wants. What concerns us is the resurrection of an issue that was wild and speculative for which proof had to be created. But there were so many questions that had to be asked and answered before such speculation could be entertained. What was the legal basis of any claim if this issue was decided in the affirmative? In fact, no serious legal claim depended on the answer to this question - except to buttress some other arguments and create moral anger. So far, this issue had not been taken seriously. Why was it profiled for attention now?

It is clear that the 'prior-temple or structure', and 'subsequent destruction' arguments had run into a cul-de-sac. They were legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court had refused to hear diluted versions of these arguments. The 'Hindus' were clear that they could not prove this argument by any stretch of imagination. It was for the 'Hindus' to have discharged the burden of proof. Before the court even got into these issues, it was duty-bound to consider the pivotal significance of this question. Was it really relevant? That the VHP tried to make it relevant socially or politically is itself irrelevant.

THE BABRI MASJID 29

So far, the Court had not touched this issue for many years - realising that it had no real relevance. It is beyond explanation as to why the Allahabad High Court now plunged into the political thicket to provide a possible ballast to the revived VHP and allies' campaign to build the temple immediately. The correct approach of the court should have been to evaluate the legal relevance of this claim. The onus of proving this claim was on the 'Hindu' litigants. Indeed, the issue itself was an exercise in kite flying. Since the 'Hindu' parties were not able to prove their claim, they decided to convert an issue prompted by 'kite flying' into a 'fishing expedition' under the directions of the court. A masjid which had already been destroyed was now going to be unearthed to add fuel to the VHP's·fire.

This is not to suggest that the Courts do not have the power to appoint commissions under Order 26. Commissions can be appointed to examine witnesses or to make local investigations into any matter in dispute (Order 26 r.9) or for scientific investigations 'which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted by the Court (and must be made because) ... the Court thinks it necessary and expedient in the interests of justice to do so' (Order 26 r. lOA). But, having the powerto do something is one thing, exercising it for dubious reasons quite another. It goes without saying that any such power to appoint commissions (especially in controversial cases where the issue itself may not be germane) has to be exercised with caution. Local commissions are appointed all the time. But this was not a mere local commission. The court was ineluctably drawn into a political movement to provide speculative support to a hypothetical claim of essentially campaign significance.

The Archaeological Survey of India Commission

Once the Court got into this exercise they went much farther than the situation demanded. At first a radar report was made on 17 February 2003 suggesting 'anomaly alignments' and a 'ringy sequence'. Then, a speculative conclusion was hazarded by the ASI which read as follows:

In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects, in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.50 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies

30 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

has to be confirmed by systematic ground truth, such as provided by archaeological trenching. (from the AS! Final Report p.5)

This was pure speculation. But, the 'fishing expedition' had started.

Even this conclusion should have been subjected to scrutiny -: including cross-examination of the 'experts' who hazarded this claim. But this was not done. The VHP saw the opportunity for further kite flying. The Court seemed to be anxious to press ahead with this issue. This resulted in an order of 5 March 2003 which directed that the excavation could take place towards north or any area more than 50 feet to the disputed area to find the true position as regards to any foundation. But it also stated that:

It is made clear that the archaeologists (excavators) shall not dis-

. turb any area where the idol of Shri Ram Lala is existing and approximately 10 feet around it and they shall not affect the worship ofShri Ram Lala and thus, status quo as regards His Puja and worshippers' right of Darshan shall be maintained.

Thus a property dispute was converted into an archaeological fishing expedition under circumstances which- are not convincing. But, what is important is that the damage was done without the legal process being completed. This now became a media issue. The Report itselfwas designed to put the 'Muslims' on the defensive for things that they had not done and to buttress straw claims.

What do we make of this AS. Report?

The first aspect to notice is that the Report was produced in a tearing hurry to meet the court's deadlines. There is no explanation as to why the court's deadlines were so tight. In fact, the ASI Report itself says:

On the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Archaeological Survey of India has excavated ninety trenches in a limited time of five months, soon after which the excavation report is required to be submitted within fifteen days. This is an unprecedented event in the history of one hundred and forty two years of the existence of the Survey. (AS! Final Report, p.9)

Finding itself in a heroic mood, the ASI patted itself on the back:

Working condition worsened atthe onslaught of the monsoon from June onwards when the entire site was covered with multi-col-

THE BABRI MASJID 31

oured waterproof sheets creating heat and humidity besides total darkness in a number of deep trenches. Monkeys started damaging.the sheets as a result of which several layers of the sheets were sl?,~~d over bamboo and wooden poles. They created further dark'ness. Photography was also 'affected due to bad light and natural colours were not easily obtained as the multi-coloured sheets reflected their colours on the surface and sections. Much difficulty

, was felt for the stratigraphical observations particularly for determining layers. These factors slowed he process of ongoing work. However, the Authorised Person was asked by the High Court to provide sufficient light and air in the covered area for further work. The excavation team had to lower electric lights several meters deep in the trenches wh~re work was continuing at further deep levels. Grill barricading and poles fixed on baulks of trenches throughout the area made normal movements difficult. One team lll,e.rnber fell down and fractured his hand and leg while others including some casual labourers received electric shocks by touching pedestal fans fixed on baulks. In spite of all such constraints the team of the Archaeological Survey ofIndia worked vigorously with full devotion and spirit. (AS! Final Report, pp. 10-11)

But, the heroism of the ASlis hardly an.issue. What is important, is that the Report was hurriedly done under impossible conditions. to weaken its credibility. It may have been the fault of the High Court to set tight deadlines. 'But, surely, it was the duty of the ASI to frankly state that it simply could not do justice to the investigation in the schedule and given the circumstances. But it did not do so. Even the experts who attach some credence to some aspects of the Report point out that it was a hurried job and, therefore, necessarily incomplete (see Nayanjot Lahiri, 'Not a Treasure hunt', Hindustan Times, 2 September 2003). Thus, the Report must be rejected as incompetent on grounds of insufficiency.

The second issue relates to whether the proper procedure was followed.'

The ASI Report states that it followed due process

throughout the period of excavation the team had to work under close presen~e of advocates, parties and their nominees involved in the title suit. As per the instructions of the High Court in order to maintain

32 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

transparency all the excavated material including antiquities, objects of interest, glazed pottery and tiles and bones recovered from the trenches were sealed in the presence of advocates, parties and nominees and kept on the same day of their recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised Person (The Commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the excavation team for the specific purpose, which again was locked and sealed every day when it was opened. Thus the time available for their documentation, study, photography, drawing and chemical preservations was limited to just a few hours only and that too not in the case of material recovered from the trenches towards closing of the work for the day. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the study, documentation and preservation of the material after opening the seals in the presence of advocates, parties or their nominees and again putting them under seal in their presence. Work was often affected and delayed due to formalities involved in security checks and such other administrative requirements. (AS/Final Report, p. 10)

But, was the correct procedure followed? At various points certain objections were raised with respect to what was going on. Those were relevant and find no real place in the Report.

The third aspect of the Report relates to its contents. It is not just a description of what was found - even though it is suggested.that there was some interpolation as to what was found and the place that it was found. The Report is primarily an expert opinion. The expert opinion is extensive and claims to have categorically answered the question posed by the Court.

The Hon 'ble High Court, in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved "whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque. was constructed on the disputed site" as stated on page 1 and further on p. 5 of their order dated 5 March 2003, had given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where the OPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc which could be confirmed by excavation. Now, viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed

THE BABRI MASJID 33

structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar based in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive feature found associated with the temples of north India. (AS! Final Report, Summary p. 272)

This is an extraordinary answer to an extraordinary question over an issue mired in controversy. As such, in its present form, the Report cannot be accepted. It is no more than a mere opinion - nothing more and nothing else. It follows that several exercises have now to be conducted. The credibility of the experts needs to be vetted. The expert opinion must itself be objected to. The expert view must.be examined - and, perhaps rejected, on the grounds that it is wrong, too hurried, speculative or excessive. Experts should offer professional opinions on archaeological evidence, not read their opinions into the evidence presented. When they do so under adventurous circumstances, they lay themselves open to not only the charge that they are wrong but also that they have not been equivocal, fair and professional. The wilder the speculations, the more substantial. this charge.

The fourth aspect of the Report relates to its archaeological worth.

The ASI was aware that this issue is steeped in controversy. Professor B.B. Lal complicated matters when he published findings in 1990-91 in the RSS Journal Manthan, to give support to fundamentalist interpretation of the Ayodhya excavations in 1969-70 which were missing from his publications on the same excavations in the 1970s. In the 1990s he speculated on the existence. of a temple by asserting that pillar bases of temples existed on this site. Moreover his earlier submissions he had suggested a 'break occupation' in the area which is not entirely consistent with the present findings in the ASI Report. I am not equipped to deal with this, but this has been forcefully suggested (see Vinay Lal, 'Underground Movement', Hindustan Times, 27 August 2003 and the material cited there). Experts are required to deal with expert opinions but the ASI report is a

34 AGAINST COMMUNALISATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Report that lacks expertise. Each discovery.of the find had to be tested through professional archaeological methods, irrespective of whether it related to glazed pottery, the pillars or the use of lime mortar. But the AS! Report seems hell bent to prove that a Hindu site existed where a temple was destroyed - refusing even to consider the possibility that it might have been a Muslim site, uninhabited at the time, or never a Lord Ram temple. The ASI played to the gallery, ignoring professional archaeological practices. Instead it carved out a continuous history until the destruction theory which was at variance with earlier expert opinions but which suggests the antiquity of the site and continuity till its supposed destruction. This is - and has been - strongly and continuously contested. But the ASI Report has entered the fray without adverting to previous doubts, controversies, materials or expertise to embark on speculations when caution and truth should have been the approach and objective.

The fifth aspect of the Report relates: to. the. fact that it is highly contested. That it opens up areas of specu]a.tiv,e interest is interesting (see Dilip Chakraborti, 'It's the Archeology,jtitPid!', Hindustan Times, 30 August 2003). But, that takes us no where. Serious doubts have been raised (see 'Experts lock horns over ASl Report', Indian Express, 27 August 200J, and other news .reports around this time, and the 29 August 2003 Press Release of SAHMAT). Even a critic of some of the attacks on the ASI Report has cast doubts on the acceptability of the Report and its conclusions (see Nayanjot Lahiri supra). If the Report's findings can be doubted on professional grounds, then questions should be raised not only about competency but also about fraud and abuse of process.

The sixth issue relates to what happens next. It is not enough to file objections, which cannot be done in 6 weeks. More time has to be given. The ASI should be asked which experts ·gave which opinions, and then allow independent experts to challenge their conclusion. The question of accepting the Report as it is does not arise. The test that the Court must use is a strict test. It cannot speculate or permit speculation. It is not an expert, and cannot pose as one. Nor can it allow false expertise.

Con.elusion

The ASI's Report has to be understood in the multiple contexts from which it was born. The Babri Masjid case is essentially a dispute over

THE BABRI MASJID 35

property that has acquired political dimensions by falsely playing with the false sentiments of the people. The record of the case shows that the real dispute was given a quietus in 1885-86. The original dispute was about the 'Hindus' right to pray (195~~91); The dispute was, then, upstaged int~ a property claim (1959-61)::M~~ers remained quiet until the issues~ere expanded beyond judicial manageability (1989 and after).

But, in order to comprehend the issues explored and raised through this Report, we have to examine how these issues acquired public notoriety. The 'Hindu' protagonists realised that there was no commendable case as far as the right to the site was concerned. Therefore, another case had to be invented at various emotional levels. These levels were encrusted into the claims that the site was (a) the exact birthplace of Lord Rama (the birth place argument) and (b) housed a temple or religious structure (the temple or religious structure argument) which, (c) was destroyed to create the masjid (the destruction argument). Each argument stood on its own; and was interrelated at will. At the AIBMAC- VHP meetings (1989-92), it was clear that the birthplace argument was not tenable. Equally, the 'prior temple' argument was also doubtful. To be on the safe side, the 'prior temple' argument was expanded into a prior 'religious structure' argument. But, the most powerful argument was the 'destruction' (of the temple to build a mosque) argument. It was an appeal to history to form the basis of historical redressal or revenge - more the latter than the former. The VHP and its allies have shuffled arguments around: In the Presidential . Reference of 1992 the 'destruction' argument was ignored. But the Supreme Court ignored the reference. Matters lay fallow.

It was after the Kumbh Mela of2001 that the 'build-the-temple-now' movement gathered further frenzied momentum. But apart from bullying the 'Muslims', nothing new had entered into the armoury. Instead of proving their case, the 'Hindus' sought the assistance of the Court and the AS!. The Court readily granted this without really examining the relevance of this issues. It set up a time schedule that was exacting. Even the ASI boasted that it had completed something that it has not done in its 134 years history! But, though justice is not for hire, judicial processes can go hopelessly wrong. In this case, they did. The Court was misused to fuel a political and communal campaign.

There are several issues that have to be considered before even

36 AGAINST COMMUNALI$ATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

credibility is attached to the Report. Produced in a hurry, the Report may have to be rejected for insufficiency. There are serious allegations that due process was not observed and the Report was tampered. Since the Report is not just descriptive (and even that aspect is disputed) but a speculative opinion, it cannot be accepted as authoritative, but treated as only a 'mere opinion'. The ASI has not examined other opinions. It is an expert Report that appears to lack expertise. Having launched on a fishing expedition, got a 'fast-food' style report, the court should not curtail the objections or the cross-examination in any way. The ASI Report seems a bundle of mischief wrapped up as a report.

I must add that in this article I have used the word 'Hindu' and 'Muslim', but do so with secular caution. The destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was a degenerate act that has bruised India governance. It is a travesty to identify that travesty with the 'Hindu' community generally. When I refer to the 'Hindus' here, I refer to those protagonists who have placed opportunistic controversy over fair and just governance. This case and controversy have taken a wrong turn. The ASI's Report has twisted the turn further. What is forgotten is that the Babri Masjid was there for more than four centuries. No amount of digging can eclipse its destruction in our times. That is the real tragedy that has to be addressed - not obfuscated.