ASI report clinched presence of Temple in Ayodhya issue: Advani
Posted by jagoindia on October 18, 2010
“In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”
ASI report clinched crucial aspect of Ayodhya issue: Advani
New Delhi | Sunday, Oct 10 2010
Terming as the ”crucial aspect of the Ayodhya issue” the question whether a Hindu temple existed at the site prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, veteran BJP leader L K Advani today said the issue had been clinched by the Archaeological Survey Report which said the remains there indicated existence of a temple. Writing in his blog, Mr Advani said in 1993, the Central Government had sought an opinion from the Supreme Court, as part of the advisory role that Article 143 of the Indian Constitution has entrusted to the apex court. It was ”whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” He said, ”This provision gives the Supreme Court the discretion, if it is so inclined, to decline giving an opinion. In this case, it actually did so decline. But in the process it became very clear what government regards as the most crucial aspect of this controversy.” Mr Advani said the Allahabad High Court took cognizance of the above mentioned Reference made by then President Shanker Dayal Sharma under Article 143 to the Supreme Court. The court felt it would be appropriate to ask the ASI to analyse the crucial question posed by the Centre first by a Ground Penetrating Radar survey and, thereafter by excavation.
After the radar survey showed up some anomalies, the High Court directed the ASI to undertake excavations.
In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.” Mr Advani said, ”At least in so far as the High Court judgment is concerned the clincher has been the Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This is a Report very painstakingly produced on the directions of the High Court itself.” His observations on the issue has come even as many parties like the Left and some sections of the minority community have alleged that the court verdict had given precedence to faith over evidence.
In his blog, Mr Advani said though the Supreme Court declined to answer the reference by the Central government in 1993, it recorded in its ruling that the Court had asked the Solicitor General ”to take instructions and put in writing the Central Government’s position in this behalf”.
”The Supreme Court has said: ”On 14th September, 1994, the learned Solicitor General made the following statement in response : Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.
In the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiations. Government is confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will have a salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they will no longer take conflicting positions on the factual issue settled by the Supreme Court.
If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Governments action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both the communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple structure existed at the relevant time, then Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community.”
— (UNI) —