Temple and the truth

Notwithstanding the pressure of a judiciary-set deadline and continued hostility from eminent historians like Irfan Habib and archaeologists...

Notwithstanding the pressure of a judiciary-set deadline and continued hostility from eminent historians like Irfan Habib and archaeologists like Suraj Bhan, the Archaeological Survey of India8217;s report on the disputed area in Ayodhya is both self-contained and conclusive.

Whether or not this report will pass judicial scrutiny is a matter of the future. But the likes of Habib and Bhan don8217;t seem to have the patience to wait. They have sought to disparage the ASI8217;s competence. In the process only their personal views, not supported by any scientific research, have come to light.

Actually, the hostility goes back to the very beginning of the ASI exercise. When the Allahabad High Court ordered the excavation, Habib and Bhan insisted there was no need to do so. In their opinion, nothing lay beneath the former site of the Babri Masjid. They also questioned the competence of Tojo Vikas, which had reported anomalies beneath the surface after an imaging survey. After the excavation, Habib and Bhan objected to horizontal digging as it would destroy the flooring of the mosque, pretending this had historical value. They ignored that in the event of reconstruction of the mosque, the flooring would in any case have to removed.

Later, when unannotated interim reports from the ASI were submitted to the court, Habib and his friends started interpreting them to mean no temple structure existed beneath the mosque. When one of the interim reports suggested an anterior structure beneath the mosque, they concluded it was an earlier mosque, constructed during the Sultanate period. They ignored that there was no corroborative evidence of a mosque preceding the Babri Masjid. No such Sultanate mosque was ever mentioned in contemporary writings.

The duo ridiculed the PM8217;s efforts for a negotiated settlement on Ayodhya as a desperate attempt in the face of adverse ASI findings. In the process, they praised the ASI obliquely. Now that the structure beneath the mosque has been identified as a 10th century temple. Habib and Bhan have suddenly discovered contradictions in the ASI findings. They say the temple structure was not mentioned in interim reports. This is not quite factual.

Habib and Bhan continue to mislead the public by contending the presence of glazed tiles, mortar and lime proves the structure beneath the Babri mosque was a Muslim one, as Hindus did not know the use of these materials. Glazed ware has been found used as early as the Kushan period. Lime and mortar were used in the Sanchi stupa, second century BC, as well as in the Gupta period. Such material was also used in Sarnath in the 11th and 12th centuries.

Eminent scholars as they are, Habib and Bhan ought to know antiquity of a structure is determined not by tiles, lime and mortar but by carbon dating of organic substances. This was reportedly undertaken by the ASI.

Story continues below this ad

If animal bones found by the ASI date the structure to at least the 10th C , it can be safely concluded the structure was pre-Islamic. Animal sacrifice was common enough in Hindu temples. That apart, it is not understood how Habib and Bhan ignored numerous terracotta figurines and divine sculptures, suggestive of Hindu origin. Their silence in this regard is baffling. It would appear that the two scholars have a political agenda, of prejudicing public opinion against the ASI report even before judicial scrutiny. Should the court ratify the ASI report, Indian Muslims have no reason to be apologetic for what Babar, an invading outsider, may have done 500 years ago.

Having said that, it would still be wise for the two communities to reach a negotiated settlement, without waiting for the court verdict. That would allow history the chance to establish itself in its own right.

The author is a freelance journalist