07/10/2010
New Delhi: Faced with the lack of a conclusive documentary and oral evidence to prove (or not) if a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Ram was “demolished” to construct a mosque in the 16th century, the Allahabad High Court in 2002 commissioned the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate part of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
For nearly six months, from March 12, 2003, to August 7, 2003, the country's best excavators worked on the premises - though under instructions to dig 10 feet "around" the spot under the central dome where the idol of Shri Ram Lala existed -- to verify claims about the presence of a previous structure, allegedly a Hindu temple.
The ASI report in 2003 concluded that there is "architectural evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure".
The survey body said the remains of the "massive structure" pre-dating the construction of the mosque indicated "distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India". The report factored in both Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma determining individually that a Hindu temple was "demolished" to construct a mosque.
Though initially Justice Agarwal describes the ASI finding to be "inconclusive", he later agrees that "it can be safely said that the erstwhile structure was a Hindu temple and was demolished where after the disputed structure was raised". For this, the judge banks on the Hindu "belief", which has "lasted more than 200 years", pre-dating the British "Divide and Rule" policy.
In his turn, Justice Sharma holds that the report only "confirms" that the disputed site "was and is" the site of a temple believed by the Hindus to have been "always the birthplace of Lord Ram".
But Justice S U Khan is skeptical about the report. He observes that "no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque" and "it is inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made a thorough research to ascertain the exact birthplace of Lord Ram, which was not known to anyone for centuries, and then got constructed the mosque on the said site".
Referring to the Kasauti pillars used in the mosque's construction, the judge suggests that the structure preceding the mosque may not have been Hindu in nature, but the "ruins of a Buddhist religious place".
Inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):
A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.
B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.
C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.
D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.
E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.
F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.
"We have already held that whatever happened was in an era when this Court and/or the codified statute or the Constitution of India was not applicable. We can only see the de facto position as has resulted after the aforesaid event but we find no authority to consider this event de jure. The de facto position is that after demolition, a building was constructed in the shape of a mosque," he observes.
Inferences drawn by Justice S U Khan from the ASI report, 2003:
Conclusions of the ASI report, 2003, "are not of much help", he holds. Justice Khan's arguments are two-fold:
1. The ASI finding that there is "continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onward up to the construction of the disputed structure" is directly in conflict with the pleadings, gazetteers and history books. "Neither has it been pleaded by any party nor mentioned in any gazetteer or most of the history books that after construction of temples by Vikramaditya in first Century BC or third or fourth century AD according to some and till the construction of the mosque around 1528 AD, any construction activity was carried out at the site of the disputed premises or around that," Justice Khan observes.
2. In case, he says, "some temple" was demolished (as the Hindus claim) to construct a mosque, the superstructure material of the temple would not have gone under the ground. Instead, the building material would have been "re-used or removed", he reflects. "Only in cases of severe earthquake or flood of very high magnitude, superstructure immediately goes down inside the ground, otherwise remains of a ruined building go inside the ground after centuries and not immediately after the falling down of the building," he reasons.
Inferences drawn by Justice D V Sharma from the ASI report, 2003:
"Under the orders of this Honourable Court, the ASI was directed to undertake an exhaustive excavation to find out as to whether there existed any temple/ structure underneath the disputed structure. The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram," he says.
He observes that the ASI findings support other "samples of evidence" which show "a continuity since times immemorial about the divinity attached to the place Rama Janmasthan not only in the scriptures, worship and devotion in practice, but also a recurring continuity even after the construction of the disputed structure".
Source: The Indian Express
K.Venugopal
#1
Friday, 08 October 2010 15:21:52
Justice S.U.Khan's contention that "no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque" because "it is inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made a thorough research to ascertain the exact birthplace of Lord Ram, which was not known to anyone for centuries, and then got constructed the mosque on the said site" is illogical. If Hindus believed that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and the ASI found the remains of a massive temple structure below the mosque, it stands to reason that the site would have been very famous and when Baber sent his army to establish suzerainty over his newly conquered subjects, such a famous landmark would have been just the one he would have wanted destroyed to put the fear of the devil into his subjects. And hoping, perchance, the fear would get converted to love of Allah - he got constructed a mosque on the spot for good measure. Therefore there was no need for Baber to determine the birthplace of Lord Ram. Local folklore and legend would have already done that.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4443148&page=0
No comments:
Post a Comment