Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
A polite question: what should, in your opinion have been the verdict? I am not clear what you are getting at.A_Gupta wrote:
I must say, the judges did the best they did to piece together a legal argument through the inexpert experts and lousy evidence they were given. But that doesn't mean we turn off our brains.
Imam Bukhari roughs up journalist
Gets enraged at his suggestion that disputed site be handed over to Hindus
Tribune News Service
Lucknow, October 14
Jama Masjid’s Imam Ahmad Bukhari today lost his cool and physically attacked a local journalist who wanted to know why the disputed structure could not be handed over to the Hindus when Muslim rulers had built so many mandirs in the country.
The press conference of the Imam scheduled in the basement of a local hotel turned violent when editor of local newspaper Dastane Awadh Mohammad Wahid Chishti said that according to his sources the disputed land was shown as belonging to Raja Dasrath in the land records of 1528. “As such his heir Ram should inherit the land. Also when Muslim rulers had built so many mandirs, what is the harm in handing over one more mandir to them (Hindus).”
Reacting sharply to this question, Bukhari accused Chishti, who is also the President of the All India Sufi Sant Ekta Samiti, of being a traitor. “It is people like you who want Muslims to give up their right to the Babri Masjid,” he retorted.
Later after the press conference when Bukhari spotted some news channels interviewing Chishti, he and his henchmen charged across the room and physically ejected him out of the venue.
Chishti has lodged a written complaint against the Shahi Imam at the Hazratganj police station. Confirming that a case has been registered against the Shahi Imam, ADG Law and Order Brij Lal said appropriate action would be taken against the guilty after investigation of the complaint.
Responding to a question about his visit to Samajwadi party leader Ahmad Hasan earlier in the day, Bukhari said it was a purely personal visit to offer his condolences to the SP leader who had recently lost his son-in-law.
Follow my train of thought, if you please. Arjun argues against the Mir Baqi inscriptions. It is an argument from silence - had there been inscriptions, Tieffenthaler would have noted them.ramana wrote:Arun, Is the idea that only Western travellers records or that of Muslim historians count for evidence?
I'm getting at that the judges' rejection of Mir Baqi's inscriptions may have been legally right, but that merely means it does not meet a legal standard of evidence. We still have to piece together a coherent picture of what happened, and Mir Baqi's inscriptions are crucial.hnair wrote:A polite question: what should, in your opinion have been the verdict? I am not clear what you are getting at.A_Gupta wrote:
I must say, the judges did the best they did to piece together a legal argument through the inexpert experts and lousy evidence they were given. But that doesn't mean we turn off our brains.
If I may interject, I think you need to also factor in one more aspect i.e. the timeperiod of the Mandir being replaced by a masjid. At the time when the Mandir was destroyed, the Invaders were neither of a secular nor psuedo-secular persuasion. They were Islamic rulers plain and simple. Do you think it would have been possible for Hindu historians to record and preserve a true account of history and also maintain their head above their neck. Recorded history is always kinder to the Conquerer than the conquered and yet local peoples belief or asta never waivered from that particular place. Why would hindus show up at a masjid and start performing puja at a great risk to their life and limb is the real question that no one seems to be answering.A_Gupta wrote:I do want to note one thing - the absence of word from our Hindu forebears would indicate to me that neither who nor when the temple was destroyed was not of significance to them - as in something worth recording, and preserving the record. What mattered to them was the fact of the loss.
If we accept that we cannot figure out what facts and events of the world a people might choose to record or not record - i.e., reject the argument of silence - then the same holds for individuals - Tieffenthaler, Finch, Buchanan, etc., etc.
Logic does not stand here.A_Gupta wrote:I do want to note one thing - the absence of word from our Hindu forebears would indicate to me that neither who nor when the temple was destroyed was not of significance to them - as in something worth recording, and preserving the record. What mattered to them was the fact of the loss.
If we accept that we cannot figure out what facts and events of the world a people might choose to record or not record - i.e., reject the argument of silence - then the same holds for individuals - Tieffenthaler, Finch, Buchanan, etc., etc.
1. Have you been reading this thread?ramana wrote:Why do you say absence of hindu words when its their tradition that it was destroyed by Babar? Even Guru Nanak has written about it.
And who is this Arjun you quote so strongly? Was he a witness or a judge?
3919. The next objection is with regard to the Walls and Floors. This has been complained by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) under the title "Archaeological Evidence of Massive Structure" 4.1 to 4.14 in the objections dated 28.10.2003. It says:
"4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF "MASSIVE STRUCTURE":-
4.1 That the theory of a so called "massive structure" below "Babri Masjid" (P. 54), given by the A.S.I., is based
mainly upon nearly 50m long wall (wall 16) in the west and the dumps of brick bats which it claims to be "pillar
bases", to its east. According to the A.S.I. they found 17 rows of the so called pillar bases from North to South; each
row having 5 pillar bases while actually they have referred to 50 only, out of which only 12 were said to be completely
exposed, 35 were said to be partially exposed and 3 could be traced in section only. The A.S.I. also asserts that the
central part of the pillared structure was important and special treatment was given to its architectural planning. The A.S.I. also claims that the so-called pillar bases found in these excavations have settled the controversy regarding association of these so-called pillar bases with different layers and load bearing capacity while the report fails to
give any details about the actual regular layers and accurate depth of all these so called pillar bases. The remarks of the A.S.I about the central part of the pillared structure also seem to be without any evidence. On what basis the A.S.I. is saying that this part was important and special treatment was given to it in architectural planning, is also not evident from the report.
4.2. That the A.S.I. failed to take into account that any medieval temple in classical style would be expected to
have a Central portion with thick internal walls to support a high superstructure like a Shikhara, while the Key Plan of Structures shows, in H1, two lengths of a narrow wall or two walls, each less than a metre long, with a gap of about
70 cm. Between them. No further information is given to convince us that there is an " exposed entrance" as stated
on P. 69
4.3. That the A.S.I. Report itself describes traces of inner walls having a width of 0.48 m to 0.55 m, attached with the
earliest activities alongwith wall 16. These internal walls not only appear to be narrow and not more than two or three brick courses high, but also consisting of brickbats only. They are plastered over the sides and upper surface and it is difficult to infer that they were load bearing walls:
4.5. That no single example is offered by the A.S.I. of any temple of pre-Moghal times having such a lime–Surkhi
floor, though one would think that this is an essential requirement when a purely Muslim structure is being appropriate as a Hindu one.
.....................
We are then asked to imagine a "Massive Structure Below the Distputed Structure", the massive structure being a temple. It is supposed to have stood upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures 23, 23A and 23B), it has been " reconstructed". [Though one may still feel that if was hardly "massive" when one compares Figure 23 (showing Babri Masjid before demolition) and Figure 23B (showing the reconstructed temple with 50 imaginary pillars!)]
4.6. That the four alleged pillar bases dated to 11th -12th centuries are said "to belong to this level with a brick crush
floor". This amounts to a totally unsubstantiated claim that surkhi was used in the region in Gahadavala times (11th - 12th
centuries).
.............
By clubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, the surkhi is sought to be explained away; but if so, the "huge"
structure too must come to a time after 1206, for Delhi Sultanate was only established in that year. And so, to go
by A.S.I.'s reasoning, the earlier allegedly "huge" temple too must have been built when the Sultans ruled!
4.7. That the way the A.S.I. has distorted evidence to suit its temple theory is shown by its treatment of the mihrab
(arched recess) and taq (niche) found in the western wall, which it turns into features of its imagined temple. The
absurdity of this is self evident and particularly so when the inner walls of the niche are also found plastered, and the
A.S.I. is able to produce no example of similar recess and niche from any temple.
4.9. That the reason why would the western wall to be so massive (1.77 m) and the other walls so thin ( 0.48-0.55) is
quite obvious. It should be noted that Wall 17 also was 1.86 m wide. Such wide western walls are a features of mosque
construction and not of temples.
Moreover, no Hindu temple has a long continuously straight western wall-this is only a feature of the mosque in India. In the case of a temple, a plinth or raised platform would be required and the walls would be broken by offsets, providing a cruciform plan to the temple form.
In this case, as being suggested by the A.S.I., the central area now under the makeshift structure was the garbagriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple structure should have mainly projected towards the east, and not to such an extent to the north and south ( as in Fig. 23A or 23B). The kind of structure as indicated in Fig. 23B indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can only be the case in a mosque.
4.10.That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has some decorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and
calcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the construction of a foundation where any available motley material would be used, as the foundation would not be visible.
4.12. That On p. 68 are described two niches in the inner side of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 m I trenches E6 and
E7. These were 0.20 m deep and 1 m wide. A similar niche was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area and these
have been attributed to the first phase of construction of the so called 'massive structure' associated with Wall 16. Such
niches along the inner face of a western wall, are again characteristic of mosque/ Eidgah construction. Moreover, the inner walls of the niche are also plalstelred (as in Plate 49) which indicates that the plaster was meant to be visible. A temple niche (and if found, would be on the outer wall) would not be plastered if it were to hold a sculpture or a relief. In the first phase of construction, the supposed massive structure was confined to the thin wall found in Trenches ZE1-ZE1 in the north and E6-H5/H6 in the south (p. 41). How then does one explain the location of niches outside the floor area of the said massive structure ? This is typical of a mosque, which has a long, wide north-south wall, with niches at intervals on its inner face and there may be a small covered area in the center. Which would have narrow demarcating walls.
If, as implied, the structure of sub-period B had collapsed and another floor constructed with another set of pillar
bases, then these are not phases of construction of a structure but three separate structures. What is perhaps a
more plausible explanation is that in the beginning of the 13th century, some Muslim structure was built with a well-
polished lime surkhi floor. There was a low enclosure wall (0.40-0.50 m wide) demarcating the area from E6 to ZE!
And extending east to the H series of trenches. Within this enclosure was probably a small central covered area of
which the northern wall with a niche can be seen the Trench F2. This wall was narrower (0.35-40 m ) thick. Probably this was wall structure only as can be seen by the narrow walls with no deep foundation. When this collapsed, the entire area was filled in with brickbats, stone slabs, calcrete blocks, brick nodules and mud to raise the level in order to construct the next lime-surkhi floor. This floor probably now functioned as an Eidgah or so as no structural activity has been observed in association. When this floor was degraded, another floor was raised, both floors being of poor quality.
4.14. That wall recesses or niches are observed in the mosque/ Eidgah structure in a highter stratum also (P. 53)
but the report fails to discuss about the same.
4.13. That according to the A.S.I. (p. 42), the massive structure in sub-period B collapsed and its debris of brick and stone was levelled to attain height. " In this deposit, foundations to support pillars or columns were sunk which
were overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor, which had a grid of square sandstone bases for pillars projecting out, only a
few still survive."
3920. PW-29 (Jaya Menon) however in para 11 and 12 of affidavit on this aspect has said:
A. That the Period VI structure according to the ASI consisted of a 50 metre long wall and a brick crush floor, and had 4 (so called) pillar bases associated with it. However, nowhere are any specific (so called) pillar bases associated with the brick crush layer.
B. That the brick crush layer was not a floor but a levelling mechanism to level the area for the building of subsequent structures. This is because the brick crush layer can be seen to be of varying thickness in different trenches.
C. That Structure 4 to the ASI essentially seems to consist of a massive western wall and (so called) pillar
bases and has been considered to have been a (so called) temple. The important point is why should the western wall
have been so massive (1.77 metre) and the other walls so thin (0.48-0.55 metre)? Such wide western walls are a
feature of mosque construction and not of temple construction. Temple walls, in fact, are of uniform thickness.
D. That the western wall of the Babri Masjid had a slight tilt towards the east which is a feature of the western wall of the mosques in India because of the direction of Mecca. If, as the ASI points out, the Babri Masjid used Wall 16 as a foundation for its western wall, then this Wall 16 could only have been the foundation of the Babri Masjid itself as it shows the same tilt. It should be noted that Wall 17, supposedly associated with the Period VI structure, also had this tilt and was 1.86 metre wide. Also, if Wall 16 and 17 were temple walls, why should they have had the same tilt towards the east?
E. That no Hindu temple has a log continuously straight western wall-this is only a feature of the mosque in India.
In this case, as being pointed out by the ASI, the central area now under the makeshift structure was the alleged garbgriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple structure should have mainly projected towards the east,
and not to such an extent to the north south.The king of structure as indicated in Fig. 23B of the Final Report
indicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can only be the case in a Eidgah mosque.
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."
ASI Report on Massive Wall3923. PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran specifically at page 190 page 46/190 said:
“I hold that wherever anomalies have been alluded to through the G.P.R. technique, some solid substances or objects have been discovered.” (E.T.C.)
The Massive Structure Below the Disputed Structure As stated earlier the disputed structure or structure 3
was found directly resting over an earlier construction, structure 4 (Pls. 33-34) which has survived through its
nearly 50 m long wall (wall 16) in the west and 50 exposed pillar bases to its east attached with floor 2 or the floor of
the last phase of structure 4 (Pl. 35).
"The wall 16 having its existing length around 50 m, with its unexposed middle part, is 1.77 m wide. Its ten lower brick courses are original and belongs to the first phase of its construction, but the upper six courses as seen in trenches E6, E7 and E8 are added at a later date- four courses during the second phase of construction and top two courses when its southern length outside the disputed structure was utilized in later constructions by reducing the width of the wall for the new structure along with the structure 3. It is also noticed that the first phase of wall 16 has been plastered in the inner side with lime plaster while on the outer side the plaster was provided in the second phase of its raising. There are a few square cavities at intervals on both the faces of the wall in the second phase which might have been used for providing reinforcement to the wall.
........................
Thus the evidence of three phases of the structure 4 suggests its long span of existence.The available C14 dates from the deposit between floors 2 and 3 in the trench ZH1 is 1040±70B.P (910±70 A.D.) having the calibrated age range of A.D. 900-1030. The early date may be because of the filling for leveling the ground after digging the earth from the previous deposit in the vicinity.
3926. During excavations, in all 28 walls were traced as shown in Fig. 3A out of which wall no. 1 to 15 are either
cotemporary to the disputed structure or belong to disputed structure. Walls no. 16 to 28 are earlier to the disputed structure and were found underneath of the disputed structure. The details of the walls found in excavation and their relative position, with reference to the report (given in the report)
What HC did here is to indicate that experts on behalf of plaintiff in Suit 4 have agreed to existence of pillar bases, 28 walls of various discriptions and that walls in each successive layers rest on the top of earlier walls.Experts have laid much emphasis on external wall on the northern side as being indicative of a Idgah type of Mosque. Niche found in these walls along with Lime plasters are indicative of a islamic structure predating the Disputed structure.Use of plastered niche and lime plaster is sought to be shown as Islamic feature while discounting the interpretation of ASI on the basis of a Budhist Vihara built by Queen of Gahadval Dynasty3927. As the main wall of the disputed structure i.e. wall No. 5 was filled with brick bats, it implies that it was
constructed with reused material. These brick bats prima facie establish that they must be of the previous structure. Structurally the date of the designing of pillar bases has also been confirmed with example of Sarnath in which decorated octagonal stone blocks were found in Trench F-7 belonging to 12th century A.D. (page 56 & pl. 39 & 40 of the report). Plate 45 shows disputed structure resting over pillar base No. 29. Wall No. 6 (foundation wall of southern chamber of mosque) was directly rests over two pillar bases no. 34 & 35 (Pl. 30). Wall No. 7 (foundation of southern chambers of mosque towards east) is resting over 3 pillar bases (No. 29, 32 & 35) (P. 52) read with Fig. 6. Wall No. 12 (Northern wall of Northern Chamber of the Mosque) rests just over the pillar base No. 22 (P. 53).
3928. The statements of Experts (Archaeologist) of plaintiffs (Suit-4) in respect to walls and floors have already
been referred in brief saying that there is no substantial objection except that the opinion ought to this or that, but that is also with the caution that it can be dealt with in this way or that both and not in a certain way. In other words on this aspect witnesses are shaky and uncertain. We, therefore find no substantial reason to doubt the report of ASI in this respect.
Similar nature of wide brick walls with plain and decorated stone members of earlier structures reused in their foundations (Pls. 27-28) have been noticed at the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumāradevī, queen of Gahadwal ruler
Govindachandra of the twelfth century A.D. at Sarnath exposed after excavation conducted in 1907 and 1908.
Due to close proximity of the Ram Lala on the raised platform, the central chamber could not be exposed fully,but only a small cutting of 3 x 2 m in between trenches F4 and F5 was made to collect more evidence and to verify the
anomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey report and the floor of the central chamber was found besides earlier floors
There are further revealations that Muslims thought original scripts were destroyed by you know who and they diligently kept the impression of original inscription and later refixed new inscription with original wordings. So if writing style is middle or late 19th C. then case is gone up in smoke. Muslim Historians have not written about Babari Mosque.In one case one historian has written about the conquest and pillage by Mir Baqui and construction of Mosque after destruction of temple but plaintiff's own experts have treated as exultations.That the Faizabad Gazetteer, Volume 43 (XLIII) of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Avadh compiled by Sri H.R.Nevill, I.C.S., published by Government Press in 1905 under the topic ‘Directory’ while dealing with Ayodhya (at page 12-F) affirmed that “The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of Ram”. Later on, it is said, “The Mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935 Hizri. Of the authensity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ayodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to Bihar.” It is to be noted that nothing has been found so far to establish the visit of Babur to Ayodhya. Only on the basis of
these two inscriptions, the conclusion is being drawn all round that the mosque was built by Babur.
................................
The script on the outer inscription of the mosque is pretty bold and more artistic, a style which was developed sometimes in the middle half of the Nineteenth century while the inner inscription is very fine and thin, a style developed in the latter half of the Nineteenth century.
However if one finds another inscription stating that there existed a temple Vishnu Hari at the site then it becomes dubious as to the manner of its finding.ADDITIONAL PLEAS
40. That according to the inscription in the mosque, the said Babri Masjid was constructed by Mir Baqui, one of the commanders of the Babar in 1528 and since then it has been in use as mosque and the muslims always regularly offered namaz in it till the attachment.
The same way other Hindu works from the period are preserved. Do you think Muslims went about censoring books? Anyway, there was no printing press in India in Babar's time.BijuShet wrote: If I may interject, I think you need to also factor in one more aspect i.e. the timeperiod of the Mandir being replaced by a masjid. At the time when the Mandir was destroyed, the Invaders were neither of a secular nor psuedo-secular persuasion. They were Islamic rulers plain and simple. Do you think it would have been possible for Hindu historians to record and preserve a true account of history and also maintain their head above their neck.
The point we have to prove is that Hindu puja at the site predated the mosque; and that the dispute stems from the demolition of a temple and not as an aftermath of Aurangzeb, say, claiming some ground which had nothing but ruins for four hundred years.Recorded history is always kinder to the Conquerer than the conquered and yet local peoples belief or asta never waivered from that particular place. Why would hindus show up at a masjid and start performing puja at a great risk to their life and limb is the real question that no one seems to be answering.
Let us be accurate here. The pages for that period are missing. We even know how that might have happened - Babar describes a storm which scattered the pages of his diary.chaanakya wrote:Few things we should remember here
Strangely , There is no mention of Mir Baqui in Babarnama.
There is not record in Babarnama for the period during which this destruction has happened.
There is no record to indicate that Babar ordered or Mir Baqui built the DS on orders of Babar.
Sorry, I disagree. Nowhere is it "stated to be lost and remade only sometimes in 1855-57.The original inscriotion by Mir Baqui, whose references have been found elsewhere, is stated to be lost and remade only sometimes in 1855-57.
Which is BS. If an inscription was so important to the Britishers, they would have taken very good care of it, and made sure the text was preserved and translated and published. Instead the earliest copy, the 1811 Buchanan copy exists only in the British library in manuscript form.
Annexure I
page 171/236 para 33
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/dvs/Final_Judgem ... re%20I.pdfAt this time the English translation of Baburnama was not generally available as far as I can tell. The only book available was Eliot Dawson. Once Annette Beveridge published her Babarnama translation, the period when Babur was in the vicinity of Ayodhya was amply clear.That the Faizabad Gazetteer, Volume 43 (XLIII) of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Avadh compiled by Sri H.R.Nevill, I.C.S., published by Government Press in 1905 under the topic ‘Directory’ while dealing with Ayodhya (at page 12-F) affirmed that “The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of Ram”. Later on, it is said, “The Mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935 Hizri. Of the authensity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ayodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to Bihar.”
Not quite true. His diary breaks off saying that he is in the vicinity of Ayodhya, and then there are lacunae.It is to be noted that nothing has been found so far to establish the visit of Babur to Ayodhya.
And how is this introduced into the testimony? Elsewhere, Buchanan's copy is disallowed, and Beveridge's copy is disallowed, and in the 1934 riots, the mosque is badly damaged (Hindus paid a collective fine to repair it, and the inscriptions are lost).Only on the basis of these two inscriptions, the conclusion is being drawn all round that the mosque was built by Babur.
................................
The script on the outer inscription of the mosque is pretty bold and more artistic, a style which was developed sometimes in the middle half of the Nineteenth century while the inner inscription is very fine and thin, a style developed in the latter half of the Nineteenth century.
Note what follows that sentence:It appears to be a creation of Britishers sometimes in the Nineteenth century in order to create hatred between the two communities of India viz. Hindus and Muslims and thereby implement an effective policy of communal disharmony, and thereby create problems of law and order so that their annexation of Avadh may be justified on moral grounds.
Ramana - Is there is a link/source? (Eg was it introduced in the evidence?). Guru Nanak or any such sources which give historic information is important evidence. Thanks in advance.A_Gupta wrote:... Guru Nanak has not written about Babar destroying Ramajanmabhumi. Where did you get that from?ramana wrote:Why do you say absence of hindu words when its their tradition that it was destroyed by Babar? Even Guru Nanak has written about it.
Let us be accurate here. The pages for that period are missing. We even know how that might have happened - Babar describes a storm which scattered the pages of his diary.chaanakya wrote:Few things we should remember here
Strangely , There is no mention of Mir Baqui in Babarnama.
There is not record in Babarnama for the period during which this destruction has happened.
There is no record to indicate that Babar ordered or Mir Baqui built the DS on orders of Babar.
Sorry, I disagree. Nowhere is it "stated to be lost and remade only sometimes in 1855-57.The original inscriotion by Mir Baqui, whose references have been found elsewhere, is stated to be lost and remade only sometimes in 1855-57.
Which is BS. If an inscription was so important to the Britishers, they would have taken very good care of it, and made sure the text was preserved and translated and published. Instead the earliest copy, the 1811 Buchanan copy exists only in the British library in manuscript form.
Annexure I
page 171/236 para 33
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/dvs/Final_Judgem ... re%20I.pdfAt this time the English translation of Baburnama was not generally available as far as I can tell. The only book available was Eliot Dawson. Once Annette Beveridge published her Babarnama translation, the period when Babur was in the vicinity of Ayodhya was amply clear.That the Faizabad Gazetteer, Volume 43 (XLIII) of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Avadh compiled by Sri H.R.Nevill, I.C.S., published by Government Press in 1905 under the topic ‘Directory’ while dealing with Ayodhya (at page 12-F) affirmed that “The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of Ram”. Later on, it is said, “The Mosque has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935 Hizri. Of the authensity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ayodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to Bihar.”
Not quite true. His diary breaks off saying that he is in the vicinity of Ayodhya, and then there are lacunae.It is to be noted that nothing has been found so far to establish the visit of Babur to Ayodhya.
And how is this introduced into the testimony? Elsewhere, Buchanan's copy is disallowed, and Beveridge's copy is disallowed, and in the 1934 riots, the mosque is badly damaged (Hindus paid a collective fine to repair it, and the inscriptions are lost).Only on the basis of these two inscriptions, the conclusion is being drawn all round that the mosque was built by Babur.
................................
The script on the outer inscription of the mosque is pretty bold and more artistic, a style which was developed sometimes in the middle half of the Nineteenth century while the inner inscription is very fine and thin, a style developed in the latter half of the Nineteenth century.
Note what follows that sentence:It appears to be a creation of Britishers sometimes in the Nineteenth century in order to create hatred between the two communities of India viz. Hindus and Muslims and thereby implement an effective policy of communal disharmony, and thereby create problems of law and order so that their annexation of Avadh may be justified on moral grounds.
I meant by earlier quotation a Middle half of 19th Century and Late 19th C. a around 1855-1858.also points out that “Fuhrer” mentions of only two inscriptions while in “Epigraphia Indica 1964-65” there is mention of three/four inscriptions. According to him the inscription might have been installed between 1776 to 1807 though the building in dispute might have been raised earlier but neither by Babar nor during his time nor by anyone at his instance.
Eitherway we don't have original inscriptions. EPIGRAPICA INDICA is where it is mentioned and produced in the courtEven the text of the inscription which Ashraf Husain has given in plate 17(b), he says that the same is not what was printed in the existing inscription as restored by Muslim community after 1934 riots but the same is an added version from the stampage obtained from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. At this stage, we are unable to compare even the restored text of the inscription as the same is not available and Maulvi M. Ashraf Hussain instead of giving the existing text as it is of the restored inscription has changed it according to his whims and caprices.
J Sudhir AggrawalAmber G. wrote: Ramana - Is there is a link/source? (Eg was it introduced in the evidence?). Guru Nanak or any such sources which give historic information is important evidence. Thanks in advance.
VOl 4 has details of references cited in this regard.“6. That as per “JanamSakhi Bhai Bala” ( Time of composition : 1715 Vikrami = 1658 AD, edited by Dr. Gurbachan Kaur , Language Department, Punajb, Patiala, 1987 AD, page 172), Sri Guru Nanak Dev appeared on the auspicious day of Kartik Poornima 1526 Vikrami, i.e. 20th October, 1469 at the house of Sri Kalu Bedi (father) and Tripta (mother), residents of Talvandi Rai Bhoye Bhatti town. From Sodhi Manohar Das Meharban written “Sach Khand Pothi : Tanam Sakhi Sri Gurunanak Dev Ji”(Time of composition : circa 1669 Vikrami = 1612 AD, edited by Prof Kripal Singh, Khalsa College, Amritsar, 1962 AD, page 89), it is known that Sri Nanak Dev, working at the grocery of Nawab Dailat Khan Lodi in Sultanpur, had darshan of God on the auspicious day of Bhadrapad Poornima 1564 Vikrami i.e. 1507 AD while taking a dip in Kali Venyee river. Then he resolved to go on a pilgrimage (page 111). Photocopies of referred portions of the said
books are enclosed with this affidavit and are marked as annexures 1 and 2.” (E.T.C.)
Apparently not disputed.3627. PW-20 Prof. Shirin Musavi Professor in the History
Department, Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh also deposed that...................“It is correct that in Sikh literature this is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had Darshan of Sri Ram Janam Sthan and had bathed in the river Saryu.” (E.T.C.)
All of the quotes attributed to me should have been attributed to Justice Sudhir Agarwal, but I guess he wanted an easier target to go after..ramana wrote:Why do you say absence of hindu words when its their tradition that it was destroyed by Babar? Even Guru Nanak has written about it.
And who is this Arjun you quote so strongly? Was he a witness or a judge?
The whole Babur vs Aurangzeb argument has been dealt with extensively in the judgement with an entire volume dedicated to this.....Arun clearly disagrees with the eminent justice. I think the conclusion of HC in this regard would be more pertinent.ramana wrote:Can atleast Guru Nanakji's account of darshan at RJS be taken as one written record?
4351. Suffice it to mention at this stage about the aforesaid evidences is neither the authenticity of any of the Janamsakhi is involved in these matters nor otherwise we have to consider in any manner about the teachings etc. of Guru Nanak. The reference of Guru Nanak has been made by learned counsels appearing for Hindu parties mainly to show that he also visited Ayodhya and after taking bath at Saryu has visited Janamsthan also and this fact is mentioned in the books of Sikh religion while Sri Jilani has tried to show that there is no such reference in any of the books relating to Sikhism. We may mention that though at some places it is found that Guru Nanak while travelling to various places also came to Ayodhya but there is nothing to show that he at any point of time actually visited the disputed place and the learned counsel for the defendants in Suit-4 and plaintiffs in other suits could not show anything to persuade us to take a different view. In this way we find no relevance of the above documents in these cases.
"This issue can only be sorted out when claim of Muslims is upheld. We can not surrender our claim," the Board's Counsel Zafaryab Jilani had said.
Wow, he is true Islamist still fighting for " My Way" onlee. Jinnah also barked similar demands. True charatchter coming out as Mukhota falling from many faces .Being a lawer, he must know the decision making belongs to the Judges and not his "cant surender" rant.jagga wrote:Muslim Law Board to appeal in SC against Ayodhya verdict"This issue can only be sorted out when claim of Muslims is upheld. We can not surrender our claim," the Board's Counsel Zafaryab Jilani had said.
One of the things that Muslims zealots are afraid of is that it will set up a precedent where all 2000 odd temples destroyed would also be need to be investigated. I guess most Hindus would be satisfied with 3 most important, RJB, Kashi and Benares.Sri wrote:
Muslims have no moral claim here. Pointed earlier by some other members.
I would also want to know as to what drives the Muslims to fight this case tooth and nail?
"This issue can only be sorted out when claim of Muslims is upheld. We can not surrender our claim," the Board's Counsel Zafaryab Jilani had said.
What Jilani wanted is " Head I win, Tails you lose".Prem wrote:Wow, he is true Islamist still fighting for " My Way" onlee. Jinnah also barked similar demands. True charatchter coming out as Mukhota falling from many faces .Being a lawer, he must know the decision making belongs to the Judges and not his "cant surender" rant.
Vol 14 39/251Sri Jilani fairly admitted during the course of arguments that historical or other evidence is not available to
show the position of possession or offering of Namaz in the disputed building at least till 1855. He has also disputed
seriously the alleged riots of 1855.
vol 6 208/2513336. During the oral arguments, Sri Z. Jilani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sunni Board, whose arguments have been adopted by other learned counsels appearing for muslim parties, also tried to highlight that Babar never entered Ayodhya and did not command Mir Baqi for construction of any mosque.
Vol 4 218/2511313. Sri Zafaryyab Jilani submitted that it has never been doubted by any authoritative Historian and others that the building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD under the command of Babar by one of his commander Mir Baki. He
admits that the said findings are based on the inscriptions fixed on the disputed building, which came to be noticed for the first time by Dr. Buchanan in the earlier part of 19th century and has consistently been acknowledged and affirmed thereafter by several authorities like Robort Montgomry Martin, P. Karnegi, Alexander Cunningham, W.C.Benett, A.S.Beveridge as well as the ASI. He contends that for the first time this novel argument has been advanced by defendant no. 20 raising doubt over 1458whether the building in dispute was constructed by Babar or not though nothing has been placed on record to prove the same.
vol 9 page 70/251610. We may mention at this stage that Sri Z. Jilani, Sri M.A. Siddiqui and Sri Rizwan, learned counsels for Muslim parties made statements under Order 10 Rule 2 during the course of the arguments that they are not disputing the faith and belief of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya. This statement is in consonance with the findings of this Court recorded in its order dated 08.05.1996 referred to by us above in para 199. They, however, submit that the dispute is about the exact location of birth place and in particular about the disputed premises. Their case is that the disputed premises is not where exactly Lord Ram took birth and there is no evidence to this extent. This statement under Order 10 Rule 2 by the learned Counsels has definitely to some extent narrowed down the canvass of the case and has also saved the Court from entering in a field of faith and belief, the justiciability and the power of the Court in regard whereof itself is arguable.
Its a question of eeechendeee! for them1989. So far as the existence of Sita Rasoi which was on the north west side in the outer courtyard is concerned, nothing has come on record to show as to when it was actually constructed. On the contrary, the record shows that it existed prior to 1885. Its actual time and period when it was constructed is unascertainable. It is beyond comprehension that Mir Baqi or anyone else, while constructing a mosque at the disputed place could have spared some Hindu structure(s) to continue, may be smaller in size, in the precinct of mosque so as to be worshipped by Hindus inside the premises of mosque. We put this question to Sri Jilani also and he frankly stated that no Muslim would allow idol worship in the precinct of a mosque.
A counter argument could be that since no Hindus are allowed to enter Mecca/Medina let alone build a temple anywhere in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Barbaria, Auyodhya being one of the holiest places for hindus, no mosque would be allowed in Auyodhya, Baber's or otherwise. At least RSS/VHP etc. can say something like that.Sri wrote:what I hear from Muslims is ... 'This may be Ram Janam Bhoomi, But there is a Mosque here. So beat it.'
No, no it is exactly opposite of that. Muslims are telling that in your face; that this is Ram Janam Bhoomi, but what the heck as a testament to islamic prowess, islam has erected a monument precisely on it. Face it. If it were any simple farm land, there is no need for gloating and rubbing the nose of the opponent in dirt, and there is no fun in it. The challenge that those who want to completely reclaim the Ram Janam Bhoomi, for Rama Lalla, are seen as directly posing a challenge to the prowess of Islamic dominance instead of it being seen as challenging the injustice. Hence 'islam khatrey mein hain' in a secular country is the bogey argument. Never mind, whether it was wrong either historically or at presently.Sri wrote:continuing my line of thought from my last post...
What's the Muslim argument really like?
1) Is it that, this is not Ram Janam Bhoomi and the Hindus are looking at all the wrong places?
In this case shouldn't they be proving which is the actual or more plausible site?
I believe Parliament has already passed a law restricting the scope of such disputes to just Ayodhya or just these three. I.e., if tomorrow someone somewhere else brings up a temple/mosque issue, they will not be able to proceed.Karna_A wrote: One of the things that Muslims zealots are afraid of is that it will set up a precedent where all 2000 odd temples destroyed would also be need to be investigated. I guess most Hindus would be satisfied with 3 most important, RJB, Kashi and Benares.
Those three temples are sufficient to revive the entire region which will make the new generation to construct new temples atleast 10 times those original destroyed. 2000 X 10 = 20,000 TemplesA_Gupta wrote:I believe Parliament has already passed a law restricting the scope of such disputes to just Ayodhya or just these three. I.e., if tomorrow someone somewhere else brings up a temple/mosque issue, they will not be able to proceed.Karna_A wrote: One of the things that Muslims zealots are afraid of is that it will set up a precedent where all 2000 odd temples destroyed would also be need to be investigated. I guess most Hindus would be satisfied with 3 most important, RJB, Kashi and Benares.
I don't think these petitions work to change anything as they do these such campaigns intentionally. Those don't want to accept constitutional body decision don't deserve to be constitutionally handled.unarayanadas wrote:Dear Friends,
Angered by NDTV's blatant anti-Hindu coverage some friends have posted an online petition to the channel requesting it to mend its ways. The petition is online now. Please sign it by clicking on the link below - and pass it on to as many friends as possible with a request to sign it:
Indian Citizens Petition to NDTV
With regards,
Sincerely,
U. Narayana Das