12. Conclusion

The clear-cut result of the Ayodhya evidence debate is still not widely known. Most of the Indian English-language papers, as well as the official electronic media, have all along been on the side of the BMAC, and they have strictly kept the lid on this information. Their reporting on the scholars' debate has been very partial and, from the moment the BMAC's defeat became clear, increasingly vague.

If any proof is needed that the BMAC has been defeated in this debate, it is this: no one sympathetic to the Babri Masjid cause has made any reference to the outcome of this debate all through the subsequent years, even though the Ayodhya issue frequently reappeared in the news. Politicians have made a show of their "secularism" and their opposition to "religious fanaticism" by organizing "fact-finding missions" to Ayodhya and issuing statements on the dispute, but they have not made any reference to the outcome of the scholars' debate at all, When reading about the subsequent course of the Ayodhya controversy, one might get the impression that the scholars' debate never took place.

However, it did not take place, and it has yielded sufficient evidence to consider the matter as practically closed. The Babri Masjid was built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple. With the historical question decided, that leaves only the political question to be resolved.

That political question has not been the topic of this paper, but for those who care to know, I briefly statement my position. The Rama-Janmabhoomi site has been a Hindu sacred site for many centuries. Even the JNU historians admit that it was a pilgrimage site since the 13^th century. It may have been one since much earlier, but alright: Catholic pilgrimage sites like Loudres and Fatima are not even two centuries old and still they are respected. So, seven centuries is quite sufficient to certify its status of sanctity. Today, judges and governments in Australia, New Zealand and the Americas are increasingly conceding the right of indigenous communities to restart worship at their sacred sites. Consider the human right to freedom of religion, it is obvious that communities have a right to their sacred sites, and no modern or humane person would ever countenance thwarting this right for other than the most compelling reasons.

So it is completely evident that Hindus have a right to use and properly adorn their own sacred sites, including Rama Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya. The problem with Ayodhya, the cause of all this rioting and wast of lives and political energy is not that they Hindus want to adorn their own sacred site with proper temple architecture that is the most normal thing in the world. The problem is that another party, the Islamist-Christian- Marxist combine in India, is trying to obstruct this perfectly unobjectionable project of architectural renovation. Against the near-universal consensus that all sacred sites are to be respected, Islam is taking the position that it has the right to occupy and desecrate the sacred sites of other religions. Genuine secularists must oppose and thwart this obscurantist design, and allow the normal process of Hindu architectural renovation to take its course.

[43] Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra et al: "The Political Abuse of History", in Asghar Ali Engineer: Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, p. 235

[44] Letter signed by Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Bipin Chandra, R. Champalakshmi, S. Bhattacharya, Harbans Mukhia, Suvira Jaiswal, Shireen Ratnagar, M. K. Palat, Satish Sabarwal, Sarvapelli Gopal and Mrdula Mukherjee, datelined 21-10-1986, published in Times of India, 28-10-1986.

[45] A. G. Noorani: "The Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Question", Asghar Ali Engineer: Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Convtroversy, p. 66.

[46] Letter in The Statesman, 22-10-1989, quoted by A. G. Noorani: "The Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Question", Asghar Ali Engineer: Babri Masjid?Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, p. 66-67

[47] P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, quoted by Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/ Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p. 8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p. 153; emphasis mine.

[48] Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p. 160

[49] ibid, pp. 159-160

[50] Bhupendra Yadav: "Temple issue built on weak base", in The Tribune, 7-3-1992

[51] Indian Express, 4-7-1992

[52] Presented in Y. D. Sharma et al.: Ramajanma Bhumi: Ayodhya. New Archaeological Discoveries, published by Prof. K. S. Lal for the Historians' Forum, Delhi 1992. An earlier smaller find of religious artifacts on 10 March 1992 in diggings by the Uttar Pradesh tourism department was reported in the press, e.g., Anil Rana: "Artifacts found near Babari Masjid", Statesman, 11-3-1992. A further discovery was made a month after the demolition, vide: "New Evidence at Temple site found", Pioneer, 8-1-1993

[53] D. Mandal: Ayodhya Archaeology after Demolition. A Critique of the "New' and 'Fresh' Discoveries, Orient Longman, Delhi 1993, p. xi.

[54] ibid, p. 63

[55] ibid, p. 65

[56] E.g.,: "No pillar bases at Ayodhya: ASI Rport", Times of India, 7-12-90, and A. G. Noorani: "The Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi Question", in A. A. Engineer: Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, p. 64

[57] B. B. Lal explained this matter and restated his long-held positions in his article: "Facts of history cannot be altered", in The Hindu, 1-7-1998, in reply to a slanderous editorial, "Tampering with history", The Hindu, 12-6-1998. Undaunted, D. N. Jha attempted to restore the confusion: "We were not shown Ayodhya notebook", The Hindu, 27-7-1998.

[58] Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p. 157. On several occasions, Marxist historians had insinuated that B. B. Lal, one of the greatest living archeologists, has changed his conclusions about pre-existent temple in order to satisfy the "requirements of VHP politics" (thus the JNU historians Romila Thapar, S. Gopal and K. N. Panikkar in Indian Express 5-12-1990). Among those who came out in Prof. Lal's defence and certified his statements are K. V. Soundarajan (ASI), I. Mahadevan, R. Nath, K. V. Raman, and K. K. Mohammed (ASI, the only Muslim who participated in the Ayodhya excavations, letter in Indian Express, 15-12-1990). In a speech to the Aligarh Historians Group (12+-2-1991), published in Muslim India, (5/1991), Prof. Irfan Habib has made similar personal attacks on Prof. B. R. Grover. Prof. B. P. Sinha, Prof. K. S. Lal and Dr. S. P. Gupta, who have represented the VHP in the scholars' debate, and on Prof. B. B. Lal.

[59] Presented by Dina Nath Mishra: "Writing in the debris", Telegraph, 1-1-1993

[60] "Historians pick holes in 'evidence'", Times of India, 26-12-1992

[61] Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p. 158-159

[62] Sushil Srivastava: "The Ayodhya controversy", in A. A. Engineer ed.: Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi Controversy, p. 38

[63] E.g.: "One night during the monsoon of 1991, the rain was so heavy that it washed away the wall that was concealing the frontage of the Bijamandal mosque raised by Aurangzeb in 1682" in Vidisha, and "the broken wall exposed so many Hindu idols that the Archaeological Survey of India had no choice but to excavate", as mentioned by Prfaull Goradia: "Heritage hushed up", Pioneer, 12-12-2000.

[64] M. Shokoohy: "Two fire temples converted to mosques in central Iran", Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, E. J. Brill, Leiden 1985, p. 546

[65] Harsh Narain: "Ram Janmabhoomi: Muslim Testimony", in Lucknow Pioneer (5-2-90) and Indian Express (26-2-90), included in S. R. Goel: Hindu Temples, vol. I, 2^nd ed. (1998), p. 169-175

[66] Prof. A. R. Khan": "In the name of 'history'" (originally published in Indian Express, 25-2-1990) and the whole subsequent exchange with the JNU historians has been included in History versus Casuitry, app. 2, and in S. R. Goel: Hindu Temples. Vol. 1, 2^nd ed. (Voice of India, Delhi 1998), p. 243-263. We have to give the JNU historians credit for trying at least this once to refute criticism, but we cannot commend the secretiveness about this exchange in their later writings. On the other hand, their secretiveness is quite eloquent in its own way.

[67] The whole debate between A. K. Chatterjee and Syed Shahabuddhin is included in S. R. Goel: Hindu Temples, vol. 1, and 2^nd ed., p. 176-211; Shahabuddin's claim to "have the German text" is on p. 198