EXCAVATIONS AT BABRI SITE IN AYODHYA

  Digging Leaves Causes For Apprehension

IN the excavations being conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, many disturbing trends continue to be observed.

The first is the open bias of the ASI itself in the matter. This was reflected in the way the ASI director general Gauri Chatterji described the special bench of the Allahabad High Court as Ramjanmabhoomi special bench, omitting “Babri Masjid” altogether from the name. (This is evident from her letter dated March 8.) In the same letter, she gave a list of 14 members of the ASI team, only one of whom was a Muslim. When the labourers were engaged, it was ensured that this was done through a VHP labour contractor, and out of over 50 labourers engaged for work from March 12 onward not a single Muslim was engaged.

In the face of such blatant partisanship, even the High Court’s special bench observed on March 26 that “adequate representation of both communities may be maintained in respect of the functioning of the ASI team and engagement of labourers.”

This direction fell on deaf ears. The ASI did not add a single Muslim to its team. And while the number of labourers engaged increased from 44 to 89 between March 27 and April 4, the number of Muslim labourers engaged increased from a mere 7 to a mere 9. This is a matter that needs urgently to be rectified since certain VHP-oriented labourers are suspected of throwing away into the waste finds like “Muslim” glazed ware, bones, etc, which are pieces of negative evidence for the temple case. On April 10, the High Court again issued directions that more Muslim labourers be engaged, but it is not clear as to what effect these general directions would have in view of the response to such orders till date.

As for the actual work of excavation, there is persistent complaint from the archaeologists observing the excavations on behalf of the plaintiffs that the ASI team refuses to record the glazed ware, other potsherds, bones, mortar-pieces etc, which might show that at least at the time of the layer concerned there could not have been any temple on the spot. The High Court had directed on March 26 that these be recorded, but to little effect. On April 14, the High Court has given detailed orders in this regard and provided for their implementation through two observers, who are the additional district judges of Faizabad, now posted at the site. It is to be seen how far this new mechanism will be effective.

In these circumstances, it is very important that there should continue to be constant impartial monitoring of the excavations. The High Court has granted an extension of five weeks for the excavations job which was to be completed by April 12 under the original orders. Now the excavations will continue into possibly the closing part of May, and the work of monitoring them will necessarily be further extended.

It is extremely encouraging that a number of archaeologists have come forward to work as the plaintiffs’ representative. In the order of their stints at the site they are: Dr R C Thakran (reader, Delhi University and joint secretary of the Indian History Congress), Mr Amal Ray (deputy director, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, West Bengal), Dr Rupen Kumar Chattopadhya and Dr Vishnu Priya Basak (lecturers in archaeology, Kolkata University), Mrs Sutapa Sinha (Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, West Bengal), Dr Supriya Verma (lecturer in archaeology, Punjab University, Chandigarh), and Professor P C Pant (retired professor of Archaeology, Allahabad University). They have been assisted at the site by Mr Mohd Abid (senior technical assistant, AMU), Ms Benani Bhattacharya (Kolkata University), Mr Nadeem Ali Razavi (reader, AMU) and Ms Nikahat Ara (research scholar, AMU). Happily, some other archaeologists and historians have also volunteered to keep up the vigil at the excavations.

The New Delhi-based Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) is coordinating this effort in cooperation with the Aligarh Historians Society and the Babri Masjid Action Committee. The latter is the main plaintiff in the case.