The ASI report detailing its excavations at the disputed site in Ayodhya must serve as an eye-opener for votaries of a neat judicial settlement of the issue. For those envisaging a clinical disposal of the title suit before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, untainted by political involvement, this new impasse must expose the limits of the judicial route. With the ink still not dry on the 570-page submission before the court, the air is already crackling with contentious, even partisan, interpretations of the subterranean find. Just over a day of the high court’s allotted six weeks for the two claimants to file objections has lapsed — and the portents are clear. Discord, rather than resolution, appears imminent.The ASI contends that the structure unearthed, dating back to the 10th century, bears resemblance to ‘‘temples of north India’’. As evidence, it cites implements and architectural trimmings. Pro-temple historians take this as vindication. Others dispute the ASI’s interpretation. Irfan Habib, for instance, argues that the lime and mortar technique found is not characteristic of pre-Islamic architecture. And so it could go. And it could be dangerous. This is no arcane debate isolated by the high walls of academia from religious and political forces outside.As the dispute fragments into archaeological nitty-gritty, a case must once again be made for a political, negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya dispute. The political class cannot take the easy route by leaving it to the courts. The issue before the high court is a title suit by two claimants. The issue as it obtains before large swathes of the population is much larger and more confused. For them it is symbolic of socio-religious accommodation in modern India. Resolution in a title suit to a piece of real estate implies an award based on bald facts. Resolution of a dispute that has polarised India would involve a hefty round of give and take. A title suit evokes a zero-sum game; yet for India to move beyond Ayodhya everyone would have to emerge a winner. Creating the space for this and carrying the people’s trust in the process calls for statesmanly intervention. But will the political class ignore electoral expediency and rise to its responsibilities?
