The Archaeological Survey of India, by submitting a self-contained report within five months of excavation, has set a precedent that is commendable by any standard. This is particularly so when one considers the pressure of a judicial mandate to complete the excavation by a specific date, and continued hostile remarks about its competence to carry out its work by historians like Professor Irfan Habib and archaeologists like Mr Suraj Bhan.
In the first place, both Prof Habib and Mr Bhan remarked there was no need for excavation, as nothing would emerge from beneath the mosque. When the excavation commenced, they vehemently objected to horizontal digging, saying it would destroy the mosque's (priceless) flooring, least realising that the direction was to cover the area barring the spot where Ram Lalla's idol was installed. Even otherwise, vertical excavation would be meaningless from archaeological viewpoint. They even said the ASI was incompetent. When the ASI submitted its interim reports, both interpreted that no temple structure existed beneath the mosque. When a report suggested the existence of a structure, they said it must have been another mosque constructed during the Delhi Sultanate period. They ignored the fact that no such mosque was ever mentioned in contemporary writings of Muslim historians or foreign travellers.
It is deplorable when scholars like Prof Habib and Mr Bhan try to mislead the public by contending that the presence of glazed tiles, mortar and lime proves the structure beneath Babri Masjid was another mosque, as Hindus did not know the use of these materials. Besides, animal remains from each layer were not subjected to C14 test. As a matter of fact, glazed wares were found to be used in the Kushana period and also thereafter. Second, lime and mortar were used in Sanchi stupa, in the 2nd century. In the Gupta period as well, lime and mortar were extensively used as building material. These were also used in temples at Sarnath in the 11th and 12th century. The gentlemen ought to know the antiquity of a structure is determined not on the basis of tiles, lime and mortar, but on the basis of carbon dating of organic substance. Thus, if animal bones found at the structure reveal its age as 10th century, no matter what the structure was made of, it can be safely concluded that it was a pre-Islamic monument.
The allegation of Prof Habib and Mr Bhan, that the ASI finding has been influenced by the Government, is preposterous. It is unthinkable that a reputed institute like the ASI will submit an untenable report to the court, which it cannot substantiate and thus risk losing its credibility. Besides, the ASI team had sufficient Muslim representation, which negates any communal consideration underlying the report.
Irrespective of the court's verdict, the gain for the nation is that a genuine historic probe has been undertaken to determine the antiquity of the disputed site. The court's mandate to the ASI was only to determine whether a temple preceded the mosque, and not whether Ram was a historic person; and if so, whether he was born at the disputed site. Nevertheless, it will be unfortunate if the research ceases with the court verdict. It is sheer arrogance to assume that Ram was fiction. It was a typical Hindu tradition to record stellar position of every important occasion, as was done in Ramayan by sage Valmiki. Therefore, one should make a serious attempt to probe the historicity of the events through archaeological researches. It is, therefore, necessary to complete the excavation in all trenches to its lowest strata, to determine the historicity of Ram.
As Mr Vajpayee has always insisted,
a negotiated settlement is better than a court verdict, which is bound
to leave one party unhappy. The most amicable solution in the given situation
is that Muslims, without waiting for the court verdict, and without listening
to the misleading advices of the likes of Prof Habib and Mr Bhan, should
suo motu offer the disputed site to their Hindu brothers. Hindus should
bear the expenses of building a new mosque at Ayodhya for local Muslims
as compensation for the grievous hurt caused by the demolition. Further
continuation of friction on the Ayodhya issue between the two communities
will be prejudicial to the development of the country and will only promote
communal tensions.