Opinion: What decides Babri Masjid's fate on March 14

The other day, a former senior bureaucrat attached to the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, told a news channel that Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had informed the Chief Minister about archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood. This was roughly a fortnight before the disputed structure was demolished. The bureaucrat was referring to the findings of an archaeological exercise conducted just months before. A more detailed excavation was done in 2003 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Allahabad High Court’s instructions.

Interestingly, both of these explorations had dug out evidence of a Hindu structure that once existed. The findings had set off a furious debate between the pro-temple organisations on the one hand and the pro-mosque lobby consisting of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and Left-liberal historians on the other. Now, given that the Supreme Court has said that it would hear the matter as a title deed case and not delve into the faith aspect, the archaeological material could play a crucial role.

Indeed, even the Allahabad High Court, while going into matters of faith, had relied heavily on the ASI’s 2003 findings. The High Court’s order was subsequently stayed by the apex court, but the archaeological findings haven’t gone anywhere. The fire may now be re-ignited.

The pro-mosque lobby has consistently questioned the credibility of the ASI’s findings. The fact is that the ASI did the excavations in 2003 under the supervision of the court. The court had appointed a panel including two junior judges and three archaeologists to maintain a close vigil on the excavation. And yet, the findings were discredited merely because they indicated the existence of a Hindu structure. It must be remembered that the 2003 excavation was more elaborate than the one in the early 1990s because it was done post-demolition.

Many findings were noted, and the most significant one was that well before the mosque came to be constructed, there had been large-scale structures of non-residential type (religious in nature) right up to the present level of the disputed site. Some 50 pillar bases were excavated; walls were discovered; a circular shrine with a water chute towards the north, that is meant to drain out water after offering to the deity, was found. The High Court had asked the ASI to excavate to determine “whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished and the mosque constructed on the disputed site”. Left historians, perhaps, already apprehensive that the 1992 findings would be reinforced, strenuously objected on the ground that the court seemed to be giving “tacit judicial recognition” to the belief that a monument could be destroyed on grounds of its having been built over another religious structure.

As more and more material emerged through the excavations that pointed to the pre-existence of a temple — or at the very least a Hindu structure, Left historians and the pro-mosque lobby stepped up their opposition. What then was witnessed was a sequence of desperate arguments. They had to respond somehow after the ASI report concluded that the findings were “indicative (of) remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India”. In short, the mosque had not been constructed on vacant land and that the remains found belonged to Hindu structures.

The dilemma before the pro-mosque organisations was: What was now to be done in the face of such evidence gathered through an exercise closely supervised by the High Court? One Left historian, Irfan Habib, was quick off the mark. Even before the ASI had submitted its final report to the court, he alleged that the ASI appeared to be bent on “finding what those in powers wish it to find — the remains of a temple”. He then went on to make a bizarre claim: That another mosque had immediately existed where the Babri structure later came up. Undaunted by the outlandish claims, he suggested that the pillar bases and bricks (which were evidence of a Hindu structure) were “easy to assemble” and that the bricks could have been “arranged by the ASI excavators to provide evidence”. Having already made up his mind, it wasn’t surprising that Habib dismissed the final report as an “unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, one-sided presentations of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”.

There were other Left historians too who endorsed Habib’s outrage. But the High Court did not share their prejudices, also because the excavations had been done under its supervision and there had been no reason for any objective evaluator to doubt the exercise’s credibility.

Just one more instance should suffice to demonstrate the desperation of the Left historians and their patrons. The excavations had revealed details of the Ram Chabutara (the site of which the High Court eventually awarded to the pro-temple groups in its verdict). These historians had all along insisted that the Chabutara had been constructed soon after the 1857 revolt, quite ignoring the description of a Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who had visited the place between 1766 and 1771. The priest had written in detail about the structure, and his writings matched the earliest form of Ram Chabutara.

The Left academics’ strategy has been clear and consistent. First, deny the evidence. If that becomes difficult, explain it away as one that fits with anything but the pre-existence of a Hindu structure. When even that fails, blame the ASI team for ‘planting’ evidence to bolster a ‘pre-conceived’ agenda driven by the rulers of the day. As the apex court takes up the issue from March 14, we may see the resurgence of the same old stance.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)