A god who was once a king on earth, a king who is also God, may soon win judicial reprieve and mercifully end centuries of bloody disputation over His legitimate birthplace. The March 5 order of the Allahabad High Court directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the disputed site at Ayodhya and determine whether or not a temple could be adjudged to have pre-existed the Babri Masjid there and submit its report by 24 March, is as sudden as it is unexpected.

At the same time, it is such a logical and just method of breaking the brittle stalemate on the issue that one wonders why it was not adopted earlier. It is well-known that during the demolition of the Babri structure on 6 December 1992, Hindu idols as well as fragments of a destroyed temple were found among the debris. A stone tablet bearing an inscription (the Hari-Vishnu inscription) was also recovered, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad published the finds in a well-publicized booklet. As one of the issues framed in the title suit over ownership of the disputed site is whether or not a temple existed at the site prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, the excavations should rationally have been conducted long ago.

However, now that they have been ordered, they should be allowed to commence (and conclude) without let or hindrance. One is hopeful in this regard as the Supreme Court on March 6 reserved its verdict on whether or not to vacate last year’s status quo on the land acquired by the government around the disputed site at Ayodhya. As no date has been assigned for the verdict, one may reasonably conclude that the apex court too favours an early end to this vexed issue, and may await the results of the archaeological dig.

Not unexpectedly, the decision has raised hackles in some circles. The Congress party, principal beneficiary of the Muslim votebank in north India, has adopted a deceptively low profile. Obviously, the party is still toying with the policy of ‘soft hindutva’ and trying to play along with the sentiments of the majority community to the extent possible. But this can prove counter-productive, as in the recent Bhojshala controversy in Dhar, where Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh literally offered the temple to the Hindus before retreating on some specious plea. Hence, in the coming weeks, the Congress would do well to unambiguously clarify its stand vis-à-vis the Hindu claim to the Janmabhoomi.

The Communist Party of India has vociferously demanded that the Supreme Court suo moto stay the execution of the High Court order on account of its possible fallout in other disputes. The CPI stand naturally coincides with that of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM). Left intellectuals have now recovered from the initial shock caused by the High Court order and are trying to brow-beat the apex court on the issue. They are also trying to denigrate the scholarship of Prof. B.B. Lal, former Director-General of the ASI, who excavated a number of sites associated with the Ramayana story.

I must say that I find it highly improper that Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, counsel for the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, should issue press statements against the judicial order. Comments that “it is not the court’s job to assume the burden of proof” cast unnecessary aspersions on the court and vitiate the atmosphere. In no other high profile case has counsel for one party been given such one-sided freedom to grandstand in public, and I strongly feel that the media must exercise some restraint in this regard. As for historians Irfan Habib, Suraj Bhan and K.M. Shrimali, I am amused that they think the august court should follow a 1993 resolution of the Left-controlled Indian History Congress (The Times of India 9 March 2003).

I believe they are all unnerved by the revelation that the High Court secretly ordered a Canadian firm, Tojo-Vikas International, to undertake a radar survey of the site, and that these findings are quite conclusive. The AIBMAC, which received a copy of the finding, seems to have been badly rattled. There can thus be little doubt that the Tojo-Vikas International report inspired the Allahabad High Court to order fresh diggings at the disputed site.

Personally, I view the attacks on Prof. B.B. Lal, who has an awesome reputation as a meticulous archaeologist and scholar, as evidence that fear has overtaken fury in the Marxist-Islamic armoury. Much water has flown under the bridge since the mid-seventies when Prof. Lal’s discovery of pillar bases in the immediate vicinity of the disputed structure resulted in the abrupt termination of funding for the project.

Dr. S.P. Gupta, who also undertook extensive digging next to the site in the mid-seventies, found structures dating back from 3000 BC to 900 BC. These included pillars, floors, brick walls and even statuettes, which were covered up with earth and left in situ. In another dig in 1992, just before the demolition, sixty-eight idols were unearthed and evidence found of a sprawling temple complex that pre-existed the mosque. Traditional techniques such as carbon dating, comparison with contemporary architectural styles, and a study of the composition of the rocks can be used to determine the age of the structures once they are unearthed again.

It is also worth noting that the Hari-Vishnu inscription that emerged from the debris in December 1992 has been written in chaste Devanagari of the twelfth century AD, which puts it in the era prior to the Ghurid offensive (approx. 1192 AD). Experts from the Epigraphical Society of India, who examined the tablet, observed that it recorded the construction of the temple. It reportedly states that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya and beautified with a golden spire; the temple is said to be unsurpassed by any temple built by previous kings. There are also references to Vishnu destroying king Bali, and to a ten-headed person (Dashanana), which clearly indicates Ravana. The evidence of the tablet, therefore, may be considered as pretty conclusive by all but die-hard secularists. It is to be hoped that they will be more open-minded when the ASI trenches unveil the truth before them, layer by layer, in brick and stone.

Actually, it is high time that all parties taking an interest in the dispute showed respect to the Hindu community, which has waged a bloody struggle for more than four centuries to reclaim this sacred site. Notwithstanding the calumny that Hindus have no sense of history, the community has preserved the memory of this sacred spot and its association with Sri Rama through centuries of oppression and disempowerment. It is now within a hair’s breath of proving its claim even to unbelievers, not by faith – but by stone.

The Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas should honour the Hindu civilizational memory by incorporating the ASI findings into the temple plan. What I mean is that the layers, pillars, bases and statuettes officially excavated by the ASI should incorporated into the temple as a basement, protected by glass panels, and preserved as a permanent museum for future generations. It would be a fitting tribute to the thousands who struggled and died for the Janmasthan.

The Pioneer, 11 March 2003