Rejecting the Archeological Survey of India's report that there was a "massive structure" at the disputed site in Ayodhya and Hindu motifs inside the Babri Masjid, the counsel for the mosque side on Monday told the Supreme Court that there was no need to delve into distant history and what was relevant was who had the title to the site when the sovereignty of the area was passed on to the British. "There was no massive structure at the site and no Hindu motifs. Just because there is a peacock or lotus does not mean they are Hindu," Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the main appellant M Siddiq, told a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. The bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres. The bench commenced hearing arguments from the mosque side on the 17th day of the proceedings Dhavan was referring to the arguments of the temple side that the recovery of lotus and peacock motifs discounted the claim that it was a mosque. "The Roman empire had every possible animal," he said. Denying that there was a massive structure at the site, the counsel pointed to flaws in the methodology adopted by the ASI. He also sought to contradict the claim that the presence of a well at the site reinforced the temple's case, saying "there were no wells in the Vedic period". Disputing the argument that the presence of a "parikrama route" around the structure could be considered as proof of a temple in the middle, Dhavan said, "Parikrama (circumambulation) is not an Ashwamedha sacrifice where a horse runs around and all that territory belongs to the king. parikrama is only a form of worship, it is not a form of evidence", and asked "does a parikrama entitle you to actual title of the place?" Dhavan said that it will create difficulties if Hindu-Muslim issues were to be decided on the basis of such evidence given by persons. "The important question is with whom was the title of the place when the sovereignty of this part of the country passed on to the British," the senior counsel said, adding there is proof that it was a mosque. He contended that as far as a civil suit was concerned, there was no question of relevance of historical facts, and if they were relied on, it would lead to erroneous conclusions. Dhavan argued that the judgment of Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Allahabad HC was based on "conjectures or preponderance of probability". "How do you do a preponderance of probability of historical dates," he asked, adding that "your Lordships (are) being urged to do guess work". Referring to arguments that some foreign travellers before the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had not mentioned the mosque in their travelogues and that this was because it did not exist there at the time, Dhavan said Marco Polo had not seen the Great Wall of China but this could not be argued to contend that the wall did not exist. Taking the court through the problems of relying on what historians had said in support of the temple, Dhavan said, "Mughal historians will have a different version" and asked "are we going to play amateur historians?". He said the court was being asked to draw a negative reference from the fact that since one of the travellers had not seen the mosque during Babar's time, it must have been built during Aurangzeb's reign. At this, Justice Chandrachud pointed out that such an argument not to rely on historical evidence would also affect his case, which was built on the "positive case" that the Babri Masjid was built during Babar's time and the reference to inscriptions which were based on history. Agreeing, Dhavan said there was no need to go into such historical evidence and the only proof to be taken into account is from 1858. He claimed that Hindus followed 'yuga' and asked how that can help determine dates. Contending that Muslims were the aggrieved parties, Dhavan said, "In 1934, you break the mosque. In 1949, you commit trespass. Where in the law of relief will your lordships put these facts?. After all the demolition, you say that Hindu side must be protected. Where do we lose sense of these contemporary history which stares us in the face?"
