We referred earlier to the discipline of history being at the forefront of the fight for secularism at the intellectual level. Among the social sciences, the discipline of archaeology, which works within the broad framework of history, comes closest perhaps to the natural sciences; for this reason, the Hindutva track record on archaeology merits careful scrutiny by all scientists. The supposed ``emergence'' of artefacts from a wall of the Babri masjid during its demolition, the strange story of an art historian without film in her cameras being an ``eyewitness'' to this event, the subsequent effort to photograph the artefacts after they were dumped in a pit elsewhere, the hailing of these artefacts as fresh ``evidence'' and the brazen demand that they form part of the examination of the question whether a ``temple'' stood earlier on the site of the masjid are the culmination of a long campaign of sheer perversion of the science of archaeology. The science of archaeology places great emphasis on the study of artefacts in situ as much as possible, their subsequent removal being done with all care and with all possible record of their original position. The evaluation of such evidence proceeds subsequently with attention to physical details; dovetailing the evidence with what is known of the relevant general history of the period to which it belongs, and the past history of archaeological excavations at the site.
The recent antics (backed by strong-arm methods) are part of an ongoing science fraud by ``kar sevak'' archaeologists who have sold their science down the river. A major excavation at the so-called ``Ramjanmabhoomi mound'' was conducted by Prof. B. B. Lal, Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in the 1970s. He found absolutely no evidence of any temple at that site and published his results in the official ASI publication. These findings have been corroborated by K. V. Soundararajan, former Additional Director-General of the ASI, who has confirmed that there were no indications of human habitation of the Babri Masjid mound between the 11th and 15th centuries. Subsequently, the ``kar sevaks'' made a ``startling discovery'' unearthing some pieces of sculpture ``located in a large pit,'' when ``the ground near the Ramjanmabhoomi was being levelled'' through a PWD-type dig. These findings were then published in a pamphlet that claimed that evidence had been discovered for a temple at Ayodhya between the 10th and 12th century A.D. As expert historians and archaeologists (Champakalakshmi, Ratnagar and Shrimali, 1992) were quick to point out, the objects were not unearthed in a careful scientific excavation; the ``experts'' examined the objects later and not in situ, and none of the standard archaeological practices associated with excavations from a pit appeared to have been honoured. The photographs in the pamphlet were clearly set up, and it was not even clear that there was a pit in the archaeological sense of the term. The ``kar sevak'' archaeologists also managed to muddle up the order of the Dasavathara as they laboured to make the `artefacts' fit the fraud.
Hindutva archaeology is science fraud and mob vandalism, aided by a stable of ``experts'' to lend a veneer of academic respectability. Note here the practice of denigrating specialists (of archaeology in this case): those who agree with the Hindutva demands are fielded as spokespersons, while the rest are roundly abused. On other occasions, the charade of establishing scientific `proof' is abandoned and the existence of the Ram temple at the site is asserted to be a matter of faith, not evidence. What conclusion is a scientist to draw from ``kar sevak'' archaeology except that we are witnessing the most violent obscurantist and fraudulent attack on science seen in this country in the post-independence period?