Experts fear the Allahabad High Court order to excavate the disputed site in Ayodhya within seven days to determine whether a temple structure preceded the mosque, may open up a Pandora’s Box. Given the antiquity of the civilization, deposits of habitations dating back to 2,500 years can possibly be found anywhere in the upper and lower Gangetic plains. A host of archaeologists and historians responded to our poser on how far we can go on digging the past and whether archaeology can provide the final answer to the Ayodhya dispute:SATISH CHANDRA, historian with a Left leaning: At the last meeting of the National Integration Council, I had suggested an excavation at the disputed site to resolve the decade-old issue. B.B. Lal’s report — preliminary or otherwise — was never made public. If a temple is found, and, if it is an ancient temple — it should be preserved. On the other hand, if there’s no remnants of a temple, the entire case that a mosque was built by destroying a temple has no relevance. In either case, the question of putting a new temple there does not arise. On the larger issue, if the remnants of a civilization/habitation is found under a heritage site it should also be preserved. BJP asks Muslims to give up Ayodhya claim NEW DELHI: The BJP on Thursday appealed to the Muslim community to give up its claim on the disputed site at Ayodhya and facilitate the construction of a Ram temple to promote communal harmony. BJP parliamentary party spokesman Vijay Kumar Malhotra said: ‘‘If they agree to give up claim before the court verdict, it could lead to an amicable settlement.” (ENS) DEVENDRA SWARUP, historian, RSS member: Archaeological excavations are part of the discovery process. Unfortunately, the 1953 History Congress took a partisan view and the resolution (taken then) had political overtones — it tried to stall excavation under existing structures. Construction of a temple is not important, establishing the truth is. Nobody holds the present Muslim youth responsible for the vandalism of the medieval times. But they should integrate themselves with the pre-Islamic heritage of the country. SURAJ BHAN, archaeologist: ‘‘The question is what the level of excavation will be. How does one distinguish a pre-mosque structure and determine that was temple that had been destroyed in 1528 by Babar? We have to look at the larger question. Supposing the Buddhist demand that Bodh Gaya should be excavated. There are so many places of conflict. Should we go and dig them all?S.P. GUPTA, archaeologist, one of proponents of the Ayodhya temple theory: ‘‘It was Narul Hasan — a Marxist and Muslim historian and minister in Indira Gadhi’s Cabinet — who had ordered the first excavation of the Ayodhya site by B.B. Lal. When Lal had said at a conference that he should be allowed to excavate the mosque courtyard, historians like Irfan Habib raised a hue and cry.If it had been allowed then, the mosque could have been saved.IRFAN HABIB, Left historian: In 1953, Indian History Congress passed a resolution opposing the Presidential reference to the SC that it should decide on the Babri Masjid issue. The position was that once a monument of archaeological importance exists, the earlier site is not a material for preservation. It seems that Babri Masjid was destroyed first and now we are looking for evidence to justify the act. In archaeology, we dig our past to find out what our culture was like, not to settle property disputes.
