Opinion - News Analysis   

Unearthing the truth

By R. Nagaswamy

The recent judgement of the Allahabad High Court, ordering archaeological excavations to be conducted at Ayodhya for ascertaining the existence of an earlier temple, has triggered great public debate on the need to undertake such an exercise and the conclusions on the issue. One of the questions relates to the time limit of one month, set for excavation to be completed, considered inadequate for archaeological diggings. The nature of excavation is such that it is not digging pits in search of antiquities or remains, but accurate scientific documentation and examination of evidences at every layer of digging. Depending upon the amount and nature of antiquities unearthed, the time for completion will vary. In normal excavations, the work is continued for many seasons depending upon availability of funds and the vagaries of nature. In the case of Ayodhya, neither reason is likely to affect the progress. The other important factor is the technical competence of the excavator who might be either rash or one who might hurry the work, causing incalculable damage to the site or antiquities and adversely affecting the evidence to arrive at the right conclusion. In Ayodhya, the Archaeological Survey of India is carrying out the work. It is highly respected for its competence and the country may rest assured that the work is in the best hands. The result of the excavation depends upon two main factors: a) accurate documentation of the process and findings and b) interpretation of the findings. While the first could be completed fairly as per schedule, the latter is likely to take a longer time.

It is seen from the media reports that the Officer on Special Duty, appointed by the High Court, has issued guidelines including a change in the starting time of the excavation and issued passes to 20 representatives of the litigants to see the excavation. It is evident that the archaeologists are going to face interference at every stage. They have to record not only the artefacts found but also the insitu relationship of objects, structural remains and the relative chronology of all, including the layers and finds, besides measure, photograph, videograph and accurately describe. The litigants not conversant with these technicalities may challenge the archaeologists and only be a nuisance in the site. There is an urgent need to withdraw the passes issued to the representatives of the litigants. The Officer on Special Duty, appointed by the court, should be the sole representative of all.

It is wrong to conclude that the learned judges of the High Court were not aware of these difficulties when they ordered a time limit for the excavation. Prescribing a time limit is not unknown in other parts of the world. For example in Russia, if any archaeological material is unearthed, the same is handed over to the archaeologists with the stipulation of a time limit and they are directed to submit a report, depending upon which further course of action is decided. There could be no doubt that the judges will grant further extension of time limit for the excavation, if the findings sufficiently warrant such a requirement. It may also be expected that the judges will give adequate time for proper examination and interpretation of the excavated material by competent experts that will enable them to come to their conclusions.

However, the judges deserve the admiration of the people for a different reason altogether. Very few in India are aware of archaeology as a crucial scientific tool in presenting evidences for understanding art, history and culture. While the developed nations lay great emphasis on scientific archaeology as an important source of evidence in deciding disputes, the same is lacking in the Indian context.

For example, the now famous London Nataraja case was decided in the London High Court, the Appeal Court, and the Privy Council, based mainly on the evidence of archaeology, in which the present writer appeared as an expert witness, but hardly anybody took note of the scientific side of the court proceedings. Fifty thousand inscriptions, engraved permanently on stone walls from the third century B.C. to the present times in different regions of India, are perfectly drafted legal documents of the respective ages and the primary source of reconstructing the cultural, artistic, historical and social life of the Indian people. They are the most important documents for deciding ownership disputes etc.

That being the case, if there is any department under the Government that has not received any attention for the past 50 years, it is this vital branch of epigraphy.

None of the political powers that cry today did ever pay attention to this important scientific aspect. Under these circumstances, the judges have done yeoman service to scientific knowledge by giving importance to archaeological excavation.

However, in this process, the court has imposed on itself many insurmountable problems that are likely to arise in the future. Whatever the result of the Ayodhya excavation or its findings, it is clear that the court has conceded that if proof of the existence of an earlier temple is found, it would be considered valid evidence in favour of the temple. As otherwise, the court would not have ordered the excavations, which would become meaningless.

American Model

Several thousands artefacts belonging to the American Indians were collected in the late 18th to 20th centuries in the United States of America, for exhibition in their museums. The American Indian community laid a claim that their religious objects were desecrated by such collections and demanded their return.

The American Government enacted a law about 10 years ago, ordering that all the museums in America prepare an inventory of native Indian artefacts (for which the Government provided the necessary funds) and return all the artefacts claimed by responsible American Indian community leaders for their religious observances, irrespective of the time the artefacts were under the possession of the museums.

The preparation of such an inventory is nearing completion. Of course, no one can expect such an approach here. One thing seems to be certain: the result of the present excavation will be confined to the Ayodhya site, whereas the court seems to have conceded the claim for other sites already.

(The writer is former Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• A fund for the needy... or the greedy?
• In the name of the people
• MPs, MLAs and videotape
• Unearthing the truth
• A better deal for consumers
• A directionless panel

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu