The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

[chaanakya]

Who is this Rajendra Singh character and why is he named as a defendant in the suit where Bhagwan Ram is the plaintiff?

Sri Rajendra Singh, adult, son of Late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, at present residing at Gonda, care of the State
Bank of India, Gonda Branch Gonda.

Sunni Central Waqf Board is 4th respondent and Nirmohi Akhara is 3rd respondent from among 27 others

for a perpetual injunction against the
defendants prohibiting them from interfering with, or raising any
objection to, or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new
temple building at Sri Ram Janma Bhumi after demolishing and
removing the existing buildings and structures etc. situate there at, in
so far as it may be necessary or expedient to do so for the said
purpose.

The place where Bhagwan Ram is virajman belongs to him in his capacity as legal person and that as He can not file a suit therefore limitations Act would not apply and therefore suit is maintainable. The defendants are restrained from interfering in any way in the construction....

That is why 1/3 is given to Bhagwan Ram in the place where Idol of the deity is placed ( under Babri Masjid dome)
See the picture ( one of the exhibit in the case). This has the marking of 1/3rd shares of each party if you go through the demarcation and correlate to image.

Total disputed area is only 1500 sq yards.

Other measurements include the land purchased by other entities surrounding the structure which is actually disputed. UP Govt acquired 27 Acres and Later I think Central Govt acquired 64 Acres. Approx.

[BijuShet]

When they say it will be divided which organization gets the right to claim and build upon the "Hindu" or "Muslim" side of the area?

Also what is this Nirmohi Akhara business?

For the Benefit of all
From Wiki Page: Nirmohi Akhara

Nirmohi Akhara is a Hindu religious denomination following its own religious faith and customs. It is one of the 14 akharas recognized by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad and belonging to the Vaishnava sampradaya. It is headed by Mahant Bhaskar Das.

The group has been in light in connection with the Ayodhya debate since 1959 when it filed a suit to take over the disputed site of Babri Mosque.

Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit in January 1885 with the sub-judge of Faizabad, seeking consent to construct a temple for the Indian God Rama in the area called the Ram Chabutra, adjacent to the Babri Mosque. The sub-judge held then that two large religious structures in close proximity could potentially be a threat to public order. Permission was denied by the court, though the Nirmohi Akhara has since kept up its effort to reclaim the land and construct the temple.

In 1989, the Nirmohi Akhara filed a lawsuit against the Uttar Pradesh State government claiming that they had been worshipping the deities installed at a temple at the then disputed site since time immemorial. Accordingly, they requested the Court to handover management of the temple to the Nirmohi Akhara.

On September 30, 2010, a Lucknow panel of three judges of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the verdict on the case deciding to give a third part of the land to each party namely the Sunni Waqf Board and the Hindu Mahasabha, with Nirmohi Akhara getting the areas named Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, within the disputed site.

Further from AsianAge (ref provided in the wiki link )
Who is Nirmohi Akhara

Sep 30th, 2010 | Bureau
The Nirmohi Akhara, is one of the original plaintiffs in the Ayodhya title suits. It is the only party backing petitioner Ramesh Chandra Tripathi

On December 17, 1959 the Nirmohi Akhara and its Mahant filed a suit seeking removal of the receiver and the property delivered to the plaintiff.

Besides the Akhara, the other original title suit plaintiffs are Gopal Singh Visharad, Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Ramlalla Virajman. Except the Akhara, no one is in favour of delaying the verdict.

Mahant Bhaskar Das of Nirmohi Akhara said that they had always favoured a negotiated settlement and talks can be held even after the high court judgement.

[Patni]

Vina you are way off for once.

Ram was not born under the central dome, The central dome was constructed where Ram was born, unless you are using a calendar or chronology which we are not aware off

True.. Got my chronology mixed up. But all the same, the unreasonableness of the "Mandir Wahin Banayenge" was breathtaking. How did anyone know that the spot below the central dome was exactly the one under which Ram was born ? Was there a rough drawing or even a record of how the earlier temple was before making that "Mandir Wahin Banayenge" rhetoric.

Has anyone read the judgment fully yet. I'd be interested to know what the ASI said about the layers under the central dome.

Well the ASI report can be read in pdf file titled Annexure III.pdf from page number 16 to 25. just quoting from it a part that talks about how the current center dom is exactly on top of what was a center of some 50 meter long center hall of an older temple.

There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive
and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 x 30
m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below
the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50
pillar bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped
by sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during
the present excavation in northern and southern areas also give an
idea of the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction
with which they are associated and which might have been
originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at
present). The centre of the central chamber of the disputed structure
falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of
the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence
of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is
roughly 15 x 15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this
central point a circular depression with projection on the west, cut
into the large sized brick pavement, signify the place where some
important object was placed.

Also of an interest is the finding that there was an earlier shortlived structure with pillars.

Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-
21
twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south
orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived,
as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation
belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the
above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least
three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it.
The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive
structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs
were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having
a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential
structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public
usage which remained under existence for a long time during the
period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level-twelfth to sixteenth century
A.D.). It was over the top of this construction during the early
sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly
resting over it.

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile.. Reaction of this in Dawn has this title photo with caption:

School children hold cut-outs of various religious symbols as they participate in a special prayer for peace ahead of the Ayodhya verdict, at a school in Ahmadabad, India, Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010. – AP Photo

I will say kids on this side of Indus are different than say that or that2

[Riza Zaman]

Justice Khan's take on the issue:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805067.ece

Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.

The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, “all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed.”

He said: “In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government.”

Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: “My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.”

Justice Khan said:

“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].

“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.

“However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.

“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.

A unique position

“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”

[Abhi_G]

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_hi ... ge_1445923

Justice "Dharam" Raj Sharma uvacha~

"On the basis of circumstantial evidence, historical accounts, gazetteers 361 and other epigraphical documents, it is established that after demolishing the temple the disputed structure was constructed as a mosque and even pillars of the old temple were re-used which contained the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses against the tenets of Islam.

According to the judge, of the 265 inscriptions found on 6.12.1992 after demolition of the disputed structure along with other architectural remains leave no room for doubt that the inscription is written in the script of Dev Nagri of 11th and 12 century.

"I have also referred English translation of 20 line inscription of Dr KB Ramesh. The aforesaid circumstantial evidence supported by other epigraphical documents are the most valuable evidence which fully corroborate the version of Hindus and belies the version of Muslim that the mosque was not constructed, after demolishing any temple," the judge said.

The judge said on the basis of the opinion of the experts, evidence on record, circumstantial evidence and historical account from all or any angle, it transpires that the temple was demolished and the mosque was constructed at the site of the old Hindu temple by Mir Baqi at the command of Babur.

Justic Sharma also summarizes the basic spirit of Sanatan Dharma:

Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations, and it can be shapeless and formless also.

[sampat]

Here are the videos of Ravi Shankar Prasad

On NDTV : Barkha. Skip to around 2:00


IBN: Rajdeep





Few More from IBN

[ramana]

Hindu opeds

Siddharth Vardarajan

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

...
If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging ....

JM you want to hold the judges who worked out a suitable decision and let the media that is fanning the flames go scot free? Dont the seculars have a responsibility to respect the judgment and not fan the flames? Read SV above!

[Anantha]

Travel report by William Finch, the European traveller (1608-11).
Finch, who visited Ayodhya, confirms the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, the castle of Ram where Hindus believed he had incarnated thousands of years ago. (see Annexure 11 for the relevant extract from William Foster, ed.: Early Travels in India, 1583-1619, London 1921 p.176)
History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785).
Tieffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71, reports that Babar destroyed the birth-place temple of Ram and constructed a mosque by using its pillars. However, Hindus refused to give up the place and in spite of the Moghuls' efforts to prevent them, they were coming to the place for worship. They had constructed the Ram Chabootra in the mosque's courtyard, which they used to perambulate thrice, then to prostrate on the ground. They practised their devotion at the chabootra and in the mosque. Tieffenthaler testifies that they continued celebrating Ram Navami with great gatherings of people from all over India. (see Annexure 12, containing pp.253-254 of Tieffenthaler's Description Historique et Geographique de l'Inde, along with an English translation)
Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveryor (1838).
He writes that the Masjid was built on the ruins of the Ramkot itself, rather than of a building constructed by Vikramaditya, and that the pillars used in the mosque have been taken from Ram's palace, the figures thereon having been damaged by the bigot (i.e. Babar). (see Annexure 13 for pp.335-336 of Martin : History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India, vol.II)
East India Company Gazetteer, by Edward Thornton (1854).
This mentiones that Babar's mosque is embellished with 14 columns of elaborate workmanship taken from the old Hindu temple. It also mentions that the Hindus practised pilgrimage and devotion on the Ram Chabootra which they believed to be Ram's cradle. (see Annexure 14 for pp.730-740 of Thornton : Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East India Company)
Encyclopaedia of India by Surgeon General Edward Balfour (1858).
It mentions that Ayodhya has three mosques on the sites of three Hindu shrines : the Janmasthan, the site where Ram was born ; the Swargadwar Mandir, where his remains were buried ; and the Treta ka Thakur, famed as the scene of one of his great sacrifices. (see Annexure 15 for p.56 of Balfour : Encyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia)
Historical Sketch of Faizabad by P. Carnegy (1870).
He describes the Ramkot with all its bastions and palaces and says that the columns of Janmasthan temple made of strong close-grained dark slate-coloured Kasauti (or touch-stone) and carved with different devices were used by Muslims in the construction of Babar's mosque. Carnegy also notes the construction of the new Janmasthan temple on the neighbouring plot of land in the early 18th century. He reports that until 1855 both Hindus and Muslims worshipped alike in the mosque-temple. (see Annexure 16 for Carnegy : Historical Sketck of Tehsil Fyzabad, Zilla Fyzabad, with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad, Lucknow 1970, p.5-7, 19-21 and a photograph taken by Carnegy)
Gazetteer of the Province Oudh (1877).
It confirms that the Moghuls destroyed three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya and constructed mosques thereon. Babar built the Babri mosque on Ram Janmabhoomi in 1528, Aurangzeb built one on Swargadwar, and either Aurangzeb or Shahjahan did the same on Treta ka Thakur. All other assertions from Carnegy's Historical Sketch of Faizabad are confirmed in this Gazetteer. (see Annexure 17 : Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, vol.I, 1877, pp.6-7).

[svinayak]

As I understand there was a platform underneath the central dome where the original temple idols were kept prior to 1526 as it was the center of the existing temple, the spots are usually precisely calculated while making a temple.
This where after the demolition of the disputed structure the idols were placed. It is not an act of vengence.

An interesting account of the Ayodhya conflict from the 1850s is found in the Handbook of Bengal Presidency published in the late 19th century. Below is digitized extract from Google Books found in pages 230 and 231 within chapter on Route 24 Jawanpur to Ayodhya Sect II.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Ch ... odhyabblal
http://offstumped.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... -blogging/

Earliest British reference to Janmasthan in Ayodhya from 1819
http://books.google.com/books?id=7bYRAA ... an&f=false

The Gazeteer of Oudh 1877 has by far the most extensive historical record
http://books.google.com/books?id=8KQIAA ... dh&f=false

[BijuShet]

memories grow hazy with time - did the VHP/RSS/"hindus" around late 1980s make an offer that if babri masjid and two other places of stolen worship were
handed over, they would not claim for the cases of the many others temples similarly taken over ... and the Govt of the day rejected it?...

Title: �Arey Bhai, Masjid Hai Hi Kahaan�?�

Author: Arun Shourie,
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: October 25, 1990

"But why do you refer to it as a mosque at all? Where is the mosque, my friends, when the namaz is not performed? When for forty years idol worship is going on there, what kind of a mosque is it? That is just the temple of our dear Ram."

That is not L K Advani talking to V P Singh. It is V P Singh talking to several RSS leaders.

The elections had not yet been announced. V P Singh had traveled to Bombay to meet the RSS leaders. Persons I know intimately were present throughout the meeting, which was held at his request in Mr Ramnath Goenka's penthouse at Express Towers. V P Singh said then that as the structure was valued by the Muslims and the site was sacred to the Hindus, he was for Rajmohan Gandhi's proposal - i.e., for shifting the mosque bricks to another site and constructing the temple at the site.

This is in essence what the VHP and the BJP came to espouse, with the improvement that the Hindus shall raise the funds to bear the entire cost of shifting the structure.

Later, too, I know from one of the senior most leaders of the BJP, one who measures every word he says, Kidar Nath Sahni, V P Singh used the exact expressions of the BJP leaders.

Later still - and I know this directly from my friend Jaswant Singh, the BJP MP and today the Chairman of the Estimates Committee of Parliament - he used the very expressions to Jaswant Singh. To him V P Singh added that as the structure was a mandir in any case, why "demolish� it?

"Where is the need for demolition?" V P Singh had asked, "One shove and it will crumble. If each of you were to carry just one brick home F there will be nothing left there."

More details at : http://www.hvk.org/ram/index.html

[svinayak]

Yew.. They better get some 100 acres of land close by to build multi storey towers of potties for 400 million visitors (in a year I hope and not all at one time).

Maha Kumbh gets around 70Million in a few mths and they can do it effortlessly. This was done in 2001 and later

http://www.divinerevelation.org/KumbhMela.html


Why cant 400million do the pilfrimage in 12 mths of the year. This will be largest economy in that part of the region.

[Sanku]

I think this goes here (note the lyrics)

[chaanakya]

The question Framed by The President of India and referred to SC under Art 143 COI is as follows:

“Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure
existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janm Bhoomi
Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the
structure stood?”

The basic issue in all the suits is as to whether there was a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed and the
alleged Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing such templeat the site in question.

Issue No. 1 (b) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 Sunni Central Board of Wakf Vs. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad reads as under:-
“Whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu Temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13?”

Issue No. 14 in O.O.S. No.5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others reads as under:-
“Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma Sthan Temple at its
site?”

To answer this question HC sought help of ASI and cited Sri D Mandal's Book “AYODHYA ARCHAEOLOGY AFTER
DEMOLITION”

“However, archeology can answer with a considerable degree of certainty, many questions about various past
activities of people, for which material evidence is available.It is for this reason that archaeological research continues
and is of importance. It is believed that sufficientarchaeological material is available regarding the templemosque
issue, pre-empting the need for further excavations at Ayodhya.” (page 16)

He further states that “Archaeology does not generally deal with super structures, as these seldom remain standing and awaiting
excavation. All that usually remains of structures is their foundations. It may well be that demolition notwithstanding, the
remains of the foundations of the walls of the mosque are still in situ.” (page 52)

the Archaeological Survey of India will survey the disputed site by Ground-Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology and obtain the report with the aid including financial assistance by the Central Government of India.
Dt. 01.8.2002
Sd/-
Sudhir Narain
S. Rafat Alam
Bhanwar Singh

And ASI Reports

The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its antiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. (1250 ± 130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates. The lowest deposit above the natural soil represents the NBPW period and therefore the earliest remains may belong to the thirteenth century B.C. Which is confirmed by two more consistent
C14 dates from the NBPW level (Period I), viz. 910 ± 100 B.C. And 880 ± 100 B.C.) These dates are from trench G&. Four more dates
from the upper deposit though showing presence of NBPW and associated pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780 ±
80 B.C., 710 ± 90 B.C., 530 ± 70 B.C. And 320 ± 80 B.C. In the light of the above dates in association with the Northern Black
Polished Ware (NBPW) which is generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. To 300 B.C. it can be pushed back to circa 1000
B.C. And even if a solitary date, three centuries earlier is not associated with, NBPW, the human activity at the site dates back to
circa thirteenth century B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early
date of the occupation of the site.

This finding is interesting in the sense that it pushes the date of human activity at the site to 1000BC by C14 Dating.

Another Point I noted in the Annexures where deposition of Siddharth Shankar Ray was recorded

Sri Sidharth Shanker Ray has argued that the ASI was asked to excavate the site and report as to whether the disputed structure was raised after demolishing any Hindu temple, but the ASI is silent on the point of alleged demolition of Hindu temple and so the report can not be said to be as per directions of the court and deserves to be rejected. Sri Ray goes on to argue by referring to Kalhans Raj Tarangini, written somewhere in 12th Century A.D., that a historian desiring to peep into the bygone age mus keep a detached mind, rather like a Judge, and must avoid both bias (Dwesh) and prejudice (Raga). The learned counsel says that selective approach of ASI would reveal that it could not keep itself detached and unbiased. The learned counsel has also taken the Court through relevant pages especially pages 142, 143 of “Indian Archaeology in retrospect Vol. IV Archaeology and Historiography” edited by S. Settar Ravi Korisettar so as to say that one needs to adopt a critical openness of mind towards our pluralistic past and the present. Sri Ray has also referred to Chapter XIII captioned “The Evolution of the temple” of “Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods) written by PERCY BROWN, wherein the learned author says: “The principal architectural features of the temple are as
follows. Throughout the greater part of the country, the sanctuary as a whole is know as the vimana, of which the upper and pyramidal or tapering portion is called the sikhara, meaning tower or spite. Inside the vimana is a small and generally dark chamber or cella for the reception of the divine symbol. This cella is the garbha griha, or “womb-house” and was entered by a doorway on its inner and usually, eastern side. In front of the doorway was a pillared hall, or mandapa, actually a pavilion for the assembly of those paying their devotions to the divine symbol in the cella. Some of the earlier temples indicate that the mandapa, was a detached building, isolated from the sanctuary by a definite open space, as in the “shore” temple at Mamallapuram, and originally in the Kailasanatha at Conjeeveram, both near Madras, and built about 700 A.D. A little later it became the custom to unite the two buildings, this forming an intermediate chamber, or vestibule, and called the antarala. Leading up to the main hall, or mandapa, is a porch or ardhamandapa, while there may be a transept on each side of this entral hall, known as the maha-mandapa. The most complete illustrations of the fully formed and co-ordinated temple structure, are the tenth century examples at Khajuraho, Central India, especially that known as the Kandariya Mahadeo (Chapter XXII). In this class of temple, each portion named above, has its separate pyramidal roof, rising in regular gradation, from the lowest over the porch (ardha-mandapa), to the lofty spire over the sanctum. In some parts of the country it became the practice to enclose the temple building within a rectangular courtyard by means of a continuous range of cells, facing inwards, the whole forming a substantial containing wall, and thus ensuring seclusion. One of the first temples of combine all these attributions, and to present a coordinated plan was that of the Vaikuntanath Perumal at
Conjeeveram (cir. A.D. 740). Most of these early temples have a processional passage or pradak-shina patha consisting of an
enclosed corridor carried around the outside of the cella.”

13. Sri Ray wonders as to how in absence of these architectural features, ASI could opine about existence of temple of north India
and how it could conceive existence of a “massive structure” in absence of other three walls, if wall-16 was one of the walls.
According to Sri Ray, the story of existence of pillar bases which might have supported the pillar to bear the load of massive
structure, is totally ill-founded for the simple reason that one of the pillar bases was having load bearing foundation nor was having
alignment with each other nor being at the same level of the floor. He says that how is it that none of those alleged pillars said to have supported the massive structure, was found on the spot. Sri Ray says that alleged 'circular shrine' found in bulk of trench nos. E-8 and F-8, said to have been constructed in 10th century A.D., could not have been associated with Lord Shiva and could be associated with Lord Budha. Sri Ray goes on to argue that the passage was not sufficient enough to allow even one person to enter inside it and so the question of offering 'Abhishekh, could not have arisen. The learned counsel says that so called Parnala is nothing, but a space between the two rows of the bricks. According to Sri Ray, 'circular shrine' could also be said to be Ton, used to constructed by Jains, for commemorating Tirthankars. The learned counsel also contends that ASI did not apply its mind in giving the report and has not exhibited requisite “reasonableness” in terms of Wednesbury Principles, so deserves to be rejected. Sri Ray characterizes the report as intrinsically erroneous.

However ASI findings of Facts and artifacts have not been disputed. That there was structure at the site was also not disputed.
He has also not discussed the how ASI findings of Garbha Griha is wrong. Instead he talks about south Indian temples which were distinct style. Khajuraho etc are again separate school of Nagara Style not found in Eastern India generally. Moreover if the antiquity of site is 1000 BC then clearly structures would have indicated layers of distinct structures one superimposing upon others. That is what ASI has found. Moreover he goes on to say that could thjis be stupa or buddhist structure but does not understand the basic fact that neither Islamic nor buddhist structures have East orientation. In Islam it is not found at all. In Buddhists structures it is not mandatory. In Hindu temples it can not be otherwise.

I also don't know how SS Ray could be authority on temple architecture. So his interpretation is as good as mine.

[brihaspati]

One tactical step to force hands could be to build a scale model of the proposed RJM and take regional initiatives to build smaller versions and consecrate them. This does not have to take a form of a yatra that can be then tackled militarily by the rashtra [or by security forces deployed to disrupt that]. It would be much more distributed, widespread, grassroots and hard to repress. It can be an excellent means of building identities and raising and keeping the pressure on for building the central one at Ayodhya.

Left to itself, the judicial process may in the end hang up in a limbo.

[chetak]

This is the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya case.

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/

[Manishw]

But the sekulaarist is more concerned about clothing, feeding and making our people richer, making us a global superpower.

Oh the karmic debts that we have to repay the sekularists.Great Great!!!

[ramana]

The question Framed by The President of India and referred to SC under Art 143 COI is as follows:

“Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure
existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janm Bhoomi
Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the
structure stood?”

The basic issue in all the suits is as to whether there was a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed and the
alleged Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing such templeat the site in question.

Issue No. 1 (b) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 Sunni Central Board of Wakf Vs. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad reads as under:-
“Whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu Temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13?”

Issue No. 14 in O.O.S. No.5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others reads as under:-
“Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma Sthan Temple at its
site?”

To answer this question HC sought help of ASI and cited Sri D Mandal's Book “AYODHYA ARCHAEOLOGY AFTER
DEMOLITION”

“However, archeology can answer with a considerable degree of certainty, many questions about various past
activities of people, for which material evidence is available.It is for this reason that archaeological research continues
and is of importance. It is believed that sufficientarchaeological material is available regarding the templemosque
issue, pre-empting the need for further excavations at Ayodhya.” (page 16)

He further states that “Archaeology does not generally deal with super structures, as these seldom remain standing and awaiting
excavation. All that usually remains of structures is their foundations. It may well be that demolition notwithstanding, the
remains of the foundations of the walls of the mosque are still in situ.” (page 52)

the Archaeological Survey of India will survey the disputed site by Ground-Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology and obtain the report with the aid including financial assistance by the Central Government of India.
Dt. 01.8.2002
Sd/-
Sudhir Narain
S. Rafat Alam
Bhanwar Singh

And ASI Reports

The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its antiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. (1250 ± 130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates. The lowest deposit above the natural soil represents the NBPW period and therefore the earliest remains may belong to the thirteenth century B.C. Which is confirmed by two more consistent
C14 dates from the NBPW level (Period I), viz. 910 ± 100 B.C. And 880 ± 100 B.C.) These dates are from trench G&. Four more dates
from the upper deposit though showing presence of NBPW and associated pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780 ±
80 B.C., 710 ± 90 B.C., 530 ± 70 B.C. And 320 ± 80 B.C. In the light of the above dates in association with the Northern Black
Polished Ware (NBPW) which is generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. To 300 B.C. it can be pushed back to circa 1000
B.C. And even if a solitary date, three centuries earlier is not associated with, NBPW, the human activity at the site dates back to
circa thirteenth century B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early
date of the occupation of the site.

This finding is interesting in the sense that it pushes the date of human activity at the site to 1000BC by C14 Dating.

Another Point I noted in the Annexures where deposition of Siddharth Shankar Ray was recorded

Sri Sidharth Shanker Ray has argued that the ASI was asked to excavate the site and report as to whether the disputed structure was raised after demolishing any Hindu temple, but the ASI is silent on the point of alleged demolition of Hindu temple and so the report can not be said to be as per directions of the court and deserves to be rejected. Sri Ray goes on to argue by referring to Kalhans Raj Tarangini, written somewhere in 12th Century A.D., that a historian desiring to peep into the bygone age mus keep a detached mind, rather like a Judge, and must avoid both bias (Dwesh) and prejudice (Raga). The learned counsel says that selective approach of ASI would reveal that it could not keep itself detached and unbiased. The learned counsel has also taken the Court through relevant pages especially pages 142, 143 of “Indian Archaeology in retrospect Vol. IV Archaeology and Historiography” edited by S. Settar Ravi Korisettar so as to say that one needs to adopt a critical openness of mind towards our pluralistic past and the present. Sri Ray has also referred to Chapter XIII captioned “The Evolution of the temple” of “Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods) written by PERCY BROWN, wherein the learned author says: “The principal architectural features of the temple are as
follows. Throughout the greater part of the country, the sanctuary as a whole is know as the vimana, of which the upper and pyramidal or tapering portion is called the sikhara, meaning tower or spite. Inside the vimana is a small and generally dark chamber or cella for the reception of the divine symbol. This cella is the garbha griha, or “womb-house” and was entered by a doorway on its inner and usually, eastern side. In front of the doorway was a pillared hall, or mandapa, actually a pavilion for the assembly of those paying their devotions to the divine symbol in the cella. Some of the earlier temples indicate that the mandapa, was a detached building, isolated from the sanctuary by a definite open space, as in the “shore” temple at Mamallapuram, and originally in the Kailasanatha at Conjeeveram, both near Madras, and built about 700 A.D. A little later it became the custom to unite the two buildings, this forming an intermediate chamber, or vestibule, and called the antarala. Leading up to the main hall, or mandapa, is a porch or ardhamandapa, while there may be a transept on each side of this entral hall, known as the maha-mandapa. The most complete illustrations of the fully formed and co-ordinated temple structure, are the tenth century examples at Khajuraho, Central India, especially that known as the Kandariya Mahadeo (Chapter XXII). In this class of temple, each portion named above, has its separate pyramidal roof, rising in regular gradation, from the lowest over the porch (ardha-mandapa), to the lofty spire over the sanctum. In some parts of the country it became the practice to enclose the temple building within a rectangular courtyard by means of a continuous range of cells, facing inwards, the whole forming a substantial containing wall, and thus ensuring seclusion. One of the first temples of combine all these attributions, and to present a coordinated plan was that of the Vaikuntanath Perumal at
Conjeeveram (cir. A.D. 740). Most of these early temples have a processional passage or pradak-shina patha consisting of an
enclosed corridor carried around the outside of the cella.”

13. Sri Ray wonders as to how in absence of these architectural features, ASI could opine about existence of temple of north India
and how it could conceive existence of a “massive structure” in absence of other three walls, if wall-16 was one of the walls.
According to Sri Ray, the story of existence of pillar bases which might have supported the pillar to bear the load of massive
structure, is totally ill-founded for the simple reason that one of the pillar bases was having load bearing foundation nor was having
alignment with each other nor being at the same level of the floor. He says that how is it that none of those alleged pillars said to have supported the massive structure, was found on the spot. Sri Ray says that alleged 'circular shrine' found in bulk of trench nos. E-8 and F-8, said to have been constructed in 10th century A.D., could not have been associated with Lord Shiva and could be associated with Lord Budha. Sri Ray goes on to argue that the passage was not sufficient enough to allow even one person to enter inside it and so the question of offering 'Abhishekh, could not have arisen. The learned counsel says that so called Parnala is nothing, but a space between the two rows of the bricks. According to Sri Ray, 'circular shrine' could also be said to be Ton, used to constructed by Jains, for commemorating Tirthankars. The learned counsel also contends that ASI did not apply its mind in giving the report and has not exhibited requisite “reasonableness” in terms of Wednesbury Principles, so deserves to be rejected. Sri Ray characterizes the report as intrinsically erroneous.

However ASI findings of Facts and artifacts have not been disputed. That there was structure at the site was also not disputed.
He has also not discussed the how ASI findings of Garbha Griha is wrong. Instead he talks about south Indian temples which were distinct style. Khajuraho etc are again separate school of Nagara Style not found in Eastern India generally. Moreover if the antiquity of site is 1000 BC then clearly structures would have indicated layers of distinct structures one superimposing upon others. That is what ASI has found. Moreover he goes on to say that could thjis be stupa or buddhist structure but does not understand the basic fact that neither Islamic nor buddhist structures have East orientation. In Islam it is not found at all. In Buddhists structures it is not mandatory. In Hindu temples it can not be otherwise.

I also don't know how SS Ray could be authority on temple architecture. So his interpretation is as good as mine.

Please go to post #230 to see the distinctive features of Hindu temples. Pay attention to the side view of the mandapas. And then go back to the picture in Swapan Dasgupta's op-ed in Telegraph. And compare the features. Then you see how the BM was constructed in one year!

[SwamyG]

So there is hope and expectation that violence will occur. The pseudos are playing to this gallery. Wonder how his and the pseudos' assessment concur that the court verdict is not a decision!

Again I repeat the mentor of Indian pseudos is the Western power brokers.

People who want violence (a.k.a Society)
1) (some) media
2) (some) politicians
3) Pseudo-Seculars
4) Fringe groups
5) Goondas, mercenaries, and businesses that benefit from violence

People who do not want violence:
1) the people

Look at the heavy imbalance an individual has to face.

Society: We expect violence.
People: Huh? Yeah you might be right.
Society: Yes, we are. Remember 1992, duh?
People. Yes.
{after verdict}
Society: India should march together. Reconciliation is the order of the day. Indians are far better than this. This is the India of 2010 and not the India of 1992.
{But truly the break up is}
Media: "Dammit, where is the violence. I am running 24-hr scare television. Raw and violent footage is so money money. I hope something breaks in the next few hours onlee." {uses speed dial to call the pseudo-seculars}
Politicians: "Dammit, I hope the other guy does not get votes and win the election." {uses speed dial to call the favorite goonda}
Pseudo-Seculars: "Dammit, how can a Secular Court say Lord Ram was born, eh? It should have said Lord Ram, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster all were born in Ayodhya that is secularism. The government is discriminating. I need to say this aloud" {uses speed dial to call Media}
Fringe Groups: {they are not saying anything, they just are frothing from their mouths as usual. Verdict or no Verdict they will break their jaws and froth}
Goondas: "heck, you guys gave me advance money. I have all these weapons, acid, bottle ityadi {a sanksrit speaking goonda}. What to do onlee?" {speed dials the politician}
People: Yes, Agreed. We should reconcile. We should build hospitals, bus shelters, roads, provide clean water, generate electricity, jobs ityadi. Let us move on. What do you want me do for this growth? {the sucker does not realize except him and BRF, nobody really gives a s*ite; they want violence}
Society: Hold on, not so fast People. You should realize the Court did not base "evidence" for its ruling but used "faith"; since this is not kosher expect appeal. Ahem and some possible violence.
People. But but ....you said we are better people and reconciliation was the need.
Society: Can't you see our Court system is flawed? Wait for SC decision, they are the best.
People: Are you saying the High Court Verdict is wrong now?
Society: Dammit, keep quiet now.
People: {scratches head and goes off to feed his family}

[James B]

Shia outfit asks AIMPLB not to challenge Ayodhya verdict

[chaanakya]

Please go to post #230 to see the distinctive features of Hindu temples. Pay attention to the side view of the mandapas. And then go back to the picture in Swapan Dasgupta's op-ed in Telegraph. And compare the features. Then you see how the BM was constructed in one year!

Well I think comparison with Khajuraho , by SS Ray , is actually misleading. Its actually East Indian Style of Nagara temple architechture. Primarily Gupta period which would have laid foundation for a pillared hall with Garbha Griha.

The comparison with the picture is incorrect. The Temple is facing East so entrance would be from the east side. The left most dome in the picture and Garbha Griha would be on the Western most Super Structure. It is not the case in RJBM . Actually Central Dome is where Garbha Griha is claimed. The domes at RJBM are in North South Direction whereas #230 is is East-West Direction. See the picture from Judgement I have posted.

In Gupta Period , esp. early period, the superstructure would resemble like RJBM without Dome. probably with a flat roof initially and later with Shikharas. Most of the Gupta Period temple have not survived. Stupa s were also evolving at that time and could have some influence but the description of 50 pillared and Massive wall like structure in ASI report points to Gupta Style only. Khajuraho developped later in fineness and intricate art work.

Also the type of Pillars shown in exhibits indicates early Gupta period.

May look less glamorous but could be nearer to actuality. However the most important determinant is the structures found beneath the RJBM site and not what super structure looked like. The alignment is closely matching the visible aspect. Need to go through most of the ASI details though.

Some of the less known old temples that I have visited in Bihar have this Gupta Period i stamp. Not much studied though. Konark is an example of most developed ones in the series. While Khajuraho type remains classical example of Temples of Nagara style , it represents most evolved form found in Central India and not in Eastern India incl UP.

By the time Babar arrived I think Muslim in India would have become adept at constructing Domes and such a structure would have presented easy way to go on constructing the Domes in one year flat.

[svinayak]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Ch ... odhyabblal

We can see the actual photo of the temple structure.

[Prem]

Great discovery of India !! I think now cheap , fast transport sytem inc air travel within India gonna have huge impact on Indic consolidation as society at whole is fond of pilgrimage and now can visit in all four directions in short time period ( Thanks to Shankra) . Early this year, i flew from DEl to TIRmla via HYD on flight to Tirupati full with North/ East indians and few Hindu Gora fundamentalist doing constant prostration putting locals to embarrasement The similar questions like yours about reality of syncretic , comppsite pseudo beliefs propgated after 47 are bound to bother many millions , and they will search for right answer and refuse to "eat ankho dekhi makhi".
I can onlee imagine how many millions will show up for the kar seva and inaguration of Ram Mandir. It will a sight to behold like Kumbh mela x10.

[SwamyG]

I don't think they will make the argument "Rama was born specifically here" if it goes to the SC.

That is one of the disputes.

Check page #234 for a statement from M.A. Siddiqui and Syed Irfan Ahmad for the Muslim parties.

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/suk/O.O.S.%20Nos ... 201989.pdf

“For the purposes of this case there is no dispute about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki Ramayana or as existing today. It is, however, disputed and denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth of Lord Rama. It is also denied that there was any Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of Babri Masjid at any time whatsoever.

[Bade]

SwamyG, physical evidence of the ruins of previous structure(s) built at different times before BM was built on the temple ruins has been established by ASI. Since there is no evidence of an alternate site within Ayodhya where the faithful have worshiped Shri Ram signifying it as the JanamSthan, it does led credence to the narrative of the BM site being the original site. The extent of the ruins (multiple layers from different periods) mapped by ASI might also indicate that.

Any amount of digging by ASI cannot establish the certainty of the place of birth of Shri Ram. It is a matter of faith and narrative alone. So using ASI evidence alone as you suggest makes it open to interpretations and cannot be resolved perhaps.

So the court has to use articles of faith and history of usage of the place in the narratives (both Hindu and Muslim) and consider it purely from the perspective of physical ownership of the site. By giving the 1/3 to Waqf, it is trying not to say "We know it was the birth place of Shri Ram for sure, and hence it belongs 100% to the Hindus". That is the way I read it. So in essence, it has left it to the two Hindu parties and Muslim Waqf board given equal shares to resolve it between themselves for any future activities on the site.

ASI evidence only establishes that a temple existed at the site at this point as far as I can tell and nothing more. Correct me otherwise.

[Muppalla]

Looks like there is a growing sense in muslims that the politicians/psecs have manipulated them thoroughly in the last 2-3 decades.

That is the real result of this verdict. In that sense it is really historic. p-sec crowd is defeated and that is reason for all the lungi dances on TV.

Even if Muslims donate the land that will be though really good end to the fiasco, it will hailed as most greatest sacrifice of Muslims in history of the world.

Meanwhile things seems to be moving in that direction
Some Muslims open to moving mosque

[brihaspati]

There are some provisions for the sale of land associated with a mosque under Islamic law - and especially the Shias have this more explicitly than the Sunnis. it is connected to fear of "destruction" of the structure or the "sale" being profitable. Typically classical texts use the 1/3 ratio in this connection (as 1/3 is the max that can be willed) often. So justice Khan could have been thinking from the Islamic jurisprudence angle.

Checking on texts that I have, I find this another possible angle.
"The Shi'ah law regarding the endowment of Masjids, or land for the benefit of Masjids, does not differ in any important particular from that of the Sunnis. But there is a provision in the Shi'ah law regarding the sale of an endowment which is important.

If dissensions arise among the persons in whose favour the waqf is made, and there is apprehension of the property being destroyed, while on the other hand the sale thereof is productive of benefit, then, in that case, its sale is lawful.

If a house belonging to a waqf should fail into ruins, the space would not cease to be waqf, nor would its sale be lawful. If, however, discursions should arise among the persons for whom it was appropriated, insomuch as to give room (or apprehension that it will be destroyed, its sale would be lawful.

And even if there should be no such difference, nor any room for such apprehensions, but the sale would be more for the advantage of the parties interested, some are of opinion that the sale would be lawful; but the approved doctrine is to forbid it. (Mafatih; Shara I 'u Islam, p. 239.)"

[Anantha]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 669039.cms

The court said that the ASI report contains all the details including details of stratigraphy, artifacts, periodisation as well as details of structures and walls. The pillar bases mentioned in the report establishes beyond all doubt the existence of a huge structure.

In addition to above, existence of circular shrine, stone slabs in walls with Hindu motifs and more particularly sign of Makar Pranal in wall No. 5 (wall of disputed structure), divine couple and other temple materials, etc. conclusively proves the existence of a hindu religious structure, the judges have argued.

Another grievance related to ASI allegedly ignoring key evidence thrown up in the form of bones of animals found from the sites. This, it was argued, disproved that the structure below was a Hindu one since animals couldn't have been killed there. But the judges countered by relying on a host of ancient literary Hindu texts sanctioning animal sacrifice.

"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," Justice Agarwal noted,(Ha Ha..there goes Irfan Habib's argument on animal bones to dogs) upholding the ASI findings that a Nagara style northern Indian temple existed prior to the disputed structure.

HC was also surprised to note the "zeal" in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf.

The psec crowd really try hard to overthrow the ASI evidence but could not do it
We are seeing the whining and crying by the psecs. The coming days will be more fun. We may see muslims going after the psec crowd for constantly inciting them.

[Mauli]

Ravi Shankar Prasad on Fire .. Barkha run for cover

Following Comment on youtube

Waiting for incarnation of lord laxman, who will cut the nose and ear of this morden day Surpnakha !!!

Jai Shri Ram

[Raghavendra]

Shia group backs temple at Ayodhya http://expressbuzz.com/nation/shia-grou ... 11804.html

LUCKNOW: Announcing a donation of Rs.15 lakh for starting the construction of the much-debated temple at Ayodhya, a Shia youth organisation here says it opposes with any move to appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute.

"We will make a formal request to the Sunni Central Waqf Board not to go into appeal against the high court verdict. and to bring an end to the long pending dispute once and for all," Shia Hussaini Tigers chief Shamil Shamsi told reporters here Saturday.

He also proposes to take a delegation to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with the same appeal.

Shamsi is a close kin of widely revered Shia cleric and scholar Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, who was also the senior vice president of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. And Kalbe Sadiq's cousin Maulana Kalbe Jawaad, who also commands a large following of Shia Muslims across the country, is the chief patron of Hussaini Tigers.

Maulana Kalbe Sadiq was not available for comment as he was stated to be indisposed.

Shamsi termed as "extremely unfortunate" the verdict's criticism by Maulana Ahmed Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, as well as by Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, who said the Muslims in the country were unhappy at the verdict.

Shamsi sought to remind various Muslim leaders that they must stick to their word of abiding by the court verdict. "I feel the board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good," he asserted.

Hussaini Tigers that represents the Shia youth in the country feels "the court order has given India an opportunity to prove to the world that this nation can set an example of unique communal harmony by getting Muslims to assist in the construction of the temple and Hindus to facilitate construction of the mosque -- which would also fulfill the terms of the verdict in letter and spirit", Shamsi said.

A special three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench Thursday by a majority verdict ruled that the place where the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya stood, before it was razed by Hindu mobs in 1992, was indeed the birthplace of Hindu god Ram.

It also ruled that the entire disputed land in Ayodhya, a riverside temple town in Uttar Pradesh, should be divided among the Sunni central Waqf Board, the Ram temple and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect that were among those who fought the court battle.

[Kanson]

The commies have just weighed in.


http://www.dailypioneer.com/286992/Sahm ... rbing.html

Sahmat slams Ayodhya verdict, finds it 'gravely disturbing'
October 02, 2010 10:14:19 AM

IANS | New Delhi

The Allahabad High Court judgment on Ayodhya is a "blow" to India's secular fabric, a group of over 50 eminent historians, artists and activists said Friday, raising their "serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values" have been treated in the verdict.

Coming together under the umbrella of Sahmat (Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust), they questioned the court's premise to base its judgment on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had claimed that remains of a temple were found beneath the mosque.

"The judgment delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it," said a joint statement signed by eminent personalities like Romila Thapar, D.N. Jha, K.N. Panikkar, Irfan Habib, Zoya Hasan, M.K. Raina and Madan Gopal Singh.

".. the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India's own excavations -- the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of ‘surkhi' and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque," the statement said.

It also alleged that the ASI's findings were fraudulent.

"The ASI's controversial report which claimed otherwise on the basis of ‘pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of ‘pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists."

According to the statement, site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI's excavation be made available for scrutiny to scholars, historians and archaeologists.

Since too much has been said by the "eminent historians", sharing an observation on the works of on such "eminent historian" about Aurangzeb, Kasi & Mosque, which you might have known already.

Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath?

During the Ayodhya controversy, there were occasional statements in the Hindutva camp confirming (VHP) or denying (BJP) that apart from Ram Janmabhoomi, two other sacred sites should also be "liberated" from Islamic "occupation": Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and Kashi Vishvanath in Varanasi. Though the Hindu business community in central Varanasi has made it clear that it refuses to suffer the inevitable losses which would accompany an agitation in their densely populated neighbourhood, the liberation of Kashi Vishvanath is still on the VHP's agenda. Therefore, some authors have tried to "do an Ayodhya" on Kashi, viz. try to make people believe that there never was a Hindu temple at the disputed site.

Syed Shahabuddin asserts that Muslims cannot possibly have destroyed any Hindu temple, because "pulling down a place of worship to construct a mosque is against the Shariat"; claims to the contrary are all "chauvinist propaganda." Arun Shourie has confronted this claim with the information given in the official court chronicle, Maasiri Alamgiri, which records numerous orders for and reports of destructions of temples. Its entry for 2 September 1669 tells us: "News came to court that in accordance with the Emperor's command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras" . Moreover, till today, the old Kashi Vishvanath temple wall is visible as a part of the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque which Aurangzeb had built at the site.

In the face of such direct testimony, it is wiser not to challenge facts headon. It is better to minimize or to justify them. Thus, Percival Spear, co-author (with Romila Thapar) of the prestigious Penguin History of India, writes: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares." But a perusal of the same Moghul chronicle thoroughly refutes this reassuring assertion: Aurangzeb had thousands of temples destroyed. And other chronicles, diaries and other documents concerning Muslim rulers in India prove that the practice was not a personal idiosyncrasy of Aurangzeb's either.

Therefore, a more promising way of defusing the conflict potential which the mosque at the Kashi Vishvanath site carries, is to justify the replacement of the temple with a mosque. Maybe the owners and users of the temple had brought it on themselves? Maybe Islam can be disentangled from this act of destruction in favour of a purely secular motive?

JNU historian Prof. K.N. Panikkar offers one way out: "the destruction of the temple at Banaras also had political motives. It appears that a nexus between the sufi rebels and the pandits of the temple existed and it was primarily to smash this nexus that Aurangzeb ordered action against the temple." The eminent historian quotes no source for this strange allegation. In those days, Pandits avoided to even talk with Mlecchas, let alone to concoct intrigues with them.

Other secularists have spread a more sophisticated variation, now regularly reproduced in the media: "Did Muslim rulers destroy temples? Some of them certainly did. Following the molestation of a local princess by some priests in a temple at Benaras, Aurangzeb ordered the total destruction of the temple and rebuilt it at a nearby site. And this is the only temple he is believed to have destroyed." This story is now repeated ad nauseam, not only in the extremist Muslim press and in the secularist press but also in academic platforms by "eminent historians". It is repeated with approval by historian Gargi Chakravartty, who also reveals the source of this story.

..........


One question which we can readily answer is, where did B.N. Pande get this story from? He himself writes: "Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in his famous book, The Feathers and the Stones, has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. So, we have to go one more step back in time to find this intriguing "documentary evidence". Let us turn to this book, now hard to find, to see what the documentary evidence is on which this whole wave of pro-Aurangzeb rumours is based, but which no one has cared to reproduce or even just specify. This is what Gandhian Congress leader Pattabhi Sitaramayya wrote in his prison diary:

"There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot in religion. This, however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is illustrated by one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the site of the original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like mosque in Mathura is another. The revival of Jazia is a third but of a different order. A story is told in extenuation of the first event.

"In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign king in a country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles. They all set out one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst them was a Ranee of Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the Temple, the Ranee of Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out, East, North, West and South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a more diligent search revealed a Tah Khana or an underground storey of the temple which to all appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it was found barred, they broke open the doors and found inside the pale shadow of the Ranee bereft of her jewellery.

"It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life one did not know. Anyhow in this case, there was no time for mischief as the search was diligent and prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests, Aurangazeb declared that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of God and ordered it to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left there.

"But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid being built on the ruined and to please her, one was subsequently built. That is how a Musjid has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar temple which is no temple in the real sense of the term but a humble cottage in which the marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the Mathura Temple.

"This story of the Benares Musjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists."

So now, we finally know where the story comes from: an unnamed mullah friend of an unnamed acquaintance of Sitaram ayya's knew of a manuscript, the details of which he took with him in his grave. This is the "document" on which secularist journalists and historians base their "evidence" of Aurangzeb's fair and secularist disposition, overruling the evidence of archaeology and the cold print of the Maasiri Alamgiri, to "explode the myth" of Islamic iconoclasm spread by the "chauvinist" Hindutva propagandists. Now you just try to imagine what the secularists and their mouthpieces in Western academe would say if Hindus offered evidence of this quality.

[abhishek_sharma]

“Hindus' belief about Lord Rama's birthplace protected under Article 25”

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/03/stories ... 631000.htm

[abhishek_sharma]

Suits on behalf of deities can't be treated as time-barred

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/03/stories ... 621000.htm

[sum]

Interesting article in Rediff., esp when written by BRF favourite, Ms. Sheela Bhatt.

The words "except leftist thinkers" and "mainstream India didnt have a problem with judgement" and "surprisingly, the Hindu newspaper also agreed" are a pleasant surprise to see in a Sheela Bhatt article. Guess more and more people are realizing that the p-secs are the only ones who want the tensions to be high at all times.

The verdict has been accepted by mainstream India

The Allahabad high court judgment in the Ayodhya title suit is emerging as the mother of all jugaad* anybody can think of.

The judgment, which gave the main litigants a piece of land, is being dubbed as a compromise to help the militant litigants to move forward, rather than help set a new benchmark in the interpretation of law in the settlement of religious-political-historical issues.

Although the judgment tries to convey that nobody is a loser, a large section of Muslims feel they have lost the case while believers in Lord Ram have been pleasantly surprised to receive a legal seal on their millenniums-old faith.

The most important thing to note is that in spite of its intriguing interpretation of evidence, the judgment has instantly got acceptability in mainstream India.

Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders appear to be on the same side over the judgment.

Both political parties have hailed the court verdict.

Leaders from their parties, privately, claim that Hindus all over India are upbeat about the acknowledgment of their belief that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya.

In fact, not just the Congress party, even government representatives looked a bit relaxed the day after the judgment.


On the day when the Muslim community was largely silent, government officials heaved a sigh of relief.

India not only remained calm after the judgment; many individuals openly supported the Allahabad high court's verdict.

Many senior lawyers, who are not advocates of Leftist thinking, supported the verdict or said the judgment has the potential for an out-of-court settlement.

Anu Aga, Chairman of Pune's Thermax group, a member of the National Advisory Council and someone who publicly criticised Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi after the 2002 communal riots, said she would like to accept the judgment and move ahead to concentrate on other pressing issues facing India.

Almost all daily newspapers in New Delhi on October 1, the day after the judgment, were supportive of the judgment. It was a surprise to see the editorial in The Hindu newspaper that said the 'intriguing compromise could work.'
....

A large number of Muslims feel a sense of defeat because of the verdict, but at the same time, they think enough is enough.

If the politicians don't vitiate the atmosphere, things could indeed move forward.

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Jaitley is correct when he says that no significant Muslim leader has spoken against the judgment so far.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement leader and the Member of Parliament from Hyderabad Asaduddin Owaisi is a rare Muslim political leader who has damned the judgment.

Read the entire article for analysis on how it might play on BJP, INC and other partiespoll prospects...

[Anantha]

^^^

No, they testified before the court. They are upset that the court did not buy their testimony.

There were 3 objections (at least) by the "eminent idiots". We are not talking about the proof positive offered by the Hindu side.
1. animal bones were found at the site
The hon judges said animal bali prasad was a normin old temples and the bones were left/buried in the temple premises.

2. Lime and mortar were used at the excavated site, lime and mortar were brought to India by Mughals (just like the high horse bought by Aryans into India from Europe)
I cant find the explanation by judge. If some one finds it post it

3. The pillars and columns at the excavated site are not all pillars and columns.
The translation of this is "we are eminent historians, rest of India should obey our fatwa". Obviously the judges would have laughed off at this claim as even unschooled people (a family member) who went to Ayodhya in 2004 said that you could see pillars and columns having Hindu signs at ruins of the site.

[Singha]

>> lime and mortar were brought to India by Mughals

considering the poor record of the mughals in industry and science (while europe was exploding in knowledge), I would doubt any claims according
them harbinger status.

[Arjun]

Means it is basic sense that a structure that definitely predates the arrival of mughals in India......

Abhishek, while I am in agreement with you, the key here is that the structure definitely predates arrival of Moghuls. Can anyone share any supporting evidence, preferably from the verdict but if not from other sources?

[AbhishekD]

Well I have gone through the opposition to the ASI report by the eminent historians and archealogists.

Most of the opposition is asinine. They have 4 basic opposition that is untenable.

1. Method employed by ASI (Stratification and Jargoan) - Completely irrelevant to the question asked. It has no value and the any court will outright reject this opposition

2. Pillar Bases - The opposition very shamelessly says that ASI actually created these pillar bases during excavation. This can be the most brazen attack on the report. I think the opposition is so brazen that any court will just reject it outright. No court will accept such an opposition. It is simply untenable. ASI can do anything else but not such a thing as it will completely destroy its professional credibility

3. Circular Shrine - The opposition has thrown the kitchen sink here. Despite an overwhemling evidence to show that a circular shrine is present, the opposition states that it could be anything but a hindu temple shrine. They go on to state that it could be an islamic tomb or a buddhist stupa or anything else but not a hindu shrine. This is the most damning evidence in favour of a hindu temple more so than the pillar bases and this circular shrine gives the pre-existing structure its temple character

4. Monuments, Figurine - Extraneous opposition

As far as I understood, the opposition was very innane and there should be no problem for the SC in accepting this proof of Hindu Temple beneath the Babri Masjid. I think it will become official history of India that a hindu temple was destroyed for the construction of Babri Masjid. When it will happen I dont know but it will happen.

The opposition has just thrown the kitchen sink on this report and still achieved nothing. It will be very difficult for the Sunni Waqk board to make SC disregard this report.

[mandrake]

'No loopholes in ASI evidence'
Abhinav Garg, TNN, Oct 2, 2010, 04.53am IST

Read more: 'No loopholes in ASI evidence' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... z11O3Sk57G

NEW DELHI: "In our view, the conclusion drawn by the ASI in the project accomplished within an extra-ordinary brief period and with such an excellence precision and perfection deserve commendation and appreciation instead of condemnation." — Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

Though criticized by a section of historians, the Archaeological Survey of India's 2003 excavation report has been critical in allowing the Allahabad high court in reaching a verdict that years of negotiations and entrenched politiking had not yielded.

The ASI view that evidence pointed to the existence of a temple, forms the key material evidence relied upon by the court. Perhaps keeping in mind the criticism of ASI's findings, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma in their comments have countered allegations of the report being influenced by powers that be.

They emphasized that the court controlled excavation was transparent. The charge that the finding of a huge structure preexisting the Babri Masjid, was "managed" has been addressed in detail. It had been alleged that the report was "biased and imagined" and failed to faithfully reproduce the actual findings.

But the judges have decisively recalled the facts of the case. While Justice Agarwal pointed out how representatives and lawyers of each party in the suit were permitted to shadow ASI officials during the actual excavations, Justice Sharma highlighted how "even Muslim members have also signed the report of ASI."

"The court has taken full care and issued specific directions to maintain transparency. Two judicial officers remained posted there. The excavation was conducted in the presence of the parties, lawyers and their nominees. Nobody can raise a finger about the propriety of the report on the ground of bias," Justice Sharma observed, rejecting pleas that the report be discarded.

The court said that the ASI report contains all the details including details of stratigraphy, artifacts, periodisation as well as details of structures and walls. The pillar bases mentioned in the report establishes beyond all doubt the existence of a huge structure.

In addition to above, existence of circular shrine, stone slabs in walls with Hindu motifs and more particularly sign of Makar Pranal in wall No. 5 (wall of disputed structure), divine couple and other temple materials, etc. conclusively proves the existence of a hindu religious structure, the judges have argued.

Another grievance related to ASI allegedly ignoring key evidence thrown up in the form of bones of animals found from the sites. This, it was argued, disproved that the structure below was a Hindu one since animals couldn't have been killed there. But the judges countered by relying on a host of ancient literary Hindu texts sanctioning animal sacrifice.

"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," Justice Agarwal noted, upholding the ASI findings that a Nagara style northern Indian temple existed prior to the disputed structure. HC was also surprised to note the "zeal" in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf.

Read more: 'No loopholes in ASI evidence' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... z11O3WbfzB

[Kanson]

What is the historical & legal basis for awarding 1/3rd land to Nirmohi Akara?

Judges seem to have pointed out both Muslims and Hindus were offering prayers side by side and other reasons for legality to divide the land for Waqf Board and Hindus. On what basis Nirmohi Akara was awarded the 1/3rd portion of the land. Just becoz being one of the litigants?