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.