Fwd: [BJP News] Ayodhya: Over to archaelogy

[Guest guest]

>BJP News <bjpnews

>bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group)

>vaidika1008

>[bJP News] Ayodhya: Over to archaelogy

>Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:40:41 -0800 (PST)

>

>Title: Ayodhya: Over to archaeology

>Author: Sandhya Jain

>Publication: The Pioneer

>march 10, 2003

>

>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 March 24, 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 December 6, 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 findings in a well-publicised 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, 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-a-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 browbeat the apex court on the issue. They

>are also trying to denigrate the scholarship of Prof BB 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 the 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 KM 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, March 9,

>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 BB 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-1970s 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 SP Gupta, who also undertook extensive digging next to the site in the

>mid-1970s, 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, 68 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

>12th century AD, which puts it in the era prior to the Ghurid offensive

>(approximately AD 1192). 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 shrine built by previous

>kings.

>

>There are also references to Vishnu destroying King Bali, and to a

>10-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 civilisational 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 be 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.

>

>

>

 

 

_______________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus