[Note from Hindu Vivek Kendra: Please also see the comments of Koenraad Elst]
The 'discovery' of an ancient 'structure' underneath the demolished Babri masjid by the Archaeological Survey of India has far more political overtones than historical or legal ones.
Doubts have already been cast on the findings, not least because there was no hint of such a 'structure' in the earlier reports on the excavation although their accuracy may be questioned. Even then, if a massive structure of the kind which has been mentioned in the final report had been located, surely reports about it would have filtered out. Insinuations have also been made about the ASI coming under political pressure. Since the first among the ruling parties at the Centre has long been insistent on the existence of a demolished temple at the disputed site, it is obvious that a government organisation would have been uncomfortably aware of the stance, although that doesn't mean that it affected its professional judgment.
The point, however, is not whether a temple has been found, but its historical relevance. On this count, the 'discovery' adds nothing to what is already known. It is an accepted fact that Muslim invaders had demolished any number of temples in keeping with the temper of the medieval times when tolerance of the faiths of others was virtually unknown. Moreover, the places of worship were regarded with suspicion since they were the meeting places of ordinary people and, hence, could facilitate the hatching of a conspiracy. So if Babur's general, Mir Baqi, did demolish a temple and built a mosque in its place, it is not surprising.
However, that doesn't justify the emulation of medieval norms, as on December 6, 1992. Nor does the 'discovery' make any difference to the various court cases, including those concerned with the title deeds of the site. The BJP, of course, will make full use of the latest development in its election campaign, claiming that its participation in the Ramjanmabhoomi movement was justified all along. But it, too, will come under pressure from the VHP which will step up its demand for handing over of the site to it for constructing the temple. But, as before, the solution can only be via a judicial pronouncement or a negotiated settlement.
Comments of Koenraad Elst
In my article "Found and lost: the Ayodhya evidence", I had predicted that the brazen-faces denials of the findings presented in the ASI interim report of 10 June would be used as "facts" to cast doubt on the final report. This is exactly what the HT editor is doing here: "Doubts have already been cast on the findings, not least because there was no hint of such a 'structure' in the earlier reports on the excavation (...) Even then, if a massive structure of the kind which has been mentioned in the final report had been located, surely reports about it would have filtered out." It sure has, but HT didn't want you to know at the time, nor will it tell you today.
But next, he makes an implicit concession to reality: "The point, however, is not whether a temple has been found, but its historical relevance." He wouldn't have written that if he had been confident that no temple had been found. In that case, he would have focused on the truth of the matter and not hidden behind the question of its "relevance". And an explicit concession to reality: "On this count, the 'discovery' adds nothing to what is already known. It is an accepted fact that Muslim invaders had demolished any number of temples..." Which oat once he tries to explain away with another lie: "... when tolerance of the faiths of others was virtually unknown." Tolerance was very well-known in Hinduism, the problem was not the age but Islam. And another old lie: "Moreover, the places of worship were regarded with suspicion since they were the meeting places of ordinary people and, hence, could facilitate the hatching of a conspiracy." But conspiracies were typically the work of those outside yet close to the ruling clique (and not of "the ordinary people", as this pop-Marxist interjection wants us to believe), which in those days meant they were Muslims and their places of worship were mosques,-- and these were never destroyed by Muslim rulers.
As for the practical conclusion: "Nor does the 'discovery' make any difference to the various court cases, including those concerned with the title deeds of the site." Well, that is for the judges to decide. And it is they who ordered the excavation, apparently on the assumption that the findings do make a difference to the court cases.
Finally, let me correct myself if I gave the impression of boasting that my prediction has come true. With the number of media in India, it simply had to come true in some of them. But then there are some others. The Times of India effectively throws in the towel as far as the historical aspect of the Ayodhya affair is concerned, for its editorial opens thus: "Let's drop the charade." In the next sentences, it still tries to identify the scientific findings with the VHP sloganeering, but it never tries to challenge the findings anymore. It shifts the debate definitively to the purely juridical level: "The 'findings', of course, have no force in law", etc. And then the editor reverts to moralizing on the 1992 demolition, clearly avoiding any further focus on the evidence, an issue on which he knows his side has lost the debate for good.
KE