People's Democracy

 COMMENT

ASI’s Digging: Truth or Otherwise?

IT HAD been pointed out earlier in various write-ups in People’s Democracy that the decision to ask the ASI to dig the Babri Masjid site was not only wrong but also fraught with dangerous implications. A warning was also given in these columns that the ASI team functioning under the ministry of culture of the government of India under the tight control of the BJP was not above suspicion and could play mischief. The conclusion drawn by the ASI report, which was submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on August 25, made our fears come true.

It may be noted that the pressure on the ASI was brought to bear through a press conference that the Parivar ‘archaeologist’ S P Gupta held a week prior to the release of the ASI report in the company of Ashok Singhal. The ASI report, incongruent with its findings, seems to have been written by S P Gupta. This can be confirmed by a comparison of Gupta’s press statement and the last paragraph of the summary of the ASI report.  The manner in which the BJP and the RSS are trying to present the report’s conclusion as an accomplished fact clearly shows that they are clutching at straws. Even a cursory reading of the voluminous report shows the following glaring errors in drawing the conclusion which has pleased the Sangh Parivar no end. (A more detailed analysis of the ASI report and its conclusion will be published in these columns next week.)

•    The report erroneously describes the use of lime and mortar as a sign of pre-Islamic                architecture. This would require the entire history of architectural style to be rewritten.

•   Fifty-five pillar bases that are being claimed to be the basis of the ASI conclusion are not of the same type, which means they were used in different structures and are too fragile to take the weight of a massive structure. Objections were also raised regarding the excavation procedure by the ASI team in relation to the pillar bases.

•   The suggestion in the ASI conclusion is that from the 10th century onwards the site had a shrine, followed by a temple with different structural phases. Yet the report itself mentions than “animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods.” So, if there was a shrine and a temple at this site, how do we account for the presence of animal bones?

•  The carved architectural items on the presence of which the ASI bases its conclusion have come from the debris and not from a stratified context.

•   The 50 meter long wall that was supposed to belong to “a massive structure” below the “disputed structure” is nothing but the foundation of the main western wall of a masjid. Why is it that only the western wall of a supposed temple has been found and not the other walls?

•   The burnt brick wall of the pre-Babri Masjid structure has a carved stone laid in the foundation. This has not been taken into account. If it were, this would have precluded the possibility of the structure being associated with Hindus since they never used carved stone in foundation.

It is also claimed “pillar bases on north of the makeshift structure have survived in the very nature along with their contemporary floor.” The suggestion being made is that these pillar bases in the north are the original pillar bases of this supposed “massive structure” on which were affixed the black schist pillars that were found in the Babri Masjid. Yet, the size of these bases in the north range from 48.5 x 43 cm, 50 x 50 cm, 47 x 46.5 cm, 48 x 46 cm, and just do not match with the black schist pillars that have sizes ranging from 21 x 21 cm or 24 x 24 cm.

These are some of the problems that illustrate the patently biased and unscientific nature of the ASI conclusion.

The Sangh Parivar which is trying to use the ASI conclusion for it pernicious game of whipping up a religious frenzy on the temple issue in the background of the fiasco of the coalition with Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, should temper its jubilation with the knowledge that the court has granted six weeks time to the contesting parties to challenge the ASI report and its conclusion. Moreover, the ASI conclusion has little bearing on the title suit for the Babri Masjid site, which has been pointed out by several legal experts.

The conclusion drawn by the Archaeological Survey of India in its report is totally fraudulent. The conclusion that “a huge structure indicative of remains, which are distinctive features associated with the temples of north India” is totally unsustainable on the basis of the findings of the ASI itself which have been recorded in its interim reports.