The
Ayodhya Report --London High Court ruling on 'Hindu Temple'
Dr. R. Nagaswamy
Former Director of Archaeology, Tamilnadu
---------------
The Hindu newspaper Exposed : http://oocities.com/mediawatch_india
(CIRCULATE CIRCULATE )
-----------
Under the orders of the Allahabad High Court the ASI has concluded an excavation
at the disputed site of Ayodhya to ascertain whether there was any temple
structure in the Babri Masjit area. The report has
since been opened and the contents revealed (The Hindu, Aug.25, 2003). According
to the report it is held that a massive structure of 10th cent of stone and
brick lie buried beneath the site in addition to a carved sculpture and motives.
A large number of pillar bases, were found in the excavation conducted under the
supervision of the Special Officer appointed by the court. The ASI in its first
part of the report has expressed its opinion and the second carries technical
data like drawings, sketches, etc.
Even as the excavation was under way, the contesting parties were giving
contradictory views and reports. Predictably the pro-Mosque party has
instantaneously dubbed the present ASI report as vague and
self-contradictory. The High Court has given six weeks time for both the parties
to give their opinion. As evident both the parties were reportedly approaching
the subject from a preconceived conclusion
but as the Ayodhya issue is of national importance it may be legitimate for
non-committed scholars also to study the report in detail together with
stratigraphic evidence and photographs of the sculptures and pillar bases.
No one need to doubt the report of the highly competent department like ASI but
it would help public opinion from a neutral stand to understand the intricacies
of the result. The ASI needs to facilitate this study by publishing immediately,
the reports with drawings, photographs etc for public assessment, with the
approval of
the Court. Assuming that the ASI opinion mentioned in the report is correct, a
historic judgment in an earlier case regarding the legal right of a ruined
temple, delivered by the London High court deserves attention.
"As long as even a single slab belonging to the ancient ruined temple is
found in the site, the temple continues to exist in the eye of law and has its
right to claim its possession" was the historic judgment delivered by the
London High Court with the reference to an ancient Hindu temple that was ruined
and remained with out worship for long. The Appeal Court in London, presided
over by three senior judges to which the case was taken upheld this judgment,
but the case was taken to the Privy Council and the apex court also upheld the
judgment. Thus three Foreign courts that command greatest respect in the world
of judiciary held that the presence of even one slab in the site empowers the
ancient temple to be treated as an existing entity in the eye of law,
irrespective of whether the temple was in ruins or was not under worship. This
decision of the London high Court was delivered hardly fifteen years ago when
the then Congress Government headed by late Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister of
India, who enthusiastically supported and got the case filed in the London
high Court in the now famous London Nataraja case. The present writer appeared
in the case as an Expert witness in that case on behalf of Government of India.
One of the Pivotal arguments in the case advanced by the Indian Government was
"once a temple, it remains always a temple". The history of the case
is as follows. A group of Bronze Idols including a Nataraja, was found in a land
behind a ruined Chola temple at Pattur, in Tanjore District. The idols were
found by a labourer who sold the Nataraja to an antique dealer and the image was
smuggled out of India and was caught in London by the Scotland Yard Police. The
Government of India filed a case in the London High Court
claiming the Nataraja as a property of the ruined temple.
Among the various legal points raised in the case, a few are relevant. What
constitutes the Hindu temple? Is it the structure, or the space around it or the
enshrined image? When the temple has been ruined and worship ceased, whether it
could claim ownership? The court agreed that not only the building and the image
but also the consecrated space around the religious building constitutes the
temple. The temple ritual treatises mention various causes of ruin such as
vegetation on the buildings, fire, floods, earthquakes and the like besides
destructions by enemy during invasion. Having examined the ritual and historical
position, the court came to the decision "so long as even one stone slab
belonging to the ancient temple is found in the site, the temple continues to
exist in the eye of law. Any ruined temple could be brought back to worship at
any point of time by purificatory rites".
The ASI, which is aware of this judgement, may be expected to appraise the
Allahabad High Court while submitting the opinion and further clarifications The
opinion of other Archaeologists who study the report from an objective angle may
also be assistance in this case. It would also help to dispel the view that the
ASI repot
is "vague and contradictory" as claimed by the other side. What ever
be the case one thing seems to be certain that the vexed question of this case
seems to be nearing an end.