The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

[Manny]

AWESOME Arjun.

[chaanakya]

Next Star witness is PW 29 Jaya Menon appearing in ner capacity as expert archaeologist on behalf of Sunni Waqf Board and ors in Suit No 4 and 5

Remember she has been caught lying in the Court when she along with her colleague Supriya Verma PW 32 complained against ASI's alleged creation of Pillar Bases.

J Sudhir Kumar
Vol 16
Page 3767-3768 (18-19/251) para 3703

3703. The two witnesses PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon and PW-32 Dr. Supria Varma claim to have made the complaint of
creation of pillar base by ASI people to the muslim parties. On page 79, PW -32 Dr. Supriya Varma has said:"These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints were handed over to muslim parties and their counsels."3704. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma was present at the site on the following dates:(a) 5th April, 2003 to 12th April, 2003, (b) 11th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003, (c) 22nd June 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and (d) 8th July 2003 to 19th July, 2003. PW 29 Jaya Menon has given the period when she was present at the site, in para 2 of her affidavit, as under:(a) 26th
April, 2003 to 2nd May, 2003, (b) 20th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003 (c) 22nd June, 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and (d) 19th
July, 2003 to 26th July, 20033706. Therefore, at Trench G2, between 16th May, 2003 to 19th May, 2003, according to the own admission, PW 29 was not present. Similarly at trench ZF1, PW 32 was not present (29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003). PW 29 in para 13M(i) of the affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 has asserted that she observed Trench ZF1 from 29th
to 30th April, 2003, noticed creation of pillar base and made a complaint.

Also remember that she is one of the two expert archaeologists who drafted objections against ASI report.


Her deposition where she has agreed to some of the ASI findings and later on where she has disagreed .

Vol 6
Page 3854-3853( 103-104/251) para 3799(c)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-16.pdf

(c) P.W. 29, Dr. Jaya Menon :
" I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods" (Page 71)
"The contour map given at page 13-A is correct. To make a contour map Theodolite, tapes, and measuring staff are required and now a days a total station is used.” (Page 71)

" After going through page no.1 of this site note book the witness stated that the location mentioned there, is correct.” (Page 92)
“..the caption for plate 62, is correct." (Page 111)

"Plate no. 36,37,38 of the ASI report were shown to the witness who stated that all these photographs are INSITU photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases were found in the north of dispute site. In my opinion these are the pillar bases." (Page 203)

"Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were associated with the pre Babri Masjid structure. . . . . . . . . These floors may be dated from the end of the 12th century to the 16th century AD. According to me walls and structures prior to 12th century were found in excavation but no floor prior to 12th century was found at the site. According to me the oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third century AD and the oldest structure found would be structure 5 which may be of 6th century AD." (Page 205-206)

“

I agree with the observation

of Prof. H.C. Bharadwaj at page 73 of his article

that gypsum mortar/plaster was used in the Harappan period. I agree with the observation in the latter part of this para that gypsum was used as mortar in the Kalibangan period also. . . . . .Lime mortar was definitely used from Neolithic period.

" (Page 224)

Let us point out few things here. 1. She agrees that the in situ photographs are pillar bases ( as opposed to created pillar bases in her complaint)
2.Gypsum/mortar/plaster and Lime mortar was from Harappan period and neolithic period.So it is definitely not islamic innovation. We shall also see later that Lime mortar had been used in Gupta period extensively.

So the propaganda that lime mortar find in the structure is indicated of Islamic inhabitation is a lie, to borrow a term from Sankuji.

She has been examined by the COurt first before rexaminationof PW 16 Suraj Bhan and PW 24 D Mandal as she was the co-author of the objections against ASI report.

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
Page 4002-4013 (3-14/251 of the Vol) para 3839-3841
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf

3839. PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections filed on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. It is for this reason that she was examined first before re-examination of PW 16 and 24. The affidavit of PW 29 is dated 28.9.2005 and her cross examination was conducted from 29.9.2005 to 19.1.2006( Well she can not claim memory lapses as she was examined next day of filing her affidavit). PW 24 was examined second time when he was produced in respect to ASI report by filing his affidavit dated 5.12.2005 and the cross examination conducted from 5.12.2005 to 4.1.2006. So far as PW 16 is concerned, on third occasion his affidavit is dated 20.2.2006 and cross examination held from 20.3.2006 to 28.7.2006. It is for this reason probably that the periodization/ chronology vis-a-vis its co-relation with various finds and structures etc. found by ASI have been assailed in para 8 (from para 8.1 to 8.6) of the objections of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4).

However, in her affidavit dated 28.9.2005, PW 29 has changed her stand and in para 4 and she says:

“4. That the ASI Report has problems with stratigraphy and chronology, which may be summarised as under:-

(A) That as many as 15 pieces of terracotta figurines of later periods were reported from earlier levels, an impossible situation if deposits were actually stratified. In fact, deposits from Gupta period onwards are not stratified and the material is all mixed up. This is a point that is not debated by the ASI and has been repeated several times through the Report.

(B) That there are clearly problems with the stratigraphy which is indicated by other inaccuracies. If one calculates the total depth of deposits in different periods from a single trench such as G7, it is clear that there are gaps. Specifically, in G7, there is 1 metre deposit for Period 1(NBP), 1.6 metre for Period II (Sunga), 1.5 metre for Period III (Kushan), 2 metre for Period IV (Gupta), 0.9 metre for Period V (Post Gupta), 0.75 metre for Period VI (Early Medieval), 0.6 metre for Period VII (Medieval) and 0.25 metre for Period VIII and Period IX has not been indicated (as derived from Chapter III). This totals up to 8.60 metres of cultural deposits. According to the ASI, the total cultural deposit is 10.80 metre, which means that almost 2.20 metre is not accounted for. Not only this, Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mentions total depth dug for Trench G7 as 13.45 metre. Even if the ASI points out that the lower layers in G7 belong to a pit and we accept their depth for natural as 10.80 metre, it still means that there is a massive pit of about 2.65 metre depth, which is a trifle difficult to imagine. There could have been a fill as there is in Trench J3, but not a pit of such dimensions.

(C) That the ASI also mentions a continuous cultural occupation of the site. However, if we examine Plate 5 of the Final Report, a layer with no cultural material (termed in archaeology as a sterile layer) can be clearly seen, for example, below layer 4. The ASI has marked out this layer but has not numbered it. Sterile layers indicate periods when there was no
habitation or occupation. These layers are ascribed to the Early Medieval/Sultatnate period (Period VI) in the tentative periodization of the site. There is then a possibility that there was no Early Medieval occupation and there was a gap between the Gupta and the Medieval periods. This had been noted as early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, of BHU, Varanasi, which had noted a desertion of the site between the Early Historic and Medieval periods. (By neglecting to indicate the sterile layers and their implications, the ASI is trying to project a continuous occupation of the site from the Early Historic to the Medieval periods. Neither the stratigraphy nor the artefacts, however, substantiate such a claim. There is a certain bias here, which again goes against the norms of archaeological objectivity, to force a certain interpretation on the material, that from the 10th century AD onwards the area was occupied by Hindu religious structures.)

(D) That in the same context, the layering of fill deposits in J3, J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to show continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It was only when complaints were made that these fill deposits were acknowledged but eventual registrations of artefacts from these deposits in the final Report were left uncorrected.

(E) That in archaeology, structures can be dated if there are special construction techniques or material, known specifically to have been used in a particular period, such as lime-surkhi from the end of the 12th century AD. Structures can also be dated on the basis of associated artefactual material coming from stratified contexts in association with the structures. But when the material is all mixed up from the Gupta period onwards, it is impossible to neatly slot structural remains into periods of post-Gupta, Early Medieval or Medieval levels.

(F) That in this attempt to force a particular interpretation on the material that cannot be substantiated, there is bound to be confusion and discrepancies. Confusion is clearly indicated by the manner in which floors are numbered at various
places in the text. The same floor is given different numbers, some floors appear and disappear, their extent keeps changing and so forth.) The numbering of floors in association with so called “pillar bases”, mentioned in the Table on pages 56-67 of the Final Report does not match with those in Fig. 8,9,10,11,12 and 13. On page 41, it is mentioned that the earliest floor extended in the eastern area up to the H series of trenches in sub-period VIIA. In sub-period VIIB,
the next floor extended up to trenches J4-J5-J6. On page 42, it is indicated that in sub-period VIIC, the floor associated with the “pillar bases” is the most extensive on the mound. In Fig. 23A, however, Floor 4 (the earliest floor) is shown as extending all over the mound while Floor 3 and Floor 2 are more restricted, providing a completely contradictory picture.

(G) That the tentative periodization and schematic cross-section of the mound that has been provided between page 37 and 38 of the Final Report does not provide a layer-wise description of all the trenches. For example, no information on layers has been provided for important trenches like E8, F8, F9, G8, G9 and G1. Even for trenches that have been mentioned in the diagrams, we have no indication of the layers below Floor 4 in important trenches like F3 and F4/F5. (There should have been a concordance of the layers of trenches from the north and south of the site.)

(H) That in some cases strata were marked in almost complete darkness within trenches such as G8. A study of stratigraphy within a trench requires careful examination of the sections to discern differences in colour and texture of soil. Obviously plenty of light is required for such a study. Even though there were arrangements for artificial light, very often this was not used as in the case of Trench G8 and yet strata were marked and antiquities registered as from
particular layers.”

3840. PW 29, this time has taken stand which substantially conforms to that of PW 24. In cross examination, she said :

“I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods but with the rest of the periods I do not agree. According to my information N.B.P.W. should be dated from 600 B.C. to 100 B.C. whereas Shunga period is second century B.C. which would overlap the N.B.P.W. N.B.P.W. denotes Northern Black Polished Ware. N.B.P.W. is well known pottery of Northern India. From my point of view archaeological periods should not be distinguished on the basis of dynasties Kushan period is dated from Ist to 3rd century A.D.” (Page 71)

“I have mentioned in para 4-A of my affidavit that deposits from Gupta period onwards are not stratified. In this regard I have to say that all the materials of earlier and later periods, were mixed up. If the material is mixed up it does not give a correct picture of the stratification.” (Page 74)

" I do not agree with the periodisation of the disputed site at Ayodhya as shown by ASI in Chart, at page No. 37-A of
the ASI report, Volume-I" (Page 45)"In para 3 A of my affidavit I have mentioned about terminology ad periodization. The defects in terminology and periodization show confusion in the report. Due to the defect of terminology and periodization, the report of ASI is also biased." (Page 70)

“Terminology and periodization play a significant role but they are not most important. The terminology and periodization can be changed. I would also have problems with archaeologically identifying periods according to dynasties. I do not know about universal periodization.” (Page 70)

“Learned counsel drew the attention of witness towards A.S.I. Report Vol. 1, (Text) at page no. 37-A. The witness stated that in last column of page period has been mentioned but I am not in agreement with this periodization.” (Page 71)

"… I think that the stratigraphy shown in this plate, is correct. The layers are distinct in texture.” (Page 111)

“Starting period of Muslim rule in India is from 1206 A.D i.e. of Qutubuddin Aibak. I don’t know whether this period is known as Illawari Turk. According to renowned historians, the period before 1206 A.D. is known as Early Medieval period. Since I have not read the book by B.S. Smith, therefore I cannot say whether he refers to the period from Harsha till 1200 A.D. as Rajput Period. I have not heard about Anoop Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. I don’t know whether the most authentic version of Prithviraj Raso written by Chandbardai is maintained in this library. … I would say Rigveda can be dated from 1500 B.C. Alexander invaded India in 327-325 B.C. Mauryan dynasty was established in 321 B.C. The Mauryas were succeeded by Sunga dynasty. Sunga dynasty is dated from 2nd century B.C. to 1st century B.C. Archaeologically, the periods cannot be categorized on the basis of dynasties.” (Page 115-116)

“I will not agree with the statement even in para 1 to 5 just because the period VI and VII have been changed in nomenclature. In my view A.S.I.’s period V, and period VI and period VII should be considered as Early Medieval.” (Page 129)
“Stratigraphy is a term used in Archaeology. Stratigraphy is the study of layers as they are formed over time. … The
Archaeology periods can be fixed on the basis of centuries.Centuries can be put into various periods for the purposes
of study. Harappan period is dated from 2600 B.C. To 1900 B.C. from 600 B.C. various Mahajanpad period was followed by the Nandas and the beginning of Mauryan period. During 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. the two dynasties ruled while the Mauryan dynasty continued beyond 300 B.C. also." (Page 144)

"It is correct to say that for the purpose of periodization, the method of century-wise study is better and preferable
to that of dynasty-wise. The period 800 AD to 1200 AD falls within the Early Medieval period, which started much earlier to 800 AD. … Early Medieval period lasted from 600 AD to 1200 AD. I know the periods in terms of pre-Gupta, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. According to me, Gupta period begins from fourth century AD and continued up to sixth century AD and prior to that, was the pre-Gupta period up to the time immemorial. Pre-Gupta period would date back to 600 BC and post-Gupta is from 600 BC to 1200BC." (Page 150)

"Medieval period would be post 1200 A.D. According to archaeology periodisation is on the basis of stratigraphy.

Ques- Will it not be correct to say that there are three well established norms of periodisationm that ism no. 1 layer, wise 2. century wise 3. Dynasty wise. ?

ANS- It is not correct to say that 'periodisation' in archaeology can be done on the basis of 'dynasties'.I do not agree that periodisation can be done century-wise. Century-wise periodisation is covered by stratigraphy or layer wise study. The numbering of the layers is done from top to bottom. Where as periodisation is ascertained from bottom to top.” (Page 182-183)

“A.S.I. has mentioned about periodisation in its report. It is correct to say that A.S.I. has adopted all the three methods
of periodisation mentioned above in its report. It is wrong to suggest that A.S.I. has mentioned in its periodisation by
layers, century and dynasties. According to me some periods were identified on the basis of century wise and one was identified on the basis of archaeological culture. I think A.S.I. has identified nine periods in its report. According to me century has been mentioned in all the above nine periods. Dynasty wise report is not mentioned in all the above mentioned nine periods. A.S.I. has given details of dynasties of four periods. The dynasties mentioned by the A.S.I. are Shungas. Kushans, Guptas, Mughal. A.S.I. has not mentioned any dynasty other than the Mughal for the medieval period... I don't agree with the identification of the period 'post Gupta Rajput level. According to me the post Gupta Rajput part of the period should be called as early medieval period which should extend upto 1200 A.D. According to me post' Gupta Rajput period will be period from 7th century to 1200 A.D. … The term post 'Gupta Rajput period' is used in archaeology, not in history. I have not heard about the term Medieval-sultanate period in archaeology. I do not agree that the period of 12th
century is called as medieval sultanate period in archaeology. Medieval period is considered from 1200 A.D. Till the colonial period that is 13th century till 18th century.” (Page 183-185)

“I have heard about periodization on the basis of dynasty. It is prevalent and used in Archaeology. Probably dynasty wise periodization commenced in the 1940's. It is correct to say that Medieval is a phase in history.” (Page 186)

“I do not correlate medieval period with Islam because Islam reached the sum continent much earlier. Islam reached Sindh in 8th century AD. Islam would have reached probably in Kerala through traders in 8th or 9th century AD. I am of the opinion that in archaeology century wise periodization is possible particularly for the earlier periods. I think it will be more or less correct to say that century wise periodization is correct method of periodization in archaeology.” (Page 187)

“I have not done detail study of the periodization given in appendix 1 on the bases of carbonating. As such I am unable to express my opinion about information given in appendix 1. As regards sample no. 9, which from trench G7 (layer 20) is dated 1680 – 1320 BC. This layer according to ASI was a pit and so these early dates have little meaning.” (Page 188)

“ Periodization was done on the bases of layers, centuries and dynasties. … I will not agree with periodization.
...According to me in history the dynasty wise, century wise periodization for period is correct. In my opinion periodization in history and archaeology is different. In my opinion in archaeology the periods referred above as period 1 to IV is the Early Historic period. . . .I will not agree with the sun division on the basis of dynasty that has been provided by ASI.” (Page 189-190)
“According to me the terms for identification for periods in history and archaeology are different but not altogether
different. . . . It is more or less correct to say that periodization on the basis of centuries is correct." (Page 193)

On the basis of her affidavit and cross examination HC has some pertinent observations in plain words and apparent contradiction with other experts supposedly appearing on behalf of Plaintiff

3841. A few thing, which we may say immediately to show apparent false allegations are that para 4(B) of the
complaint said that according to ASI, the total cultural deposit is 10.80 metre but Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mention total depth dug for trench G7 as 13.45. The complainant probably has not seen the report properly which says that the natural soil was found at 10.80 metre but the ASI people dug the trench further to find out and ensure the presence of natural soil and this fact they have also mentioned in the report. Similarly, PW-29 on the one hand stated that she agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods, but do not agree for rest of the period (Page 71) while PW-24 has expressed his agreement with all other periods except 5, 6 and 7. Similarly, on page 70, PW-29 says that terminology and periodization are not most important while PW-24 has expressed a different view on page 186 and says stratigraphy is the backbone of any excavation. The statement of PW-29 on page 186 is contradictory to what she has said on page 182-183.

Their shifting stance were immediately clear to HC and learned judges also pointed it out.

vol 17
page 4133-4134( 134-135/251 vol) para 3883-3884

3883. The learned experts who have appeared before this Court rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have sought to challenge this part of the report making serious allegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,
actually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29, 32 and DW 6/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who have deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties complaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned in the above excavation have also said simultaneously something otherwise.

3884. PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180 has said:

“Excavation was conducted by a team of members of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers throughout the excavation. Besides these observers, parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also present during excavation. Day to day register was maintained during excavation on day to day basis by ASI but so far as site note book is oncerned I don't know about it. Day to day register was signed by parties or their nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis. Antiquity register was not maintained by ASI on day to day basis. During my stay at the excavation site I did not sign on the daily register. Since it was not compulsory to sign this register therefore I did not sign this register, day to day register mentioned the antiquities found in various trenches on daily basis . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the register.” (Page 177-178)

“During excavation photography of trenches along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was three dimensional recording during excavation. Videography was regularly done but I do not know that videography of each and every trench was being dome or not. I have not seen the C.D. Of video recording prepared by the ASI. . . . . .I have seen the site note books prepared by the A.S.I. And submitted in the court. Site note books were prepared by the A.S.I. trenchwise on the basis of regular excavation at excavation site. It is correct that excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the
compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was
not sufficient because both types of excavation were necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by
the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it's report along with some plans and sections." (Page 179-180)

Vol 17
Page 4174 ( 175/251) para 3805

HC observes

Thoughh we are not agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr. Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2 and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is there.

On Circular Shrine

3934. PW 29 (Dr. Jaya Menon) on "circular shrine" said:"Since circular shrine” was not found in my presence, I have not seen its stratigraphical association. In my view “circular shrine” was probably a Buddhist Stupa. There appears a hollow space within the excavated “circular shrine”. Stupa is not always solid. It is generally made of bricks or stone and mud brick bats. . . . . .It is a non-Islamic structure. . . . It is probably of Gupta or late Gupta period." (Page 202-203)

Vol 17
page 4240 ( 241-245/251)

3936. An extremely important feature of this structure is the provision of a gargoyle (Pranala) made in its northern wall. The ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 cm long, projecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is 'V' shaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall. In this connection it may be mentioned that in books of history, in Sanskrit Literature, reference of circular shrine and Pranala finds place.

3937. The elevation, as shown in the drawing (Fig. 17 of the ASI Report) suggests that this structure was built on a raised platform, viz. adhisthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was provided on the northern side. The structure may be dated to 9th 10th century A.D. (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from this level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 A.D. and 1030 A.D.)
3938. This was an independent miniature shrine. The architectural features suggest that, that it was a Shiva shrine.
3939. It is unthinkable that inspite of these clear features of Shiva shrine, the objectors are identifying the same as a 4241
Muslim tomb.

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

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

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

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

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

.

This covers most of the important Archaeologists and historians who deposed before HC for Plaintiff. There are few others such as R C Tarakhan and Supriya Verma. But the most vocal and supporters have been mentioned. Next we will cover the Characteristics wise objections against ASI report and conclusion of HC in brief as we have already mentioned these in above posts and would be touted in vague reports released to public for misguiding as to how HC failed to consider these objections which we have shown to be not the case.

[chaanakya]

x-posted from GD
Next Star witness is PW 29 Jaya Menon appearing in ner capacity as expert archaeologist on behalf of Sunni Waqf Board and ors in Suit No 4 and 5

Remember she has been caught lying in the Court when she along with her colleague Supriya Verma PW 32 complained against ASI's alleged creation of Pillar Bases.

J Sudhir Kumar
Vol 16
Page 3767-3768 (18-19/251) para 3703

3703. The two witnesses PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon and PW-32 Dr. Supria Varma claim to have made the complaint of
creation of pillar base by ASI people to the muslim parties. On page 79, PW -32 Dr. Supriya Varma has said:"These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints were handed over to muslim parties and their counsels."3704. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma was present at the site on the following dates:(a) 5th April, 2003 to 12th April, 2003, (b) 11th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003, (c) 22nd June 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and (d) 8th July 2003 to 19th July, 2003. PW 29 Jaya Menon has given the period when she was present at the site, in para 2 of her affidavit, as under:(a) 26th
April, 2003 to 2nd May, 2003, (b) 20th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003 (c) 22nd June, 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and (d) 19th
July, 2003 to 26th July, 20033706. Therefore, at Trench G2, between 16th May, 2003 to 19th May, 2003, according to the own admission, PW 29 was not present. Similarly at trench ZF1, PW 32 was not present (29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003). PW 29 in para 13M(i) of the affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 has asserted that she observed Trench ZF1 from 29th
to 30th April, 2003, noticed creation of pillar base and made a complaint.

Also remember that she is one of the two expert archaeologists who drafted objections against ASI report.


Her deposition where she has agreed to some of the ASI findings and later on where she has disagreed .

Vol 6
Page 3854-3853( 103-104/251) para 3799(c)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-16.pdf

(c) P.W. 29, Dr. Jaya Menon :
" I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods" (Page 71)
"The contour map given at page 13-A is correct. To make a contour map Theodolite, tapes, and measuring staff are required and now a days a total station is used.” (Page 71)

" After going through page no.1 of this site note book the witness stated that the location mentioned there, is correct.” (Page 92)
“..the caption for plate 62, is correct." (Page 111)

"Plate no. 36,37,38 of the ASI report were shown to the witness who stated that all these photographs are INSITU photographs of pillar bases. These pillar bases were found in the north of dispute site. In my opinion these are the pillar bases." (Page 203)

"Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were associated with the pre Babri Masjid structure. . . . . . . . . These floors may be dated from the end of the 12th century to the 16th century AD. According to me walls and structures prior to 12th century were found in excavation but no floor prior to 12th century was found at the site. According to me the oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third century AD and the oldest structure found would be structure 5 which may be of 6th century AD." (Page 205-206)

“

I agree with the observation

of Prof. H.C. Bharadwaj at page 73 of his article

that gypsum mortar/plaster was used in the Harappan period. I agree with the observation in the latter part of this para that gypsum was used as mortar in the Kalibangan period also. . . . . .Lime mortar was definitely used from Neolithic period.

" (Page 224)

Let us point out few things here. 1. She agrees that the in situ photographs are pillar bases ( as opposed to created pillar bases in her complaint)
2.Gypsum/mortar/plaster and Lime mortar was from Harappan period and neolithic period.So it is definitely not islamic innovation. We shall also see later that Lime mortar had been used in Gupta period extensively.

So the propaganda that lime mortar find in the structure is indicated of Islamic inhabitation is a lie, to borrow a term from Sankuji.

She has been examined by the COurt first before rexaminationof PW 16 Suraj Bhan and PW 24 D Mandal as she was the co-author of the objections against ASI report.

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
Page 4002-4013 (3-14/251 of the Vol) para 3839-3841
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf

3839. PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections filed on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. It is for this reason that she was examined first before re-examination of PW 16 and 24. The affidavit of PW 29 is dated 28.9.2005 and her cross examination was conducted from 29.9.2005 to 19.1.2006( Well she can not claim memory lapses as she was examined next day of filing her affidavit). PW 24 was examined second time when he was produced in respect to ASI report by filing his affidavit dated 5.12.2005 and the cross examination conducted from 5.12.2005 to 4.1.2006. So far as PW 16 is concerned, on third occasion his affidavit is dated 20.2.2006 and cross examination held from 20.3.2006 to 28.7.2006. It is for this reason probably that the periodization/ chronology vis-a-vis its co-relation with various finds and structures etc. found by ASI have been assailed in para 8 (from para 8.1 to 8.6) of the objections of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4).

However, in her affidavit dated 28.9.2005, PW 29 has changed her stand and in para 4 and she says:

“4. That the ASI Report has problems with stratigraphy and chronology, which may be summarised as under:-

(A) That as many as 15 pieces of terracotta figurines of later periods were reported from earlier levels, an impossible situation if deposits were actually stratified. In fact, deposits from Gupta period onwards are not stratified and the material is all mixed up. This is a point that is not debated by the ASI and has been repeated several times through the Report.

(B) That there are clearly problems with the stratigraphy which is indicated by other inaccuracies. If one calculates the total depth of deposits in different periods from a single trench such as G7, it is clear that there are gaps. Specifically, in G7, there is 1 metre deposit for Period 1(NBP), 1.6 metre for Period II (Sunga), 1.5 metre for Period III (Kushan), 2 metre for Period IV (Gupta), 0.9 metre for Period V (Post Gupta), 0.75 metre for Period VI (Early Medieval), 0.6 metre for Period VII (Medieval) and 0.25 metre for Period VIII and Period IX has not been indicated (as derived from Chapter III). This totals up to 8.60 metres of cultural deposits. According to the ASI, the total cultural deposit is 10.80 metre, which means that almost 2.20 metre is not accounted for. Not only this, Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mentions total depth dug for Trench G7 as 13.45 metre. Even if the ASI points out that the lower layers in G7 belong to a pit and we accept their depth for natural as 10.80 metre, it still means that there is a massive pit of about 2.65 metre depth, which is a trifle difficult to imagine. There could have been a fill as there is in Trench J3, but not a pit of such dimensions.

(C) That the ASI also mentions a continuous cultural occupation of the site. However, if we examine Plate 5 of the Final Report, a layer with no cultural material (termed in archaeology as a sterile layer) can be clearly seen, for example, below layer 4. The ASI has marked out this layer but has not numbered it. Sterile layers indicate periods when there was no
habitation or occupation. These layers are ascribed to the Early Medieval/Sultatnate period (Period VI) in the tentative periodization of the site. There is then a possibility that there was no Early Medieval occupation and there was a gap between the Gupta and the Medieval periods. This had been noted as early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, of BHU, Varanasi, which had noted a desertion of the site between the Early Historic and Medieval periods. (By neglecting to indicate the sterile layers and their implications, the ASI is trying to project a continuous occupation of the site from the Early Historic to the Medieval periods. Neither the stratigraphy nor the artefacts, however, substantiate such a claim. There is a certain bias here, which again goes against the norms of archaeological objectivity, to force a certain interpretation on the material, that from the 10th century AD onwards the area was occupied by Hindu religious structures.)

(D) That in the same context, the layering of fill deposits in J3, J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to show continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It was only when complaints were made that these fill deposits were acknowledged but eventual registrations of artefacts from these deposits in the final Report were left uncorrected.

(E) That in archaeology, structures can be dated if there are special construction techniques or material, known specifically to have been used in a particular period, such as lime-surkhi from the end of the 12th century AD. Structures can also be dated on the basis of associated artefactual material coming from stratified contexts in association with the structures. But when the material is all mixed up from the Gupta period onwards, it is impossible to neatly slot structural remains into periods of post-Gupta, Early Medieval or Medieval levels.

(F) That in this attempt to force a particular interpretation on the material that cannot be substantiated, there is bound to be confusion and discrepancies. Confusion is clearly indicated by the manner in which floors are numbered at various
places in the text. The same floor is given different numbers, some floors appear and disappear, their extent keeps changing and so forth.) The numbering of floors in association with so called “pillar bases”, mentioned in the Table on pages 56-67 of the Final Report does not match with those in Fig. 8,9,10,11,12 and 13. On page 41, it is mentioned that the earliest floor extended in the eastern area up to the H series of trenches in sub-period VIIA. In sub-period VIIB,
the next floor extended up to trenches J4-J5-J6. On page 42, it is indicated that in sub-period VIIC, the floor associated with the “pillar bases” is the most extensive on the mound. In Fig. 23A, however, Floor 4 (the earliest floor) is shown as extending all over the mound while Floor 3 and Floor 2 are more restricted, providing a completely contradictory picture.

(G) That the tentative periodization and schematic cross-section of the mound that has been provided between page 37 and 38 of the Final Report does not provide a layer-wise description of all the trenches. For example, no information on layers has been provided for important trenches like E8, F8, F9, G8, G9 and G1. Even for trenches that have been mentioned in the diagrams, we have no indication of the layers below Floor 4 in important trenches like F3 and F4/F5. (There should have been a concordance of the layers of trenches from the north and south of the site.)

(H) That in some cases strata were marked in almost complete darkness within trenches such as G8. A study of stratigraphy within a trench requires careful examination of the sections to discern differences in colour and texture of soil. Obviously plenty of light is required for such a study. Even though there were arrangements for artificial light, very often this was not used as in the case of Trench G8 and yet strata were marked and antiquities registered as from
particular layers.”

3840. PW 29, this time has taken stand which substantially conforms to that of PW 24. In cross examination, she said :

“I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods but with the rest of the periods I do not agree. According to my information N.B.P.W. should be dated from 600 B.C. to 100 B.C. whereas Shunga period is second century B.C. which would overlap the N.B.P.W. N.B.P.W. denotes Northern Black Polished Ware. N.B.P.W. is well known pottery of Northern India. From my point of view archaeological periods should not be distinguished on the basis of dynasties Kushan period is dated from Ist to 3rd century A.D.” (Page 71)

“I have mentioned in para 4-A of my affidavit that deposits from Gupta period onwards are not stratified. In this regard I have to say that all the materials of earlier and later periods, were mixed up. If the material is mixed up it does not give a correct picture of the stratification.” (Page 74)

" I do not agree with the periodisation of the disputed site at Ayodhya as shown by ASI in Chart, at page No. 37-A of
the ASI report, Volume-I" (Page 45)"In para 3 A of my affidavit I have mentioned about terminology ad periodization. The defects in terminology and periodization show confusion in the report. Due to the defect of terminology and periodization, the report of ASI is also biased." (Page 70)

“Terminology and periodization play a significant role but they are not most important. The terminology and periodization can be changed. I would also have problems with archaeologically identifying periods according to dynasties. I do not know about universal periodization.” (Page 70)

“Learned counsel drew the attention of witness towards A.S.I. Report Vol. 1, (Text) at page no. 37-A. The witness stated that in last column of page period has been mentioned but I am not in agreement with this periodization.” (Page 71)

"… I think that the stratigraphy shown in this plate, is correct. The layers are distinct in texture.” (Page 111)

“Starting period of Muslim rule in India is from 1206 A.D i.e. of Qutubuddin Aibak. I don’t know whether this period is known as Illawari Turk. According to renowned historians, the period before 1206 A.D. is known as Early Medieval period. Since I have not read the book by B.S. Smith, therefore I cannot say whether he refers to the period from Harsha till 1200 A.D. as Rajput Period. I have not heard about Anoop Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. I don’t know whether the most authentic version of Prithviraj Raso written by Chandbardai is maintained in this library. … I would say Rigveda can be dated from 1500 B.C. Alexander invaded India in 327-325 B.C. Mauryan dynasty was established in 321 B.C. The Mauryas were succeeded by Sunga dynasty. Sunga dynasty is dated from 2nd century B.C. to 1st century B.C. Archaeologically, the periods cannot be categorized on the basis of dynasties.” (Page 115-116)

“I will not agree with the statement even in para 1 to 5 just because the period VI and VII have been changed in nomenclature. In my view A.S.I.’s period V, and period VI and period VII should be considered as Early Medieval.” (Page 129)
“Stratigraphy is a term used in Archaeology. Stratigraphy is the study of layers as they are formed over time. … The
Archaeology periods can be fixed on the basis of centuries.Centuries can be put into various periods for the purposes
of study. Harappan period is dated from 2600 B.C. To 1900 B.C. from 600 B.C. various Mahajanpad period was followed by the Nandas and the beginning of Mauryan period. During 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. the two dynasties ruled while the Mauryan dynasty continued beyond 300 B.C. also." (Page 144)

"It is correct to say that for the purpose of periodization, the method of century-wise study is better and preferable
to that of dynasty-wise. The period 800 AD to 1200 AD falls within the Early Medieval period, which started much earlier to 800 AD. … Early Medieval period lasted from 600 AD to 1200 AD. I know the periods in terms of pre-Gupta, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. According to me, Gupta period begins from fourth century AD and continued up to sixth century AD and prior to that, was the pre-Gupta period up to the time immemorial. Pre-Gupta period would date back to 600 BC and post-Gupta is from 600 BC to 1200BC." (Page 150)

"Medieval period would be post 1200 A.D. According to archaeology periodisation is on the basis of stratigraphy.

Ques- Will it not be correct to say that there are three well established norms of periodisationm that ism no. 1 layer, wise 2. century wise 3. Dynasty wise. ?

ANS- It is not correct to say that 'periodisation' in archaeology can be done on the basis of 'dynasties'.I do not agree that periodisation can be done century-wise. Century-wise periodisation is covered by stratigraphy or layer wise study. The numbering of the layers is done from top to bottom. Where as periodisation is ascertained from bottom to top.” (Page 182-183)

“A.S.I. has mentioned about periodisation in its report. It is correct to say that A.S.I. has adopted all the three methods
of periodisation mentioned above in its report. It is wrong to suggest that A.S.I. has mentioned in its periodisation by
layers, century and dynasties. According to me some periods were identified on the basis of century wise and one was identified on the basis of archaeological culture. I think A.S.I. has identified nine periods in its report. According to me century has been mentioned in all the above nine periods. Dynasty wise report is not mentioned in all the above mentioned nine periods. A.S.I. has given details of dynasties of four periods. The dynasties mentioned by the A.S.I. are Shungas. Kushans, Guptas, Mughal. A.S.I. has not mentioned any dynasty other than the Mughal for the medieval period... I don't agree with the identification of the period 'post Gupta Rajput level. According to me the post Gupta Rajput part of the period should be called as early medieval period which should extend upto 1200 A.D. According to me post' Gupta Rajput period will be period from 7th century to 1200 A.D. … The term post 'Gupta Rajput period' is used in archaeology, not in history. I have not heard about the term Medieval-sultanate period in archaeology. I do not agree that the period of 12th
century is called as medieval sultanate period in archaeology. Medieval period is considered from 1200 A.D. Till the colonial period that is 13th century till 18th century.” (Page 183-185)

“I have heard about periodization on the basis of dynasty. It is prevalent and used in Archaeology. Probably dynasty wise periodization commenced in the 1940's. It is correct to say that Medieval is a phase in history.” (Page 186)

“I do not correlate medieval period with Islam because Islam reached the sum continent much earlier. Islam reached Sindh in 8th century AD. Islam would have reached probably in Kerala through traders in 8th or 9th century AD. I am of the opinion that in archaeology century wise periodization is possible particularly for the earlier periods. I think it will be more or less correct to say that century wise periodization is correct method of periodization in archaeology.” (Page 187)

“I have not done detail study of the periodization given in appendix 1 on the bases of carbonating. As such I am unable to express my opinion about information given in appendix 1. As regards sample no. 9, which from trench G7 (layer 20) is dated 1680 – 1320 BC. This layer according to ASI was a pit and so these early dates have little meaning.” (Page 188)

“ Periodization was done on the bases of layers, centuries and dynasties. … I will not agree with periodization.
...According to me in history the dynasty wise, century wise periodization for period is correct. In my opinion periodization in history and archaeology is different. In my opinion in archaeology the periods referred above as period 1 to IV is the Early Historic period. . . .I will not agree with the sun division on the basis of dynasty that has been provided by ASI.” (Page 189-190)
“According to me the terms for identification for periods in history and archaeology are different but not altogether
different. . . . It is more or less correct to say that periodization on the basis of centuries is correct." (Page 193)

On the basis of her affidavit and cross examination HC has some pertinent observations in plain words and apparent contradiction with other experts supposedly appearing on behalf of Plaintiff

3841. A few thing, which we may say immediately to show apparent false allegations are that para 4(B) of the
complaint said that according to ASI, the total cultural deposit is 10.80 metre but Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mention total depth dug for trench G7 as 13.45. The complainant probably has not seen the report properly which says that the natural soil was found at 10.80 metre but the ASI people dug the trench further to find out and ensure the presence of natural soil and this fact they have also mentioned in the report. Similarly, PW-29 on the one hand stated that she agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal periods, but do not agree for rest of the period (Page 71) while PW-24 has expressed his agreement with all other periods except 5, 6 and 7. Similarly, on page 70, PW-29 says that terminology and periodization are not most important while PW-24 has expressed a different view on page 186 and says stratigraphy is the backbone of any excavation. The statement of PW-29 on page 186 is contradictory to what she has said on page 182-183.

Their shifting stance were immediately clear to HC and learned judges also pointed it out.

vol 17
page 4133-4134( 134-135/251 vol) para 3883-3884

3883. The learned experts who have appeared before this Court rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have sought to challenge this part of the report making serious allegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,
actually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29, 32 and DW 6/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who have deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties complaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned in the above excavation have also said simultaneously something otherwise.

3884. PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180 has said:

“Excavation was conducted by a team of members of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers throughout the excavation. Besides these observers, parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also present during excavation. Day to day register was maintained during excavation on day to day basis by ASI but so far as site note book is oncerned I don't know about it. Day to day register was signed by parties or their nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis. Antiquity register was not maintained by ASI on day to day basis. During my stay at the excavation site I did not sign on the daily register. Since it was not compulsory to sign this register therefore I did not sign this register, day to day register mentioned the antiquities found in various trenches on daily basis . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the register.” (Page 177-178)

“During excavation photography of trenches along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was three dimensional recording during excavation. Videography was regularly done but I do not know that videography of each and every trench was being dome or not. I have not seen the C.D. Of video recording prepared by the ASI. . . . . .I have seen the site note books prepared by the A.S.I. And submitted in the court. Site note books were prepared by the A.S.I. trenchwise on the basis of regular excavation at excavation site. It is correct that excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the
compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was
not sufficient because both types of excavation were necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by
the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it's report along with some plans and sections." (Page 179-180)

Vol 17
Page 4174 ( 175/251) para 3805

HC observes

Thoughh we are not agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr. Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2 and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is there.

On Circular Shrine

3934. PW 29 (Dr. Jaya Menon) on "circular shrine" said:"Since circular shrine” was not found in my presence, I have not seen its stratigraphical association. In my view “circular shrine” was probably a Buddhist Stupa. There appears a hollow space within the excavated “circular shrine”. Stupa is not always solid. It is generally made of bricks or stone and mud brick bats. . . . . .It is a non-Islamic structure. . . . It is probably of Gupta or late Gupta period." (Page 202-203)

Vol 17
page 4240 ( 241-245/251)

3936. An extremely important feature of this structure is the provision of a gargoyle (Pranala) made in its northern wall. The ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 cm long, projecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is 'V' shaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall. In this connection it may be mentioned that in books of history, in Sanskrit Literature, reference of circular shrine and Pranala finds place.

3937. The elevation, as shown in the drawing (Fig. 17 of the ASI Report) suggests that this structure was built on a raised platform, viz. adhisthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was provided on the northern side. The structure may be dated to 9th 10th century A.D. (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from this level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 A.D. and 1030 A.D.)
3938. This was an independent miniature shrine. The architectural features suggest that, that it was a Shiva shrine.
3939. It is unthinkable that inspite of these clear features of Shiva shrine, the objectors are identifying the same as a 4241
Muslim tomb.

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

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

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

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

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

.

This covers most of the important Archaeologists and historians who deposed before HC for Plaintiff. There are few others such as R C Tarakhan and Supriya Verma. But the most vocal and supporters have been mentioned. Next we will cover the Characteristics wise objections against ASI report and conclusion of HC in brief as we have already mentioned these in above posts and would be touted in vague reports released to public for misguiding as to how HC failed to consider these objections which we have shown to be not the case.

[chaanakya]

x-posted from GD forum

Let us see how another star witness PW 32 Supriya Verma has deposed in her affidavitand what she saied in her cross examination while appearing on behalf of Sunni Waqf Board and ors


J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
page 4155- (156 /251) para 3888
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf

3888. PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) in her affidavit dated
27th March, 2006 has said:
A. That the northern area is the only area of the site where pillar bases have been found. .......That barring pillar bases 1-8, 13 and 14, the ASI has created 'pillar bases' in the rest of the site. Their creation has been actually observed during excavation was even and complained about. The deponent has personally witnessed the creation of "pillar bases" in Trenches G2, G5 and F3. ....... These complaints/objections were prepared by the deponent and Dr. Jaya Menon and were filed under the signatures of Muslim parties and their counsels.
................

D.. That the so called "pillar bases" were only part of a floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with stone block blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. The intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and brick nodules. ............
E. That during excavation, brickbats were selectively removed so as to leave brickbat heaps around stone pieces
and blocks. ........
........... In the case of Ayodhya, the above-mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where brickbats have been removed.
...............
...............
I. That it seems that originally the aim was to create "pillar bases" all over the excavated area. Eight so called "pillar bases" were carved out in the L series of trenches as can be seen by Appendix IV. (p. 17) of the Final Report.......

J. That a study of the Site Note Books brings out discrepancies from the information provided in the Final Report. ....... But, here, we find that trench supervisors make no mention of anything remotely like a "pillar base" but these suddenly appear in the Final Report.

K. That the so called "pillar bases" are not even in alignment with each other as should be expected in a pillared hall. At the same time, anything that has been found out of line with their imagined alignment has been discarded as evidence.......... But in physical appearance, made of calcrete and brickbats, this structure resembles many of the ASI's so called "pillar base". It is clear that this structure indicates nothing but the manner in which the platform was constructed. This shows the bias with which the ASI was working and their selective use of evidence.

L. That it is clear that at times, walls were cut to made so called "pillar base" as in Trench F6 and thus there is in Appendix IV, a confusion between walls and "pillar bases" in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case with the "pillar base" in Trench H5. ...... An incorrect impression is being created, by showing some 'pillar bases' where they do not exist.N. That the ASI's assumption that the floor with which are associated these so called "pillar bases" in the north is the same as Floor 2 in the south is baseless as there has been no concordance of trenches in the north and south............ That these so called "pillar bases" are too flimsy to have supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of brickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that would be expected if these were in reality pillar bases......

Q. That if these really were pillar bases, they should have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.
...... ...

As we have read in earlier posts that Dr Jaya Menon and Supriya alleged creation of Pillars, while accepting that some pillars were there in northern side, we find that SUpriya stakes her personal crdibiltiy to bolster her claim of creation of pillar bases by stating that she observed ASI creating them on certain trenches. HC has poited out that she was not present to witness excavation ( implying that creation of pillar bases) in the relevant trenches.( Read para 3703-3705 of Vol 16 at page 18-19/251 of Majority judgement.)

So HC observed that

Para 3895 page 4174 ( 175/251) Vol17

though we are not agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr. Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2 and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is there.

Para 3922 page 4213 ( 214/251) Vol17

The Massive Wall
3922. The excavation of 28 walls by ASI virtually has been admitted by the experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. PW-16 at pages 153, 199, PW 29 at Pages 146, 147, 158, 159, 163, 164 and 181. PW-32 Dr. Supriya Varma very categorically on page 137 has said:"from walls 16 to 28 except wall 18D are the walls underneath the disputed structure."

Para 3934 page 4239 ( 240/251) Vol17

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

Regarding statues and figurines found in the excavation at the site she states as follows in her cross examination
J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4257-4258( 8-9/215) para 3957
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

3957. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma for some of the such figurines said:“It is true that ASI in the course of excavation found 62 human figurines and 131 animal figurines but I am not sure about the number and also its identification.” (Page 161)
“It is correct that in plate 105 of the ASI report Vol II, bust of a female with ornament decoration is shown.”(Page 173)“...female bust shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report could be a lady, who may be either Buddhist or of any important lady of high stature. There was no practice in Budhhism or Jainism of worshipping terracotta female figurine shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report. However, there is depiction of 'Yakshi' in stone of early historical period. It has function of protector. It was sign of protection of humans. It is wrong to say that use of 'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is only limited to Hindu Dharmashashtra. In fact, it is also associated with Buddhist religion. I am not aware that apart from Buddha religion, whether 'Yasksh' or 'Yakshi' was used or not.”(Page-174)

“It cannot say whether the word 'Yaksh' or 'Yakshi' is referred or mentioned in any religious book of Buddhism."(Page 174)3957. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma for some of the such figurines said:“It is true that ASI in the course of excavation found 62 human figurines and 131 animal figurines but I am not sure about the number and also its identification.” (Page 161)

“It is correct that in plate 105 of the ASI report Vol II, bust of a female with ornament decoration is shown.”(Page 173)
“...female bust shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report could be a lady, who may be either Buddhist or of any important lady of high stature. There was no practice in Budhhism or Jainism of worshipping terracotta female figurine shown in plate 105 of Vol. II of the ASI report.

Well they tried anything and everything that could stick but of no avail.Witness her statement under cross examination

Vol 18
Page 4260(10/251) para 3958(c)

(C) PW-32, Dr Supriya Verma “I have heard the word ‘Kalash’. Kalash is not found in mosque…” (Page 35)
“Wall No. 16, according to me, was used as a wall prior to the construction of the disputed structure. In this way, Wall
16 was wall of some other construction which was existing prior to the constriction of the disputed structure.” (Page
140)
“However, it is true that Wall No. 17 was constructed earlier to Wall No. 16.” (Page 143)
“I know crocodile. It is also very important for the temples. It is called ‘Makar Mukh’. I have not seen Makar Mukh in any mosque…” (Page 143)

SO if there was a wall prior to disputed structure not associated with any mosque but definitely with Hindu religious symbols , what conclusions can be drawn about these disparate experts

On Bones found in the excavation

VOl 18
Page 4271-4272(22-23/251) para

3965. PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) on the question of bone, said:“The bones which were referred to by me in para 11
of the affidavit were seen by me. Only by looking to the bones, I cannot identify as to which animal species the 4272
bone belongs because I am not a Zoo-Archaeologist. The above bones could be of any animal including dog.” (Page
43)
“Merely by looking at a skeleton, one cannot say that whether the skeleton was of Hindu or of Muslim person.”(Page 45)“Bones that have been found in N.B.P.W. Gupta and post Gupta periods have been mentioned on the basis of ASI report because it says that bones have been found at all level. Bones have no relation with civilization. Bones are not associated with any particular community. Bones tell us about food habits of societies. Bones tell us about food habit of human society.”(Page 50)

So bones had no special relevance in identifying the site as islamic one.

On Glazed wares

Vol 18
page 4285-4286(36-37/251) para 3976

3975. PW- 32 ( Dr. Supriya Verma) said: “I agree that the glazed wares have been found in Kushan period but the glazed ware of Kushan period are different from the glazed ware associated with later period. It differs both in terms of chemical and physical composition and appearance.” (Page 164)“I cannot say as to whether glazed tiles are used in Hindu building in Gwalior Fort. I am also not aware that in Gwalior Fort, Hindu deities are depicted in such glazed titles. I am not aware whether pre-Islamic Persina people were using glazed tiles and glazed wares or not.” (Page 164)
“Q. There is no contemporary sources to throw light on the production technique of glazed tiles and glazed wares?
A. I am not expert of Arabic and Persian and therefore, I have not examined the sources and therefore, I am not in a position to say as to whether any description of production technique is there or not.” (Page 164)

SO what is this big fuss about glazed wares when it's use was dating back to harappan period and were very popular during Kushan period as we have seen this site does have relation to Kushan period and the same was not disputed.

Sri Pandey in his written objection states that

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

Clearly HC was not impressed by so called experts who were not in a position to give opinion in some crucial areas or were clearly lying.

[dipak]

Lot of painstaking work done by Chaanakya and Prasad - kudos to them! (Of course, Hon' Judges are the real heroes)

The landmark judgment has a similarity of climategate - a la Pachauri.

This can pave the way in future for another gate - Ayodhyagate or Eminent_Historian.gate, or secular-historygate ..?

Anyway, OT for this thread.

[ramana]

It might be useful for others to pitch in and put the arguments in a flow chart/logic diagram style to make it clear for lay people. I think the excellent engineering skills on the forum could be of good use. You know a picture is worth a thousand words and all that.

Chanakya and Prasad can guide the effort once its started.

RamaY And SwamyG, I know you both have done very good work on connectivity diagrams on other occassions. Can you devote some time to think how to present the evidence? Then others can join you in the effort.

[SwamyG]

On the issue of bones, this is what some of the "eminent historians" have said through Sahmat
Source: http://www.sahmat.org/2882003.html (in 2003)

Thus, the suggestion is that from the 10th century onwards the site had a shrine, followed by a temple with different structural phases. Yet on p. 270, it is clearly mentioned, that “animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods.” So, if there was a shrine and a temple at this site, how do we account for the presence of animal bones? Considering the quantity of animal bones recovered from different periods, one also wonders why there is no separate chapter on animal bones.

Source: http://www.sahmat.org/1762003.html (2003)

The pervasive presence of animal bones with cut marks and Muslim glazed ware, and the entire absence of even a trace of anything that could indicate structural remains of a temple. The ASI report seemed only to clutch at straws, which on close scrutiny could be seen as contrary to the details it had itself provided.

Source: http://www.sahmatnews.blogspot.com/ (2010)

First of all, 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.

Now does bones automatically preclude the existence of a temple?

1. Justice Agarwal noted: "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"

2. Prambanan

During the restoration, a well which contains pripih (stone casket) was discovered under the center of the Shiva temple. The main temple has a well of 5.75 m depth in which a stone casket was found on top a pile of charcoal, earth and remains of burned animal bones.

3. Ritual sacrifices involving animals were not uncommon in Hindu temples. As Hinduism evolved over thousands of years, animal (including human) sacrifices became a taboo in many sects and temples. {BRFites: A simple google search will return volumes of data, so I am not linking to any here. It is a very obvious known fact}.

4. Dr. Nagaswamy, an expert witness, opines it is not uncommon for animal bones to be found on archaeological sites.

[SwamyG]

SO what is this big fuss about glazed wares when it's use was dating back to harappan period and were very popular during Kushan period as we have seen this site does have relation to Kushan period and the same was not disputed.

I am no means even an amateur in these subject areas; but doesn't it matter in which layers the glazed wares were found? Though glazed wares were produced in India, they were not really that common. But pottery and glazed pottery are kind of universal in that many civilizations had them.

It would have been interesting to read why the "eminent historians" felt that the presence of glazed wares is Mohammedan. In one of the Indian Gazetteers, I did read glazed wares in India has some origins to Mohammedans. But Indus-Saraswathi Civilization (a.k.a Harrapan Civlization) had some glazed figurines. Why are they not brining China into the picture?

Just saying animals bones and glazed wares existed & hence there can be no temple is not the way "experts" should talk.

[chaanakya]

x-posted from GD

ASI report has been assailed on Many grounds. As we have seen from the depositions of Experts appearing on behalf of plaintiffs in Suit 4 and defendants in suit 5 they have been contradicting each other based on their knowledge in the area in which they admit not to be expert. Many of them visited for three days or less and assailed the report. In one instance two of the experts have been caught lying. They also been forced , during cross examination, to admit their own lact of knowledge or possibility of alternative and plausible explanations.

Here we shall try to bring the basic objections against ASI under different headings and see how Court has dealt with them .

1.Stratification and periodization issues

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
Page 4029-4031(30-32/251)para 3846-3849
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf

3846. From the statement of the six expert witnesses produced on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-4), we find that all of them are not unanimous in saying that the entire stratigraphy or periodization made by ASI is bad or incorrect or suffers such material illegality or irregularity that the same deserves to be rejected, which would ultimately may result in rejection of the entire report itself. Their statements are also contradictory, vague, confused and based on more of conjectures.

3847. PW 16 on the one hand says that he has no objection to the categorization of period 1 to 5 (page 455), tried to dispute the ascertainment of period 6-7 (page 454), then on page 456 made some unclear statement by observing that period 7 should come after period six as Sultanate period. What appears to us is that in the ASI report the period 6 has been termed as "Medieval Sultanate" and period 7 as Sultanate but PW 16 wanted that period 6 should not be termed as "Sultanate" at all since it started in 13th century. He, however, suggested that in another manner period 6 ought to have started with 13th century if it is related with "Sultanate period".

3848. PW 24 on the contrary stated that after the first four periods there appears to be total dissolution for a long time and this has disturbed the continuity of the period. ( this is very crucial as it tries to prove that post Gupta period there was no humanactivity until the construction of DS)The 4th period (Gupta period) ended in 6th century and thereafter there is a gap of about 700 years since the further layer of natural deposition with the evidence of habitation appears to be related to 13th century hence total periodization instead of 9 ought to have been 5. He says that 5th, 6th and 7th period has been determined arbitrarily. The gap of 7th century to 12th century he has tried to justify on the ground of flood on account whereof the people abandoned the place for along time. However, on page 156 he himself admits that there is no evidence of any disastrous flood witnessed at Ayodhya between 600 AD to 1200 AD and further that there are evidence revealing that efforts were made to prevent such devastating floods. This shows that there had to be habitation otherwise who took steps for preservation of disastrous flood and why, if there was no habitation and the place stood abandoned. His statement on his own is ex facie contradictory, reflects on a total confusion to his part. Then he tried to justify his conclusion by stating on page 170 that all the finds were not discovered from the levels as claimed by ASI and that is why it could not have determined the period correctly. PW 16 has not disputed that the finds discovered by ASI were actually found by them. Then PW 29 says that except NBPW Mughal and late post Mughal period she disagree for the rest of the periods (page 71). She pointed out that the ASI had made some change in the nomenclature inasmuch as in the Chapter of stratigraphy, period six has been termed as Medieval Sultanate but in the subsequent chapter of result they have termed period 7 as medieval Sultanate and period 6 has been termed as early medieval period.

3849. PW 30 on his own evolved a different theory by suggesting that periodization made on the basis of carbon dating
is not correct though the process of cabon dating has been appreciated by PW 16 and 24 both. PW 24 on page 170 has justified layer 5 and 6 as that belonging to early Medieval Sultanate period but then on page 271 disagree with centurywise periodization made by ASI.

High COurt has been equally dismissal of Prof. Shereen F. Ratnagar, PW 27

But even otherwise we find that her deposition and opinion does not inspire confidence and it is short of the "expert's opinion" which may be termed "relevant" under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. She admits of having never visited the disputed site till she appeared as witness in these cases. She had written "introduction" to Prof. Mandal's book (Exhibit 63). From her cross-examination it is evident that she had no experience of field excavation. "It is correct that in India I have not done any digging and excavation on my own." (page 52)
3853. She admits of writing things giving hypothetical sketches with respect to the disputed site:"It is also correct that at pages 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 some sketches are given in my Introduction. Those sketches are purely by way of Introduction to the book as they are hypothetical. It is correct that from pages 16 to 69 is the book itself." (page 53)
3854. Merely on the basis of a photograph entire book and article etc. has been written. About her own work PW 27 says:"It is substantially correct that I wrote my critique on the basis of the said sole photograph." (page 63)

3855. Her lack of knowledge about disputed site is evident from page 67:"I am not absolutely certain of the area and extent of the disputed site at Ayodhya. I do not know in which part of Ayodhya the disputed site is located."

3856. Though she came to support the book written by Dr. Mandal criticising Dr. B.B.Lal's report but when specifically
asked whether she agree with the report of Dr. B.B. Lal relating to Ayodhya on page 75 she says:"I cannot say in terms of whether I agree or disagree with them."

3857. She (PW-27) also admitted that there is a possibility of some structure of the earlier period at the disputed site. On page 84 she said:"It is correct to say that I do not rule out the possibility of any other structure of any other early period at the disputed site."

High COurt has also observed that ( vol 17 4112, page 13/251, para 3870)

3870. The Sultanate and Mughal period is said to commence not in the entire part of India but initially at Sindh
and thereafter gradually it increase to other parts. As such, therefore, it may not be said that with the advent of Sultanate period the territory of Oudh was ruled by Muslims. On this

Read some detailed history , if one is more interested. Then continue as below
( vol 17 4121, page 122/251, para 3872)

3872. What actually appears from the above books that the twilight zone when Hindu rulers came to be dominated by Muslim rulers has been considered by some of the historians as the commencement of the medieval period which some has termed as early medieval and some as Sultanate period. With the advent of Mughal Rulers the term has been called medieval and that has been treated to be the end of the Sultanate period. It is in this context we find ASI has taken a mid way and termed 6th period as Medieval Sultanate, 7th as Medieval and have divided the same centurywise, i.e., 11th
and 12th century as Medieval Sultanate, 13th to 16th century to be more precise upto 1526 AD to be medieval and thereafter Mughal. In fact for more clarity this division has been made. None of the alleged expert witness has shown the said classification or periodization of ASI wholly unknown to historians or perverse or something which could not have been said or conceived by a person well conversant in such matters.

Therefore the conclusion of HC
( vol 17 4129, page 130/251, para 38729)

The result of a work, if it is not chewable to one or more, will not make the quality of work impure or suspicious. The self contradictory statement, inconsistant with other experts made against ASI of same party i.e. Muslim, extra interest, and also the fact that they are virtually hired experts reduces trustworthiness of these experts despite of their otherwise competence. The allegations, need much more material to substantiate. In the matter of stratigraphy/ periodization made by ASI, in the absence of anything to show that what they have said is improbable, ex facie fake or incorrect or that no person having adequate knowledge in the subject may have formed such opinion, we have no reason to disbelieve or discard it and instead accept version of interested and partisan expert witnesses who at times have made contradictory statements as we have already noticed to some extent above. We, therefore, find no force in the objection with respect to the stratification/periodization made by ASI.

Some tough words from HC. In western countries their career would have been ruined. Universities would have thrown them out. But we are a tolerant country and allow "alleged experts" to enjoy taxpayer's hard earned money without their approval.

Next post about Pillar Bases.

[chaanakya]

x-posted from GD

Next objection was about Pillar Bases. ASI discovered about 50 pillar bases in the complex.There were acceptance of some 18 pillar bases by the alleged experts appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs. While there were strenuous objections raised by them in respect of remaining. In fact , few of them accused ASI of actually creating these pillars which they saw them doing on the days when they were not present on the site.Remind me of Sanjay. There were issues regarding alignment of pillars. ASI report was accused of bias in showing these pillars as forming part of a floor and indicative of a massive hall.There were walls on the site which were well beyond the main DS and they were accepted without much objections. These experts tried to explain them as part of earlier IDGAH or Kannati Mosque i.e. mosque without roof. While they has difficulty in accepting those pillars which were found below the DS extending well in 50 pillars forming part of a massive wall upon which DS stood. Just like the gap in stratification to show that there were no human activities as site was abandoned ( they could not explain why the need for flood protection wall and who constructed them is site was abandoned), they wanted to show these pillars as fiction and that nothing was below the DS which could connect even remotely to a hindu religious structure. Their pleading, as we have noted time and again, was that mosque was built on parat ( empty ) land.
I would also like to inform that GPR survey had shown 180 anomalies for pillar bases of which ASI located 50.So it was not that they were working blindly and trying to create structures where none was to be found. HC also observed that these experts were objecting as if somehow ASI had to explain to them rather than to the COurt.

We have already seen the depositions of various alleged witnesses on these issues. We will inform what other( left out) experts and see how HC dealt with the issue. Rightfully HC observes these objections as biggest.

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 17
Page 4129-4202( 130-202/251) para 3880-3918
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf

3880. The next and the biggest objection is with respect to the pillar bases. We thus proceed to consider the same. A serious allegations of framing of certain structures in particular, i.e. certain pillar bases have been levelled by submitting objections dated 21.05.2003 and 07.06.2003 which we have already discussed in detail. Normally, it would have been suffice to mention at this stage that had there been any truth, the same could not have gone unnoticed by such a large number of persons present at the site particularly when two members of Higher Judicial Services were also present there as 'Observers' having been appointed by this Court. We have already noticed that two expert archaeologist, i.e., PW 16 and 24 who have given very long statements before this Court thrice and twice respectively, both of them visited the site in June 2003 and Dr. Mandal also visited again in Sept. 2003. Both of them admitted that in June 2003 they had no idea or information that any structure was manipulated by the members of Archaeological Team of ASI. However considering the seriousness and also the fact that in the Court, the stand is slightly different, we would go in further detail of these allegation.
3881. The ASI in Chapter IV commencing from page 48 has considered various structures it found during the course of
excavation. For the time being we leave other structures and proceed with the pillar bases in respect whereto the reference is on page 55 and onwards. It says:"From the excavation it could be inferred that there were seventeen rows of pillar bases from north to south, each row having five pillar bases. Due to area restriction and natural barriers, the pillar bases in the central part occupied by the make-shift structure on the raised platform could not be located. Out of excavated fifty pillar bases only twelve were completely exposed, thirty five were partially exposed and three could be traced in sections only. A few pillar bases were noticed during earlier excavation after which a controversy took place about their association with different layers and their load bearing capacity. The present excavation has set aside the
controversy by exposing the original the form of the bases having calcrete and stone blocks arranged and set in a proper manner over a brick foundation and their arrangements in rows including their association with the top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed structure.The seventeen rows of pillar bases were constructed along the north-south running brick wall (wall 16) on the west. The distance of the first pillar base in each row from the wall ranges from 3.60 to 3.86m. Seventeen rows of pillar bases could be categorised in three different groups on the basis of north-south distance which varies in different groups whereas east-west distance from centre to centre of each pillar base vary from 2.90 to 3.30m. Six rows of the pillar bases on north and south were at the equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30m. Central five rows consisting twenty five pillar bases show different equations-two rows on either sides of the central row were
placed approximately at the distance of 5.25m. whereas the other two rows on either side of these three rows were at
the distance of 4.20 - 42.5 m. From this it could be easily concluded that the central part of the pillared structure was
important and special treatment was given to it in architectural planning.In the southern area only one decorated sand stone was found over a pillar base while in the northern area many of the pillar bases were found topped by a plain sand
stone block set over the brick bat foundation having calcrete blocks over them (Pl. 36). Top parts of stone encasings had a projection in the middle. In the northern area at a few places where the stone blocks were not found sand stone slabs were found over the calcrete blocks of the crick bat foundation of the pillar bases. The decorated octagonal sand stone block on pillar base 32 having floral motif on four corners in trench F7 in the southern area is the unique example at the site (Pl. 39) which definitely belongs to the twelfth century A.D. as it is similar to those found in the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at Sarnath (Pl. 40) which belongs to the early twelfth century A.D. Seeing its cut or broken surface on one side its use as the base of a neighbouring pilaster (Pl. 41) attached with wall 16 in trench E6 cannot be ruled out."

3883. The learned experts who have appeared before this Court rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have
sought to challenge this part of the report making serious allegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,
actually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29, 32 and DW 6/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who have deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties complaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned in the above excavation have also said simultaneously something otherwise.

3884. PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180 has said:“Excavation was conducted by a team of members
of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers throughout the excavation. Besides these observers, parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also present during excavation. .......... Day to day register was signed by parties or their nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis. . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the register.” (Page 177-178)
“During excavation photography of trenches along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was three dimensional recording during excavation. ........................ It is correct that excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the
compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was
not sufficient because both types of excavation were necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by
the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it's report along with some plans and sections." (Page 179-180)

3887. As we have already noticed, these objections were prepared by PWs-29 and 32 as they themselves have admitted in the affidavit filed by them supporting their stand taken in the objections


3890. Under the heading "The Myth of so called pillar bases", paras 5.12, 5.16, in a general way, all the pillar bases are
sought to be discredited though a number of pillar bases, we have already demonstrated, are admitted by the experts of the muslim parties. Complaints in respect to some of the pillar bases, which were made on 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003 have already been discussed above and that itself is sufficient to discard the objections of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect.However, we propose to throw some more light on the subject of pillar bases.


3890. Under the heading "The Myth of so called pillar bases", paras 5.12, 5.16, in a general way, all the pillar bases are
sought to be discredited though a number of pillar bases, we have already demonstrated, are admitted by the experts of the muslim parties. Complaints in respect to some of the pillar bases, which were made on 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003 have already been discussed above and that itself is sufficient to discard the objections of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect.

3891. In the cross examination, the Expert (Archaeologist) plaintiffs (Suit-4) have also said something about pillar bases.
PW-16 (Surajbhan) said:“There are no signs or symbols of temples on these so-called pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)

at some places in respect of which anomalies were hinted at in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors were discovered in the excavation"

By the said words I meant to denote any drawing, any design and any figure like that of Yaksha engraved in the stones
sustaining the weight of the pillars looking like those of temples.
(E.T.C.)

“I saw some of these pillar bases at the disputed site. Lime and brick powder appeared to have been used as a mortar in the actual pillar bases seen on the north of the disputed site.” (E.T.C.)

3893. PW-30 (R.C.Thakran) about pillar bases has said:“As long as I was present at the excavation site, it was not that the ASI men might have erected pillar bases. I do not have any knowledge if they may have done so later on. If all the trenches are being constantly videographed, it is not possible to erect pillar bases. ." (E.T.C.)

3894. PW 32 about pillar bases has said:““Except the pillar bases in the north all the pillar bases at different levels have been created, some of whom I saw personally with my own eyes and complaints were filed in the case of trenches G2, G5 and F3. These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. In my opinion barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and 14, all other pillar bases were created by ASI.

“Such so called pillar bases appearing in the section were not created in my presence.....In my opinion barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and 14, all other pillar bases were created by ASI.

HC observes

the important feature pointed out is that there were seventeen rows of pillar bases from North to South, each row having 5 pillar bases. There is no North-South row of the West of wall 16 and17, as is being read and suggested by the
aforesaid experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4). Though we are not agreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the
pillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as claimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr. Supriya Verma and DW-6/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2 and F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one Trench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is there.

3896. Archaeology provides scientific factual data for reconstructing ancient historical material culture, understanding,
archaeology for the past is a multi disciplinary scientific subject and requires a team of workers for effective results. Excavation of ancient sites is one of the major works of Archaeologists. As it is a scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its working. All archaeological excavations are and also at the same time destructive; revealing in the sense they yield unknown data like structures, antiquities etc., destructive that as one digs layer after layer, the upper layer have to be removed to go deeper and deeper to know more and may cause destruction of the site for any future excavation at that place.

3899. In this case, ASI did not work on an unknown subject and site but was backed by a scientific investigation report of GPR Survey which is a well known scientific system used in such matters. The survey has pointed out a number of
anomalies underneath. The actual excavation needed to confirm and verify those anomalies and their exact nature to avoid any doubt. Regarding Pillar Bases, a number of such anomolies were already pointed out by GPR Survey and ASI simply found the existence of pillar bases so as to confirm the anomalies pointed out by GPR Survey at those places. If we look carefully to GPR Survey, as also the pillar bases confirmed by actual excavation of ASI, a total number thereof we find comes to about twenty.


3900. Interestingly, we find that in the two major complaints dated 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003 submitted to the Observer when the excavation was going on, the allegations of creation of pillar base mainly were made in those very trenches where the GPR Survey has already detected anomalies in the form of pillar bases etc. The complaints were already to some extent aware of likelyhood of finding pillar bases in those trenches. Trenches No.F1, F6, F8, F9, G1, G2, G5, G8, G9, H1, ZG1 and ZH1 are in that very category. In other words, it can easily be appreciated that the mind of two experts instead working for the assistance of the Court in finding a truth, tried to create a background alibi so that later on the same may be utilized to attack the very findings. However, this attempt has not gone well since some of these very pillar bases have been admitted by one or the other expert of plaintiffs (Suit-4) to be correct. That is a serious reprimand administered by HC to these pseudo intellectuals, in plain and simple words they lack integrity and honesty.

vol 17 page 4180-4181 (182/251) para 3903
Statement of Sri Pandey, advocate on behalf of Defendant 2/1 in suit 4

existence of pillar bases was challenged by the objectors on the ground that the distance between the pillar bases, the spot position is not common as such the same may not be considered pillar bases. In this connection reference may be given of plan of Ukha Mandir temple converted in to a Masjid published at surveyor general office Calcutta in 1877 in which square pillars were found with different angles and distances. Similarly in temple of Vishala Devi pillar bases of different sizes with different distances were found which to has been lithograph at the surveyor general office Calcutta in July 1877. Examples of plan of Shiva Temple at Bastar, Shiva Temple at Shighanpur, Shiva Temple at Chindgaon, Shiva Temple at Chitrakoot, Shiva Temple at Narayanpur are relating to 10th Century A.D. may be given. A perusal of photographs of the pillar bases, videography and the time of excavation also falsify the allegations of the objectors regarding creation of pillar bases.

3908. This chart would reveal that most of the pillar bases were found during excavation in the months of April and May, 2003 which could have cleared to anyone having an idea on the subject as to what inference those excavations is likely to cause. It appear that in these circumstances under the Expert's advice the complaints were made as a ground, so as to utilize later. It cannot be doubted that as and when the pillar bases have been excavated on that very day mentioned in the site notebook.

3909. We have very carefully perused the site note book, day-to-day register as also more than twenty five video cassettes as well as the photographs but find nothing unusual which may create any suspicion in what the ASI has said in respect to pillar bases in his report. ........... they were constantly watched by huge number of persons and officials of the Court.

3917. One of the objection with respect to the pillar bases is that nothing has been found intact with them saying that the pillars were affixed thereon. The submission, in our view, thoroughly hollow and an attempt in vain. The other parties i.e. Hindus categorically claimed that the erstwhile structure was removed i.e. demolished so as to construct the disputed structure. If we assume other cause to be correct for a moment, in case of demolition of a construction, it is a kind of childish expectation to hope that some overt structure as it is would remain intact. There cannot be any presumption that the pillar bases was remained intact along ancillary material. Whatever has been found that has to be seen in the context and not what is not found. All the things have to be seen carefully and nothing independently and in isolation. The pillar bases were detected by B.B.Lal also in 1976-77 when he made excavation on the western and southern side of the disputed site along with a wall structure. The Archaeologist said that the matter needs further investigation. It is thus further investigation which has infact fortified and explained the earlier structure also. The pillar bases in general were found during excavation in regular bases for columns constructed in a proper pattern with equal distance pattern in regular style. The calcrete stones were topped by sandstone blocks over which pillars must have rested. Brickbats were used in their foundation in the same manner as brick aggregates were used in foundation of walls. The brickbats course of the foundation rested under the ground. The question of falling apart of the brickbat foundation could not have arisen. The calcrete blocks topped by the sandstone blocks is capable of supporting pillar bearings, the load of the roof. Even if there is some minor variation in the measurement of the pillar bases that would not invite the approach of total rejection of something which is otherwise apparent from the existence of the above pillar bases. There may be a reason for having variation in the measurement of the pillar bases that the actual centre of the pillar bases could not have been pointed out since the top sandstone blocks are missing from most of them. Figure 3A in any case has been confirmed to be correct by most of the Experts (Archaeologist) of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

3918. In general, therefore, we do not find any substance in the objections relating to pillar bases and the same is hereby rejected.

Next post would be Walls and Floors leading to conclusion of Massive structure

[chaanakya]

SO what is this big fuss about glazed wares when it's use was dating back to harappan period and were very popular during Kushan period as we have seen this site does have relation to Kushan period and the same was not disputed.

I am no means even an amateur in these subject areas; but doesn't it matter in which layers the glazed wares were found? Though glazed wares were produced in India, they were not really that common. But pottery and glazed pottery are kind of universal in that many civilizations had them.

It would have been interesting to read why the "eminent historians" felt that the presence of glazed wares is Mohammedan. In one of the Indian Gazetteers, I did read glazed wares in India has some origins to Mohammedans. But Indus-Saraswathi Civilization (a.k.a Harrapan Civlization) had some glazed figurines. Why are they not brining China into the picture?

Just saying animals bones and glazed wares existed & hence there can be no temple is not the way "experts" should talk.

What you say is correct.The issue was that the explanation given by ASI for appearance of these glazed wares were not acceptable to the experts while they did not produce any credible evidence to support their claims

ASI reports mentions as below

In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied by glazed tiles which were probably used in the original construction of the disputed structure. Similarly is the case of celadon and porcelain sherds recovered in a very less quantity they come from the secondary context. Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods, but skeletal remains noticed in the trenches in northern and southern areas belong to the Period IX as the grave pits have been found cut into the deposition coeval with the late disputed structures and are sealed by the top deposit.



Another noteworthy feature is that it was only during and after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto Period IX (late and post Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose. As a result of which much of the earlier material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of Period 1 (NBPW level) and Period III (Kushan level) are found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with their contemporary material. The area below the disputed site thus, remained a place for public use for a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area arid population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery.

ASI report was also very clear that materials were found from different periods mixed in late period indicating that mixed materials are used as filling before the DS was constructed. Further , these glazed wares were in less quantity coming from secondary context.Same was true of Bones.

These would by no means indicate a continuous islamic habitation as was sought to be made of, even if glazed wares were found in top layers.

I think your comments are also much appreciated.I am not much of an expert in glazed wares , I must confess though pottery is my hobby.

Kushan is related to Tibetan area and China is not far behind. But these left experts are torn between two loyalties and they take recourse to what is most opportune to them.

[ramana]

Was there any zoological analysis of the animal bones? And also how old were those bones? Dont they disintegrate after a few centuries?

Also the type of glaze reflects on the type of human habitation. Salt glazed is indigenous while colored glaze could be Muslim.

[chaanakya]

We will come Glazed Wares in due course and see how it was dealt with by HC. So lets have patience.

[Amber G.]

Sorry, if already posted:

Some reactions from:
What They Said: Babri Masjid Verdict

Worth to be posted in full for the record.. (See comments, if interested, in blog)

By Arlene Chang

India Real Time presents a round-up of commentary and analysis of one of the key news events this week – the Babri Masjid verdict by the Allahabad High Court. The decision saw a three-bench judge ruling Thursday that the site be divided into three parts in the latest phase of a 60-year-long dispute over the ownership of the Ayodhya land which is now almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

The Asian Age in an edit said, “…the Allahabad high court has perhaps delivered the only possible verdict it could have on the vexed case that has dragged on for 60 long years.” It further stated that the verdict “harked back more to the long tradition of Hindus and Muslims worshipping together.”

And while the general drift of the directive was that the land belonged to all three claimants, “..the verdict has sought to reinstate the remarkable tradition of amity which prevailed in the area from the 19th century before the entire issue was complicated by political parties and religious outfits for their own narrow partisan ends.”



The Mail Today, in a comment piece, opined that the verdict had been “grossly unfair to the Sunni Waqf Board” and that the court seems to have based its verdict on reasoning that is contestable.

It went on to say, “In fact, we think the High Court erred by going into the question whether there was a temple on the site where the Babri Masjid was constructed in the 16th century.”

Rajeev Dhavan, senior Supreme Court counsel, echoes a similar sentiment in India Today and explains why people are calling the judgement a “panchayati judgment.”

He says that while it appears to be decided that there should be a three way split of the area between the parties, “justices Khan and Agarwal seem to recognize the Hindu sentiment, that this was Ram Janmabhoomi, needs to be respected and built a case for the right to prayer at that site on this speculative basis.”

He says it is speculation because “…no one can really pin point where the mythical Lord Ram was born or even that centuries ago prayer in fact took place at this site to commemorate the birth of Lord Ram.”

Citing the words of Kannada writer, U. R. Anantha Murthy, about India living in the 13th and 21st centuries at the same time, Ramachandra Guha in the Hindustan Times wrote that while on one hand India was using modern technology in the “Aadhaar” identity project to bring social services to poor Indians, it was also going “back to the Middle Ages” when the Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict on the Ayodhya property dispute which dates back five centuries. The court he says, recognizing the importance of communal harmony, made a compromise on the judgment.

“My own view has thus been that the land should have long ago been acquired in toto by the Centre, and put to a purpose other than the construction of a temple or/and the reconstruction of a mosque. By that action the government would have equally offended the Muslim bigot and the Hindu bigot, but perhaps struck a chord with the public as a whole,” Mr. Guha said, terming it as “the pusillanimity of successive central governments” of not having discussed this solution.

In a column in the Indian Express, Aijaz Almi, says politicians are on a wait and watch and will ultimately do what they do best – try to peddle a position beneficial to themselves to their voters.

“All political parties will, sooner than later, assess the immediate impact of this verdict, and then plan their political revival based on the reactions of the aam aadmi,” or common man. But he tells his fellow Indian Muslims, “We must go beyond the ‘victimhood syndrome,’ and the double charge of being both ‘appeased’ and ‘anti-national’ at the same time. And the change has to be from within.”

If you’d like to bring an interesting opinion on the Ayodhya verdict, to the attention of India Real Time readers, please post the link in the comments section.

Aijaz Almi, Allahabad High Court, Babri Masjid Verdict, Politics, Rajeev Dhavan, Ramchandra Guha, religion, U. R. Anantha Murthy

[Pulikeshi]

So who came up with the term "Street-side Historians?"

Perhaps the work of Caanakya, Prasad and others on this thread ought to consolidate this angle
under such a title or blog. An argument can be made later against a class of historians
that belong to this category and their shoddy research.

[ramana]

Someone said that the British colonialism in India drew up scholarly amatuers for that is what most British Historians of India were and I think the trend continued with the JNU school of Indian history. Opinion is passed off as facts and history distorted.

[chaanakya]

Was there any zoological analysis of the animal bones? And also how old were those bones? Dont they disintegrate after a few centuries?

Also the type of glaze reflects on the type of human habitation. Salt glazed is indigenous while colored glaze could be Muslim.

These bones as well as glazed pottery have been recorded at the layer where they were found. But it appears that not analysis of bones to determine its date and nature is carried out. We will see how HC discusses this issue as it is one of the major objections.
Glazed pottery can be classified based on their type, pattern , technique etc. Kushan period or Indus valley or Sultanate period can easily be identified. Dating is not much needed.

[SwamyG]

Was there any zoological analysis of the animal bones? And also how old were those bones? Dont they disintegrate after a few centuries?

Also the type of glaze reflects on the type of human habitation. Salt glazed is indigenous while colored glaze could be Muslim.

Source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2 ... 160300.htm

Animal bones: If what the ASI has chosen to mention is important though misleading, what it has left out is equally significant. The presence of both animal bones and glazed ware at different levels of this site causes awkward problems for the claim of a Ram temple here. The ASI report has had to acknowledge that animal bones were found because of the insistence of observers appointed by the Court that they be recorded. But it refuses to identify them by the stratum they were found, and hence the period (of time) to which they belonged. "Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods." But which levels, which periods? The report says: "samples of plaster, floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-botanical remains were also collected for scientific studies and analysis." What scientific studies and analysis were done on the bones? Why are such animal bones not identified by stratum? These bones are material evidence; yet they were not photographed, perhaps to minimise their importance. The significant question which the ASI report avoids dealing with is: have they appeared at a stratum below the mosque? If so, the temple theory collapses.

Ramana garu, If their accusations/allegations are correct, then answers to your question might not be available. Some animals bones do not disintegrate even after few thousand years. It depends on the animal and the kind of bone.

[Amber G.]

If so, the temple theory collapses. ..

They must be holding on to straws... As Dr. Elst said:
Ridiculous to make this as such a proof ... (that Hindus were vegetarians + Animal bones ==> No Temple ever) After all, the destroyers may have had a victory BBQ.. on animals may have just wandered and died ..To put it mildly, if that's the type of 'temple theory collapses' proof they have they deserve all the ridicule.

[RamaY]

‘External forces’ against amicable solution in Ayodhya, says Ansari

Maintaining that those from outside Ayodhya should not attempt to politicise the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri mosque issue, the oldest litigant in the title suite Hashim Ansari on Tuesday said that “external forces” did not want an amicable solution to the dispute and were creating hindrances to it.

“The external forces (i.e.,those from outside Ayodhya) are creating hindrance in reaching out for an amicable solution to the mandir-mosque dispute as they do not want it (to be resolved),” Ansari told reporters here.

Ansari’s comments came after he took a pledge in the middle of Saryu river with a number of saints that he would treat the issue as “top priority” and would continue his attempts to achieve an amicable solution to the dispute.

[Pratyush]

Regarding the presence of animal bones. The thought that comes to my mind is as follows, It was common practice of Muslim invaders of dissecrating and robing the temple before actualy destroying it.

The one of the way it was done was by slaughtering animals holy to Hindus, and scatering its flesh and meat arrounf the temple. I think some thing like this was done to the sun temple in Multan. If the same process was repeated in RJB. Then would that not account for the presence of animal bones in the DS.

So the presence of animal bones doesnot automatically rule out the possibility of there being a temple on sight which was torn down and a mosque being built on top of the ruins.

JMT

[Mort Walker]

Animal bones are not unusual in temple areas, especially if they date back prior to 2000 years. Buffalo sacrifice at the Athanuramman temple (Salem district) in Tamil Nadu and in north-east Bihar happened at regular basis in to the 20th century. My father actually attended one such large event back in the early 1950s. He said it was a lot of blood like the kind he'd never seen before and never wishes to see again. We still see some of this in Nepal today. IIRC, in the Ramayana, king Dashrata commissioned a horse sacrifice before the birth of Lord Ram.

[ShyamSP]

Regarding the presence of animal bones. The thought that comes to my mind is as follows, It was common practice of Muslim invaders of dissecrating and robing the temple before actualy destroying it.

The one of the way it was done was by slaughtering animals holy to Hindus, and scatering its flesh and meat arrounf the temple. I think some thing like this was done to the sun temple in Multan. If the same process was repeated in RJB. Then would that not account for the presence of animal bones in the DS.

So the presence of animal bones doesnot automatically rule out the possibility of there being a temple on sight which was torn down and a mosque being built on top of the ruins.

JMT

I testify that I read discussion some where about a book by an author I don't remember about Muslim invaders treating Hindus well and giving them laddus so it is not correct to say Muslim invaders destroyed temple. Although I'm not a historian, I can say when Muslim invaders came with flowers it was Hindus killed each other and destroyed temple. So Babur just restored structure to a place of worship.

[Pratyush]

Shyam,

From the wiki entry on History of Multan, I guess that this is what you were looking for. It is no way inconciveble that this was not repeated elseware. If it was then this could be one of the explainations behind the animal bones under the DS.

'A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kritayuga .....When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunaibh conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."

History of Multan

[dipak]

I testify that I read discussion some where about a book by an author I don't remember about Muslim invaders treating Hindus well and giving them laddus so it is not correct to say Muslim invaders destroyed temple. Although I'm not a historian, I can say when Muslim invaders came with flowers it was Hindus killed each other and destroyed temple. So Babur just restored structure to a place of worship.

I vouch that I also over-heard a similar discussion in my department (what, you call it gossip?) and also read about it in news papers. Although I am not a historian but I believe I have done enough (see above two - department discussion and news papers) to be called as Eminent Historian and an expert on medieval history, by similar eminent historians.

Sorry OT.

[alexis]

In my humble opinion, the court should have found out who is the rightful owner of the disputed site. Whether a temple existed or not is just a pointer in that direction. It seems that court has decided that the title belongs to Hindus. In this case, the three way split is not the right thing - the whole land should be awarded to them.

[A_Gupta]

http://twocircles.net/2010oct11/publica ... anded.html

Publication of ASI report on Ayodhya excavation demanded

New Delhi: In a statement, various historians, members of civil society groups and concerned individuals have demanded for the publication of ASI Report on Ayodhya excavations.

“The Ayodhya judgment of the Allahabad High Court has relied on a Report, submitted to the High Court in 2003, by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) after its excavations on the site, as ordered by the Court. As citizens of India, or persons of Indian origin, or friends of India, we demand that this Report should be published forthwith and be available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record,” reads the statement.

The statement further says, “We learn that two archaeologists, D. Mandal and Shereen Ratnagar, who critiqued this Report in a book published in 2007, were served with a contempt of court notice by the High Court of Allahabad this summer. So far as we know the orders in the contempt case are yet to be passed. If that be so, the world at large is equally constrained to silence. Such a judicially ordained zone of uncertainty curbs freedom of expression and fair comment.”

The signatories has requested to the Honourable Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and the Honourable Chief Justice of India to kindly look into this matter.

Among the renowned personalities who have signed the statement include, Prof. Uma Chakravarti, Historian, formerly at Delhi University, Prof. K. Satchidanandan, former head of Sahitya Academy, Anand chakravarti, retired Professor of Sociology, Delhi University, David Wengrow, Reader in Archaeology, University College, London, Jocelyn Orchard, Archaeologist, Birmingham University, Jyoti Punwani, journalist, Mumbai, Nandini Manjrekar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Mogen Trolle Larsen, retired Professor of Assyriology, Copenhagen University and Ajay Dandekar, Institute of Rural Management, Anand (Gujarat).

PS: summary of ASI report is here:
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0803/231.html

[A_Gupta]

Earthquake of 1505:
Indian Journal of History of Science, 34(3) 1999
Earthquake History of India in Medieval Times
R.N. Iyengar, Devendra Sharma, J.M. Siddiqui

A destructive earthquake at Agra and in North-West India on Sunday 6th July 1505 AD

This earthquake is well described in primary sources......"...and whereas her buildings were lofty that which had been highest points became the lowest...".

It seems apart from Agra, the cities of Gwalior, Dholpur, Mathura and Delhi too were affected by this earthquake and its influence extended in the whole of the north-west of India and Afghanistan..

Just want to throw into the mix the possibility that while Babur had a mosque constructed on the ruins of a temple, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that an earthquake damaged the temple.

[unarayanadas]

MSM does not seem to be bothered about what the LB-AHC judgement contains. For it the ends of secularism are met only if the court decided in favour of the Muslims. Anything else is majoritarianism. It rather looks like 'road justice': when an accident occurs, onlookers always sympathise with the 'weaker' party irrespective of who is at fault.

[chetak]

Earthquake of 1505:
Indian Journal of History of Science, 34(3) 1999
Earthquake History of India in Medieval Times
R.N. Iyengar, Devendra Sharma, J.M. Siddiqui



Just want to throw into the mix the possibility that while Babur had a mosque constructed on the ruins of a temple, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that an earthquake damaged the temple.

Ruined in earthquake may be, but certainly the Janmasthan site was never abandoned.

People have continued to fight for it over many centuries.

[A_Gupta]

People have continued to fight for it over many centuries.

Absolutely no doubt of that.

[Arjun]

Just want to throw into the mix the possibility that while Babur had a mosque constructed on the ruins of a temple, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that an earthquake damaged the temple.

If it was believed to be RJB, it would have been rebuilt after any destruction by earthquake. More likely is the scenario as outlined by Justice Agrawal, that Babri Masjid was not built by Babur but by Aurangzeb, after destroying RJB temple. The only basis for the modern conclusion of it being built by Babur or under his command, is the inscription which was translated in 19th century...Agrawal has effectively demolished the inscription argument in his findings. Folklore even as recorded by multiple foreign historians in both 18th and 19th century, prior to translation of this inscription, tends towards Aurangzeb having built the masjid.

[Yagnasri]

Many of these "concerned persons" who want the ASI report to be published are not even Indians.

[A_Gupta]

1. No, I believe the two inscriptions on the mosque are not fakes, nor transported and falsely affixed from anywhere else. The folk traditions squarely place Aurangzeb as the demolisher of the Swarga Dwara and Treta ke Thakur, but also say maybe Aurangzeb or maybe Babur demolished the Janmabhumi. Moreover, Aurangzeb's mosques quickly fell into ruins; Babur's did not.

2. If the temple was damaged in the earthquake of 1505, then it might not have been repaired by the roughly twenty years later, when Babur came to Ayodhya. Remember, north India was in considerable disorder when Babur invaded.

Also, please note that I'm merely responding to Koenraad Elst's very valid point that the details of the history of the site are yet to be worked out (see the 6-part youtube posting above). As he says, what we do know for certain is that the Janmabhumi site has been sacred ground to Hindus for a long time, and that it has had temple structures (note the plural).

3. Since we have google earth, if someone could mark on it the extended area that the government acquired around Janmabhumi and the proposed division by the Allahabad HC decision, that would be great.

4. The ASI report being published would be good - we have the judges' opinion of it, and the cross-examination of the witnesses who disputed it.

[Mahendra]

Well nobody can conclusively prove what happened in 1526/28. One can only place faith in word of mouth handed down from one generation to the next.
If video evidence of the Babri Structure demolition were to miraculously disappear, I presume one can argue 200 years from now that the structure was brought down by the Latur Earthquake and not by the Kar Sevaks

[A_Gupta]

^^^^
I have a feeling we haven't examined the Persian archives deeply enough. Or that some documents have been "disappeared".

[hnair]

3. Since we have google earth, if someone could mark on it the extended area that the government acquired around Janmabhumi and the proposed division by the Allahabad HC decision, that would be great.

There is quite a bit of areathat seems vacant around the place.

[unarayanadas]

This is with reference to the following comment, 'Anonymous' left on my website, under the article, HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON?

"The temple uncovered in excavations belongs to 11th cent CE and built by ghadvalas. Chaanakya has given copious references in the BR forums. Please give a link to the forum. It will enlighten others as well."

In compliance with the suggestion, I have posted the following at the end of the article:

"P.S.: See The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion for reading interesting excerpts from the LB-AHC judgement. They include cross examination transcripts of the evidence tendered by the 'secular' historians, archaeologists and other witnesses and also the judges' observations which nailed the 'Eminences' and exposed their lies."

[Arjun]

1. No, I believe the two inscriptions on the mosque are not fakes, nor transported and falsely affixed from anywhere else. The folk traditions squarely place Aurangzeb as the demolisher of the Swarga Dwara and Treta ke Thakur, but also say maybe Aurangzeb or maybe Babur demolished the Janmabhumi. Moreover, Aurangzeb's mosques quickly fell into ruins; Babur's did not.

Argument for structure having been built by Babur rests on (a) Tieffenthaler notes of 1740 that state while some believe Ramkot was demolished by Aurangzeb, others say it was Babur. (b) Buchanan's notes of early 19th century that talk of 2 or 3 inscriptions. 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.

Argument against: (a) William Finch who visited Ayodhya between 1608 and 1611 does not record any mosque though he did record a castle of Lord Ram in Ayodhya (b) Tulsidas does not make any reference to destruction of Ramkot or RJB (c) 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 (d) Buchanan in early 19th century notes that folklore talks of Aurangzeb demolishing the structure. He does not mention any reference of the townfolks to Babur destroying it. (e) text of Babur's name in the purported inscription is written differnetly from those found in inscriptions found in other parts of the country.

My take is that the preponderence of evidence gives weightage to the latter argument rather than the former. The disappearance of the inscriptions in mysterious circumstances further muddies the first argument.

[Arjun]

2. If the temple was damaged in the earthquake of 1505, then it might not have been repaired by the roughly twenty years later, when Babur came to Ayodhya. Remember, north India was in considerable disorder when Babur invaded.

But the barbarity is the same, whether one destroys a standing temple or one that is in the process of being rebuilt...not sure what is the larger point sought to be proven out here.

Also, in the final analysis, the temple destruction issue while being important as a debate in itself, may not be very germane to the actual reasoning behind the judgement. If your recall, the broad reasoning behind the judgement is that none of the parties have been able to prove their title based on ownership of the land. However, history does tell us that both Muslims and Hindus have been worshipping inside the same structure at least since mid 18th century (Tiefenthaller's notings are the first record of this) - therefore by virture of possession or by virtue of right to continue worship both parties have a claim to the property - which the judges changed from joint ownership of the land to equal share of the land.