Ayodhya Verdict: What the ASI and historic records by travellers said
New Delhi, Nov 09: The report of the ASI was relied upon heavily by the Supreme Court while delivering the verdict in the Ayodhya case.
Read full 1,045 page Supreme Court judgement on Ayodhya
Let us trace what the ASI had said and the position that it indicated:
(i)
Archaeological
finds
in
the
area
of
excavation
reveal
significant
traces
of
successive
civilisations,
commencing
with
the
age
of
the
North
Black
Polished
Ware
traceable
to
the
second
century
B.C.;
(ii)
The
excavation
by
the
ASI
has
revealed
the
existence
of
a
pre-
existing
underlying
structure
dating
back
to
the
twelfth
century.
The
structure
has
large
dimensions,
evident
from
the
fact
that
there
were
85
pillar
bases
comprised
in
17
rows
each
of
five
pillar
bases;
(iii)
On
a
preponderance
of
probabilities,
the
archaeological
findings
on
the
nature
of
the
underlying
structure
indicate
it
to
be
of
Hindu
religious
origin,
dating
to
twelfth
century
A.D.;
(iv)
The
mosque
in
dispute
was
constructed
upon
the
foundation
of
the
pre-existing
structure.
The
construction
of
the
mosque
has
taken
place
in
such
a
manner
as
to
obviate
an
independent
foundation
by
utilising
the
walls
of
the
pre-existing
structure;
and
(v)
The
layered
excavation
at
the
site
of
excavation
has
also
revealed
the
existence
of
a
circular
shrine
together
with
a
makara
pranala
indicative
of
Hindu
worship
dating
back
to
the
eighth
to
tenth
century.
A reasonable inference can be drawn on the basis of the standard of proof which governs civil trials that:
(i)
The
foundation
of
the
mosque
is
based
on
the
walls
of
a
large
pre-existing
structure;
(ii)
The
pre-existing
structure
dates
back
to
the
twelfth
century;
and
(iii)
The
underlying
structure
which
provided
the
foundations
of
the
mosque
together
with
its
architectural
features
and
recoveries
are
suggestive
of
a
Hindu
religious
origin
comparable
to
temple
excavations
in
the
region
and
pertaining
to
the
era.
Conclusion
of
ASI
report:
The
conclusion
in
the
ASI
report
about
the
remains
of
an
underlying
structure
of
a
Hindu
religious
origin
symbolic
of
temple
architecture
of
the
twelfth
century
A.D.
must
however
be
read
contextually
with
the
following
caveats:
(i) While the ASI report has found the existence of ruins of a pre- existing structure, the report does not provide:
(a)
The
reason
for
the
destruction
of
the
pre-existing
structure;
and
(b)
Whether
the
earlier
structure
was
demolished
for
the
purpose
of
the
construction
of
the
mosque.
(ii) Since the ASI report dates the underlying structure to the twelfth century, there is a time gap of about four centuries between the date of the underlying structure and the construction of the mosque. No evidence is available to explain what transpired in the course of the intervening period of nearly four centuries;
(iii)
The
ASI
report
does
not
conclude
that
the
remnants
of
the
pre-
existing
structure
were
used
for
the
purpose
of
constructing
the
mosque
(apart,
that
is,
from
the
construction
of
the
mosque
on
the
foundation
of
the
erstwhile
structure);
and
(iv)
The
pillars
that
were
used
in
the
construction
of
the
mosque
were
black
Kasauti
stone
pillars.
ASI
has
found
no
evidence
to
show
that
these
Kasauti
pillars
are
relatable
to
the
underlying
pillar
bases
found
during
the
course
of
excavation
in
the
structure
below
the
mosque.
A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the twelfth century to which the underlying structure is dated and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of four centuries.
Ayodhya Verdict Explained in 10 points
No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque. Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.
Historical records:
Historical records of travellers (chiefly Tieffenthaler and the account of Montgomery Martin in the eighteenth century) indicate:
- (i) The existence of the faith and belief of the Hindus that the disputed site was the birth-place of Lord Ram;
- (ii) Identifiable places of offering worship by the Hindus including Sita Rasoi, Swargdwar and the Bedi (cradle) symbolising the birth of Lord Ram in and around the disputed site;
- (iii) Prevalence of the practice of worship by pilgrims at the disputed site including by parikrama (circumambulation) and the presence of large congregations of devotees on the occasion of religious festivals; and
- (iv) The historical presence of worshippers and the existence of worship at the disputed site even prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British and the construction of a brick-grill wall in 1857.