NEW DELHI: Excavations at the site where a 16th-century mosque was demolished 10 years ago by pro-Hindu politicians reveal that the structure — today a magnet of communal politics — was built over a pre-existing mosque rather than a Hindu temple, say Indian historians.
“The Babri Masjid structure was superimposed on a pre-existing mosque from the Sultanate period which was constructed out of stones and plastered over with lime mortar — plastering being an art brought in by Muslim invaders,” said investigating archaeologist Suraj Bhan.
The Sultanate period in Indian history refers to more than three centuries during which several Muslim kingdoms held sway in northern India before the arrival of the Moghuls from Central Asia in the early part of the 16th century.
Bhan said he had already conveyed his findings to the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which looks after Muslim religious properties in India, and is party to a dispute pending in the courts as to who now owns the land in Ayodhya town in northern Uttar Pradesh state, where the Babri Masjid once stood.
The mosque was demolished on Dec 6, 1992, by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its affiliates in a pro-Hindu campaign led by Lal Krishna Advani, now deputy prime minister and holder of the key home ministry portfolio.
Supporters of the BJP, which first came to power in 1998 by whipping up majority Hindu sentiment, insist that the Babri Masjid was built by Babar, founder of the Moghul empire, over the remains of temple marking the site where the mythical Hindu warrior deity Rama was born some 10,000 years ago.
But the main objective of the BJP campaign, that of rebuilding a grand temple to Rama at the site, has been thwarted thus far by legal disputes. The courts have ordered the maintenance of status quo be at the site until ownership could be decided on archaeological evidence.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has failed to turn up evidence of a pre-existing temple. Thus, Hindu fanatic groups are now threatening to make good on a plan to enlarge their campaign to include other sites in northern India where temples were known to have been demolished by Muslim invaders.
“The Ram temple is not a legal or archaeological dispute — it is a matter of faith with Hindus. We are now going revive our demands that the temples (at other areas) at Kashi (Benares) and at Mathura be handed over to us,” Praveen Togadia, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) or World Hindu Council , a close affiliate of the BJP, announced on Tuesday.
Commented Irfan Habib, one of India’s most respected historians: “The VHP and its supporters are now falling back on faith since they cannot produce any historical evidence to show that Rama was born at the disputed site But the faith they are talking about is only faith invented by them.”
The VHP is also opposing a plan mooted by the government to throw open hundreds of mosques — controlled and protected by the ASI because of their archaeological value — to the Muslim community for worship in return for foregoing claims on the Babri Masjid site.
In a statement, K.S Sudershan, leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a wing of the BJP known for its military-style drills, said: “The RSS fully supports the VHP stand that allowing worship in these mosques would only open a can of worms.”
Both the RSS and the VHP have now come into conflict with Shankaracharya Swami Jayendra Saraswati, a leading Hindu authority who favours opening up mosques under the ASI to the Muslim community as part of a compromise plan.
Earlier in June, the Shankaracharya had proposed a peace formula under which the Babri Masjid site be handed over to a government-appointed committee and a temple to Ram be built at the site, in return for which claims bs by the VHP to the sites at Mathura and Varanasi would be given up.
But the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) reacted adversely to the proposal made by the Shankaracharya, believed to be acting as an emissary of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. “There is no question of giving up the Babri Masjid site,” said Zafarya Jilani, convenor of the committee.
The RSS and VHP leadership have also made it known politely that the Shankarcharya should not embroil himself in the dispute. “We have already compromised our stand because of the Shankaracharya and agreed not to disturb the disputed site until the title suit was resolved,” said VHP secretary Surendra Jain.
The respective stands taken by the VHP and the AIBMAC have resulted in a deadlock over the Babri Masjid dispute, and hurt chances for an early settlement over an issue that has dominated politics in northern India over the last decade.
Meanwhile, differences have also sprung between the BJP and its hardline affiliates over the handling of the Babri Masjid dispute. These hardliners now openly say that Advani and Vajpayee benefited from the campaign to build the Ram temple, but did little for it after coming to power five years ago.
Although the BJP rules by virtue of the fact that it leads a multi-party, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), its partners are uncomfortable with the temple-building plan.
For example, the Telugu Desam Party, which rules southern Andhra Pradesh state and is the biggest constituent of the NDA, has made it clear that it will oppose any non-secular move by the BJP.
Meanwhile, demands have been raised by opposition political parties for L.K Advani’s resignation since technically it would be anomalous for him to continue as home minister while facing formal charges by the CBI, which is controlled by the ministry he heads.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.
