Any editorial on public archaeology in India cannot escape one of the most contentious issues of current times that compels us to probe deep into the mesh of social power relations, namely the destruction of the Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, a 500-year-old structure that was razed to the ground on 6 December 1992. The date of 7 November 2019 may go down in the history of the nation as a watershed moment. The Supreme Court of India delivered their verdict on the longrunning Ayodhya legal case, which has been hailed as ‘sealing’ the long-drawn-out conflict of the disputed land of the demolished Babri Masjid. In the title suit the claims of the Hindus — that the mosque had been built on a demolished Hindu temple — were recognized; those of the Muslims were not, and their inability to establish their claims to the 2.77-acre land (where the Babri Masjid once stood) was stated as a key reason. The claim is conjured from allusions to the disputed site being the Hindu god Rama’s birthplace, which were found scattered in Hindu and Sikh texts and colonial gazetteers. Absolute reliance had been sought in excavation findings of the Archaeological Survey of India that mention ‘non-Islamic structures’ below the destroyed mosque in their 2003 report, which were heavily mediated by judicial interventions, as Rachel Verghese has shown so succinctly in this volume. The Supreme Court ruling ultimately proclaimed the faith of the majoritarian community as the basis for authorizing the construction of a Hindu temple at the site (e.g. Mohanty, 2019; Rajagopal, 2019). A Hindu temple is therefore due to be constructed on ruins that never existed. The judgment is beset with contradictions. On the one hand it rebukes the demolition of the 500-year-old Babri Masjid in 1992 as ‘an egregious violation of law’, and admits that this mosque, where namaz was offered regularly at least from 1857, was desecrated on 22/23 December 1949 when an idol of Rama was installed under the central dome, creating a de facto Hindu temple. On the other hand, the Court refrains from recognizing the fundamental right of the minority Muslim community to defend its freedom of religion, which is sanctified by the Indian Constitution. When the Constitution came into existence, namaz was being offered at the site. If a place where namaz is offered is considered as amasjid, then the minority community has a fundamental right to defend its freedom of religion. In its act of refraining to recognize this right, the Court fails to protect the Constitution. By affirming their belief that there was once a temple prior to the building of the public archaeology, Vol. 17 Nos. 2–3, May–August 2018, 69–73

中文翻译：

---

客座社论：印度的公共考古学

任何关于印度公共考古学的社论都无法逃避当今最有争议的问题之一，它迫使我们深入探讨社会权力关系的网格，即北方邦阿约提亚的巴布里清真寺被毁，这座清真寺已有 500 年的历史。 - 1992 年 12 月 6 日被夷为平地的旧建筑。 2019 年 11 月 7 日可能会作为一个分水岭载入国家历史。印度最高法院对长期存在的阿约提亚法律案件作出判决，该案件被誉为“封印”了被拆除的巴布里清真寺有争议的土地的旷日持久的冲突。在产权诉讼中，印度教徒的主张——清真寺建在一座被拆除的印度教寺庙上——得到了承认；那些穆斯林不是，他们无法确立他们对 2. 77 英亩的土地（巴布里清真寺曾经所在的地方）被认为是一个关键原因。这一说法源自对有争议的地点是印度教神罗摩的出生地的暗示，这些地点分散在印度教和锡克教文本以及殖民地名录中。印度考古调查局的挖掘结果在 2003 年的报告中提到了被毁清真寺下方的“非伊斯兰建筑”，这在很大程度上受到司法干预的影响，正如雷切尔·维尔盖斯 (Rachel Verghese) 在本卷中如此简洁地展示的那样，他们寻求绝对信赖。最高法院的裁决最终宣布多数派社区的信仰是授权在该地点建造印度教寺庙的基础（例如 Mohanty，2019 年；Rajagopal，2019 年）。因此，印度教寺庙将建在从未存在过的废墟上。这个判断充满了矛盾。一方面，它谴责 1992 年拆除具有 500 年历史的巴布里清真寺是“严重违反法律”，并承认这座清真寺至少从 1857 年开始定期提供 namaz，但在 22/23 遭到亵渎1949 年 12 月，在中央圆顶下安装了罗摩神像，创造了事实上的印度教寺庙。另一方面，法院不承认少数穆斯林社区捍卫其宗教自由的基本权利，这是印度宪法所赋予的神圣权利。当宪法生效时，在现场提供了 namaz。如果提供 namaz 的地方被视为 amasjid，那么少数民族社区就有捍卫其宗教自由的基本权利。在不承认这一权利的行为中，法院未能保护宪法。通过确认他们相信在公共考古学建造之前曾经有一座寺庙，卷。17 第 2-3 号，2018 年 5 月-8 月，69-73