Why Blocking the ASI is an Affront to Justice and History

Preventing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from examining historical sites in disputed areas is not only unjust but also a denial of truth. Such actions, often cloaked under the guise of promoting harmony, peace, and secularism, inadvertently erode the very values they claim to uphold. 

These principles—harmony, peace, and secularism—lose their essence if they obstruct the pursuit of historical truth. The suppression of ASI inquiries reflects a deeper fear: apprehensions about what history might reveal and the duplicity of those who present themselves as champions of inclusion.

A Double Standard in Preserving History

In India, the study of history often serves political motives rather than a genuine quest for truth. The ASI is lauded when its findings expose colonial exploitation or challenge British narratives. However, when it investigates sites like Ayodhya, Sambhal, or Mathura—where evidence of

temple destruction and forced conversions may exist—it suddenly becomes controversial and is dismissed as unnecessary or divisive. This selective outrage reveals an underlying anxiety: the possibility that the narrative of a peaceful, conflict-free medieval India could crumble under scrutiny. Take, for example, the court-mandated survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where petitioners allege it was built atop a Hindu temple destroyed by Babur. Instead of allowing the ASI to investigate and provide clarity, efforts have been made to paint such inquiries as divisive. This resistance stems from a fear that uncovering evidence contrary to prevailing historical narratives could threaten established power structures.

Babri Masjid and the Broader Decolonial Context

The events surrounding the reclamation of the Babri Masjid are often portrayed as a regrettable chapter of communal strife. However, this perspective overlooks a critical decolonial dimension. Throughout history, invaders have erased, altered, or repurposed indigenous symbols as a display

of dominance. The Babri Masjid, therefore, represents more than a mosque; it signifies a moment of cultural erasure. Demands for its reclamation were not merely calls for a temple but for acknowledgment of historical wounds. Critics who deride these movements as regressive often champion similar causes in other contexts. For instance, they celebrate the restoration of indigenous heritage in Africa and the Americas but hesitate when similar efforts are made in India. This inconsistency highlights a deeper issue: resistance to shifting power over the narrative of history.

The ASI: A Custodian of Truth

The ASI plays a pivotal role in unearthing India’s complex historical tapestry. The findings at Ayodhya, which confirmed the existence of an ancient temple, marked a turning point in the dispute over the site. Yet, critics have attempted to discredit the ASI by labeling it biased. If the ASI has long been trusted for its impartiality, why are its methods now questioned in crucial cases? In Sambhal, similar allegations have arisen, indicating a broader apprehension about potential discoveries. If, as petitioners claim, the mosque was constructed over a temple, the evidence should speak for itself. To obstruct such investigations is to undermine the integrity of historical research and the principles of fairness it embodies.

A Broader Hypocrisy

Self-proclaimed liberal intellectuals often portray themselves as advocates of free speech, learning, and impartiality. Yet, they abandon these ideals when investigations challenge their carefully curated historical narratives. This hypocrisy extends beyond India. Consider the muted response to the destruction of heritage sites, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan or the desecration of temples during the 1990s violence in Kashmir. Such incidents are conveniently overlooked, while similar issues elicit outrage when they pertain to their own faiths. To prioritize communal harmony at the expense of historical truth is to perpetuate injustice. Ignoring history under the guise of neutrality weakens the foundation of justice and hinders

societal healing.

The Danger of Neglecting History

Blocking the ASI’s efforts does not foster peace; it perpetuates ignorance. History serves as a mirror, reflecting both the strengths and flaws of a society. Preventing access to this mirror sustains a culture of denial and bitterness, exacerbating the divisions critics claim to oppose. True reconciliation requires confronting the past with honesty. This includes acknowledging wrongs committed under colonial rule, during the Mughal era, and in more recent conflicts. Turning a blind eye to certain chapters of history under the pretence of neutrality denies justice

to those who suffered.

A Call for Courage

The debate extends beyond bureaucratic processes; it strikes at the heart of India’s intellectual and cultural legacy. Real decolonization demands grappling with the complexities of our history, no matter how painful.

The issue is not one of erasure but of inclusion. The question before us is simple yet profound: Are we mature enough as a society to confront the truths of our past, or will we continue to selectively shield ourselves from uncomfortable realities? To obstruct the ASI is to choose the latter path, one that harms both our history and our future. Let the ASI fulfill its mission, for within its findings lies the truth—and with it, the foundation of fairness and justice.