Digging a little deeper

Many, including this paper, have argued ASI8217;s Sethusamudram affidavit unnecessarily invoked the question of Ram8217;s historicity.

At one time, the Archaeological Survey of India ASI used to be a very prestigious organisation headed by renowned archaeologists who maintained its autonomy and whose perception of India8217;s past was not guided by the whims and caprices of the government of India. But during the last three decades or so, the credibility of the ASI has declined steadily especially due to the manner in which it acted during the Ayodhya dispute.

As many would know, some archaeological exploration was undertaken at Ayodhya during the 1950s and 1960s. Later, B.B. Lal, hopeful of finding Ram8217;s Ayodhya, carried out excavation there between 1975 and 1986. The report of his findings did not mention anything that could tally with the description of the site in Valmiki8217;s Ramayana. Nor was there any evidence of a temple under the Babri mosque. But suddenly in 1990, Lal published an article in a Right-wing journal which mentioned the existence of a Hindu temple on whose ruins Babur8217;s general Mir Baqui had built a mosque. This was a clear case of somersault and the ASI, as an organisation, did not take any position on this, even though in much of the archaeological activity of Lal at Ayodhya he had received the ASI8217;s cooperation and assistance. At the crucial stage of the negotiation between the pro-temple and pro-mosque elements, when the ASI was directed to let historians examine the antiquities unearthed by Lal during his excavations, it did not show the site notebook of Ayodhya excavations which would have enabled the experts to examine the veracity of Lal8217;s tongue-in-cheek claim about the pre-existing Hindu structure.

Again in the summer of 1992, when the ground near the Babri mosque was being levelled by the UP government, the ASI did not intervene even to say that this amounted to unlawful activity and in no way helped the preservation of the monuments and the cause of Indian archaeology. Nor did we hear the ASI speaking in any way against the Karsevak vandalism which led to the demolition of the Babri mosque. On the contrary, as recently as 2003, the ASI itself conducted excavation at Ayodhya under court orders in a manner which was far from scientific. Thus the ASI8217;s role in the Ayodhya dispute has been most unprofessional, if not disgraceful.

However, one feels that the counter-affidavit submitted by the ASI in the Sethusamudram case is professionally sound and factually accurate. This document is a response to the material submitted by the petitioners who claim that the so-called Ram Setu is historical and was constructed by Ram and his followers 8212; a contention which is at complete variance from the scientific data available. The paras 4-6 and 20-23 of the ASI counter-affidavit, which have been construed to belittle the importance of Ram in Indian culture and to question his existence/historicity, contain, in fact, the most sensible view based on the available evidence. The statements contained therein do not show any disrespect to Ram; on the contrary they concede the fact Ram is respected and worshipped by a large number of people in India. It has been suggested by political groups that the ASI has gone beyond its brief by referring Ram8217;s historicity. But would it be enough to say that 8220;the Ram Setu is not manmade8221; 8212; followed by a full stop.

It would have been only a half truth and there is a very thin line between a half-truth and falsehood. It is a pity that when the ASI ultimately tried to retrieve, at least partially, it8217;s lost credibility, the politicians of the country seem to be hell bent on making it subservient to their game plans.