The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

[heramb]

Before 6 Dec 1992, the legal status of Babri dhaancha was strong. So, destruction of debated structure was most logical thing, which can be done to get the access to the land. Experts can comment!

[Sri]

Self deleted

[Prem]

RJB is battle between DIE Indians and Dyed Indians and may be resetting of future trajectory of India's civilizational as well Westphalian nation march.Soon DIEs be turned to fossil and forgotton forever. Almost seems like time turaround for better after looooong torturous millenium. The Judgement gives the limpse of essential Indian still alive and kicking even down for long and has not given up the field to Gangus Gangadeens.

[anchal]

Sunil Khilnani is going to write an article in Mint tomorrow on "why you should be worried about Ayodhya verdict". Going by the takleef the verdict is causing is sure enough an evidence that something big has changed post-verdict. Some big loss for the civilizational nihilists.

[svinayak]

Sunil Khilnani is going to write an article in Mint tomorrow on "why you should be worried about Ayodhya verdict". Going by the takleef the verdict is causing is sure enough an evidence that something bug has changed post-verdict. Some big loss for the civilizational nihilists.

It is the end of the psuedo secularist and their institutions inside India.
What they are seeing is that there is nobody from the west who is supporting their position. The leftist/marxist movement which supported these Indians is dead. This is more fatal than the Ayodhya debate.

[V_Raman]

It is the end of the psuedo secularist and their institutions inside India.
What they are seeing is that there is nobody from the west who is supporting their position. The leftist/marxist movement which supported these Indians is dead. This is more fatal than the Ayodhya debate.

India is beginning to get real independence at last.

[Mahendra]

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/ ... -query.htm

This is the kind of People whom people have to deal with while looking for a negotiated settlement. He is the lead cleric of Jama Masjid. I am sure he would have been more receptive to questions regarding the earth-e-quake theory.

Shahi Imam of the Delhi Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool when a journalist questioned him regarding the Ayodhya verdict during a press conference, following which he was thrashed by supporters of the cleric.

Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily, raised a question relating to the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.

Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri mosque was constructed.

Initially, Bukhari skirted the question but when the journalist insisted, he was threatened.

"Get him out of this conference, Bukhari shouted while accusing the journalist of working against the interests of the Muslims," he said.

Bukhari's supporters then thrashed the journalist in full public glare.

People like him will 'not be tolerated by Muslims at any cost,' the Shahi Imam said before leaving the press conference.

Chisti said he was only seeking a clarification from Bukhari, who had needlessly got provoked. The journalist later filed an FIR against Bukhari and his supporters at Hazratganj kotwali.

Earlier, Bukhari said the September 30 verdict of the Allahabad high court on the Ayodhya title suits was based on faith and was not acceptable to the Muslims.

He said there was no question of evolving a consensus or even holding talks for giving the mosque site for temple construction. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had directed that the 2.77-acre disputed site be divided into 3 parts.

Of this, 2 parts go to the Hindus and the remaining to the Muslims. On efforts by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the title suits, for an out of court settlement, Bukhari said he did not take him seriously as he was 'changing his statements frequently.'

For those finding it hard to believe, the link contains a video of the incident where the gentle peaceful soul is gently telling his supporters to escort the offending scribe out

[ShyamSP]

It is the end of the psuedo secularist and their institutions inside India.
What they are seeing is that there is nobody from the west who is supporting their position. The leftist/marxist movement which supported these Indians is dead. This is more fatal than the Ayodhya debate.

India is beginning to get real independence at last.

They are useful idiots who do damage in dollars (or Rupees) by taking pennies (or Paisas) so I don't see anybody giving up on them. So I'm less optimistic than Mr Acharya. At best they may become irrelevant when it comes to RJB issue but are moved on to another issue.

[SwamyG]

Sunil Khilnani is going to write an article in Mint tomorrow on "why you should be worried about Ayodhya verdict". Going by the takleef the verdict is causing is sure enough an evidence that something bug has changed post-verdict. Some big loss for the civilizational nihilists.

It is the end of the psuedo secularist and their institutions inside India.
What they are seeing is that there is nobody from the west who is supporting their position. The leftist/marxist movement which supported these Indians is dead. This is more fatal than the Ayodhya debate.

It will be an end (or under control) only when more people speak up against the "eminent historians". We should not underestimate their zeal.

[anchal]

Agreed. Besides the dose of piss, and tawlerance has been quite effective in at least making majority of the young people in this country loathe to do, say anything un-PC. I can safely say from the people I interact with - either they are ignorant of the implication of happenings around them and only worry about BCGs and McKinseys or TCSs; or died-in-the wool pacifists who know what they are saying, or worse pretend to sound very evolved in their outlook but very shaky in their beliefs.

All in all, quarantining the huge mass of people who are and always will be in deep slumber is no mean task. The success or failure of this task will define whether we achieve our goals in the future or be an also-ran in grand scheme of things. Not surprisingly 'eminent' crooks target the confused lot with their convoluted logic with very high success rate. What is more even if a person does not react; it is still a purported win for them. As speaking-out against wrongs in the country is a public good; it will always be in undersupply.

[A_Gupta]

These inscriptions were translated subsequently and appeared in Baburnama of Beveridge, but the court was not able to obtain any trail of the authenticity of the copy or translations. Morover, the inscriptions mysteriously 'disappeared' in 1934 with the claim that these were destroyed in riots of 1934.

Footnote on page 656 of Annette Beveridge says:

The D.G. of Fyzabad (H.E. Nevill) p. 173 says "In 1528 AD, Babur came to Ajodhya (Aud) and halted a week. He destroyed the ancient temple "(marking the birth-place of Rama)" and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babur's Mosque....It has two inscriptions, one on the outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian; and bear the date of 935 A.H.". This date may be that of the completion of the building.

I find "Fyzabad A Gazetter Volume XLLIII, by HR Nevil, to be from 1905. I find that there is a sentence after that - "Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ajodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to Bihar. *

* = E.H.I.,IV, 283

Nevill also writes: The other mosques {Swargadwara, Treta ke Thakur} were built by Aurangzeb and are now in ruins.

[ramana]

Actually its not the verdict but the aftermath that has resulted in the quake. Till now Indians have been fed a daily diet of "minoroties need to be appeased or else they will revolt even if the appeasement is worng!" The calmness after the judgment has given lie to this fear that was fed to India by fake seculars. Once the fear is gone they will first go after the fake-seculars and dethrone them. A Quiglian* moment has come.

* Caroll Quigley: Evolution of Civilizations. Pdf is widely available.

[A_Gupta]

Tieffenthaler spent several years in Ayodhya and was a very well regarded historian. He could read Arabic and Persian and Sanskrit, yet does not mention any inscriptions on mosque, which he would definitely have noticed and been able to translate and therefore recorded the mosque lineage with certainty rather than doubt.

This would make sense *IF* Tieffenthaler's work contains mention of other inscriptions. We do know that he mentioned the inscriptions on the Asoka pillar, but has he mentioned any on a mosque or other Muhammedan structure?

[anchal]

The recent assault on a Urdu journalist in full media glare by 'Shahi' Bukhari and his gang will IMHO go a long way in trashing the arguments of fake seculars on the silent, suffering 'other' side. Will FIR be acted upon in 'Shahi' manner by the powers as it is amply clear that the journalist was abused and threatened to "zubaan kheench loonga" in front of cameras. I also suspect a palpable Shia-Sunni divide in the Muslim community on the RJB issues. Almost all the naysayers and Shariat thumping wannabe saviors of Muslims are from a particular streak of Islam.

[Karan M]

Lot of optimism here, but the "seculars" are busy ranting away whether it be in India Abroad or Rediff or ToI or Outlook or any other media. They are not giving up and are still trying to score a victory by any means.

[A_Gupta]

FYI, Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh, 1877

In two places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it was built, 935 H, corresponding to 1528 AD, is carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of that Emperor.

[A_Gupta]

FYI, Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zilla Fyzabad including Parganas Haveli-Oudh and Pachhimrath, with the old capitals Ajudhia and Fyzabad, by P. Carnegy, Officiating Commissioner and Settlement Officer, 1870 says the following:

Concluding remarks - I will now sum up these remarks by observing that there are the following important stepping stones to History in the Fyzabad district, that is the shape of coins, images, inscriptions and buildings.

.....(IV.) Buildings - Of these we have ......
(5) Babar's mosque with stone inscriptions in Ajudhia, date AD 1528 and stone columns of infinitely greater antiquity.

Incidentally, Carnegy also records the following tradition that dates the Hanuman Garhi temple to the time of Mansur Ali Khan (around 1750).

It is traditionally affirmed that when Ram Chandar returned from the conquest of Ceylon and occupied the fortress in Ajudhia, which is known by his name, and the bastions and earthworks are still pointed out, he assigned to his various Generals their different posts, giving to the much trusted Hanuman, the leader of the monkey army, the command of the tower at the main entrance or gate, which was thenceforth called "Hanuman chaura". This command Hanuman is said to have retained until the Ajudhia of those days was conveyed away to heaven.

It is affirmed that upto Mansur Ali Khan's time offerings to Hanuman, of flowers, red-lead&c, were made at the foot of a glorious old tamarind tree, known by the name of Ram Chaura. On a certain occasion the Nawab just named was seized with a severe illness, which it was thought, was cured by the prayers of Abhi Ram, the chief of the then mendicants of Ajudhia, and this secured for the latter Munsur Ali's good offices and gratitude.

Hanuman is said subsequently to have appeared to Abhi Ram in a vision, and to have desired him to build a temple a Ram Chaura, and he accordingly did. Such was the comparatively recent origin of the Hanuman Garhi as we see it, to which many additions, and repairs have since been made.

Point being that if Hindus were generally going about try to claim great antiquity for everything, why would they preserve this story?

[Pranav]

Shahi Imam of the Delhi Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool when a journalist questioned him regarding the Ayodhya verdict during a press conference, following which he was thrashed by supporters of the cleric.

Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily, raised a question relating to the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.

Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri mosque was constructed.

Are there land records from 1528 ??

[Airavat]

Leftists are liars, intellectually challenged, and not qualified to write history

At the heart of the fury of the ‘intellectuals’ is the court’s assault on the reputation of the clutch of ‘eminent historians’ which has dictated the ‘secular’ discourse on the Ayodhya dispute. The court questioned the competence of various ‘expert’ witnesses and cast doubts on their intellectual integrity.

In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”

A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.

D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.

Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian” whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of history”, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonesty”.

[Suppiah]

The rapist goon puppet yellow daily reported that some 'intellectuals' want the ASI report to be published -and also repeated the usual lies about animal bones and pottery - wonder what their agenda is. They must be hoping that the report can be released and the world media swamped with their lies, and help obtained from evangelic fanatics, Ahmed-nutjob and other global fanatics to their cause, so that their lies in front of judge is forgotten.

[unarayanadas]

I would like to make three points:

1. On going through the debate on this forum I sense lot of complacency in this forum about the role of the MSM in analysing and presenting the Ayodhya verdict. We seem to be preaching to the already converted. Except one small report in - surprisingly - ToI, the Pravda of the Congress party, for the rest of the media the judgement was just the prevalence of 'faith over evidence'. Nobody seems to have bothered about what the judgement contained. Even India Today, which is generally balanced in its reporting published a report about how Muslims were disappointed with the judgement and how we as a secular democracy are likely to be perceived outside India.

2. The role of MSM appears to me to be subscribing to some kind of road justice: when a road accident occurs, irrespective of who is at fault, the pedestrian or the smaller vehicle is sympathised. Nobody is bothering to pause and wonder if the court simply awards the suit to the Muslims irrespective of the merits of the case, how it would affect the psyche of the majority community or how it would shake its faith in the democratic institutions of this country.

3. A group of like-minded friends who are concerned about the blatantly partisan coverage of the media and especially of NDTV desire posting an online petition to it. I urge members to view the following text and suggest any additions/modifications they might like to make. And after the petitioners post it I would also request all members of this forum to sign it.

We the signatories of this petition, as concerned Indian citizens (resident and non-resident) would like to register our strong protest for the way in which your channel conducted debates hosted by Ms. Barkha Dutt on the judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya dispute.

We do hope, as a responsible news channel watched by millions of Indians world-wide, you are not oblivious to your social responsibilities, which include fostering a climate of amity between communities, especially between India’s two major religions. Sadly, we have to point out, that fostering such a climate of amity between the two major religions is not possible by harping on the victim-hood of one side alone. Unfortunately this is the net effect of the debates you telecast and could only widen the chasm between the two, exacerbate tensions and lead to a climate of mutual hatred and ill-will.

We as concerned citizens interested in fostering a climate of amity and goodwill between various communities in the country take strong exception to the following aspects of the post-verdict debates and do hope you will remedy them in future:

1. For instance if your moderator, Ms. Barkha Dutt allows one side to harp on ‘December 6 1992’ ad nauseum, as if India’s history really began on that day or as if that was the only incident responsible for Hindu-Muslim tensions, she could willy-nilly appear to be taking sides in the debate.

2. The other side could equally well argue that ‘December 6 1992’ was merely the culmination of a process of alienation of Hindus aggrieved by centuries of victimisation under alien rulers and decades of discrimination under pseudo-secular Indian rulers. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t get to voice their side of the argument because they are not allowed to, which gives one an impression that Ms. Barkha Dutt is taking sides.

3. One could ask with equal legitimacy, why the 1989-90 events should not be considered a watershed in Hindu-Muslim relations as it was during this period the Kashmir valley was cleansed of its Hindu population, leading to the exile of between 350000 and 400000 Pandits in their own homeland?

However Ms. Dutt and the panellists on the show stubbornly refuse to countenance the question as for them the concept of ‘secularism’ means one thing in Jammu & Kashmir and quite a different thing in the rest of India.

Of course Ms. Dutt is entitled to her views but if airing her views is likely to add to the belligerence that is already prevalent in the air should she not restrain herself from airing them?

4. We are pained to observe that those who advised that ‘everyone should respect the judicial verdict’ and ‘the country has moved on’ till the day of the judgment suddenly began denouncing it as soon as it was delivered. Legal experts say that it would take at least a few weeks to read and digest the 8000+ pages verdict but panellists on your channel were allowed to denounce it almost as soon it was delivered.

5. Panellists who oppose the construction of the ‘Sri Ram Mandir’ were asked loaded questions like “were you disappointed with the verdict?” As you are aware, in legal parlance such questions are characterised as ‘leading’ calling for a ‘conclusion’ from the witness. This obviously means that the panellist would have to take a stance from which it is impossible to reconcile later even if one wanted to. As Ayodhya is a sensitive issue and is likely to inflame passions on both sides of the divide could such provocative questions be not avoided?

6. In some instances Ms. Dutt was animatedly participating than moderating the debate. She could have opposed or at least protested voicing diatribe as comment, like describing the verdict as a ‘Panchayat settlement’.

7. We believe panellists who support the court verdict could have been given more time. The court has indeed given an opportunity to the two sides to bury their differences and come to an amicable solution. Would not an amicable solution at this stage help the ‘nation to move on’ as indeed it should?

8. The moderator on several occasions used the word ‘dissenting judge’ while alluding to one of the judges on the bench, which gave the verdict. As different judges agreed / differed on different aspects of the complex issue, it would be unfair to selectively use the word ‘dissenting judge’ depending one’s view point and convenience.

9. As the verdict is being slowly digested and excerpts appear on various Internet fora it is now abundantly clear that the Honourable justices have in fact based their judgment on hard evidence and not on faith of the majority religion as large sections of the media seem to imply.

10. Transcripts of evidence tendered by the historians, archaeologists and other expert witnesses of the BMAC, their cross-examination by the defendants’ lawyers and the observations of the Honourable justices should leave no one in doubt that the BMAC has no case at all and that the Masjid was in fact built on the ruins of a temple or a existing temple was destroyed to build the Masjid.

In spite of overwhelming evidence supporting the claim of a temple having either existed or demolished on that site should the media harp on its ‘faith-prevailing-over-evidence’ line thus tarnishing the image of the judiciary, the ‘court of last resort’ for the common citizen? Will it not weaken the common citizen’s faith in the democratic institutions of the country?

On the other hand will not awarding the suit in favour of the Muslims irrespective of the merits of the case be akin to some kind of ‘road justice’, in which the smaller vehicle or pedestrian in a road accident is invariably sympathised? Will it not weaken the majority religion’s faith in the judiciary?

The Ayodhya debate was but one example of the prevailing political culture – which your channel typifies – that defines secularism as anti-Hinduism.

We are of the humble opinion that the country can ‘move on’ only if every concerned citizen – not least the opinion-shaping bodies like the media - work in tandem for fostering amity and goodwill between various sections / groups of citizenry.

The Honourable Court has indeed accorded the nation a wonderful opportunity to bring about a climate of amity and goodwill between India’s two major religions. Whether the nation seizes it or fritters it away largely depends on the opinion-making institutions like the media.

Will NDTV help or hinder the cause?

Thank you for listening.

Concerned Citizens of India

[Suppiah]

The Stalinist rapist goons and they plants in yellow media are working with a clear sense of purpose and a clear mission - to destroy the cultural fabric of the country, to create anarchy and chaos and to destroy the Hindu religion - all with the objective of ensuring that their cancerous ideology and the agendas of their overseas paymasters can be promoted. Such being the case, they cannot be pleaded to, they need to be exposed.

They need to be shown that we know they are treacherous scum and we have no faith in their lies....and make sure millions know about it...

[chetak]

This may explain the shock and despondency of the sickular brigade.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... tement.pdf

[unarayanadas]

Chetak, The same Jelani went on air in every TV channel to denounce the judgement. The statement referred by you might have been issued before the judgement was delivered and mainly intended to thank the 'secular' historians for their 'support'. For some reason the 'secular' establishment was very sure the judgement would go in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board. It came as a shock to them when it was finally delivered.

[kedargadgil]

A Statement from Muslim Counsel http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... tement.pdf

[Arjun]

Tieffenthaler spent several years in Ayodhya and was a very well regarded historian. He could read Arabic and Persian and Sanskrit, yet does not mention any inscriptions on mosque, which he would definitely have noticed and been able to translate and therefore recorded the mosque lineage with certainty rather than doubt.

This would make sense *IF* Tieffenthaler's work contains mention of other inscriptions. We do know that he mentioned the inscriptions on the Asoka pillar, but has he mentioned any on a mosque or other Muhammedan structure?

The logic would make sense even without going into whether he translated other inscriptions on which I am not an authority.

The point being Tieffenthaler himself notes that there is dispute between what some sections of the population say and others, regarding the origin of the mosque. Given this background, and noting that Tieffenthaler was the kind of person who would be very interested in resolving the dispute and given that the inscriptions were claimed to be there in a language which he could very well understand, there would not be any reason why he would not take note of it and report authoritatively on his findings. As regards inscriptions on other mosques it might make sense to look into those as comparable only if their origins were in dispute and the inscriptions were a key to unlocking the dispute.

As regards the other gazetteer notings you have shared, the key is whether all of them were based on independant observation or based on the same report of Montgomery Martin. In any case, Justice Agarwal's final conclusion on this is that he beleives the inscription were not in place when Tiefenthaler visited, but were put in place before Buchanan ( ie between 1740 and 1810)...So when Justice Agarwal questions the authenticity he is not doubting they were in place and seen by Martin et al, but he doubts they were put up Babur / Mir Baqi as claimed, and look to be post facto additions by some interested parties.

Further what should we make of the fact that only these inscriptions conveniently disappeared on 1934?

[Arjun]

10. Transcripts of evidence tendered by the historians, archaeologists and other expert witnesses of the BMAC, their cross-examination by the defendants’ lawyers and the observations of the Honourable justices should leave no one in doubt that the BMAC has no case at all and that the Masjid was in fact built on the ruins of a temple or a existing temple was destroyed to build the Masjid.

Do you want to mention BMAC when it is not a litigant in this case? Might it not be better to mention Sunni Wakf Board?

Also, my understanding is Sunni Wakf Board framed the case primarily as one of wresting title and possession of the structure from Hindus. So it might be better to stress that the court has found the title and exclusive possession claim of the Wakf board as completely untenable, based on hard facts. The court found ample evidence that Wakf Board's claims have no merit on any count, whether it be of recent title evidence, historical evidence (question of existence of temple prior to mosque) or question of exclusive worshipping rights over last two centuries or more.

[Prasad]

Part of teh judgement makes it quite clear that the Waqf Board cannot fight for title. The Waqf board can only manage and not wrest title/possession of a Waqf property. That much is clear from the legalese.

[chetak]

Chetak, The same Jelani went on air in every TV channel to denounce the judgement. The statement referred by you might have been issued before the judgement was delivered and mainly intended to thank the 'secular' historians for their 'support'. For some reason the 'secular' establishment was very sure the judgement would go in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board. It came as a shock to them when it was finally delivered.

unarayanadas ji,

The smug statement was issued before the verdict. That's how confident they were of their hollow and empty case. Their fellow travellers have doctored and falsified history books since independence to project a distorted and doctored world view of the savage, genocidal and despotic islamic rule in India.

Too bad that the three learned judges did not read the very same history books but chose to do some independent and scientific thinking instead.

There was a very strong rumor circulating in Delhi among the sickular crowd that the verdict would certainly go in their favor by overwhelming majority and caustic commentary. This was the reason for the slyly complacent outlook from the likes of owasi, jelani other unwashed abduls of similar ilk.

This very crowd saw exactly what they wanted to see and dynamically modified every fact and circumstance to suit their predetermined conclusion.

Thereby completely missing the woods for the trees.

Now they are all sick to their stomachs and have openly shown their historic and true cultural colors of intolerance and vengeful politics.

We have seen all this before, nothing new here.

[unarayanadas]

Arjunji is right. The petition to NDTV should mention Sunni Wakq Board and not BMAC as the BMAC has been a late entrant in the dispute in the 1980s and has been actively though indirectly involved. I'll bring this to the notice of the petitioners and have it corrected.

Also, my understanding is Sunni Wakf Board framed the case primarily as one of wresting title and possession of the structure from Hindus. So it might be better to stress that the court has found the title and exclusive possession claim of the Wakf board as completely untenable, based on hard facts. The court found ample evidence that Wakf Board's claims have no merit on any count, whether it be of recent title evidence, historical evidence (question of existence of temple prior to mosque) or question of exclusive worshipping rights over last two centuries or more.

It is true when the plaintiffs realised that the title suit of 1961 is likely to be dismissed because of 'limitation of time' they filed a second suit against 'adverse possession' by the Hindus but even this seems to have been dismissed.

[unarayanadas]

Acharya wrote:
It is the end of the psuedo secularist and their institutions inside India. What they are seeing is that there is nobody from the west who is supporting their position. The leftist/marxist movement which supported these Indians is dead. This is more fatal than the Ayodhya debate.

You just can not write off the 'left-lib' crowd. They may be down but they are not out because they planted their fellow-travellers in most opinion-making bodies like the universities and the media. It will be a while before their influence wanes.

[A_Gupta]

Given this background, and noting that Tieffenthaler was the kind of person who would be very interested in resolving the dispute and given that the inscriptions were claimed to be there in a language which he could very well understand, there would not be any reason why he would not take note of it and report authoritatively on his findings.

Where did you get the above read of Tieffenthaler's character and motivations?

Further what should we make of the fact that only these inscriptions conveniently disappeared on 1934?

Quite the same as the mosque having disappeared in 1992.

[A_Gupta]

Montgomery Martin does not mention any details of the inscription that he saw (e.g, 935 AH) and so Carnegy must have seen the inscriptions for himself.

While the court could not take cognisance of the British Library papers submitted by the VHP, with Buchanan's 1814 notes, I have no reason to disbelieve them; i.e., I will bet that if you go to the British Library the notes will be as presented to the court.

And for that matter, the local tradition in Ayodhya says "Naurang Shah" demolished the Swargadwara, Treta-ke-Thakur, etc.; and Naurang Shah is taken to be Aurangzeb. How do we establish that connection?

[A_Gupta]

Also just want to point out, e.g., that when the court writes:

Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that had the building in dispute constructed in 1528 and that too at the command of Emperor Babar, it would be inconceivable that Abul Fazal Allami in his work “Ain-e-Akbari” would have failed to notice the same though, if correct, it would have been the work of Akbar's grandfather.

What a competent historian will also show is that all other works of Babar are found in Ain-e-Akbari. If they are not, then the argument falls flat on its face.

[Arjun]

Given this background, and noting that Tieffenthaler was the kind of person who would be very interested in resolving the dispute and given that the inscriptions were claimed to be there in a language which he could very well understand, there would not be any reason why he would not take note of it and report authoritatively on his findings.

Where did you get the above read of Tieffenthaler's character and motivations?

From here, his biography as provided in the judgement. Obviously he was a liguistic wizard and a committed scholar, and something as simple as reading inscriptions to settle a historical issue he was researching, would not have escaped him. If you have any basis to cast aspersions on his motivations, glad to hear from you...

Josef Tieffenthaler was born at Bozen in the Tyrol, on 27th August, 1710 and died at Lucknow on 5 July, 1785.
He entered the Society of Jesus 9 October, 1729, and went in 1740 to the East Indian mission where he occupied
various positions, chiefly in the empire of the Great Moghul. After the suppression of the Society he
remained in India, and on his death was buried in the mission cemetery at Agra, where his tombstone still
stands. He was a fine scholar with an unusual talent for languages; besides his native tongue he understood Latin,
Italian, Spanish, French, Hindustani, Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit. He was the first European who wrote an exact
description of Hindustan. A brief list of his works is the best proof of his extraordinary power of work and his
varied scholarship. In geography, he wrote a “Descriptio Indiae”, that is a circumstantial description of the twenty
two provinces of India, of its cities, fortresses, and the most important smaller towns, together with an exact
statement of geographical positions, calculated by means of a simple quadrant. He wrote a large book on the courses
of the Ganga. In history, he wrote many books. He wrote 1693 on the origin of the Hindus and their religion in Latin,
expeditions of Nadir Shah to India in German, the Deeds of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in Persian, Incursions
of the Afghans and the Conquest of Delhi in French. He wrote a book on contemporary history 1757-64. In
linguistics he prepared a Sanskrit-Parsee Lexicon, treatises in Latin on the language of the Parsees, on the proper
pronunciation of Latin, etc.. In the area of religion, he wrote ‘Brahmanism’ and works on Indian polytheism, Indian asceticism, the religion of Parsee Islam and relations of these religions to one another.In the field of the natural sciences he wrote on astronomical observations on the sunspots and zodiacal light, studies on the Hindu astronomy, astrology and cosmology. In addition, he
wrote on the descriptions and observations of the flora and fauna of India. Thus he was an intellectual giant and a
linguistic wizard and not mere a traveller or a merchant who made casual remarks. His writings and contributions also find place in the books
-HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre des 17. und 18. Jahrh. (Freiberg, 1899), 179; NOTI. Jos.Tieffentaller,
S. J., A Forgotten Geographer of India (Bombay, 1906); HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India (Calcutta,
1907).

[A_Gupta]

^^^
You're assuming that this mosque thing was a big matter of interest for him. In fact, the more his output was, the less significant would one such thing be for him. What would matter most to him is things of great antiquity that might challenge the Biblical story. Once there is no original Ram temple, it wouldn't be of interest.

BTW, the Buchanan papers submitted from the British library by VHP make it fairly clear that the Mir Baqi inscription was in the midst of a whole lot of calligraphy of standard stuff like quotes from the Quran. Unless one was specifically looking for it, one might miss it.

[A_Gupta]

BTW, you know that most of Tieffenthaller's writings are either not published and in manuscript form only, or else lost?

[arjunm]

IMAGINED HISTORIES
- The court watched a parade of the good, the bad and the ugly

When the history of the Ayodhya movement comes to be written, there will be the inevitable search for heroes and villains. The selection will be contentious: one man’s hero is, after all, another man’s villain. At this interim stage, when the Allahabad High Court verdict has opened a small window of opportunity for an amicable settlement that leaves no side completely dissatisfied, it would help to examine how the beauty parade of the good, the bad and the ugly has been viewed from the Bench.

An exploration of the voluminous judgment of the judge, Sudhir Agarwal, is pertinent in the context of a determined bid by India’s vocal left-wing intelligentsia to rubbish the judgment as a departure from modernity, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In a statement by 61 ‘intellectuals’ led by the historian, Romila Thapar, that includes the cream of the left-liberal establishment and sundry art dealers, photographers and food critics, the judgment was attacked for dealing yet “another blow to India’s secular fabric”.

At the heart of the fury of the ‘intellectuals’ is the court’s assault on the reputation of the clutch of ‘eminent historians’ which has dictated the ‘secular’ discourse on the Ayodhya dispute. The court questioned the competence of various ‘expert’ witnesses and cast doubts on their intellectual integrity.

It was the Archaeological Survey of India report of court-monitored excavations in 2003 of the disputed site which set the cat among the pigeons. After exhaustive hearings of “all possible angles in the matter so that there may not remain a grievance”, the high court accepted the ASI report which R.C. Thakran of Delhi University, an expert witness for the Sunni Waqf Board, dubbed “an unprofessional document full of gross distortions, one-sided presentation of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”.

Thakran’s indignation was understandable. In its conclusion, the ASI submitted that “a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive attached with it” was located at the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. The scale of the buildings indicated that they were for “public” functions. “It was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.”

Without mincing words, the ASI report had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by the professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith”.

Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”

A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.

A curious feature of the 1991 intervention, which emerged from Suraj Bhan’s cross-examination, was the disinclination of the “impartial historians” to undertake any field work. In his deposition, Bhan stated: “I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…. In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.”

Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site”, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.

Shallowness and superficiality are themes that recur. Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by B.B. Lal”.

The lapse would have put an undergraduate to shame but not the “impartial” historians. During her cross-examination, Suvira Jaiswal, another Waqf Board expert historian, confessed: “I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or… from the report of historians.” Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian” whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of history”, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonesty”.

Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial” history turned to imaginative history. It was suggested by Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an “Islamic structure of the Sultanate period”. Mandal went one better, suggesting that after the Gupta period “this archaeological site became desolate for a long time”. The reason: floods. Supriya Verma contested the “Hindu” character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods — something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, “could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure [sic]”. There were also suggestions, never proven or pressed, that the ASI had falsified and suppressed data.

The court was not amused. Dismissing the unsubstantiated allegations “we find on the contrary, pre-determined attitude of the witness (Suraj Bhan) against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed (an) opinion and expressed his views…” The judge, Agarwal, was “surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story” of a mosque under a mosque.

The judge was unaware of what constitutes “scientific” history in India. In her deposition as an expert in ancient history, Suvira Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”

She was articulating the prevailing philosophy of history writing in contemporary India. The courts recoiled in horror at the “dearth of logical thinking” and the underlying cronyism behind the public stands of India’s “eminent” historians. Quoting a British Law Lord from an 1843 judgment, it suggested their expertise was “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” — harsh words that civil society needs to remember on the next occasion the “impartial” historians strut on the public stage.
Top
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101015/j ... 057334.jsp

thanks-

arjun-m








http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101015/j ... 057334.jsp

[A_Gupta]

So let us see:

William Finch (~1610) does not report a mosque in Ramkot. Nor does he report a temple. There are only the "ruines of Ranichand[s] castle and houses". The along comes Tieffenthaler in 1740 or so, and there is a mosque, but he doesn't report inscriptions. So in between, supposedly a mosque was built, by Aurangzeb. There is a tradition Tieffenthaler records of someone (Aurangzeb or Babur) having demolished the RJB temple - but there was no temple to demolish as per Finch. Then between 1740 and 1811 someone puts up two inscriptions on the mosque that attribute it to Babur and year 935 A.H. Why didn't they ascribe it to Aurangzeb? We don't know.

In this scenario, there is absolutely nothing that ties the site to Babur. The temple may have been in ruins even when Babur passed through Ayodhya.

Of course, it is possible that Babur demolished the temple, and Aurangzeb built the mosque - but without the mosque inscriptions we have nothing to tie the mosque to Babur.

So, at worst, Aurangzeb seized the site of long ruined temple - at least 200 years in ruins - and built a mosque there? Yes, Tieffenthaler records Hindus worshipping at the site during Ram Navami; but somehow the record of Hindu worship only starts with him; so the Hindu worship is (if we disregard local tradition) coeval with the mosque.

Finch has no mention of it. He does mention the cave on the river "with a narrow entrance but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well loose himselfe there, if he take not better heed; where it is thought his [Rama's] ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from hence in remembrance certaine graines of rices as blacke as gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold tryed. Here is great trade, and much abundance of Indina asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts of drinking cupts. There are of these hornes, all the Indians affirme, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable, some esteeming them the right unicornes horne."

-----

A question - in the Persian or other literature, what is the earliest mention of a "Babri Mosque" in Ayodhya (as opposed to a RJB mosque)?

------

I must say, the judges did the best they did to piece together a legal argument through the inexpert experts and lousy evidence they were given. But that doesn't mean we turn off our brains.

[ramana]

Arun, Is the idea that only Western travellers records or that of Muslim historians count for evidence?