The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Arjun » 19 Oct 2010 10:23

I am looking strictly at the legal argument...ie what position a court would take. Actually the HC decision by Justice Agarwal devotes a number of volumes to the discussion on whether the structure can be termed a mosque, precisely because of the worship by 2 religions, as well as due to various other factors that are not normal features of a mosque. His final conclusion on this is that going by Shariat law it definitely cannot be called a mosque. At the same time, based on the 'faith and belief' of Muslims over centuries that it was indeed a mosque, he concludes that one should respect this and therefore go by their faith and belief and agree to the structure being called a mosque.

Interesting to note that the justices have given credence to 'faith and belief' of both religions and not just the Hindu side. If the SC does not uphold the 'faith and belief' argument of the Hindu side, it should also drop the same argument on the Muslim side - in which case the structure in any case is not accepted to be a mosque under Shariat law, and the Wakf Board argument collapses.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 19 Oct 2010 11:26

How about creating a Facebook campaign like Oscar Morales did against NDTV and their anti RJM stance? Get a million signatures like he did.

How I used Facebook to protest against FARC

unarayanadas
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 10 Oct 2010 19:55
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby unarayanadas » 19 Oct 2010 12:37

Dear Friends,

I wholeheartedly thank all participants on this forum who have critiqued, offered helpful suggestions and signed the petition:

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.

A little while ago the count of signatories was 911. Will it spell "9/11" for NDTV?

Please continue to canvass for more signatures and make the campaign a resounding success!

With regards,

Sincerely,
U. Narayana Das

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24788
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2010 12:40

unarayanadas wrote:Dear Friends,

I wholeheartedly thank all participants on this forum who have critiqued, offered helpful suggestions and signed the petition:

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.

A little while ago the count of signatories was 911. Will it spell "9/11" for NDTV?

Please continue to canvass for more signatures and make the campaign a resounding success!

With regards,

Sincerely,
U. Narayana Das



U. Narayana Das ji,

Why not post on other websites too, this will undoubtedly give you a better and higher visibility.

unarayanadas
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 10 Oct 2010 19:55
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby unarayanadas » 19 Oct 2010 12:43

May I request all of you who have blogsites / websites to post the text of the online petition with a link to it and canvass for signatures?

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.

"Chetakji", we seem to think alike. You posted your comment while I was writing this!

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Arjun » 19 Oct 2010 13:24

A point that needs highlighting is that the judgement has given credence to "faith and belief" in the course of the judgement, to both the Hindu and Muslim sides - contrary to the current biggest criticism of the verdict that this has been done solely for the Hindu side.

In fact were it nor for the 'faith and belief" argument in favor of Muslim stand, the verdict would have gone strictly by Shariat interpretation and disallowed the structure from being called a 'mosque'. End result would have been far more tilted against the Muslim side than currently. Any TOI lead article writers listening ??

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Sanku » 19 Oct 2010 13:31

Has A_Gupta been chased away from the thread?

As far as I understand his points were

1) Though Babar's role is not sufficiently backed by legalistic evidence, there is enough anecdotal evidence for those who are not bound to the level of a legal judgment to accept that (on the basis of inscriptions, even if fudged later etc)

2) The judges dont need to care who broke the temple to create the DS, and that is also backed by Indians traditions, there is more emphasis on the fact that the Janmsthan temple was broken, that Babar broke it and Auranzeb chimed in latter with his efforts too, are relatively less important.

So as I read it, he is even more pro-Jamnsthan in his reading than the Judges, why are people upset with him?

Yashu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 09 May 2008 15:04

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Yashu » 19 Oct 2010 13:59

unarayanadas wrote:Dear Friends,

I wholeheartedly thank all participants on this forum who have critiqued, offered helpful suggestions and signed the petition:

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.

A little while ago the count of signatories was 911. Will it spell "9/11" for NDTV?

Please continue to canvass for more signatures and make the campaign a resounding success!

With regards,

Sincerely,
U. Narayana Das


Just signed the petition

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby dipak » 19 Oct 2010 14:14

unarayanadas wrote:May I request all of you who have blogsites / websites to post the text of the online petition with a link to it and canvass for signatures?

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.


Signed the petition yesterday. Also linked to this blog

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8157
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Sachin » 19 Oct 2010 14:33

Sorry to play the spoil sport here. Is there any reference link which says that how many of these "petition online" petitions were actually submitted to the petitioning authority, and how many were actioned upon?

Sri
BRFite
Posts: 1327
Joined: 18 May 2005 20:19
Location: Earth

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Sri » 19 Oct 2010 16:13

A voice of Sanity

The entire issue cannot be given the “closure” that sensible Indians had hoped for because the SWB has decided to move the Supreme Court. While it is legally entitled to do so, one would like to ask a simple question to the several Waqf boards — Shia and Sunni, Central and State-level — in India.

They have thousands of acres under their possession as well as thousands of mosques. What use is this land being put to? Are they using the wealth in their possession to properly maintain and man these mosques? Why do periodic reports surface about the misuse or fraudulent sale of Waqf Board land?
Last edited by SSridhar on 19 Oct 2010 19:06, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed URL

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Arjun » 19 Oct 2010 17:23

Anupam Gupta of Liberhans Commission displays his venom in latest farticle from Chindu Group...Far removed from secular universe

I am convinced that both Justices Agarwal and Sharma operate in a time warp of their own – far removed from and completely insulated from the secular universe of free India.

In Justice Sharma's judgment, there is so much of deja vu hitting me – unsophisticated, unabashed, unalloyed, unreasoning fundamentalist Hindu perspective

Don't these qualify for contempt of court?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24788
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2010 18:26

Arjun wrote:I am looking strictly at the legal argument...ie what position a court would take. Actually the HC decision by Justice Agarwal devotes a number of volumes to the discussion on whether the structure can be termed a mosque, precisely because of the worship by 2 religions, as well as due to various other factors that are not normal features of a mosque. His final conclusion on this is that going by Shariat law it definitely cannot be called a mosque. At the same time, based on the 'faith and belief' of Muslims over centuries that it was indeed a mosque, he concludes that one should respect this and therefore go by their faith and belief and agree to the structure being called a mosque.

Interesting to note that the justices have given credence to 'faith and belief' of both religions and not just the Hindu side. If the SC does not uphold the 'faith and belief' argument of the Hindu side, it should also drop the same argument on the Muslim side - in which case the structure in any case is not accepted to be a mosque under Shariat law, and the Wakf Board argument collapses.



I don't understand the basic premise. They are asking the Indian Courts to adjudicate their case as per sharia.

Since when is sharia applicable in INDIA??

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Arjun » 19 Oct 2010 18:41

chetak wrote:I don't understand the basic premise. They are asking the Indian Courts to adjudicate their case as per sharia.

Since when is sharia applicable in INDIA??

Matters of jurisdiction involving Muslims - related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties in India, are governed by Muslim Personal Law / Sharia.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 19 Oct 2010 19:12

Karna_A wrote:The AIMPLB does not value Secularism at all. The real contrast is when this judgement is compared with Shah Bano case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Bano_case

AIMPLB is arguing from both sides: One where they did not respect secular Supreme Court verdict on Shah bano case arguing that its a matter of faith. And in RJB, they want to now talk about secularism.

The way to deal with it is to involve Muslim moderates like Arif Mohhamad Khan etc. and make a common front so the core issues of Hindu faith are not trampled under secularism, just as core Christian/Sikh/Muslim issues are not trampled.



This has larger implications than AIMPLB. For example let us consider this

* AIMPLB reaches to Supreme Court saying that Rama is not a fact but a faith.
* A renowned historian like Metha Patkar testifies that Rama is indeed a faith
* A politician like M Karunanidhi says Rama is a myth
* The whole media goes gaaga over this.

It will be followed by
* Let us assume Rama is myth
* That makes entire Ramayana a mythology (Itihasa= Iti + Iham + Aseet = This is how it happened here, in this land was incorrectly translated as mythology instead of Epic)
* That makes Ravana a myth too
* That means Rama was never an Aryan king nor Ravana a Dravidan king
* That means there was never an Aryan/Dravidian divide
* That takes the whole MK type dravidian claims to toilet. Along with it goes the Dalit=Dravidian=Demon type pakiness
* That means death of AIT and Metha (intellect) in MethaPatkar

Now what would a secularist prefer? Destruction of entire Aryan/Dravidian or Brahmin/Dalit divide or acceptance of Rama's existence?

Manishw
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 21 Jul 2010 02:46

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Manishw » 19 Oct 2010 20:04

Arjun wrote:Matters of jurisdiction involving Muslims - related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties in India, are governed by Muslim Personal Law / Sharia.


If demographics changes continue at the same pace then history Shows that Sharia will be applicable all over India in the not too distant future.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24788
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2010 20:08

Arjun wrote:
chetak wrote:I don't understand the basic premise. They are asking the Indian Courts to adjudicate their case as per sharia.

Since when is sharia applicable in INDIA??

Matters of jurisdiction involving Muslims - related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties in India, are governed by Muslim Personal Law / Sharia.


Surely this is the case when the dispute is between both parties who are muslim.

If any other is involved then the Indian law is applicable.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24788
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2010 20:09

Manishw wrote:
Arjun wrote:Matters of jurisdiction involving Muslims - related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties in India, are governed by Muslim Personal Law / Sharia.


If demographics changes continue at the same pace then history Shows that Sharia will be applicable all over India in the not too distant future.


This is what they are trying to do.

Just watch how things unfold in Kerala with the active connivance of the commies.

They are waiting to create a foothold.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 19 Oct 2010 20:47

Kushwant Singh in Deccan Chronicle

I believe Sikhs are an integrated part of the Hindu family of religions, So, being a Sikh my bias in Hindu-Muslim conflicts should be in favour of the Hindus. It is not so whenever such conflicts take place my bias is in the side of the Muslims. I learnt this from no less a person than Mahatma Gandhi.


This is what MKG did to these butt-heads. His (orchestrated) ascent to national leadership made dhimmitude romantic. Now we have million MKGs amidst us. They sip whiskey, enjoy whores, enjoy their wealth unlike MKG, but when it comes to "secularism" they are as anti-hindu as anyone else can be.

There is no need to dispute that. However, there are over a dozen versions of the Ramayana which differ in essential details. But how much do we know of Shri Rama? We celebrate his birth anniversaries with great fervour but no one knows the year he was born, nor, the year he died. These are serious lacunae in our knowledge of our most revered figure in our history.


This is what I warned against (many Ramayanas) many moons ago. Only Valmiki Ramayana (Adi Kavya = first book in Sanskrit. Prior to Ramayana there were no books, novels, stories other than Veda Vangmaya) should be the standard for Ramayana. Every book else shows the author's perspective/understanding of Valmiki Ramayana, be it Ramcharit Manas or Molla Ramayanam or Adhyatmika Ramayanam or Ramayana Vishavriksham etc.,

Now this issue with this selective reading of Ramayana is that tomorrow some stupid like RamaY can rewrite Ramayana as a fight between Andhras and Telanganas and another stupid like Kushwant Singh think that it is as authentic as Valmiki Ramayana.

More important issue is whether or not there was a Ram Mandir which was pulled down. The archaeological evidence produced of its existence is flimsy and motivated. It has been rubbished by our top historians like Romilla Thapar (Hindu) and Irfan Habib (Muslim). I suggest all those interested in the subject take a look at a small booklet entitled Ayodhya : Archaeology after demolition by D. Mandal (Orient Longman). It is no more than 74 pages long and will take less than an hour to read. I quote a few sentences: “Archaeology has become implicated in the Ayodhya controversy… It has been claimed that archaeological evidence provides irrefutable proof of the existence of Rama Temple at the site of the Babri Masjid and the destruction of this temple by Babar.”


Perhaps Kushwant Singh didn't read the 8000+ page judgment, which detailed the cross-examination of these so-called top-historians. All these historians accepted that (under oath) they are not experts in the fields they claim their expertise in, they do not know Sanskrit or Arabic/persian which is essential to personally read and understand the historical texts, and heavily relied on news paper reports and hearsay to develop their expertise. The judgment copies not only demolish the claims of these top-historians by presenting facts and evidence but also criticize these historians for misleading and false statements.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8493
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 19 Oct 2010 21:09

Rama,

Just how many people have the time to read the 8000 pages of text and then anal-yse it. It is the comitted few like those on this forum who have made the effort to read and understand the judgement. The rest are busy with whisky and wimmens.

Bhat to do, they are like this onlee

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Arjun » 19 Oct 2010 21:16

chetak wrote:
Arjun wrote:Matters of jurisdiction involving Muslims - related to marriage, inheritance and wakf properties in India, are governed by Muslim Personal Law / Sharia.


Surely this is the case when the dispute is between both parties who are muslim.

If any other is involved then the Indian law is applicable.

All matters of marriage, divore, inheritance, religious buildings etc are driven by personal religious laws - no uniform civil code yet! The judge would use whichever personal law is applicable and relevant. In RJB case - the laws regarding Hindu deities and idols installed in the premises was determined as per Hindu law; the wakf and Muslim worship related matters as per Muslim law.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24788
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2010 21:48

RamaY wrote:Kushwant Singh in Deccan Chronicle

I believe Sikhs are an integrated part of the Hindu family of religions, So, being a Sikh my bias in Hindu-Muslim conflicts should be in favour of the Hindus. It is not so whenever such conflicts take place my bias is in the side of the Muslims. I learnt this from no less a person than Mahatma Gandhi.


This is what MKG did to these butt-heads. His (orchestrated) ascent to national leadership made dhimmitude romantic. Now we have million MKGs amidst us. They sip whiskey, enjoy whores, enjoy their wealth unlike MKG, but when it comes to "secularism" they are as anti-hindu as anyone else can be.

There is no need to dispute that. However, there are over a dozen versions of the Ramayana which differ in essential details. But how much do we know of Shri Rama? We celebrate his birth anniversaries with great fervour but no one knows the year he was born, nor, the year he died. These are serious lacunae in our knowledge of our most revered figure in our history.


This is what I warned against (many Ramayanas) many moons ago. Only Valmiki Ramayana (Adi Kavya = first book in Sanskrit. Prior to Ramayana there were no books, novels, stories other than Veda Vangmaya) should be the standard for Ramayana. Every book else shows the author's perspective/understanding of Valmiki Ramayana, be it Ramcharit Manas or Molla Ramayanam or Adhyatmika Ramayanam or Ramayana Vishavriksham etc.,

Now this issue with this selective reading of Ramayana is that tomorrow some stupid like RamaY can rewrite Ramayana as a fight between Andhras and Telanganas and another stupid like Kushwant Singh think that it is as authentic as Valmiki Ramayana.

More important issue is whether or not there was a Ram Mandir which was pulled down. The archaeological evidence produced of its existence is flimsy and motivated. It has been rubbished by our top historians like Romilla Thapar (Hindu) and Irfan Habib (Muslim). I suggest all those interested in the subject take a look at a small booklet entitled Ayodhya : Archaeology after demolition by D. Mandal (Orient Longman). It is no more than 74 pages long and will take less than an hour to read. I quote a few sentences: “Archaeology has become implicated in the Ayodhya controversy… It has been claimed that archaeological evidence provides irrefutable proof of the existence of Rama Temple at the site of the Babri Masjid and the destruction of this temple by Babar.”


Perhaps Kushwant Singh didn't read the 8000+ page judgment, which detailed the cross-examination of these so-called top-historians. All these historians accepted that (under oath) they are not experts in the fields they claim their expertise in, they do not know Sanskrit or Arabic/persian which is essential to personally read and understand the historical texts, and heavily relied on news paper reports and hearsay to develop their expertise. The judgment copies not only demolish the claims of these top-historians by presenting facts and evidence but also criticize these historians for misleading and false statements.


RamaY ji,

When the end is near, like it is for this misbegotten pseudo and impotent freak, one tends not to piss off one's peers.

One doesn't want to be badly remembered so one continues to kiss ass. This particular pseudo likes the WKK taste.

Let him be, he's senile anyway and grandstanding as usual. Dog's barking at passing cars.
Last edited by chetak on 19 Oct 2010 21:55, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 19 Oct 2010 21:52

Can some of you create a Facebook acct for the High Court judgment?

Object is post excerpts that lead to the judgment.

Another linked page would have eminent historians lack of credentials under oath.

Dan Mazer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 03 Sep 2009 02:17

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Dan Mazer » 19 Oct 2010 22:20

RamaY wrote:Kushwant Singh in Deccan Chronicle

There is no need to dispute that. However, there are over a dozen versions of the Ramayana which differ in essential details. But how much do we know of Shri Rama? We celebrate his birth anniversaries with great fervour but no one knows the year he was born, nor, the year he died. These are serious lacunae in our knowledge of our most revered figure in our history.


If the tradition celebrating Ram janmasthan at Ayodhya is only one of many other traditions of Ram, then the objection raised by the 'secularists' of majoritarianism does not hold. So then, if a Ram temple is built there it is not a majority lording over a minority. Rather it's one minority adjusting for another.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 19 Oct 2010 23:06

In that article I posted, Kushwant Sing brings one "Archaeology after demolition by D. Mandal" as his reference. Is he questioned as an expert in this case? Can someone post a link to his section?

Thanks in Advance. I too am searching for this Mandal guy.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 19 Oct 2010 23:12

Found it in Annex III Page 211/350 under statement of Sri Arun Kumar Sharma

Chaanakya ji, Can you take a lead on this and allocate 3-4 historian witness to each one of us? What we have to do is to prepare a good summary post which will contain -

0. Picture and Biography of the historian - especially foreign education, awards won, NGO affiliations, Media contacts (we can refer to SwamyG garu on this).
1. All available media statements by that historian w.r.t RJB issue.
2. Summary of his expert witness
3. Summary of Cross-Examination (Where our beloved historians admit that they are nothing but butt-heads.
4. Summary of judges' comments.

Thanks in advance.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 19 Oct 2010 23:24

A kind soul at a google group alt.politics already summarized our dear Dr. D Mandal.

I am posting it in full. Moderators: Kindly confirm if I can do this. {Added Later: Never mind. They refer back to our own BRF. I guess Chaanakya's post :twisted: }

Dr. D Mandal Retired - Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University

Justice Sudhir Aggrawal

Vol 15

page 3646-3655 ( page 147-156/251) para 3628-3629

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-15.pdf

Quote:

3628. PW-24 Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient
History and Archaeology, Allahabad University
, who was appointed on
adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have
worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as
an expert to depose that there is no archaeological evidence to show
either existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple
was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The
statements made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness of
his knowledge in the subject:

Quote:

"I never visited Ayodhya" (E.T.C.)

"I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur's reign."
(E.T.C.)

"Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur
was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for this, I do not have
any knowledge of Babur. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd
para of editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila
Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya
Swayam Sevak Shangh for the first time raised the issue of the Babri
Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama's birth
place. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on
page 10 of the afore-said preface that Ayodhya is a site of
pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school." (E.T.C.)

"The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is
true that I have no faith in religion. A book written by me (exhibit
63) was not written in series; instead, it was published in series.
This series is called 'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know
whether there is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times
Series', which is only for the criticism of religious organizations.
It is true that a book titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags' has
been published under this series, but I have not read this book."
(E.T.C.)

"Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'. I have no knowledge of a
book 'The Question of Faith' under this very series, nor have I read
it. I know under which series the aforesaid book was published.
Faith has nothing to do with archaeological history. I do not
properly remember that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or
not. I remember names of two members comprising the editorial board
of this series, first of them being Prof. Romila Thapar and the other
being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do not remember names of the rest
of members. It is true that Sarvapalli Gopal ji is also a member of
the editorial board of this series." (E.T.C.)

"I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is of Communistic thought or not.
But Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism." (E.T.C.)

"It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has written editorial preface to
my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila Thapar was a professor at Jawahar
Lal Nehru University. In this very University was Shereen Ratnagar
also, who was a teacher." (E.T.C.)

"I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an archaeologist." (E.T.C.)

"It is true that I have not seen the disputed building as yet. I did
not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions
carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also did not make
physical investigation of basalt stone."

"My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only on any article.
My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given
in the book(paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89, and chiefly
on the photograph (paper no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation
undertaken by Prof.B.B.Lal near the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also
correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of
B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm Bhumi: Ayodhya) and
the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct."
(E.T.C.)

"Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63)."
(E.T.C.)

"It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an
introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss
Shereen Ratnagar." (E.T.C.)

"It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant Tiwari, who drew figures for me
in my book, went ahead with the drafting as I wished. Laxmi Kant
Tiwari was a skilled draftsman.I never even visited Ayodhya."
(E.T.C.)

"The main objective of my research was to see whether there was a
temple below the Babri Mosque or not." (E.T.C.)

"As per my research, initial signs of human population in Ayodhya are
found from the 6th-7th century BC." (E.T.C.)

"I know that there was Islamic population from the 13th century to
the 15th-16th century." (E.T.C.)

"On the basis of the source material which I used and studied in
course of my research, I speak of the disputed structure as Babri
Masjid. I did not make any research to see whether it was Babri
Mosque inasmuch as it was not a subject of my research. It is
correct to say that I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid
on the basis of that very source material." (E.T.C.)

"It is correct to say that I term the disputed structure as Babri
Mosque on that very source material on which others term it as such.
For this very reason I term it as Babri Mosque, otherwise its being
Babri Mosque is not a subject of my research." (E.T.C.)

"It is correct to say that I do not believe those persons who termed
the disputed sructure as Rama Janm Bhumi; for this very reason I have
not described it as such, and as a matter of fact it was not a
subject of my research." (E.T.C.)

"Since it was not the issue of my research to see whether these
stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not 3653 make any research
on them, and for this very reason I did not make any research to see
whether they may be of the temple. . . . It is true that human
figures are engraved on the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46."
(E.T.C.)

"The subject of my knowledge is archaeology and my speciality is in
field archaeology under it and in stratification method under field
archaeology." (E.T.C.)

"I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist. He has also deposed
in this litigation. I have knowledge of it also." (E.T.C.)

"I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with her also. . . . . .
From her articles it appears that she is influenced by Marxism."
(E.T.C.)

"I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also influenced by Marxism.
. . ..I know Sri R. S. Sharma, B. N. S. Yadav, D. P. Agarwal, S. C.
Bhattacharya, N. C. Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also have
talks with them." (E.T.C.)

"Our objective was to study or discover whether there was a temple
below the Babri Mosque or not. My objective did not have any
relation to the structure above the ground. Whatsoever materials had
been discovered by that time was, in my opinion, sufficient to
derive a conclusion as to whether there was any temple below the
structure or not." (E.T.C.)

"It is true that by observing materials discovered through excavation
I will not be in a position to tell whether there was a temple or a
mosque." (E.T.C.)

"It is true that I am of communistic thought."(E.T.C.)

"I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did not get any degree
or diploma in archaeology." (E.T.C.)

"As per my study and knowledge, the disputed structure was subsequent
to the 12th century AD."(Page 78)

"The map given in the supplement is, in my opinion, a primary source.
I did not enquire as to whether the map given in the supplement is
correct or not." (E.T.C.)

"Primary source of my book is paper no.118C1/36."(E.T.C.)

3629. A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually
made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a
small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and beyond that made no
further or other study/research etc.. Only on that basis, he wrote a
book, and analyzed the belief of the people whether the disputed
structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there
existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished
before its onstruction. The own admissions and clarification this
witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this witness is
short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872
to qualify as an opinion of an Expert which may be considered
relevant on a fact in issue, by this Court. (E.T.C.)3650

Comment:

So here we have an ardchelogist who did not get any formal grounding
in Archaeology , no degree or diploma, never visited the site and
drew conclusions based on his book written on the basis of a paper of
Dr B B Lal and doesn't remember what was written as preface by
Romilla Thapar in his book. No wonder he can not tell from the
materials recovered during excavation whether they belonged to temple
or mosque. How much reliance should be placed on his expert
deposition.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 19 Oct 2010 23:31

If we use new media we will see the power of numbers. We have so many visitors but who(hu) knows who they are!

Why don't you ITVITy grandees take this up as a software project and get to making it happen?

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 20 Oct 2010 00:10

I can lead that effort. Volunteers can email me at r a m a y dot b r f at geeeemail

we have about 20+ experts. We need to create summary pages for them and then link them in various media groups and inet forums.

TIA

Mauli
BRFite
Posts: 371
Joined: 12 Jul 2010 21:08

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby Mauli » 20 Oct 2010 00:14

This is what I warned against (many Ramayanas) many moons ago. Only Valmiki Ramayana (Adi Kavya = first book in Sanskrit. Prior to Ramayana there were no books, novels, stories other than Veda Vangmaya) should be the standard for Ramayana. Every book else shows the author's perspective/understanding of Valmiki Ramayana, be it Ramcharit Manas or Molla Ramayanam or Adhyatmika Ramayanam or Ramayana Vishavriksham etc.,"


I posted reply to the above in Off topic thread.

unarayanadas
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 10 Oct 2010 19:55
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby unarayanadas » 20 Oct 2010 00:52

Sachin wrote:Sorry to play the spoil sport here. Is there any reference link which says that how many of these "petition online" petitions were actually submitted to the petitioning authority, and how many were actioned upon?


At the risk of repetition, let me quote some points from my previous answer to this question:

We believe filing online petitions is a democratic form of protest. Does every hunger-strike or 'rasta roko' achieve its objective? Yes it does to the extent that it is an expression of a demand or anger. It is at least better than doing nothing or silently suffering.

You might not believe the volume of pent up anger that is finding form in the online petition. Over one thousand two hundred people signed in just three days. And you will have to read the comments posted by the signatories to understand the simmering fury that is gushing out. Is it an expression of impotent fury? It might be but we never know until we try. This method of protest is as good as any in the absence of a stronger or more effective form of protest, within the limitations of civility and democracy.

Therefore I once again request members to sign the petition and canvass for others to sign:

Indian Citizens Petition to NDTV
Last edited by unarayanadas on 20 Oct 2010 01:44, edited 1 time in total.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 20 Oct 2010 01:11

:twisted:

Deccan Chronical posted my comments on Kushwant Sing's farticle.

Thank you chanakyaji for the summary. I couldn't quote you on DC.

unarayanadas
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 10 Oct 2010 19:55
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby unarayanadas » 20 Oct 2010 01:38

chetak wrote:
RamaY wrote:Kushwant Singh in Deccan Chronicle

RamaY ji,

When the end is near, like it is for this misbegotten pseudo and impotent freak, one tends not to piss off one's peers.

One doesn't want to be badly remembered so one continues to kiss ass. This particular pseudo likes the WKK taste.

Let him be, he's senile anyway and grandstanding as usual. Dog's barking at passing cars.


We will only be wasting time discussing about what Kushwant Singh wrote in a news paper that is more a combination of "yellow-pages" and "Page 3" than serious journalism.

Singh is well past his "use by date" and is surviving on his dubious past glory. In the past, he converted the staid Illustrated Weekly of India into a cross between Playboy and Penthouse, a move which hastened its end.

His columns in Deccan Chronicle (and perhaps other newspapers) are full of recycled waste, ribald jokes, voyeuristic stories and for a man at ninety reminiscences of how he masturbated as a teenager. To cite an example of his "voyeuristic" journalism or whatever his 'columns' pass for, following the arrest of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, he picked up a scatological study from a yellow rag published in Tamil Nadu and wrote that the pontiff was used to viewing blue movies in his Ashram.

He did not even whimper during the 1975-77 emergency, nor utter a word when Sikhs were butchered between October 31 and November 3, 1984 but later sensing pubic anger surrendered his "Padma" award. One need not take such a fool and buffoon at best or a rascal at worst, seriously.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby RamaY » 20 Oct 2010 01:53

Narayanadas garu,

Our target audience is not Kushwant Singhs; but their readers. Most of news paper readers are the so-called secular Indians; who believe every word these yellow-experts say in popular media.

Imagine we can post an informative comment everytime an eminent-historian writes a farticle, the readers will get to know two things at the same time-

1. The truth from reader comments
2. How servile these marxist historians are.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 20 Oct 2010 02:09

x-posted from GD

Next Major Objection was alleged "Circular Shrine"

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
Page 4219 4244(230-245/251) para 3929-3952



The Objection
That the sub-heading given to the discovery of a structure of burnt bricks as "The Circular Shrine" at page
70 is indicative of the mindset with which the A.S.I. team did the excavation work. The A.S.I. team should have just
said "The circular structure" because there is no evidence to make this structure a shrine.
Just by comparing it with
certain temple structures and not with circular walls and buildings of Muslim construction one can not come to the
conclusion that the circular structure was a Hindu shrine.No object of Hindu worship was found on this layer. The
story of "pranala" is also a sheer figment of imagination and a conjecture without any evidentiary basis. The
comparison at page 71 is irrelevant and also unrealistic.The layer on which this circular structure was discovered
did not throw up any material to justify the naming of this circular structure as a shrine. The surviving wall, even in
A.S.I.'s own drawing, makes only a quarter of circle and such shapes are fairly popular in walls of Muslim construction. And then there are Muslim built domed circular building also.

...........................
(It)would have an internal diameter of just 160 cms. or barely 5 ½ feet. Such a small "shrine" can hardly be worth writing home about.
...................
No elliptic (Hindu) shrine" is, however produced by A.S.I. for comparison: the few that are show are all circular.
.........................

one of the reasons for consisting this structure as a stupa is that it is too small to enter, which one would not have to do in the case of a Buddist stupa. These religious structures symbolizing the Buddha are meant to be walked around and not entered.
.........................
That there is yet another important feature of the so called Shrine that needs comment. It is about it's suggested water channel. Stylistically, its northward orientation has been marked to have some special significance.
The channel does not have a uniform width throughout. It does not have even a gradually decreasing width from south to north. It becomes suddenly very narrow at nearing its end. Thus it appears that it was not made for the purpose it has been suggested. It seems to have taken the existing form by the removal of mortar during excavation as was filled therein.
It did not function for draining water from south to north is evident by the fact that there is no evidence of
slope towards the direction in question.
It has been measured by the levelling instrument at three different points of the Channel. It was found that there is no slope on its surface.
Further, had the so-called channel been in use for draining water for a longtime, then there should have been
the remains of water residuals in the channel. Such evidence could be expected on the northern side of the circular wall corresponding along to the area of water discharge. But there is no such evidence either in the channel or on the surface of the wall in question.


HC observation


3931. 'Circular Shrine' more virtually its existence that it was found by ASI has been admitted by most of the Experts (Archaeologist) of Muslim parties though a reluctant attempt has been made for diverting the identity by suggesting that it may be a "Buddhist Shrine" or a tomb of erstwhile Islamic religious structure. PW-30 has categorically admitted it on page 15 and has said that his statement in para 14 of the affidavit was not after looking to the shrine at the spot but on the basis of its photo only.

3932. Circular shrine has been admitted by the experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4). PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran on page 150 and 129 as said:

"A slender drain is visible to me on the north side in the picture below figure 17 on page 70-A of the ASI report volume-1. It is correct to say that as per this figure 70, this drain is going northwards. It is also correct to say that the Buddhist stupas do not have such north- bound drains. .. . .
. . . . . It is true to say that there is an arrow mark on the left side in plate no.60 of the ASI report, volume-2. A narrow drain is seen in this plate.” (E.T.C.)

"I have not personally seen the circular shrine of which I have made mention in para 14 of my sworn statement; but I have given this statement after seeing the photograph.” (E.T.C.)

3933. PW 32-Dr. Supriya Verma on page 147-148 (page 14) said:
“...it is correct to say that plate no. 60 is insitu photograph of circular shrine. It is true that Budha stupa is always solid. The structure shows a Pranal but Experts who visited site and measured the angle of slope with the help of sprit Level had found that the slope which was necessary for the water to pass out was not there. It is correct that I was not present when this structure was exposed nor I have visited this spot there after but I can express my opinion on the basis of information given by expert as well as the information in the final report and site notebooks. Prof. D. Mandal, Prof. Ratnagar and Prof. Suraj Bhan have given this information.”(Page 147-148)

3934. PW 29 (Dr. Jaya Menon) on "circular shrine" said:
"Since circular shrine” was not found in my presence, I have not seen its stratigraphical association. In my view “circular shrine” was probably a Buddhist Stupa. There appears a hollow space within the excavated “circular shrine”. Stupa is not always solid. It is generally made of bricks or stone and mud brick bats. . . . . .It is a non-Islamic structure. . . . It is probably of Gupta or late Gupta period." (Page 202-203)
“In my opinion, the finding of ASI report regarding circular shrine as recorded at page 73 is not based on any result of carbon-dating. In my mind, the ASI report on the point is not clear at page 72 of the report. I do not agree with the ASI report that it was a circular shrine mentioned from pages 70 to 73 with figures 24 and 24-A. In my opinion, the alleged circular shrine structure dates back to around 6th century AD. . . . . . . It is correct to say that the alleged circular shrine shown in plates 59 and 60 belongs to Sixth century AD, although ASI's report says that it belongs to post-Gupta period." (Page 225-226)

3935. During excavation at the disputed site between trenches E-8 & F-8 a circular structure of burnt bricks facing
east was recovered, commonly termed as "circular shrine", detailed at page 70 to 72 of report, volume 1, and shown in
figure 17, 24, 24A, and plates 59, 60 & 62 (volume 2) of the report. The bricks used here are of two sizes: 28x21x5.5 cm and 22x18x5 cm. The bonding material was mud mortar. On its eastern side, there is a rectangular opening, 1.32 m in length and 32.5 cm in width, which was the entrance of the structure. A calcrete block, measuring 70x27x17 cm, has also been found here, fixed, obviously, as the door-sill.

3936. An extremely important feature of this structure is the provision of a gargoyle (Pranala) made in its northern wall. The ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 cm long, projecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is 'V' shaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall. In this connection it may be mentioned that in books of history, in Sanskrit Literature, reference of circular shrine and Pranala finds place. A famous book styled as "Aaprajit Prichchha" by Bhuwan Dev in its book in chapter 207 at serial no. 23 mentions about it.

3937. The elevation, as shown in the drawing (Fig. 17 of the ASI Report) suggests that this structure was built on a raised platform, viz. adhisthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was provided on the northern side. The structure may be dated to 9th-10th century A.D. (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from this level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 A.D. and 1030 A.D.)

3938. This was an independent miniature shrine. The architectural features suggest that, that it was a Shiva shrine.

3939. It is unthinkable that inspite of these clear features of Shiva shrine, the objectors are identifying the same as a
Muslim tomb.

3940. Secondly, it is too small a structure for a tomb, from inside it is only 4.4 ft. square. Neither could it accommodate a grave in its interior, nor a Qiblah-Mihrab on its western wall ; Qiblah was an integral and essential part of tomb-structure during the Sultanate period (1192-1526 A.D.) as is illustrated by numerous examples all over northern India.

3941. Thirdly, there is no trace of an arch required for constructing dome over the tomb. There are no hook-shafts to bear and no structural trace to suggest any lateral thrust of the mihrab. It may be noted that the sub-structure of the mihrab is built massively on the edges of the four corners, to counter the lateral thrust. One wonders, if it was a tomb without any arch or dome, and without even a grave?

3942. Thus, on the one hand the dimension of this structure are too small for a tomb and on the other the gargoyle
was never in tombs while it was an integral feature of the sanctum of Shiva temples to drain out water poured on the
Sivlinga.


3943. Shrine is a holy place where worship is performed. It is a structure where holiness is enshrined. Denial for the sake
of denial should not be allowed. "No evidence to make this structure a shrine" and "a sheer figment of imagination and a
conjecture without any evidentiary basis", such comments grossly lack technical acumen and clearly show the dearth of
logical thinking. These themselves are mere arguments lacking "evidentiary basis". By these and many like arguments show the 'ostrich attitude' of the plaintiff.

3944. A structure is identified by its shape and/or by the use it was put to or by the function it was supposed to perform. This circular structure was found with a well defined 'Pranala' (water chute to drain out ablution liquids).The pranala could well have been denoted as drain but the area from where it was issuing was only 40 x 60 m (including the squarish hollow chamber for fixing the object of worship and the small entrance of the east) which could not be used for bath room or for kitchen, a few alternatives where water is required to be drained out, thus, the only valid explanation was it being a 'pranala' of a shrine, small only a subsidiary one and not the main shrine holding central/main deity.

3945. Circular Shrine is found resting over wall 19A and others, this single fact, does not make the 'Circular Shrine'
Contemporary to the said walls, as the working level for the 'Circular Shrine' is much higher, and only foundations of
Circular Shrine rest over the existing walls, which have been incorporated as foundation of Circular Shrine, these walls
definitely are not made for providing foundation to the circular Shrine. Apparently, when the Circular Shrine was built the wall 19A and others were all buried under the ground and foundation of the circular shrine were just reached upto that level.

3946. Circular shrine is compared with other pre-existing and published circular shrines of proven dates found at different places, primarily to compare the style and not size. These circular shrines are not the exact replicas of one another. All the shrines reproduced in comparison are independent shrines while the structure 5 shrine is of subsidiary nature. Layers producing mixed material are dated on the basis of the latest material found in their milieu. Therefore, the period, of Circular Shrine (Str. 5) is stratigraphically placed in the correct period much earlier to early medieval period.

3947. The Circular Shrine which was stated to be "not a circle but an ellipse" (para 6.2 of the objection) has also been
alleged to be a "Stupa"; a circular Buddhist stupa in which on the east was a niche to support image of Buddha. Logic given in support is that "it is too small to enter".
There are several miniature shrines which are even smaller in dimension and under worship. In such miniature shrine, often called subsidiary shrines, devotee is not supposed to enter but offers his/her worship from out side.

3948. The famous writer of classical Sanskrit literature Varahmihir in his book "Brihat Samhita" has described 20 types
of temple in which besides kunjara and Guhraja types which are apsidal nature, circular temple such as samduga, padma, Vrish, Ghata and Vritta have been mentioned.
Padma is shaped like a lotus but other three types samduga, Vrish and Vritta are clearly Circular Shrines.

3949. A circular brick temple has been noticed recently at Sikhara Kohanda in Siddharthnagar district, about 6 m from
Domariyaganj, where eight brick structures- four circular and four square have been noticed and have been roughly dated to approximately eleventh century A.D. Another prominent circular brick temple has been excavated at Chirenath in
Sravasti whose sikhara is missing but on plan the temple upto its jangha portion is circular from exterior having a circumference of 14.70 m. with three niches in all the three cardinal directions and entrance in the west. The garbhagriha is roughly square, measuring 2.10 x 2.10 m. with a 1.70 m high Sivalinga of red sandstone in the middle (IAR 1997-98 p. 193-95 p. 136).

3950. "The temple's interior is square (side 6 ft. 8 in.) and the exterior is circular –stellate having 16 bhadra-facets and 16 karna-projections. Of the bhadras four are sham and four are real, each separated from the other by an acute-angled
projection produced by turning the square. The doorway which, originally was preceded by a praggriva, faces north, while the three bhadras face the remaining cardinal directions.

3951. The hypaethral and circular temples of yoginis are well known in north and Central India. They have been mentioned by Krishna Deva as at Dudhai in Jhansi district, Mitaoli in Morena district. Bheraghat in Jabalpur district,
Ranipur Jharial in Bolangir district and Surada near Kalahandi and Hirapur near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. They range from
16.72 m to 39.52 m in outer diameter, with 65 to 81 peripheral chapels and a principal shrine, normally in the centre of the courtyard. Inscribed yogini images from Central India suggest more such temples and one such shrine has been excavated and identified as Golakimatha in Jabalpur district (Krishna Deva 1999). The proliferation of circular temples with their identification with the types mentioned in classical treatises require further investigative studies of their origin and developmental process.

3952. In the overall view we find no reason to doubt the findings of ASI on this aspect also and the objections otherwise are accordingly rejected.


chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 20 Oct 2010 02:10

x-posted from GD

Next Objection from Experts from Plaintiffs side was regarding findings of terracota items and figurines and devine couple etc.
Here it would be suffice t state that Experts did not dispiute the findings, however they tried to link some of the items with islamic structure. Some objections as to the periodization and stratiography was also raised which have been dealth with in earlier posts.
So at this point it would be prudent to see what experts said under cross examination


J Sudhir Kumar
Vol 18
Page 4255-4258 (6-10/251) para 3955-3958

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

ASI report:-
The "terracotta figurines" are in Chapter VII page 174 which says:"During the excavation 62 human and 131 animal figurines were found. In the consonance with the prevailing practice in the Gangetic valley, these figurines are the products of both handmade as well as moulding techniques. These terracottas are assignable from the pre-Mauryan to the previous century. They are both religious as well as secular, the former being represented as cult objects viz. mother -goddess. As a majority of them is fragmentary, save for a few, they could not be dated precisely on the stylistic grounds. The effigies of the mother-goddess exhibit archaic features and conspicuous girdle, whereas the Sunga, Kushan and Gupta specimen are varied and show stylistic affinity to their stone counterparts. But this cannot be applied to 'Archaic' figurines for want of their stone parallels. From the post-Gupta period onwards they are made of coarse clay with considerable admixture of husk. They were often slipped/washed with admixture of mica as
the main gritty material to avoid cracking. The excavated clay figurines are described below mentioning their levels
from which they were recovered. The appearance of the terracotta figurines of earlier periods in late levels was mainly due to large scale constructional activities like raising of massive walls; floor level especially during and post-Kushan period."


This is what eminent experts say.

3956. With respect to figurines Statement of PW 29 (Jaya Menon) said:
"It is correct to say that the figurines of elephant, tortoise and crocodiles – all made of terracotta, were recovered during the excavation. . . . . . . .

I know that the crocodile is the seat/vehicle of Hindu holy river Ganga.

I agree that tortoise is the vehicle of holy river Yamuna.

With reference to the plate 129 of the ASI report, Vol. II, I can say that the snake is significantly attached with the name of “Lord Shiv”
(Page 42)

"In reference to page no. 112 of the above report, the witness stated that this terracotta figurine is just a human
head.” (Page 74)

"Terracotta figurines are figures of animals and human-beings made of fired clay. . . . . Terracotta figurines have been found possibly as far back as 5000 B.C. . . .

.It is correct to say that such terracotta figurines were also in vogue in the 11th and 12th centuries.

It is correct to say that such terracotta figurines also depicted Hindus Gods and Goddesses but not always.” (Page 165)

3957. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma for some of the such figurines said:

“It is true that ASI in the course of excavation found 62 human figurines and 131 animal figurines but I am not sure about the number and also its identification.” (Page 161)

“It is correct that in plate 105 of the ASI report Vol II, bust of a female with ornament decoration is shown.”(Page 173)

“...female bust shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report could be a lady, who may be either Buddhist or of any important lady of high stature.

There was no practice in Budhhism or Jainism of worshipping terracotta female figurine
shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report. However, there is depiction of 'Yakshi' in stone of early historical period. It has function of protector. It was sign of protection of humans. It is wrong to say that use of 'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is only limited to Hindu Dharmashashtra.

In fact, it is also associated with Buddhist religion. I am not aware that apart from Buddha religion, whether 'Yasksh' or 'Yakshi' was used or not.”(Page-174)

“It cannot say whether the word 'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is referred or mentioned in any religious book of Buddhism."(Page 174)

It is correct that this human figurine shown in plate 108 is holding a perforated disc.” (Page 176)( Sudharshan Chakra of Vishnu possibly)



(A) PW-29, Dr. Jaya Menon “The motif of Ghat (pot) is visible on this pillar. It is true that Ghat is also known to be as “Kalash”. Normally, this kind of ‘Ghat’ on the pillar is not found in mosque.” (Page 41)

“This Makar Pranal is non-Islamic feature…” (Page 194)

(B) PW 31, Dr. Ashok Dutta

“As I have mentioned that the Muslim people do not believe in the idol worship, hence there is no question of associating terracotta figurine with the Muslim culture. So far I know and my knowledge goes, the question of terracotta figurine to be associated with Muslim culture does not arise”. (Page 175)

"It is true that such animal figurines are not allowed to be kept in the mosque." (Page 176)

"Makar Pranal is one of the part of the Hindu temple architecture. I am not very sure whether Makar Pranal has
any association with mosque or not. I have not seen any mosque having any Makar Pranal in it." (Page 203)

“Generally the material which are used for filling of a floor are not sorted out in the filling material any artifacts of outside may be found if the material is taken from outside.” (Page 289)

(C) PW-32, Dr Supriya Verma

“I have heard the word ‘Kalash’. Kalash is not found in mosque…” (Page 35)

“Wall No. 16, according to me, was used as a wall prior to the construction of the disputed structure. In this way, Wall
16 was wall of some other construction which was existing prior to the constriction of the disputed structure.
” (Page
140)

“However, it is true that Wall No. 17 was constructed earlier to Wall No. 16.” (Page 143)
“I know crocodile. It is also very important for the temples. It is called ‘Makar Mukh’. I have not seen Makar Mukh in
any mosque…” (Page 143)



This is what HC observed
3958. The identification and appreciation of the excavated material like human or animal figurines etc. is a matter of
experts. None of these eight experts (Archaeologist of Muslim parties) claimed to be the experts in this kind of branch in
Archaeology.


Even otherwise their stand in respect to these finds is varying. One witness says that these finds were not at all recovered from the layers they are claimed while others says otherwise. We have seen photographs of many of such artifacts and find and in generality there is no such inherent lacuna or perversity in the observations of ASI or other identification which may warrant any otherwise comment from this Court or may vitiate there report. It is not in dispute that no Islamic religious artefacts have been found during excavation while the artifacts relating to Hindu religious nature ware in abundance

For some of the items, it is claimed that it can also be used by non-Hindu people but that would not be sufficient to doubt the opinion of ASI. Plate No.50 (Kapotpalli), Plates No.51 and 62 (floral motifs shown in walls 16 and 17), (Sravats) Plate No.88, Cobra hood (Nag Devta) Plate No.129 and various other Gods and Goddesses in human shape (Plate Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126) to our mind were quite clear and admits no doubt.

Three witnesses namely Sri Arun Kumar (OPW-18), Dr. R. Nagaswami (OPW 17) and Sri Rakesh Dutt Trivedi (OPW-19) were produced who supported the findings and report of ASI. They are retired officers, holding senior position in ASI. Their statements are sufficiently lengthy and extremely detailed.

Since they have supported ASI report, we have not mentioned their statements in detail for the reason that we intended to test the objections raised against ASI report in the light of what the witnesses of plaintiff (Suit 4) have deposed and only when we would have some doubt, we would refer to and compare the statement that of OPW 17 to 19. In totality we find no substance in the objection with respect to the figurines etc. and the same are accordingly rejected.


Next post about Bones found in the excavation.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 20 Oct 2010 02:11

x-posted from GD


J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page4261-4276(12-27/251) Para 3960-3970
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

The bones of Contention

3960. One of the objection, which has been raised very seriously is the non examination of bones. Though ASI has referred in the report, about the bones recovered during excavation but it does not appear that any examination thereof was made. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in absence of any scientific examination of the bones, entire report of ASI gets tainted. The objection under this heading is in para 11 (11.1 to 11.2) which are:

11. GROSS OMISSION: EVIDENCE OF ANIMAL BONES:-

11.1 One decisive piece of evidence, which entirely negates the possibility of a temple, is that of animal bones. Bone fragments with cut marks are a sure sign of animals being eaten at the site, and, therefore, rule out the possibility of a temple existing at the site at the relevant time. ...........But despite the statement in its "summary", there is no word about the animal bones in the main text of the Report. This astonishing omission is patently due to the A.S.I.'s prejudiced mindset with which the excavations were carried out and fear of the fatal implications held out by the animal bone evidence for its preconceived temple theory. ........ The A.S.I. perhaps knows that sacrificial animals' bones (if we are dealing here with a temple where animals were sacrificed, which, incidentally, has not been claimed for any Rama temple)cannot be represented by bone fragments with cut-marks strewn all over, but need to be found at particular spots,practically whole and entire, which is not here at all the case in even a single instance.

11.2. That the statements of Pages 45, 55, and 271 etc. of the report, suggesting that probably this site was not a
habitational site and had stratified coutural material only from the first seven periods or that it was only during and
after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto Periods IX (Late and Post Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear
and the area below the disputed structure remained a place for public use for a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) stand belied and negatived by the animal bone evidence and perhaps that is why the Animal bones were totally ignored.

11.3........... If, as according to A.S.I., post-Gupta levels onwards are not residential in nature but attest to levels with temples, and these levels are supposedly stratified, it is to be wondered at as to why animal bones were found even from the central part of the alleged temple.If, as the A.S.I. says, soil from earlier levels was used for construction, then it is surprising that for the construction of a temple, no sorting or sieving was done, as bones and other such materials are regarded as highly polluting.


3961. ASI has referred to the bones on page 270 and said as under:
"Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods, but skeletal remains noticed in the trenches in northern and southern areas belong to the period IX as the grave pits have been found cut into the deposition coeval with the late disputed structures and are sealed by the top deposit."


Witnesses from Plaintiff's in SUit 4 , expert Archaeologists , have been cross examined
3962. PW-16 Surajbhan on the question of bones stated:
I did not see the bones discovered from the excavation site, though few pieces of bones had been kept in the Pottery Yard.” (E.T.C.)

“Question- The bones mentioned by you, relate to which animals?
Answer- It is not the subject matter of my studies, but in the ASI report it has been mentioned that bones had been found at the excavation site.” (E.T,C.)

“Question- You have not studied the bones discovered from the excavation site?
Answer- Yes.” (E.T.C.)

“Question- According to me, most of the bones found at the excavation site were of wild animals or such animals,
which are not eaten by human beings such as dog, donkey, pig, frog, python etc. What you have to say in this behalf?

Answer- The excavators do not think so.The excavators have not given any particular report in this behalf so as to prove the question as put up by the learned counsel for the cross-examiner. The statement being given by me about the bones, is mentioned in ASI’s report. Animals were sacrificed in few temples even in past and today as well. Buffalo bull, he goat, cock etc. were sacrificed. I have not made any special study about the followers of Kabir and Raidasi temple. . . . . . . . . I have not made any special study in this behalf.” (E.T.C.)

3963. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) on the question of bones, stated:
I may not be an expert but it is possible to identify different species except in the case of sheep and goat by seeing the bone. My statement in paragraph-9 of the affidavit regarding bones found in Trench No. F/3, F/4, F/5 is on the basis of daily register which was prepared at the site by the ASI Team. . . . .in the swearing para this paragraph is shown as based on ‘my knowledge’. It is true that the daily register does not mention species of animals.
. . . . . .I am not an expert nor I have studied the bones found during the excavation at the disputed site. . . . . .
.Species of bone can be identified even if it is too old by visual examination. Palaeobotany is a subject dealing with
ancient plants and I am not an expert of that
. . . . . . .I do not agree with the suggestion that the bones recovered
during excavation at the site in question were kept or were brought by scavengers because such large quantity of
bones could not have been brought by scavengers. By large quantity I mean that during excavation every day bags
full of bones were recovered from the site in question. I do not remember the exact number of bones recovered
during excavation. Size of those bags were different."
(Page 37-38)

"The witness replied that she had not complained to any about the excavated soil being thrown away without any sorting nor I had complained about the bones of human skeleton being mostly thrown.” (Page 42)
"According to me one of the significant aspects neglected by ASI in the disputed site is the study of animal bones. Animal bones are part of the evidence and should have been studied in the case of present excavation. If there was a temple at disputed site then the area of the construction of the temple should have been cleaned of animal bones." (Page 67)

"Question:- If bone is found under constructed area of temple then whether that construction can be considered as
temple in that case also?
Answer:- I have no idea about this fact.” (Page 68) “In para 8A of my affidavit I have said that bones from a human skeleton too were mostly thrown away. These bones were recovered from trench ZHI. The human skeleton was mostly intact. Trench ZHI lies towards North to the makeshift structure. Bones can be dated. Chemical change in the bones is possible only if the bones have been buried for a long period of time." (Page 74)

“Bones of humans and animals and plant remains are also important for the study of the past." (Page 77)
“By stating in paragraph 8A that the collection of artefacts was not made in scientific manner, I mean that the bones of human skeleton recovered in a particular trench were not collected but were thrown away. I was although present at the time of excavation but I did not raise any objection to the throwing of the bones. The excavators did not collect the bones. During excavation at the site the excavator collected bones found in northern and southern trenches but the bones found in the trench ZH-1 were not collected, rather they were thrown away. So far as I know, no one made any objection to this conduct of the excavators in throwing away the bones found in trench ZH-1." (Page 229)

3964. PW 30 (Dr.R.C.Thakran) on the question of bones, said:

“I have the knowledge that discoveries of bones in so many excavations have continued to be recorded; for instance – Sarai Nahar Rai ( Uttar Pradesh), Damdama (Uttar Pradesh), Mahadaha (Uttat Pradesh), etc.. All the afore-said places are in Jaunpur, Pratapgarh and Allahabad.
“The bones which were being discovered when I was there in course of the excavation, had cut marks and they were of several types (thin, thick, hard, soft, etc.) seeing which it can be said as to which animals these bones belong to.” (E.T.C.)

“I do not know whether or not animal bones were discovered in the excavation of several temples. I have in excavation reports of the temples read about animal bones having been found. In regard to such temples, there was no dispute as to there being any Eidgah or mosque. In the excavation of those temples where animal bones were found, I did not try to know there were animal bones at the said places. It will not be proper to say that I have given wrong statement in favour of the plaintiffs.” (E.T.C.)

“The words 'which in bulk seems to be sheep and goat' written in the 11th line of para-5 on page-3 of my Affidavit, represent my opinion and also have archaeological basis. In this behalf, none had given me any advice or information. It is my own finding. (Himself stated) I have been dealing with this type of archaeological remains. I have not dealt with pig bones, because the primitive history for the first time saw the rearing only of two animals, sheep and goat, by men and these two animals have continued to be in use on a large scale for fulfilment of the latter's needs. It has been in evidence during excavations at several sites.” (E.T.C.)

3965. PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) on the question of bone, said:
“The bones which were referred to by me in para 11 of the affidavit were seen by me. Only by looking to the bones, I cannot identify as to which animal species the bone belongs because I am not a Zoo-Archaeologist. The above bones could be of any animal including dog.” (Page 43)

“Merely by looking at a skeleton, one cannot say that whether the skeleton was of Hindu or of Muslim person.”(Page 45) Bones have no relation with civilization. Bones are not associated with any particular community. Bones tell us about food habits of societies. Bones tell us about food habit of human society.”(Page 50)
“When archaeologists come across animal bones which can be of domestic as well as of wild animals the inference that is made relate to the food habit of that society or one can get an idea about the fauna that might have existed at that time around that site. When archaeologists excavate and find archaeological material which can include pottery and bones inference and interpretation are made by archaeologists on the basis of the context in which these finds are exposed.” (Page 50-51)
“While studying bones to ascertain the contest is important and the second step is to have the bones identified by Zoo-archaeologist.” (Page 51)

“Q. Whether bones are found in the mosque or kept in it?
A. I have seen some ruined Mosques and I have visited once in my life Jama-Masjid in Delhi and I can not know whether bones can be found in mosque or not.”(Page 53) ..........Since I have not examined the bone I am not in a position to say whether they have cut marks or not.” (Page 154) “It is not correct to say that bones recovered during excavation at disputed site were only form dumped material; rather they were found in all levels including fill deposits.” (Page 163) “It do not agree that bones found in excavation are not a decisive piece of evidence.” (Page 163) “I completely disagree with the suggestion that animal bones are not a decisive are not a decisive piece of evidence.” (Page 163)

3966. Sri M.M.Pandey arguing on this aspect submitted: "Study of bones is important only on prehistoric sites
where not much information is available regarding the food habit, faunal profile of the region or area and seasonality of settlement. But in this case where most of the bones have come from secondary deposits and belong to the period for which most of the information regarding species and food habit of populace is known through texts and other sources. Hence no study was felt necessary.Even if the cut marks prove that animal was eaten and it may also report the species of animal eaten, the knowledge would have proved of no use in this context as the bones do not belong to primary context and were brought from some other place where meat-eaters were settled.Meat eating also is not restricted to any religion or creed. Presence of animal bones in any quantity does not prove habitation on the site. As has been said that the context of the find is important and the case of bones is no different from any other find from these levels (Period IV to Period IX). There has been regular raising of ground by laying of earth removed from some other place (which could have been a habitation area). No other habitational material has been found in situ in excavation, e.g., no houses, no hearths, no baths, no latrine, not even definite house-hold pottery the so-called table ware, to make it a regular habitation site............




HC Observation

3967. In any archaeological excavation, finds of animal bones are as important as other antiquities as bones tell about
nature of fauna, environment and possibly food habits of a section of the society at that given period of time from where the bones have been recovered. But this all can be achieved provided the bones have been recovered from the regular layers. In this case as they have been recovered from a pit, dump or filling, they lose significance and importance.

3968. In the excavation at the disputed site, the entire collection of animal bones was recovered from the fills of different periods. Evidently, these fills were brought from the neighbouring areas to level the ground from time to time. It is but natural that fills which were brought from habitational deposits contained animal bones, hence their examination will
throw light only about the area of their origin. They have no bearing on the nature of the layers of the excavated site.

3969. Moreover, it is a well known fact that in certain Hindu temples animal sacrifices are made and flesh is eaten as
Prasad while bones are deposited below the floor at the site itself
. Even Dr. Supriya Verma, the learned witness (P.W. 32) in her submission, stated on Page 50 “Bones have no relation with civilization. Bones are not associated with any particular community. Bones tell us about the food habits of the society…”. Another witness Dr Jaya Menon (P.W. 29) admitted that “It is true that in certain kind of temples animals are sacrificed” (Page 37). She clearly admitted that bones can be found at temple sites also. “Mandiron ki khudai ki reports mein animal bones paaye jaane ke baare mein padhaa hai. Aisey Mandiron ke sambandh mein kisi Idgah ya Masjid ka koi vivaad nahin tha” – R.C. Thakran (P.W. 30) Page 191

3970. One thing more we intend to notice in respect to the bones. It is not the case of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) or other witnesses that bones in such abundance could have been found in Islamic religious place i.e. Mosque, Idgah etc. The Islamic scriptures clearly show place of worship cannot be used for residence purpose or for eating, sleeping etc. It is prohibited. If that be so, the existence of bones could have been of some importance had there found some other material to suggest that it could have been a residential place if there would have been a dispute about the nature of habitation. One thing from all the evidence is clear that whatsoever the justification or submission has come, the attempt is on the part of Experts witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4) to show that under the disputed structure, there could be an Islamic religious place i.e. Mosque, Idgah. It show that they are also aware that the underneath structure was not a non religious one. In this way of the matter also we find no substance against the complaint of the inference drawn by ASI and not paying much attention to the alleged bones which according to them were found from deposits and pits hence they are of no consequence, particularly in view of the other material suffice for them to draw a correct inference


Here one thing is clear that Bones were not studied either by Dating it or by properly identifying it.The experts as usual have failed to prove that bones are not found in temples exclusively. There was no contest as to the place being a residential one so that bones could be found in large quantity along with other residential finds such a latrines, hearth, or place for eating and sleeping. Now the explanation could well be that these are mostly from secondary context and form part of fills. Some of the human skeletons found just below the floor in grave pits are of humans largely intact and could not be identified as Muslim or Hindus. Given the struggle there it could well have been possible to have dead vanquished buried there. Now could we conclude that bones are found so there could well be a mosque. Certainly not as mosques are prohibited place for such activities.

So essentially finds of Bones do not throw any light as to the nature of structure below the DS., Structures which have been indisputably found. It was also not the case of the plaintiffs nor of those who are media warriors that there was a Idgah or Open mosque. Most of them have accepted that the structure below the DS is a religious in character.

The HC has drawn not more than the inference that could be drawn. Bones do not prove existence of Mosque nor exclude temples .

Members may throw some more idea.

One thing I would like to say that HC is going by the materials and depositions placed before it by the parties concerned. If media warriors had such strong convictions and knowledge about the affairs, where experts have failed to qualify as experts in terms of Evidence Act, they should have been strong enough to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs to prove their points. Judges are not at liberty to defend their judgement in Public or even in Judicial fora. It is for the parties concerned and their witnesses to prove what is right or wrong and they would get plenty of opportunity to do so.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 20 Oct 2010 02:12

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18

Page 4276-4288 (27-39/251) para 3971-3977
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf


The Story of Glazed wares and tiles and Glazed Experts.



3971. Then come next serious objection about the "Glazed Wares and Glazed Tiles", the level at which they were found, and their interpretation. Para 10 (10.1 to 10.5) of the objections says:

10. GLAZED WARES AND GLAZED TILES:-
10.1. That the glazed ware, often called "Muslim" glazed ware, constitutes an equally definite piece of evidence, which militates against the presence or construction of a temple, since such galzed ware was not at all used in temples. The ware is all pervasive till much below the level of "Floor No. 4", which floor is falsely ascribed in the Report to the "huge" structure of a temple allegedly built in the 11th - 12th centuries. The Report tells us that the glazed ware sherds only "make their appearance" "in the last phase of the period VII" (p. 270). Here we directly encounter the play with the names of periods. On page 270, Period VII is called "Medieval Sultanate", dated to 12th - 16th century A.D. But on p. 40 " Medieval-Sultanate" is the name used for Period VI, dated to 10th and 11th centuries. In Chapter V (Pottery), there is no statement made to the effect that the glazed ware appears in "the last phase of Period VII" as is asserted in the Summary. Rather, it is three definitely stated " the pottery of Medieval-Sultanate, Mughal and Late-and-Post Mughal period (Periods VII to IX)...indicates that there is not much difference in pottery wares and shapes" and that "the distinctive pottery of the periods is glazed ware: (p. 108). The placing of the appearance of Glazed ware in the "last phase" of Period VII is thus a last-minute invention in the Report, to keep its "massive" temple, allegedly built in Period VII, clear of Glazed-Ware by a sleight of hand, because otherwise it would militate against a temple being built in that period. All this gross manipulation has been because the items of galzed pottery have not been attributed to their trench and stratum even in the select list of 21 items of glazed ware (out of hundreds of items actually obtained) on pages 109-111. Seeing the importance of glazed ware as a factor for elementary dating (pre or post-Muslim habitation at the site), and in view also of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 10.4.2003 about the need for recording of glazed ware, a tabulation of all recorded galzed-ware sherds according to trench and stratum was essential. That this has been entirely disregarded shows that, owing to the glazed-ware evidence being totally incompatible with any alleged temple construction activity in Period VI, the A.S.I. has resorted to the most unprofessional act of ignoring and manipulating the archaeological finds.

10.2. .... The whole point is that glazed ware is an indicator of Muslim habitation, and is not found in medieval Hindu temples.

10.3. That the question whether particular sorts of glazed ware made by Muslim potters, could have been used in any
medieval Hindu temple was dealt with by S.K. Mirmira, in Indian Pottery (Chanda: Gramodyaya Sangh, 1973) who states (pp. 5-7):-
"India was invaded and ruled by the Moslem dynasties since 1000 AD for a few centuries and along with them they had brought certain arts and crafts. Decorative pottery was one of them. In the 12th century AD Muslim rulers had encouraged many potters from their homelands to come and settle in India. These potters especially from Persia, knew
how to superimpose bluish green glaze on red clay wares.....As a result of this, the potters near Delhi have become famous for their bluish decorations.....An enthusiastic Maharaja of Rajasthan near Jodhpur brought some potters from
Arab countries...... It is presumed that the reason for not adopting the glazing technique of Muslim craftsmen is
religious; the orthodox Hindu potters did not relish the idea of learning the new technique from those who eat beef. In Khurja near Delhi there are still a few Muslim potters, descendants of the Persian settlers, who still use this technique of glazing."


Concerning porcelain wares the author writes, "Indians because of religious prejudices did not like these, as they thought that bones were used in the clay for whitening the wares. Even in this day, in rural parts people call whitewares as 'farangi' …..Therefore, nobody even tried to adopt these techniques."

10.4. The story of Glazed Tiles is very similar. These too are in index of Muslim habitation. Yet 2 Glazed Tiles are found in layers of Period VI which means that the layers are wrongly assigned and must be dated to Period VII (Sultanate period). There could be no remains of any "huge temple" in these layers then.

10.5. That On p. 163, it is mentioned that glazed tiles "mainly come from debris and dump of the disputed structure. However, some of the glazed tile pieces have also been recovered from the depth which is lower than the disputed structure but from the levels of Period VIII and IX only." These are completely false statements and show the level of inaccuracy in the Report. First of all, the glazed tiles do not come from the debris and dump of the disputed structure. The debris and dump was removed from Trenches E2, F2, G2, G5, F6, E6, D6, F3 and F4/F5 out of the excavated trenches. Glazed tiles that have been found from these trenches come from levels below the Babri Masjid floor and not from the debris of dump lying above it. Some of the debris that had rolled down the western slope, was recovered from the B and C series of trenches. Glazed tiles from this debris add up to a total of 14. Second, of the 155 pieces of glazed tiles in the tables provided by the A.S.I., 96 come form pits or fill in various trenches. Of the remaining 45, 29 come from period VIII but 14 are from Medieval levels (Periods VII) and 2 from the Early Medieval level (Period VI). This has been
gleaned from the table provided by the A.S.I. on pp. 164-72. Thus, the A.S.I.'s own information falsifies their claim
that the glazed title pieces mainly come from Period VIII and IX.




Experts under cross examination fro Plaintiff's side again fail to prove their credentials. The problem is that they really want to help plaintiff's case but instead end up doing harm to their cause. by exposing their lack of knowledge in the field when confronted with specific questions.

3972. PW 16 (Surajbhan) on the question of Glazed Ware said:

“ The Muslim glazed ware for the first time emerged in those areas where they established their reign such as Sindh and Multan regions. But in modern India the art of casting pots spread in the Sultanate period. This Sultanate period is taken to be spanning between 1206AD and 1526 AD.” (E.T.C.) a


“This Muslim glazed ware had new type of designs, which included floral designs, geometric designs, sun-like designs and designs of Arabic script etc.. This type of glazed ware often did not have designs of animals and birds.” (E.T.C.)

“It is wrong to say that the use of glazed ware started in India from the Harappan period. Few glazed ware have been found in buildings of Kushana period, but I do not remember whether they were green and blue in colour. Green and blue glazed ware can be in limited quantity in pre-Muslim period. However, the type and style of the glazed ware of Sultanate and Mughal period are different. The style is main part of type, but the shape, make, earth etc. are also considered in it. The type of earth used in the glazed ware of medieval period and the different colours & glaze used on it, certainly distinguishes the glazed ware of both these periods and there is no confusion in it.” (E.T.C.)

“I feel that the glazed ware probably originated from China. The scholars claim that the production of glazed ware started in China prior to 1500 AD.” (E.T.C.)

“It implies that the glazed ware technique was in place prior to origin of Islam faith. . .Actually it has been called Muslim glazed ware only in view of the fact that in the medieval period this technique was widely prevalent in the Islamic countries and it expanded from there towards countries like India.” (E.T.C.)

“ The important fact is that the glazed ware widely entered northern India along with the advent of Muslim rulers or from the Sultanate period. The glazed ware here determines a particular period.” (E.T.C.)

I have heard about Chinese traveller Hiun-Tsiang. I have no knowledge whether in his memoirs, Hiun-Tsiang has mentioned about use of tiles in the roofs of buildings & temples in north India, or not. I have not read about any glazed ware of the Kushana period, which has been found in Hindu temples.”(E.T.C.)

3973. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) on this aspect said:
“I do not agree with ASI report that glazed tiles were used for the first time from Kushan period in India. I do not agree with the opinion f the ASI recited in para 2 at page 163 which reads as follows:
“Although, use of glazed tiles in India can be traced back to the early centuries of Christian era when the Kushans introduced them, the tiles, under study at present, most probably belong to the original construction of the disputed structure.” (Page 225)

3974. PW 30 (Dr. R.C.Thakran) on this aspect said:

“Para 6 of my Affidavit speaks of the Muslim glazed ware. It is so termed because this glazed ware came to India only along with Muslims. It is not true to say that the art of making pottery originated only from India, that is to say, it is an art only of India. The art of making utensils which began in India, is not oldest. Before it the art of making
utensils had begun in other countries. I do not have any knowledge enabling me to say that the art of making utensils had begun in India before Arabian countries."
(E.T.C.)

Glazed tiles

“I have referred to glazed tiles in the second line of para-8 to my Affidavit. These are tiles of a particular type and are made with a particular technique. The prevalence of this technique in India began with the advent of the Muslims. Tiles were not 'Khapda' (earthen tiles); rather, they are made of baked earth and are glazed with a particular technique. If the tiles are only baked but not glazed they will only be called terracotta tiles." (E.T.C.)

3975. PW- 32 ( Dr. Supriya Verma) said: “I agree that the glazed wares have been found in Kushan period but the glazed ware of Kushan period are different from the glazed ware associated with later period. It differs both in terms of chemical and physical composition and appearance.” (Page 164)

I cannot say as to whether glazed tiles are used in Hindu building in Gwalior Fort. I am also not aware that in Gwalior Fort, Hindu deities are depicted in such glazed titles. I am not aware whether pre-Islamic Persina people were using glazed tiles and glazed wares or not.” (Page 164)

Q. There is no contemporary sources to throw light on the production technique of glazed tiles and glazed wares?

A. I am not expert of Arabic and Persian and therefore, I have not examined the sources and therefore, I am not in a position to say as to whether any description of production technique is there or not.” (Page 164)

Defendant's Lawyer
3976. Sri Pandey on the contrary in his written argument submitted:

The objection of the plaintiffs that the glazed pottery often called "Muslim" glazed ware militates against the presence or construction of a temple. A tabulation of recorded glazed ware sherds according to trench and stratum was essential.... which has been entirely disregarded. How could Muslims have been using glazed ware inside a temple.
The tradition of glazing of pottery dates back to Harappan culture (2500 – 1500 B.C.) and since then it was known. During Kushan period it was a very popular ware. Gradually the tradition of glazing was lost from India but soon its imports were coming from Persia and Iran and China, where this ware has found favour. This ware is known as Indo-Sassanian Glazed ware, as it was in vogue during the Sassanian rule and later the muslims adopted it (K. K. Mohamad; "Glaze Ware in India" published in Puratattva No. 15 p. 105-110).

Pottery of any kind is neither Hindu nor Buddhist nor even muslim except some ritual pots which are used in rituals of particular religion. To demarcate pottery ware on religious lines speaks volumes about the oriented mindset only.

Secondly, a ware has no religion and it transgresses the religious boundary.The objection of the plaintiffs that Glazed tile are also similarly a index of Muslim habitation. 29 tiles come from Period VIII and 14 from Period VII. .............
In this connection it may be submitted that at Shah-ji-Dheri, the Buddhist structure used even glazed tiles. Huein T'sang ad seen may places in north India where coloured tiles were used in the roof.It appears that the Objector has not cared to read the table from pages 164 to 172 in the context of Chapter III "Stratigraphy and Chronology" specially from pages 45 to 47, wherein the disturbances in stratigraphy has been elaborately dealt with. Not a single tile is from confirmed primary context.



HC Observation
3977. For our purposes we do not find that this aspect can have any material impact on the question which was required to be reported by ASI and it has returned the same in the form of its report. One thing is very clear that the disputed structure was not raised on a vacant or unoccupied or a virgin land but the land in question was in frequent use for several centuries continuously having structures relating to different periods. As we have already discussed, attempt on the part of the Expert (Archaeologist) witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4) who described the underneath structure as a Idgah or Kanati mosque makes it very clear that the structure underneath is non religious one but it was a place connected with religious purposes. This is suffice to draw inference that there was a structure over land in question where disputed structure was constructed and that structure related to religious purposes and not non-religious purposes. Then only thing which was to be seen, whether it could be a temple or not. By the process of elimination since it was never a case of Muslim parties that there existed any Islamic religious structure at the place in dispute before construction of the disputed structure or that there existed a religious structure other than Hundus, leads to an inference as suggested by ASI and mere titbits and minor infirmities in it, even it exist, in our view, are of no consequence, if any.


Well I do not see how HC could have drawn any other inference. It has come to a bare minimum conclusion when confronted with evidence of Glazed wares and tiles. To term pottery on the basis of religion is certainly indicative of preconceived mind set. When confronted with some examples of Hindu temples and Buddhist stupa using Glazed tiles these experts are at a loss. They also admit of not knowing persian or arabic to understand contemporary sources for glazed wares and tiles. They evidently did not read about Huen Tsang who had reported glazed tiles being used.These experts discount the finding of Kushan period pottery shards while place emphasis of pottery shards from post gupta period mostly not recovered from primary context. Clearly these together with bones could indicate that there used to be a buildings and that experts are aware of its religious context. DS has been raised on it. Now if it is a temple or Idgah ( not claimed by plaintiffs) has to be ascertained by other more certain findings which have been already discussed in earlier posts.

A pillar of kasuti stones with distinct hindu religious motifs are not sufficient for these experts, other clear features are not enough but certainly the so called Muslim Glazed ware becomes evidence. Well it is the case of Defendants that A Mosque was constructed by demolishing temple and while constructing mosque they could have used glazed tiles as well since mostly they come from secondary deposits.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 20 Oct 2010 02:12

The posts above cover major objections to ASI report by Plaintiffs in Suit 4 Why was it important. It may be recalled that Plaintiffs have all along claimed that DS was not raised after razing temple to ground. In fact it has been constructed on a Parti ( empty land) The ASI excavation was ordered by HC on the basis of opinion of Expert appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs in SUit 4 i.e. Sunni Waqf Board.Once ASI found that some structure was exisiting underneath the DS they scrambled to explain it away in many ways. Unfortunately plaintiffs did not amend their pleadings to declare the underneath structure as Idgah or Mosque, for they knew there would be no contemporary record to prove its existence nor Government records mentioned it. In fact nowhere one inds mention of Idgah or Mosque existing which was demolished to construct another mosque.That could have been blasphemous.

The experts wallowing in their lack of expertise in the fields in which they were required to give evidence, were found wanting when confronted with concrete evidence . But here also they failed to maintain consistency When confronted with evidence of Indic Nature they tried to say it could be Buddhist Structure and when confronted with walls with Niche an lime surkhi plaster, mortars they tried to say it is Idgah or earlier mosque.

A Glazed ware become Muslim Pottery while not knowing that in many temples tiles and glazed wares have been used. Prejudices of medieval period is magically transported to all periods.

The experts equally exhibited their lack of knowledge in pleadings and formed opinions about ASI reports even before it was read by them

Vol 18 (46-48/251)
3982. PW-16 (Surajbhan) formed his opinion in advance before the receipt of the ASI report and sought to explain that underneath the disputed building there appears to be an Islamic structure existing like Idgah and Kanati mosque. His statement on page 446, 521 and 527 is as under:

“It is true that my conclusions and views on certain issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the submission of ASI’s report in court.” (E.T.C.)

“Consequent to submission of ASI’s report in the matter and the claim that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, I and Prof. Irfan Habib had given this statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above statement.” (E.T.C.) “In my view the buildings related to wall nos. 16 & 17, the two structure beneath the disputed structure, were of the Sultanate period and must have been some Islamic structures such as Eidgah or Kanati mosque etc.. . . . . . . . .
Both these walls do not appear to be of some Hindu building and instead must have been of some Muslim building of the Sultanate period.” (E.T.C.)



3983. Similarly, PW-29 (Jaya Menon) on page 157 said:
“It was Dr. Supriya Varma and myself, who, for the first time, said that there was an Idgah under the disputed structure. I did not know that the plaintiffs of OOS no. 4 of 1989 had not claimed any Idgah under the disputed structure." (Page 157)


3984. PW-30 (Dr. R.C.Thakaran) on page 169 said:

“In 2003, in course of excavation at the disputed site, I came to know that there was a mosque/Eidgah beneath the disputed site. Seeing the wall in course of the excavation and going through the ASI report, it seemed to me that the materials reused in the construction of the Babri masjid or its prior mosque/Eidgah, had been brought from somewhere nearby and then used.” (E.T.C.)



3985. It is true that all these experts were representing, in fact, a particular party, they were all, in one or the other manner connected with each other. The statement of PW-32 (Dr. Supriya Varma) is:
“I have done my Ph. D. under Prof. Shereen Ratnagar.” (Page 72)
“All these chapters on archaeology were written by me and Dr. Jaya Menon.” (Page 73)
“Both Dr. Jaya Menon and myself are archaeologist by specialization. Dr. Jaya Menon and I are equally competent.” (Page 74)
(Note: Shereen Ratnagar is PW-27)
3986. Normally, it does not happen but we are surprised to see in the zeal of helping their clients or the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead than what was not even the case of the party concerned and wrote totally a new story. Evidence in support of a fact which has never been pleaded and was not the case of the party concerned is impermissible in law. Suffice it to mention at this stage that even this stand of these experts make it clear that the disputed structure stood over a piece of land which had a structure earlier and that was of religious nature. Minor mistakes and irregularities in ASI report, if any, do not shake the basic finding that the disputed structure claimed was not raised on a virgin land or unoccupied land but there existed a structure using some part thereof either in the form of foundation or using the material thereof, the disputed structure was created. Whether lime molter or lime plaster from a particular period or not, whether glazed ware were Islamic or available in Hindustan earlier are all subsidiary questions when this much at least came to be admitted by the experts of the objectionists parties i.e. the plaintiffs (Suit-4) that there existed a structure, walls etc. used as foundation walls in construction of the building in dispute and underneath at least four floors at different levels were found with lots of several other structures.


With this basic conclusion drawn by the Court these experts have blown the case for plaintiffs away.

These experts should have decided firsty what is the case. Whether a mosque or Idgah was demolished to build Mosque or whether a Buddhist Stupa was demolished to build it or whether a temple was demolished. In totality of evidence and precedence found elsewhere layman would tend to believe it was temple that stood there before construction of Mosque.

Having found the structure underneath which is of primarily temple like structure one could , at least conclude that DS was build over it, if not by demolishing it.

Vol 18 ( 58/251)

Sufficient indication has been given by ASI that the building in dispute did not have its own foundation but it was raised on the existing walls. If a building would not have been existing before construction of the subsequent building, the builder might not have been able to use foundation of the erstwhile building without knowing its strength and capacity of bearing the load of new structure. The floor of the disputed building was just over the floor of earlier building. The existence of several pillar bases all show another earlier existence of a sufficiently bigger structure, if not bigger than the disputed structure then not lessor than that also.


vol 18 (83-84/251)
3994. Another attempt was made by the learned experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4) by suggesting that historically they do not find any evidence that the muslim Rulers were indulged in destroying temples of idolaters and therefore a presumption that an existing temple was demolished for construction of the disputed structure should not be formed. Though it would not have been necessary for us to tell positively that there existed a massive temple structure which was demolished by someone and thereafter the disputed structure was raised for the reason that for our purposes it was sufficient that the disputed structure has been raised on an erstwhile building of a religious nature which was non-Islamic but the kind of statement, which has been given by so many experts appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) to justify their stand that temples in past were never demolished by the then muslim Rulers or invaders from Persia etc. is so blatant lie that we are reluctant to ignore it without referring to some well known historical record on these aspects particularly some of which have been written by the Muslim writers themselves.


Here Judges proceed to give a long history of what happened when invaders and subsequently rulers ruled this country. Please read it in full. They also point out what is substantiated and what could be a matter of debate etc.

3995. Sri Jilani referred to the statement of the Expert witnesses where they have said that the Mughal Emperors before Aurangzeb were not against the idolaters or idol worship and there do not exist any historical record to suggest that they demolished any Hindu temple and constructed mosque or other Islamic religious structure. Even for the Muslim Rulers or invaders before Mughal's as also Aurangzeb and subsequent once it is suggested that the act of a few such demolition of temple attributed to Mahmood Gazani or Khilji's or Auraugzeb etc., was not on account of any hatred on their part against idol worshippers or for spread of religion of Islam but more on account of economic reasons since these places i.e. Hindu temples etc. had lot of wealth and for looting the said wealth those attacks were made. He also referred to certain documents constituting historical record etc. to show that neither Babar entered into such activities nor others.


vol18 (138/251)

4035. Though expert witnesses produced on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4), have sought to claim that history does not say demolition of religious structure by Rulers of one religion and nothing is there to show discrimination between the followers of different religions, we find that the said averments are mere in the nature of a deliberate attempt to misguide the people and the Court about historical information which already is present in black and which in various historical literature. Even some of the corresponding writers have admitted and mentioned these things. The first source, we find more reliable than other is, the translation of the work of a number of Muslim writers given in the book “History of India As told by its own Historians” by H.M. Elliot and John Dowson published in eight volumes.



Vol 18 (157/251)
4046. The Muslims and non Muslims peoples were also treated differently.


Vol 18 (157-160/251)

4047. The historical events as they took place are fait accompli. In our view today whether we appreciate or condemn, like or dislike, the practice, policy, individual acts or omissions on the part of a Ruler, who invaded India or his successor who ruled India in the past, we cannot forget that whatever they have done is a matter of history and will always remain so. After this length of period, we are not able to understand as to how this Court is competent either to comment upon the genuity or ingenuity, justification or injustification, correctness or incorrectness, cruelty or liberality etc. on their part. One side while condemning the acts of any of such invader and/or Ruler may find obstruction as a track of rocks difficult to break. Similar attempt on the part of other side either to justify such acts or to otherwise glorify the same would be of no help. If something is wrong ex facie it was always so but the concept of wrongness is a relative one. Something which may be wrong at one point of time for some individual may not be so at another point of time or for other set of individuals. It depends on a variety of factors, which we find difficult to place in a strait jacket formula or to codify. It is a historical fact that before independence of India in 1947, most of the geographical area of this Country had to face a large number of invasions either from a north west side or from Europe from different directions. Mainly these warring incursions were with the motive of syphoning off the huge wealth this Country had. Some times those invaders decided to make it a source of regular earning and left their Governors/ Representatives/ Commanders in their conquered territory to rule. The religious background those invaders had, came along with them but all the individuals did not come from their native place. The situation was exploited by creating such circumstances so that the native people of the conquered territories of this Country would have no option but to convert their religion so as to avail favour of Rulers. These are some of the historical illustrations which this Country had experienced in last more than a millennium. In our view, this by itself would not be a relevant factor to decide or adjudicate an issue in the present day territory governed by a written and codified law including a written Constitution. All the persons irrespective of their religion, faith, customs, etc. who were residing in the territory of India set out in our Constitution at the
time of its promulgation became citizens of this Country besides those who have born or otherwise have acquired citizenship as per the procedure laid down in the Constitution and the statute concerned. They are governed by the statutes as are in force in this Country. A Court of law is also bound to decide a matter in accordance thereof. Neither the Rulers several hundred years back were governed by these statues we are confronted or governed nor they can be under the authority of judicial review of a Court of a judicial system which came into existence later on and is governed by a different system in-vogue subsequently.

4048. For our purpose it is not at all necessary to go into this larger question and the manner in which it has been raised
since certain facts are the matters of history and all those who have some idea of history are well aware. Whether an act of past should be seen in a different context colour or texture may be a subject matter of debate and discussion amongst the intellectual of this country whose approach is also tainted with their own mind set and this is really unfortunate part that we are still looking for only unbiased independent and objective historians who may give us a correct and clear picture of historical evidence but whatever we had to do suffice it to conclude that the incidence of temple demolition are not only confined to past but is going in continuously. The religion which is supposed to connect all individuals with the brotherly feeling has become a tool of hearted and enmity. For the purpose of the present case we can stop on this aspect by simply observing that the justification sought to be canvassed by some of the expert witnesses of Muslim parties that in the history the people who attacked the Indian continent from its northern borders of Panjab etc. in the last more that thousand years and odd have acted according to their understanding and policies as the case may be but they are totally irrelevant in the present day time where this county is governed by a written constitution which clearly declare no discrimination merely on the ground of religion.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 20 Oct 2010 02:21

Emienent historians never got whats coming to them before the court made its views about their attempts to distort history.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, devaraya and 43 guests