zones: Archaeological evidence as legal testimony

Archaeological evidence as legal testimony

M.S. GANESH, RABINDRA K. HAZARI and SHEREEN RATNAGAR


AMONG the places of worship that certain political parties wish to 
‘reclaim for Hindus’ is the site of the now demolished mosque at 
Ayodhya. A combination of circumstances prompted some archaeologists to 
announce to the public that they had ‘proof’ of the existence of a 
medieval Ram temple preceding the construction of the mosque by Mir 
Baqi. The High Court of Allahabad is currently hearing a case that will 
decide, among other things, whether this archaeological claim is true, 
and whether Hindus have been worshipping at this very spot as the 
birthplace of the deified Ram ‘since time immemorial’. The dispute is 
over the religious character the site has possessed over the centuries. 
The matter assumes a particular degree of piquancy as no one knows what 
actually lies under the mosque.

As one of the aims of this collection of papers is to distinguish the 
present political efforts to rewrite history from historical practice 
within the social sciences, we set out to ask, in this paper, in what 
manner the distinction emerges when a controversy is debated before the 
judiciary. We need also to write about court deposition as a learning 
experience for scholars who see themselves as mainstream liberals.

If an individual were, in the public interest, to go to court to plead, 
say, that a particular site had certain features that merit its 
inclusion in the list of protected monuments, that court might declare 
its lack of competence in this sphere and direct the petitioner to the 
concerned state authority. But when there is a dispute over a place with 
contested religious claims, and it is your word against mine, the court 
has no choice but to hear both sides. (We hasten to point out here that 
the High Court has not been called to decide where Ram was born.)

The resolution of a controversy in the court is founded on the burden of 
proof. The burden of proof in any suit lies on that person who makes an 
assertion as to a fact – on the party who would fail should no evidence 
at all be given on either side. In this instance, the burden of proof 
lies with those who assert that there was a temple under the mosque and 
thereby claim the right to build a temple on the site.

cont'd....
http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/522/522%20ganesh,%20hazari%20&%20ratnagar.htm