Ayodhya Verdict:Historical evidence ignored, say historians

Historical evidence ignored, say historiansPriscilla Jebaraj

With the three judges pronouncing differing opinions on the historical
and archaeological aspects of the case in the Allahabad High Court's
judgement on the disputed land in Ayodhya, many leading historians have
been left bemused.

"It's not a logical judgement with so many parts going 2-1. One
does not accept the logicality of the judgement," said Irfan Habib,
a noted historian and a former Chairman of the Indian Council of
Historical Research who earlier taught at the Aligarh Muslim
University.

He noted that the verdict seemed to legitimise the events of 1949, when
an idol was placed inside the mosque, by constant references. On the
other hand, by minimising any mentions of the demolition of the Babri
Masjid in 1992, the court seemed to be disregarding it, he said.

He also expressed surprise that two judges questioned the date of 
construction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the involvement of emperor 
Babar or his commander Mir Baqi, since there had been clear inscriptions
to this effect before the demolition. "Things that are totally clear
historically, the court has tried to muddy," he said.

"The historical evidence has not been taken into account," said
D.N. Jha, history professor at the Delhi University. Noting the
judgement's mention of the "faith and belief of Hindus" in
reference to the history of the disputed structure, Dr. Jha asked why
the court had requested an excavation of the site.

"If it is a case of `belief,' then it becomes an issue of
theology, not archaeology. Should the judiciary be deciding cases on
the basis of theology is a question that needs to be asked," he
said.

Professional archaeologists also noted that the judges did not seem to
rely heavily on the Archaeological Survey of India's court-directed
excavation of the site in 2003, at least in the summaries of their
verdict available on Thursday evening.

"Somewhere, there is doubt about the credibility of that
report," said Supriya Verma of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who
acted as an observer during the ASI excavation.

She noted that neither Justice Sudhir Agarwal nor Justice Dharam Veer 
Sharma even referenced the ASI report to support his conclusion on the 
existence of a temple on the site before the mosque was built.

"It is almost as though they themselves were not convinced by the
evidence. They are clearly conceding that there was no archaeological
evidence of a temple or of its demolition…It is a judgement of
theology," she said.

Another observer of the ASI excavation, Jaya Menon of the Aligarh
Muslim University, noted that the ASI report itself did not provide any
evidence of a demolition, and only asserted the existence of a temple in
its conclusion. "So I don't know on what basis they made their 
judgements," she said. The ASI report had been criticised by many 
archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would 
not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed 
pottery and graves which indicated Muslim residents.