The Use and Misuse of History and Archaeology in the Ayodhya Dispute

paper voor het vak Geschiedenis van Zuid- en Centraal-Azi

Thomas Van Damme 2 Bachelor Archeologie

e

Academiejaar 2010-2011

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 1 3. Ayodhyas History ................................................................................................................. 2 4. Ayodhya and Archaeology..................................................................................................... 5 5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 7 6. Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction Because of its interesting controversial nature a lot has been written about Ayodhya over the past decades. With new developments like the 2010 Ayodhya court verdict, the topic keeps getting broader and more complex. Hence, after browsing through my sources I concluded that it is a subject far too diverse for all its aspects to be discussed in this relatively short assignment. Therefore I will restrict my paper to the following: 1) A short historical overview of the main events in Ayodhya, from its first mentioning in history up to the most recent developments. 2) Since it received unusual attention: an assessment of the use of archaeological evidence in this dispute. What I will not attempt to cover in any depth are the political and social factors responsible for the debacle at Ayodhya, nor Indian secularism after Ayodhya. These aspects can be further explored in the following books and articles: -Ahmad A., 1993. Culture, Community, Nation: On the Ruins of Ayodhya, Social Scientist 21, 17-48. -McGuire J., Reeves P., Brasted H., (eds.), 1996. Politics of Violence: From Ayodhya to Behrampada, New Delhi: Sage Publications. -Parikh M., 1993. The Debacle at Ayodhya: Why Militant Hinduism Met with a Weak Response, Asian Survey 33, 673-684. -Sharma A., 2001. Hinduism and Secularism: After Ayodhya, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. -Thakur R., 1993. Ayodhya and the Politics of Indias Secularism: A Double-Standards Discourse, Asian Survey 33, 645-664. 2. Methodology I first came in contact with Ayodhya through my father while discussing interesting topics for my History of South and Central Asia paper. I decided to look into it and Wikipedia proved to be a good first introduction to the theme. Ayodhya seemed like a worthy subject so I started collecting information. First I consulted general sources but encyclopedias were either too shallow or outdated.1,2 Next I found several books on this specific topic in libraries and several relevant articles through JSTOR. Then I watched the BBC documentary The Story of India to better understand Ayodhyas broader context in the history of India.3 Finally for the most recent developments I consulted online news articles.
Ayodhya, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Ayodhya.html) (13.11.2010). 2 Robinson F., (ed.), 1989. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 74, 75, 81, 83, 338, 420. 3 Wood M., 2007. The Story of India, BBC.
1

3. Ayodhyas History Ayodhya is an ancient city on the banks of the Saryu River in Northern India. Historians present-day interest in Ayodhya is due to the Babri Masjid; a 16th century mosque allegedly built on the remains of an earlier Hindu temple and subsequently destroyed by angry Hindus in 1992. The structure has provoked a lot of debate and conflict between Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya and across India since the 1850s. This conflict has inspired a lot of emotionally, religiously, ideologically and politically influenced history writing. In fact any source we consult today is at least partially influenced by subjective versions of the events. This makes the history of Ayodhya a complicated story where lies, beliefs, myths and factual evidence are often intertwined. Or as the Indian writer and social activist S.P. Udayakumar states:
The controversy is more mythological than historical, and hence it is a matter more of faith than fact. Since the issue stands on popular culture and not on recorded history, it becomes even more prone to 4 manipulation and politicization.

To illustrate this let us compare what two authors write on the same issue: Koenraad Elst, one of the most prominent experts on the Ayodhya debate, gives some very convincing arguments to argue that a Hindu temple devoted to Rama did in fact exist on the site and that this temple was destroyed to make place for the Babri Masjid. He also states that Western media was biased in their representation of the debate and thus wrongly favoured and over-represented the Muslim evidence which he claims is all nonsense to begin with.5,6 However he himself seems rather biased when reading some of his concluding remarks:
With modern communication, it should not be difficult to provide a billion Muslims with the data necessary to make them doubt and reject the Islamic beliefs. [] all Muslims should explore their own way out of Islam [] The end result will be that the Muslims abandon Islam and the claims made on behalf of Islam. They will gladly bring the stolen sacred sites back into Hinduism. And they themselves will build a temple in Ayodhya for Rama [] Rama will free the Hindus who were forced into Islam, and their children who were mentally chained by Islamic indoctrination until they became the Indian 7 Muslim community. He will take them back with him to his birthplace Ayodhya, to celebrate.

In sharp contrast, Sushil Srivastava gives us equally convincing arguments refuting any claims that a Rama temple existed on the site. While the two scholars use the same items as proof, they interpret this proof differently and thus reach opposite conclusions. Also Srivastava claims that not Western media, but the Indian government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an Indian right-wing nationalist party, were biased and gave unfair weight to the Hindu evidence.8 This demonstrates how hard it is for historians to dig through the layers of propaganda and bias to get to the truth of this issue. Since actually doing so would require a lot more research and is perhaps more fit for a master paper or a thesis, Ill simply base my telling of
Udayakumar S.P., 1997. Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama, Social Scientist 25, 11. 5 Elst K., 2002. Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple, New Delhi: Voice of India. 6 Elst K., 1995. The Ayodhya Debate, in: Pollet G., (ed.), Indian Epic Values: Ramayana and its Impact, Leuven: Peeters, 21-42. 7 Elst K., 2002. Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple, New Delhi: Voice of India, 204. 8 Srivastava S., 1994. The Abuse of History: A Study of the White Papers on Ayodhya, Social Scientist 22, 3951.
4

Ayodhyas history on the source which I feel is most objective and secular, namely the version told by S.P. Udayakumar.9 He has relied on the chronology put forth by University of Delhi professor G. Pandey. Finally, I will use additional sources whenever Udayakumars data seems insufficient. While religious beliefs suggest Ayodhya has existed for some 900 000 years, the earliest archaeological evidence dates back to the period of Northern Black Polished Ware, around 700 BCE. According to Valmikis Ramayana, Rama was born here as the oldest son of king Dasharatha. Based on the cultural context of the epic, this took place around 450 BCE. After Ramas exile and his adventures as described in the Ramayana, he returned as king and under his rule his kingdom entered a Golden Age.10 Today Hindus even consider Rama to be one of the incarnations of Vishnu and consequently Ayodhya is among the seven holiest cities of Hindu India. However, whether present-day Ayodhya is also the Ayodhya of Rama is open for debate. In fact the city we know today was known as Saketa until the 5th century CE, when the Gupta Empire relocated its capital there and changed its name to Ayodhya, presumably to establish a connection between the Gupta dynasty and the legendary king Rama.11 The next important phase in the history of Ayodhya is its incorporation into the Mogul Empire by Emperor Babur in the early 16th century. In 1528 one of the emperors generals, Mir Baqi, built the Babri Masjid, possibly on the remains of an earlier Rama temple (though as stated above this remains highly controversial). Afterwards, starting in the 18th century, Ayodhya again became an important centre of Hindu pilgrimage. Then, as early as the 19th century, written records start emerging with claims that a Hindu temple was destroyed to make place for the mosque. This led to violent confrontations between Hindus and Muslims culminating in the death of some 70 people in 1855. Only a year later Ayodhya came under direct British rule and a fence was put up separating the Muslims, who were allowed to pray inside the mosque, from the Hindus who had an altar outside for worshipping.12 About 30 years later, once in 1883 and once in 1885, lawsuits were filed by Hindus asking permission to build a temple on the contested site. The judge stated:
It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance [] In such a case as 13 the present one any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.

And so the permission was turned down. 1886 to 1948 was a relatively uneventful time in Ayodhya with the debate leading to only minor confrontations and no court battles. That changed shortly after Indias independence when in 1949 the mosque was closed entirely to the public after some 60 Hindus had entered it at night to install a Rama idol. They staged it as a miraculous appearance of the deity but this was unmasked as a lie by the investigation report. Although police were permanently stationed in and around the building for decades to come, they could do little to prevent the riots and murders that regularly took place in the city over the next three years as Hindu-Muslim relations remained strained.12 After these nuisances had passed, Ayodhya quietly disappeared into the background until in 1984 the often controversial international Hindu organization Vishva Hindu
Udayakumar S.P., 1997. Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama, Social Scientist 25, 11-26. 10 Callewaert W.M., Goddeeris I., 2010. Een geschiedenis van India, Leuven: Acco, 31-33. 11 Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S140. 12 Bakker H.T., 1986. Ayodhya, Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 147-148. 13 Gopal S., (ed.), 1991. Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India, s.l.: Penguin Books India.
9

Parishad (VHP) made the Ayodhya debate a national issue again. The aim was to liberate the sacred Hindu site. They held a 130-kilometer-march to the state capital, organized public meetings and even toured around in all the major cities of the region to establish popular interest in their cause. To satisfy the demands and gain the favour of a by now very large electoral group the government played along and in 1986, for the first time in 37 years, the district judge ordered the mosque open for Hindu worship, evoking a lot of Muslim protest all over the country. In 1989, shortly before the new elections, the BJP declared that it would support the VHPs goal. The foundation stone of the new Rama temple was symbolically installed on ground that was temporarily declared undisputed. Ironically this happened on the 9th of November: while in Berlin East and West were being reunited, in Ayodhya the chasm between Hindus and Muslims was becoming ever greater. The communal riots that accompanied the 1989 elections left 800 people dead and many more wounded. The BJP won 88 parliamentary seats and with their support V.P. Singh became the new Prime Minister. To avoid further aggression and in an attempt to reach an agreement, the national government brought Hindus and Muslims together for negotiations in 1990. Unfortunately this led nowhere. As the VHP and BJP duly noted, an agreement was not forthcoming and the court cases asked for by Hindus were not being resolved. This made many Hindus impatient and dates were set for the construction of the new Rama temple, dates V.P. Singh tried to postpone in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement between the two parties. When crowds aiming to force the government to hand over the site were arrested in late 1990, the BJP withdrew its backing of V.P. Singh and the government fell. The VHP got tired of negotiating and made clear that it was no longer seeking an amicable agreement. Plans to destroy the mosque were announced for late 1992 and due to the new governments inaction the most dramatic phase in Ayodhyas recent history could commence. On December 6th 1992 a religious ceremony turned violent and a large Hindu mob, variably estimated between 75 00014 and 300 00015 strong, broke through police lines, entered the Babri Masjid and reduced it to rubble. Protesters even had time to construct a makeshift Rama temple before authorities could regain control of the site. That such behaviour wasnt supported by all Hindus is illustrated by a quote that was ironically published on the very day of the mosques destruction:
if one day the Babri masjid is dismantled, my faith in Hindu catholicism informs me that a large section of the Hindus will be as pained (they want the temple to be built, not the mosque to be 16 destroyed) as the Muslims in India and Pakistan will be.

Figure: The Babri Masjid mosque, before, during and after its destruction by a Hindu mob in 1992. Udayakumar S.P., 1997. Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama, Social Scientist 25, 16. 15 Thakur R., 1993. Ayodhya and the Politics of India's Secularism: A Double-Standards Discourse, Asian Survey 33, 645. 16 Naqvi S., 6-12-1992. Musings of a Muslim, Sunday Times of India.
14

In the aftermath of the demolition over 2000 people died during riots nationwide. The Liberhan Commission was assigned to investigate who and what had led to the debacle at Ayodhya. The BJP continued to grow and in 1998 it managed to form a coalition government. In 2001 tensions rose anew as the VHP again vowed to build a real Rama temple where the makeshift temple was situated. The deadline for the construction was set at March 2002. While hundreds of Hindu activists started gathering in Ayodhya for the occasion, 58 of them were killed in an attack on a train. The attack caused new riots in which 1000 to 2000 people, mostly Muslims, died. In 2003 a court decided that seven Hindu leaders, among which several important BJP members, would have to stand trial for their part in the destruction of the mosque. Six years later the Liberhan Commission similarly caused uproar in parliament when it too blamed leading politicians from the BJP. However clear the evidence, the final verdict will still have to be made by a court and the trial date keeps getting postponed. Finally in 2010 three High Court judges, one Muslim and two Hindu, ruled that the disputed terrain, previously property of the central government, should be divided: the Muslim community got one third, the Hindu community another third and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect, the remainder. The section where the Rama temple supposedly stood, and where the Babri Masjid was torn down, was given to the Hindus.17 With the Muslim community already working on an appeal its clear that the Ayodhya case will remain an interesting topic for historians in, at the very least, the near future. Also issues such as if or when a Rama temple will eventually be built and what the outcome of the trial against BJP leaders will be, will no doubt continue to make headlines across India. Unfortunately we can also expect the controversy and conflict generated by the Ayodhya debate to keep Hindu-Muslim relations strained for many years to come. 4. Ayodhya and Archaeology One of the key issues in the Ayodhya debate has always been whether or not the Babri Masjid was built on the remains of a Hindu temple. Naturally archaeology can be a powerful tool in proving or refuting such claims, but how important were the archaeological findings? And what is the actual role archaeology should play in such discussions? I will try to answer these questions based on an article by Reinhard Bernbeck and Susan Pollock.18 Archaeology has a reputation of helping shape and legitimize nationalist, imperialist and colonialist group identities by giving them a connection to the past. For instance the Nazis claimed an Aryan history and France referred to the Gauls to strengthen nationalism. However, since they are chosen to achieve certain goals, these symbolical references are always selective rather than natural. They are also based on what Hrke, inspired by writings of, amongst others Lvi-Strauss, has called mythical history: they wrongly assume very little or no separation exists between past and present. This allows the groups to react to historical events as if they had taken place only a short time ago. Ayodhya serves to illustrate this: if archaeologists could prove the existence of a Rama temple below the remains of the Babri Masjid, Hindus could, by using a mythical concept of history, bring the past closer and hold the Muslims living in Ayodhya today responsible for what Mogul invaders did to their Rama temple almost 500 years ago. This in turn would help legitimize the 1992 destruction of the mosque since it could then be perceived as nothing more than a justification for a wrong inflicted on Hindus by Muslims. Ironically Muslims
Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis, BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11436552) (22.11.2010). 18 Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S138-142.
17

living in Ayodhya today are usually not descendants of the Moguls, but low caste Hindus who tried to improve their social status by converting to Islam. The result was that, as Bernbeck and Pollock put it:
, archaeology and archaeologists found themselves at what appeared to be the nerve center of a conflict that goes well beyond academic squabbles, one that reached the Supreme Court of India and has 19 cost hundreds of lives.

This demonstrates that in a debate such as this, the use of archaeology for identity creation is certainly no neutral undertaking. As it is, Ayodhya has received quite a lot of archaeological attention, though unfortunately, just as its history, it is subject to biased interpretations and misuse. In 1969 and 1970 a first stratigraphic survey was done, followed in the mid-1970s by a more detailed study and actual excavations, conducted by B.B. Lal. He first stated that there was no notable medieval occupation of the site and thus the existence of a Rama temple seemed unlikely. In 1990 however he published an article contesting his previous conclusions. Now he claimed that he had in fact found the remains of a Hindu temple and that this marked the site of Ramas birthplace. Obviously Lals reinterpretation was strongly controversial and led to a lot of debate. Later, in 1992 before and after the destruction of the mosque, several sculptures and other objects were found. Finally, in 2003 the High Court issued the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to reach a definite conclusion on the topic so that their findings could be taken into account for the Ayodhya verdict eventually sentenced in 2010. They concluded that a big structure, possibly a temple, existed before the Babri Masjid was erected and although these results have been challenged (amongst others by Muslims who worked on the excavation), a Canadian survey with ground-penetrating radar seems to confirm the ASIs conclusions.20 While Bernbeck and Pollock applaud the use of archaeology to reach a verdict and thus a peaceful legal solution to this problem, they warn that
As engaged members of society, archaeologists must find ways to argue against the use of the past for 21 racist, sexist, and other oppressive purposes.

and that they can do so

by demonstrating the fluidity and changeability of identities in the past, [] to counter the popular 21 notion that groups and identities are fixed and stable, both in the past and in the present.

I too feel that archaeologys contribution to the legal resolving of the post-destruction situation was desirable; however this should by no means be interpreted as a justification of the mosques demolition. Why? In part because that, as argued above, would be a manipulation of time through the use of mythical history and thus a misuse of archaeology for oppressive purposes. However the main reason is this: it is presumable that the Muslim community and not the Hindu community would have obtained the main part of the site in the 2010 verdict had the Babri Masjid still stood there (the 1885 judges ruling on page 3 is a clear example). So, although archaeology helped legitimate Hindu claims for the site after the mosques destruction, the archaeological findings might not have been enough to legitimate Hindu claims for the site before the mosques destruction. Consequently it is incorrect to use a verdict reached in the post-destruction situation as a justification for the demolition of the mosque, since destroying the mosque was a decision taken in the pre-destruction situation.
19 20

Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S140. Bharat A., Ayodhya Archaeological survey of India report, Arise Bharats Weblog (http://arisebharat.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/ayodhya-archaeological-survey-on-india-report/) (29.11.2010). 21 Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S141.

A verdict on who was responsibly for the mosques destruction and what their punishment should be is still forthcoming, and this suggests that the High Court too believes that their 2010 verdict does not justify the Babri Masjids destruction or exempt those responsible of penalization. Unfortunately significant parts of the Hindu community still think otherwise. 5. Conclusion The Ayodhya case clearly illustrates how history and archaeology can be used and even manipulated to argue in favour or against the case championed by a certain party. Though it is often difficult to obtain a balanced view, it is important that historians and archaeologists aspire to objectivity and professionalism in their research. This is particularly true in cases such as this one, where unusual attention and importance is bestowed upon historical and archaeological findings for political, religious or ideological purposes.

6. Bibliography Bakker H.T., 1986. Ayodhya, Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Bernbeck R., Pollock S., 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, Current anthropology 37, S138-142. Callewaert W.M., Goddeeris I., 2010. Een geschiedenis van India, Leuven: Acco. Elst K., 1995. The Ayodhya Debate, in: Pollet G., (ed.), Indian Epic Values: Ramayana and its Impact, Leuven: Peeters, 21-42. Elst K., 2002. Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple, New Delhi: Voice of India. Gopal S., (ed.), 1991. Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India, s.l.: Penguin Books India. Naqvi S., 6-12-1992. Musings of a Muslim, Sunday Times of India. Robinson F., (ed.), 1989. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 74, 75, 81, 83, 338, 420. Srivastava S., 1994. The Abuse of History: A Study of the White Papers on Ayodhya, Social Scientist 22, 39-51. Thakur R., 1993. Ayodhya and the Politics of India's Secularism: A Double-Standards Discourse, Asian Survey 33, 645-664. Udayakumar S.P., 1997. Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama, Social Scientist 25, 11-26. Wood M., 2007. The Story of India, BBC. Online Sources Bharat A., Ayodhya Archaeological survey of India report, Arise Bharats Weblog (http://arisebharat.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/ayodhya-archaeological-survey-on-indiareport/) (29.11.2010). Ayodhya, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Ayodhya.html) (13.11.2010). Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis, BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11436552) (22.11.2010).

Images Page 2: Ayodhya, Websters Online Dictionary (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Ayodhya?cx=partner-pub0939450753529744:v0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID:9&ie=UTF-8&q=Ayodhya&sa=Search#922) (13.11.2010). Page 4 left: Ayodhya observe black day on Babri mosque demolition anniversary, TopNews.in (http://www.topnews.in/ayodhya-observe-black-day-babri-mosque-demolition-anniversary296246) (13.11.2010). Page 4 middle: Babri Masjid verdict on 24th; UP and India on high alert, allaboutindia.org (http://www.allaboutindia.org/babri-masjid-verdict-on-24th-up-and-india-on-high-alert/) (13.11.2010). Page 4 right: Indian state governments to be alert on Babri demolition anniversary, TopNews.in (http://www.topnews.in/indian-state-governments-be-alert-babri-demolition-anniversary2242128) (13.11.2010).