archaeological evidence?

so there is a this claim of title case in india which is causing quite a bit of controversy. as if india doesn't have enough problems with muslim extremists.

the 'hindu nationalists' want to rebuild a temple on a religious site that was destroyed by Babar the muslim conqueror in the 16th century. In typical muslim conqueror fashion, any religious sites that existed in an invaded 'infidel' land was destroyed and mosques were built on top. apparently there were some 30,000 sites destroyed this way.

now these very same 'hindu nationalists' tore down the mosque in 1992.

this is very interesting in a lot of ways. If the muslims really did destroy 30,000 religious sites in the 16th century, one could argue that it would be akin to something like 'adverse possession' -- it at least meats the 'hostility' test.

But I really have a problem with the whole logic justifying the destruction of other people's religious sites, icons, or whatever. and I'm sure that in addition to destroying all the religious sites, more than 30,000 hindus died by the muslim sword for not 'submitting' to islam.

I'm not entirely comfortable with either side...I don't think people should be rewarded for tearing down mosques. Then again, the muslims who built the mosques tore down the older religious site, and did so in an effort to erase the religious history. so either way you go, you get a bad result -- rewarding people for bad behavior.

perhaps there is a statute of limitations issue here? isn't it too late to cry about what happened in the 16th century? but then again, isn't it too late to cry about a building that was destroyed 11 years ago???

since I don't know a single thing about indian law, and I'm only in my 2nd week of law school, I don't have any answers, only questions.

I guess it comes down to which is worse? to destroy a modern building that is a house of worship, or to destroy an ancient religious site that is the birthplace of a god/religious figure/whatever under an ethnic cleansing regime?