ASI report tilts in favour of Ram temple: Sunni Board

The Sunni Waqf Board on Thursday assailed the Archeological Survey of India’s report, based on its excavation at the disputed site, saying that its conjectures were moving in a “preconceived” direction, in favour of the Ram temple. “There is a direction this report (of ASI) is going on … see how report proceeds, it proceeds with preconceived view. All through the report Babri Masjid is described as a ‘disputed structure’, but Ram Chabutra as ‘Ram Chabutra’”, senior counsel Meenakshi Arora told the fivejudge bench.

Pointing to discrepancies in the ASI report relating to the existence of a massive structure that was supported by pillars, Ms Arora took the bench through the location of pillars’ and their foundation, showing there was no clarity in what existed when, and whether these pillars supported a massive structure.

■

Sunni Waqf Board on Thursday assailed the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report, based on its excavation at the disputed site, saying that its conjectures were moving in a “preconceived” direction, in favour of the Ram temple.

“There is a direction this report (of ASI) is going on … see how report proceeds, it proceeds with preconceived view. All through the report Babri Masjid is described as a ‘disputed structure’, but Ram Chabutra as ‘Ram Chabutra’”, senior counsel Meenakshi Arora told the five-judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

Pointing to discrepancies in the ASI report relating to the existence of a massive structure that was supported by pillars, which is sought to be described as Ram temple by lawyers appearing for Ram Lalla, Ms Arora took the bench through the location of pillars’ and their foundation, showing there was no clarity in what existed when, and whether these pillars supported a massive structure.

The ASI has, in its report, claimed the existence of 85 pillars — five each in 17 rows. These pillars are spread over four separate levels, and each level belongs to a separate period of history. The time gap between the four floors of pillars could be a century or more.

But the manner in which the pillars have been numbered seems random, and this led to discrepancies in the conclusions drawn, Ms Arora pointed out. She told the

◗ The ASI has, in its report, claimed the existence of 85 pillars — five each in 17 rows

court that pillar basis number 18 is shown at floor 4, 19 on floor 3, 21 at floor number 3 and 22 at level number 4.

Ms Arora is dealing with the archaeological evidence that surfaced in the course of excavation order by Allahabad high court in 2003. Apart from the pillars, a wall measuring 50 meters, and a fivefeet wide base, was also discovered.

Arora said that these “levels” in the ASI report must not be visualised as present day high-rise buildings where one floor is constructed over the other. She said that these layers are separated by centuries and each succeeding layer sits unevenly on the surface on the earlier structure, which got buried under the earth and disappeared.

She said this while addressing the question when this massive structure, described by Ram Lalla in suit number 5 as a temple, came about and whether it was a temple or not.

Taking the court through different pillar basis (foundations) at different layers, Ms Arora said that such pillar basis could not have supported a massive structure sought to be described as Ram Janmasthan by Ram Lalla and Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect that serves the deity and manages the “devasthan”. It is described as temple’s Shebait.

The deity, Ram Lalla, is a party to the dispute, and is represented by lawyers K. Parasaran and C.S. Vaidyanathan.