Travelogue not reliable evidence: Muslim side in Ayodhya dispute

New Delhi: Continuing their submissions for the 33rd day, Muslim party in Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid dispute case termed the chronicles in the books and gazetteers as “hearsay” and “myths”. It discredited the archaeological report that spoke about the possibility of a Hindu temple where the Babri Masjid was later erected.
Arguing on behalf of the Muslim parties in the case, Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora contended that while it would be too dangerous to rely upon the 2003 report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that had talked about the pre-existence of a Hindu religious structure at the disputed site, any credence to similar accounts in books and gazetteers from 18th and 19th centuries would be equally fallacious.
News 18 quoted Arora as telling to a Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi “The accounts recorded in these books and gazetteers are not personal experiences of the authors themselves but based on hearsay.” She added: “None of the authors personally witnessed a Ram temple on the site or the demolition thereof by Muslims. Rather, their writing are, at best based on myths and stories that they heard from the local populace, which are completely subjective, and would also not constitute direct or substantial evidence so as to corroborate the ASI report.” It must be noted that travelogues of William Finch, an English merchant of the East India Company in the 17th century and Jesuit missionary Joseph Teifenthaler, from 1740-1770 were referred by the Hindu party as evidence for Ram temple in Ayodhya.
Some of the gazetteers of Territories of the East India Company from 1854 onwards also mentioned Hindus believes that on the banks of the River Sarayu are ruins of the court of Rama, King of Ayodhya, hero of the Ramayana and highly celebrated in the mythological and romantic traditions of India.