[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 36] : ASI Survey Leads To Inference That Hindu Structure Used To Exist At The Site, Submits Sr Adv C S Vaidyanathan

"The wall dates back to the tenth and eleventh centuries. The 'Makarpranal' which is a part of these remains of the earlier temple is Goddess Ganga's 'vaahan'- 'Makar' means crocodile. The contention that this the north-south wall is an Eidgah wall and that it was an Islamic structure is not true...a part of this structure was not excavated because it was under the main dome. It was discovered till 18 feet but it was not possible to dig further because of the barricades", continued Senior Advocate C.S.Vaidyanathan on Day 36 of the hearing in the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

He is advancing arguments on behalf of the deity, Ram Lalla.

As part of his rejoinder submissions, he was presenting archaeological evidence in support of the existence of a temple beneath the disputed structure.

Next, he proceeded to discuss pillar bases. At this point, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan interjected that these pillars were not found to be load-bearing and they could not have supported such a massive structure. Indicating the 3 layers of the pillar bases, of brickbats, concrete and decorated sandstone, and pointing out their depth, Mr. Vaidyanathan insisted that the disputed structure was found to be resting on these pillar bases which are of an earlier period, and that to say that these bases could not support the structure is not true. From the ASI report, the pillar bases were shown to be connected to the top floor of the structure that existed prior to the disputed structure. "The (earlier) structure may not have been of that much load …the existence of the structure beneath the disputed structure is proved beyond doubt", said Mr.Vaidyanathan.

"How do you say that the pillar bases are all of one structure" asked Justice D.Y.Chandrachud

"46 were found in one floor and 4 in another floor. it is not as if there are different structures...First they (the Muslim side) said that there was no structure at all. Then they said that the wall is an Eidgah wall…when we say that the temple was demolished, it is evidence by these walls and the pillar bases", replied Mr. Vaidyanathan

"How does one say that all the pillar bases are of one time" asked Justice S.A.Bobde. That 46 belong to one period and four to another period was Mr. Vaidyanathan's answer.

"All the 50 exposed pillar bases are resting on one of the earliest floors . The carbon dating finds it to be from around the 900 to 1300 A.D." asserted Mr. Vaidyanathan.

"Organic material was found there?", asked Justice Bobde. While Mr.Vaidyanathan replied in the affirmative, Dr.Dhawan indicated that the carbon found there was charcoal.

"That there is a Hindu Temple is an inference drawn from the other materials found, that is, a massive circular structure just below the disputed structure. A circular shrine bearing the Makarpranal is indicative of a temple. A massive hall shows that it was a public place, not a private residence", submitted Mr. Vaidyanathan.

""The circular shrine is from between 900 A.D. and 1100 AD. Would that structure not be equally consistent with a 'vihara'? What is the evidence to show that it is a Hindu Temple", inquired Justice Chandrachud.

"That Ayodhya was the place of birth of Lord Ram is not disputed . Whether that was 60 places away or here is the dispute. Dashratha's palace is not disputed...it is not a place of significance for Buddhists but for Hindus and has been worshipped for centuries. If there is a massive structure here, it is a reasonable inference that it is a Temple", answered Mr.Vaidyanthan.

"We are on core evidence right now. Faith and belief cannot be evidenced or disputed; only the practice of faith or belief can be. What are the material evidences?", probed Justice Chandrachud, with Dr.Dhawan piping in that the pillar bases were actually found to be on top of the circular shrine.

"The ASI does not say whether the structure was demolished and whether the demolished structure was a Hindu Temple. There is no categorical finding on whether the building was razed or collapsed on its own because of natural causes", he added.

On proof of faith and belief, Mr. Vaidyanathan advanced that it is the Shrutis and the Smritis which are the source of Hindu Law, that come from oral transmission. Traditional law is based on immemorial customs and to say that all of this is hearsay is wrong, he contented. 'Shruti' means that which is heard. 'Smriti' means recollection of what Hindu have believed to be tradition. Can this be summarily rejected?, he asked rhetorically.

"How was the Quran compiled? It is compiled from memory after the death of Prophet by Usman, the third caliph", submitted Mr. Vaidyanathan.

"We are not challenging the Vedas, the Shrutis or the Smritis. Because of the form that they are in before you right now...The Quran was put into text by Usman. After that everything is in written form, including the Hadith...To doubt any text is not possible! They may have been passed down in any form, but now they are all in written", intervened Dr. Dhawan.

"I am only showing that the Islamic texts were transcripted later" pressed Mr. Vaidyanathan.

Finally, he cited the depositions of witnesses to the effect that all Hindus hold the belief that Lord Ram was born as the son of King Dashratha below the central dome of the disputed three-dome building, that it is this place which is regarded as the sanctum sanctorum where sweets, flower, fruits and money are offered and of which the 'Darshan' is done, and around which there is a 'parikrama padh' for devotees to take a round of the temple from outside.

Dr. Dhawan questioned how these witnesses' accounts establish continuous worship, considering they are all from post 1989. How are we to say that in the 19th century also, there was this kind of worship, he asked.