The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion

[Yagnasri]

This is my first post in this topic. Being a advocate and one involved in the RJB Movement upto 1996 I should have posted here earlier. But ill health prevented me. My ideas posted in my blog with link hereunder. I though it will save space on BR and make many more valuble contributions by gurus.

LINK to my blog

[vera_k]

From IF

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... _p__108626

Yes, Mir Baqi inscription was found, but it is not seen as reliable evidence to prove that a) a mosque existed, and b) Babar built it. Read from Page 163 onwards here.

It is not uncommon for ruffians to fix old Inscriptions on
newly built and / or converted mosques. ‘Epigraphia Indica
Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964 and 1965’ at its pages
55 and 56 records that two Inscriptions dated 1934 fixed on
two mosques at Rohtak did not belong to those mosques but
have been fixed thereon. relevant extracts from said book
read as follows:
“Among the historical buildings, two mosques, viz.,
Masjid-i-Khurd in the Fort2 and Rajputon-ki-
Masjid, a new mosque in the city area, bear
inscriptions of the time of Babar. The one on the
Masjid-i-Khurd consists of three lines inscribed on
a tablet measuring 53 by 23cm. Which is fixed over
the central archway outside3. The slab is badly
damaged and considerable portion of the text has
peeled off. It is, therefore, not possible to decipher
it completely, but this much is certain that it refers
to the construction of a mosque in the reign of
ahiru’d-Din Muhammad Babur by one Qadi
Hammad. If the Tughluq inscription occurring on
the outer archway is in situ, this epigraph may not
belong to this mosque.”
(Ibid.p.56)
191
“The other epigraph of Babur in Rohtak is from the
Rajputon-ki-Masjid. Fixed over its central arch, the
tablet, measuring 1.1 m. By 21 cm., does not
belong to the mosque, but it was rather intended as
the tombstone of Masnad-i-‘Ali Firuz Khan. It is
inscribed with two lines of Persian which are
slightly affected by the weathering of the stone.
The text records A.H. 934 (1528 A.D.) as the date
of the construction of the tomb of Masnad-i-Ali
Firuz Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Ahmed Khan and
grandson of Masnad-i-Ali Jamal Khan and refers
itself to the reign of Babur. The style of writing is
ordinary Naskh. I have read it as follows:-
TRANSALATION
(1)Completed was in the reign of His Majesty Babur Badshah
Ghazi, may Allah perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignity,
this noble edifice, (viz.) the tomb of His Excellency
Masnad-i-Ali3 Firuz Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Ahmad
Khan, son of Masnad-i-Ali Jamal Khan, the deceased, all of
them, on the 10th of the month of Rabiu’l-Akhar, year (A.H.)
four and thirty and nine hundred (10th Rabi’II A.H. 934 = 3rd
January 1528 A.D.).
(Ibid. P. 57)
22. In Epigraphia Indica Arabic & Persian Supplement 1964
and 1965’ at its pages 19 and 20 S.A. Rahim reports that at
Fathabad near Chanderi in Guna district of Madhya Pradesh,
stands the partially ruined palace known as Kushk-Mahal
and Inscrption fixed thereon are not dated back to its
construction but have been affixed thereon from time to time
either by the visitors or by the Governors thereof. Relevant
extracts from his said reprt read as follows:
“ It would not be, however, wholly correct to say
that the Kushk-Mahal does not bear any inscription.
There are about a score of places on the walls
enclosing the stair-cases, referred to above, which
bear short inscriptions. The rubbings of some of
these were found in the bundles of old estampages
which were transferred to our office, from the
192
Office of the Government Epigraphist for India,
Ootacamund, South India, who in his turn seems to
have received them quite some time back from the
Archaeological Department of the erstwhile
Gwalior state. I prepared fresh rubbings of these
records when I toured some places in Madhya
Pradesh, including Chanderi, in November 1962.
Of these, some are mere repetitions of the same text
and as such have been excluded from this purview.
The remaining four inscriptions are edited here for
the first time.
These inscriptions raise an important question, as to
whether they are contemporary with the building or
not. They do not appear to be so, because they are
not inscribed on tablets set up on the walls, nor are
they found incised on prominent places on the
monument. A building of such magnificence would
have had, if at all it was so planned, an inscription
of proportionate prominence. This does not rule
out the possibility, however, of the existence of an
epigraph on the monument, for it is possible that it
had one and may have disappeared since.
Moreover, the texts of the inscriptions under study
are also vague on this point, for they do not make
any explicit reference to the palace-building or its
construction. In view of these facts, it appears
more likely that these records are either visitors’
etchings or some sort of mementos which the
governors, the palace-guards or some other officials
might have desired to leave on the stone.
Fortunately, one of these four records is dated, and
since the same penmanship is employed in the other
three records, they can also be safely taken as
having been inscribed at about the same time or at
short intervals. Their language is Persian and style
of writing cursive Naskh. The wear and tear of time
has affected the stone, resulting into partial
obliteration of some of the letters, particularly in
the first inscription.
The contents of these four epigraphs classify them
into two groups: one, of the first inscription, and the
other of the remaining three. The first refers itself
to the governorship(amal) of Khan-i-A’zam Sharaf
Khan Sultani and the superintendence (shahnagi) of
one person whose name is not very legible; it seems
to be Raja, (son of) Shams, (son of) Fath. The
name of the writer which is also not clear, appears
to be Shiv Sing(?) Gulhar. This inscription is dated
1489-90.
The three records of the other group refer, between
themselves, to the governorship of Malik Mallu
Sultani and superintendence of Sarkhail Shariqi
Mulki and quote Gulhar Jit(?) Dev, as the scribe.
They are undated and hence, it is difficult to state
positively if they are earlier than the above dated
inscription or not.”
(Ibid. P.19-20)
In view of the submissions of Shri P.N. Mishra, it
transpires that even after the conquest, the Ramjanamsthan
Temple could not be demolished, even if demolished, the
erection of Babri Mosque is illegal and against the tenets of
Islam. Accordingly, the disputed site cannot be deemed to be a
mosque. He has further submitted that there is no reliable
evidence that it was constructed by Babur or Mir Baqi.
Accordingly Ramjanamsthan Temple even under the Islamic
law shall retain its existence, which is not vanished by any
illegal action of Aurangzeb, Babur or any ruler. No valid waqf
can also be created. It is further submitted that since there
was no Islamic Mosque, accordingly question of offering
prayers does not arise and even if the prayer was offered, it is
immaterial.

[chaanakya]

Dear friends

I am thoroughly enjoying reading Majority Judgement. It has excellently rubbished the claims of Chuna Surkhi concept belonging to Mughal period. I am only afraid that long quotations may bore members here( or may not bore)
At that risk I am posting the rebuttal by HC and its conclusion with reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion

VIII The contention of plaintiffs that use of lime motors was started by Muslim Emperors is baseless. It is well
established that Choona Surkhi (lime mortars were used by the builder of the disputed structure right from 600 B. C. The excavations at Kausambi Mathura, Karwan (Gujarat) Bhitri (Ghajipur) Nalanda Taxila Ganwaria etc. proves hat Choona and Surkhi with lime plaster where commonly used. R.S. Sharma in his book "Perspectives in Social and Economic History of Early India" has expressed similar opinion. Prof. Sharma in his book referring about use of Choona Surkhi at page 181 mentions as under:-

IX "No background study of trends in the economic history of Mathura can be complete without some idea of the technological factors operating in this Period. There is little doubt that unbanism reached its climax in northern
and western India in this period. Several factors contributed to it. One such factor was the change in building methods. At Mathura and Ganwaria in Basti district in north-eastern Uttar Pradesh the flooring was made of brick concrete mixed with lime. This indicates the use of Surkhi which contributed to the stability of structures. Further, baked, tiles for roofing appear in the period at several places in both the Satavahana and Kusana zones including Mathura. These innovations added to the solidity and longevity of urban structures in the early centuries of the Christian era."

X. Dr. H.C. Bhardwaj – Ex-Professor of History of Technology of B.H.U., in his article titled "Town planning, building and building materials" also expressed similar view and while referring to mortars and plaster expressed his opinion that the earliest use of lime and gypsum comes from Indus civilization.

XI. Lime mortars have been used at Kausambi from 600 B.C. to A.D. 100. But it may be emphasized that by and large only mud mortar and plaster were used. The results of the chemical analysis (Table 2 and 3) show that the content of sand in the mortar was slightly higher than that in plasters. The average ratio of sand : lime Ca(OH)2 is about 1:1, whereas in the case of mortars the average is 2:1. For mortars, probably 2 parts of sand were mixed with one part of slaked lime.

XII. Lime Plaster from Karwan (Dt. Vadodara, Gujrat) from pre-Gupta levels : From the analysis (Table 4) it is clear that two types of plaster was used. Samples 1 to 4 represent the upper coat of the plaster and 5 to 8 represent lower rough plaster. The former has higher content of lime as compared to the latter. Fine layer was laid and burnished to make it smooth and elegant.

XIII Lime plaster from Bhitari (Dt. Gazipur, U.P.) (Gupta Period) : shows low grade lime plaster (Table 5) was used at the brick temple of Gupta period. It has sand and lime ratio of 6:1. The red colour of the plaster/mortar is due to the use of erruginous kankar for preparation of lime.XIV. Lime plaster from excavations at Nalanda (7th -10th century A.D.) (Table 6) shows 3 parts of lime (calcium carbonate) and 2 parts of sand. Some of the monasteries are thickly plastered. Jars with dried up mortar and a cell used as a cistern in monastery No. 11 are indicative of the preparation of concrete.

XV. Lime plaster from Lingaraj temple at Bhubhaneshwar (Orissa-10th century A.D.) (Table 7) shows that lime : silica ratio was 3:1.XVI At Arikamedu lime mortar is reported from historical period. Use of lime is also attested from Hullas Khera (Dt. Lucknow) from Kusan-Gupta levels and from Banagrah (Dt. Dinajpur) where use of time and Surkhi is known from
Gupta and Pala Levels. At Purana Quila lime plastered gutter connected with house drains is reported from levels datable to 8th – 9th century A.D.

XVII. In addition to above excavations at Arikmedu in Pandicherry proves use of like model from early historical period of 1st
Century A.D. Use of lime is also proved from excavations at Hulaskhera District Lucknow from Kushan Gupta levels.

XVIII. It is thus fully established that lime mortar, lime plaster, Surkhi choona were in use in India continuously much before the arrival of Muslims in India. It is well established that lime and surkhi was used prior to 1st century B.C. and was in continuous use as such the objection of Sunni Central Waqf Board and others Muslim parties to the effect that lime surkhi made appearance from Islamic period is without any basis and mearly an objection for the shake of objection only.

XIX. Moreover, on the contrary, there is not a single evidence to prove it otherwise. The objectors have used phrases 'Muslim construction' several times. What is a 'muslim construction'? Islamic architecture or Indo-Islamic architecture are better generic terms. Then the objector says "muslim built domed circular buildings" as an alternative explanation, but it gets self-negated by their own arguments in the next para of their objections.

So there goes PS Historians' idea of Islamic Structure pre-existing as ASI was able to find and pre-date the site to as early as 13th Century BC.




J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4314-4317 (page 65-68 in the vol) Para 3991
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

[chaanakya]

Part-II ( though it is bing mentioned after the reasoning of HC in previous post

3979. The report of the Archaeological Survey of India, which is a report of an expert in excavation, contains all the
details including details of stratigraphy, artifacts, periodisation as well as details of structures and walls. The pillar bases
mentioned in the report establishes beyond all doubt the existence of a huge structure. In addition to above, existence of circular shrine, stone slabs in walls with Hindu motifs and more particularly sign of Makar Pranal in wall No. 5 (wall of disputed structure), divine couple and other temple materials, etc., conclusively proves the existence of a hindu religious structure beneath the disputed structure. It is generally admitted by the witnesses that the excavation was conducted as per settled norms of archaeology in presence of parties, experts and observers and three dimensional recording, photography, videography of each and every trench, structure, artifacts, were done by the ASI during excavation in presence of all concerned. Day-to-day register, supervisor's diary and antiquity register were being regularly maintained.

3980. There are some more objection which we find not much of worth for the reason that the experts of Muslim parties ultimately, realizing that structure existed underneath the disputed building hence they made out a new case in their statement. However, a new stand which is not the case of the plaintiff, not pleaded is not permissible.

3981. In Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & others AIR 1987 SC 1242, it was held:

"It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings, instead; the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal."

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4294 -4295 ( page 45 of the vol) para 3979-3981
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

[Yagnasri]

I must admit before posting that I was involved in the movement since BJP got itself involved. I was in BJP politics till 1996. So I have direct exposure to the RJB movement to some extent though I have not participated in the Kar Seva. The mobilization and support we have received from general public was unexpectedly huge even in my home town (which is in AP) You can imagine the extent of support RJB movement had in north India and other places where traditional BJP was/is strong.

When the 1st major Kar Seva of RJB movement’s was done, Mulayam was the CM of the UP. This was nationwide agitation and entire UP was turned into prison by Mulayam. Kar Sevaks had to walk 100’s KM on the fields (they were arrested if they are on roads) to reach Ayodhya. Entire rural UP was exposed to this agitation during this movement. In the end above 300000 people were arrested. Many were killed in the police firing at Ayodhya at that time.

Union Government fell as a result. V.P. Singh lost his PM post and became a great martyr for “Secular” cause. Lalu captured Muslim votes in Bihar by arresting LK Advani and Mulla Mulayam claimed Muslim vote bank in UP. Both resulted is disaster to the respective states in terms of development. Communist Crowd hailed them as great protectors of Secularism. The Muslim vote bank was gone for congress and resulted in its downfall in Hindi heartland in later elections and thereafter entire India.

When the 1992 incidence taken place UP was under BJP and Center was under INC of PVN. PVN kept his nerve and in fact solved the problem in full. After 6th December 1992 there was no mosque or majid or whatever and only a make shift temple is there. Many will not know that the present make shift temple was constructed under curfew and when U.P. was under President Rule. No civilian was supposed to be present there at that time. The mood of the nation can be best seen in the photo published our Cummie Hindu news paper showing a CRPF Constable praying to Ramlala in the make shift temple wherein huge amount of money was on floor being offerings (from the police and security personal). So who built the present make shift temple and when it was built is not mentioned by any one now ironically. The credit of liberating the Rama Janmasthan shall be given to PVNR and he shall be given the credit for building a make shift temple at least.

PVN took advantage of the situation and dismissed all the major state governments of BJP in MP UP and Rajasthan and Supreme Court later up held the dismissals. Kalyan Singh was sent to Jail for one day for violation of undertaking given by him without notice and given an opportunity to put forth his side. So much for justice and fair play. So judiciary got seriously insulted and had held against BJP in both the cases.



In the morning of 7th Shakar Dayal Sharma (correct me here if I am wrong) President of India first time mentioned the structure as Mosque. Till that day it was normally called as disputed structure only. The rioting was immediately started thereafter. But there was a change from the earlier rioting and this one. Police and Para Military used force and many rioters were killed in firing. This was a major sore point to the Muslim leadership that they were not allowed to freely riot. Incidents and Mumbai bomb blasts thereafter are well known at all. BJP has come into power in UP with Kalyan as CM.

There were no developments in the movement after that with BJP achieving its aim of consolidating the Hindu vote and getting power in the center. Since then every incidence of terrorism was blamed on RJB movement and demolition of the disputed structure by our Commie gang in the media and so called historians, intellectuals till now. Godhra train was attacked and Kar seveks coming back from Ayodhya were targeted and killed by Muslim mobs. Firing on Karsevaks, burning people alive in the train, Imprisonment of lacs of people was never considered bad by the leftist media, “intellectuals”, and “historians”.

In 2005 the Supreme Court has directed hearing of all the civil suits on day to day basis and give judgment as early as possible. Since then the trial is going on and a ban on reporting of the proceedings etc is in force. I understand who is who is who in the secular, leftist, “historian” gang gave evidence for the Sunni Wakf Board side and claimed lot of nonsense things. The much talked about ASI report was also examined and the people involved were also cross examined by the Wakf side. The arguments were heard for 3 months. The present judgment was given only after that.

The main problem with out leftist “historians” from JNU and all other fellow travelers fellows is they have told people the following things for many decades:

• there is no issue at all in respect of Ram Janma Bhumi and everything is creation of BJP an RSS and other “fascist forces”
• the structure is a majid,
• there is no historical evidence that it was constructed after demolishing a temple,
• there were no demolition of temples by Muslim rulers in India under Jihad, In fact there is no Jihad in India,
• all Muslim rulers are great people and there was no religious discrimination under Islamic rule,
• there were no mass killings of Hindus in Jihad,
• Low caste Hindus have converted into Islam freely because of their persecution by the Hindu upper caste exploitation,
• there is no historical basis for Hindu religion,
• Ramayana itself is a myth therefore Rama birth place has no historical basis,

All these general contentions of these people were largely unopposed till now. They never bothered to prepare to be examined by others. Why should they ? To be an “eminent historian” you have to be a communist. Only leftist people are considered as “intellectuals”. So all the peers are their own people. You scratch my back and I will yours is the moto. This unassailable position enjoyed by them since they captured JNU and other institutions made them lazy and complaisant. So dozens of eminent historians in the side of Wakf board made no difference to the outcome.

When the records are put to test and all the records or critically examined all the lies exposed. Huge amount of records of the incidents recorded in various books and journals, dairies, official’s proclamations etc proved what Hindus were saying all along. The structure was never uncontested. The structure basically abandoned for long period by Muslims. As a result findings in the judgment are totally different than the communist people told to the nation for decades. Now having lost the face they are making all kinds of “intellectual” statements.


It is not possible for the communist “historians “ to withstand the barrage for evidence in the court of law of all the misdeeds recorded by the Muslim rulers, diaries official documents etc, in general and particularly in the Rama Janmabhumi case. So what is supposed to be a cake walk for the Wakf Board became a night mare scenario. Some 10 days before judgment I heard our Vinod Mehta saying that Muslims will win the case because they have more documents. I do not know what he meant by that. But many like him made similar statements.

The “historians” failed to see the long tradition and belief of worship attached to the Janmasthan. They failed to understand the intense felling attached to the RJB movement. They failed to see the nation memory of the atrocities, destructions and all the tragedies Hindus had to endure for over a thousand years. They has lied their level best in the text books they have written but forgot about oral traditions, stories, books, myths, legends, songs, poems telling the real story of the countless genocides and the effect on the Hindu nation. They have started living in the world created by their own lies. As long as they faced no serious challenge their lies and false dreams it was all ok. But once there is a serious challenge to this established communist history, long established “truths” be it Aryan Invasion Theory or Rama Janmabhumi movement are no longer “truths”. Their entire gamut of ideas became basically indefensible.

The major danger to these “historians” is loss of creditability (many say they never had any credibility in the first place.). They are the no longer have to sole prerogative to tell the History of our nation and civilization to the world and they are not the sole judges about what is what in our history.

Entire basis of the leftist theology is now under danger in India. Let us not forget “ those who control past control future “. By losing the control of the past the leftist gang lost control on the future of the nation. This judgment apart from the liberating of the Ram Temple, will save nation from the leftist lies and liberate the “Idea” of Indian nationhood from the leftist traitors.

[chaanakya]

PArt-III ( going backward to discover the roots of PS historians)

3982. PW-16 (Surajbhan) formed his opinion in advance before the receipt of the ASI report and sought to explain that underneath the disputed building there appears to be an Islamic structure existing like Idgah and Kanati mosque. His statement on page 446, 521 and 527 is as under:
“It is true that my conclusions and views on certain issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the submission of ASI’s report in court.” (E.T.C.)

“Consequent to submission of ASI’s report in the matter and the claim that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, I and Prof. Irfan Habib had given this statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above statement.” (E.T.C.)

"In my view the buildings related to wall nos. 16 & 17, the two structure beneath the disputed structure, were of the Sultanate period and must have been some Islamic structures such as Eidgah or Kanati mosque etc.. . . . . . . . .
Both these walls do not appear to be of some Hindu building and instead must have been of some Muslim building of the Sultanate period.” (E.T.C.)

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

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

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

3985. It is true that all these experts were representing, in fact, a particular party, they were all, in one or the other manner connected with each other. The statement of PW-32 (Dr. Supriya Varma) is:
“I have done my Ph. D. under Prof. Shereen Ratnagar.” (Page 72)
“All these chapters on archaeology were written by me and Dr. Jaya Menon.” (Page 73)
“Both Dr. Jaya Menon and myself are archaeologist by specialization. Dr. Jaya Menon and I are equally competent.” (Page 74)
(Note: Shereen Ratnagar is PW-27)

3986. Normally, it does not happen but we are surprised to see in the zeal of helping their clients or the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead than what was not even the case of the party concerned and wrote totally a new story. Evidence in support of a fact which has never been pleaded and was not the case of the party concerned is impermissible in law. Suffice it to mention at this stage that even this stand of these experts make it clear that the disputed structure stood over a piece of land which had a structure earlier and that was of religious nature. Minor mistakes and irregularities in ASI report, if any, do not shake the basic finding that the disputed structure claimed was not raised on a virgin land or unoccupied land but there existed a structure using some part thereof either in the form of foundation or using the material thereof, the disputed structure was created. Whether lime molter or lime plaster from a particular period or not, whether glazed ware were Islamic or available in Hindustan earlier are all subsidiary questions when this much at least came to be admitted by the experts of the objectionists parties i.e. the plaintiffs (Suit-4) that there existed a structure, walls etc. used as foundation walls in construction of the building in dispute and underneath at least four floors at different levels were found with lots of several other structures.

J Sudhir Aggarawal
Vol 18
Page 4295-4299 ( page 46-50 of the Vol) para 3982-3986
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

[Muppalla]

Read it all...

Devil's Advocate: Jaitley on Ayodhya verdict

judgment.


Karan Thapar: A second part of the judgment that the judges have concluded that the mosque was built upon a previous structure, which they say was a Hindu temple. And that they accept without questioning an ASI report which is highly disputed and therefore considered by many top historians to be questionable?


Arun Jaitley: Well, the views of those historians may be questionable. Ultimately in a democratic society, which is governed by constitutionalism – you can’t have convenience as constitutionalism. You’ve a system where the court appoints the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) as an agency. Some left of centre historian is not the ASI. The ASI, in turn, hires the best international experts. What is the evidence that they have? They have plaques that were recovered immediately upon the demolition of the disputed structure by the ASI. They have pillars and material, which have been recovered by the ASI. Then you had ASI hire an international, I’m told a Japanese agency, which did various other studies by digging below the existing structure to find out whether there was a structure before it – they did laser studies. Now I’ll just place the evidence before you because I have been seeing some adverse comments coming from vested interests and come to a conclusion that the court has given. It is disputed as long as the report doesn’t come. Once there is cross-examination on that report, once grill the ASI for days together and the judges give their opinion it is no longer disputed, although subject to the right to appeal. That becomes a fact that a historian is entitled to criticize the judgment but India will be governed by a judgment delivered by a court and not the opinion of some politically-inclined historian.


Karan Thapar: That is very much a contested answer that you give me. First of all the ASI report needs to be interpreted as different interpretations are as valid as each other. When you need someone to judge different interpretations that person needs to have the expertise to do so. Whatever else judges may be of the Allahabad High Court, they are not expert historians to decide that.


Arun Jaitley: Thankfully, we don’t have a kangaroo system where TV studios or anchors become judges. We are governed by constitutionalism where the judges on the strength of expert witnesses are the judges of even expert evidence. Judges are not expert handwriting witnesses, judges are not expert archaeological witnesses – they can decide questions of science depending on what is the medical evidence. A judge is not a doctor but the expert will come and give evidence and the judge will opine on that – that’s the system we have.


Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you what the problem is in this process that at least in two specific important areas the judges have to rely on something which not indisputable – the first instance – they relied in faith and second, they’ve relied on a contested, disputed opinion.


Arun Jaitley: Now, your question is based on, a) a non-reading of the judgment, b) on an erroneous presumption, at least on the second fact. The first, I have already answered. The judges, I assume, would have relied on the evidence – an ASI report, international agency which did a laser study. Historical writings of a contemporary nature that is 17 century and 16 century writings of travellers, historians of that particular moment. The official gazette of British rule in India as opposed to almost negligible evidence. You found structures there with Hindu markings. Now on the basis of that if judges come to an opinion – and what I seriously object to is that you can’t have a constitutionalism of convenience in India. Pardon me for saying this, till 4 o’ clock yesterday I saw some historians and lawyers sitting in television studios saying a judgment is coming, it must be accepted. At 4:15 when you saw the judgment swinging the other way, you immediately turn into a critique of the Allahabad High Court. Now you can criticize a judgment but you can’t change, within 15 minutes, the tenor of your entire argument.


Karan Thapar: Now that you’re talking about a different issue – you’re talking about how commentators changed their positions and your criticism of the commentators is legitimate from your standpoint. I don’t want to prolong the argument over the validity or the invalidity of the basis of which the judges have come to conclusion but then let me just point one thing out and then I’ll move on – that the elements of fact that you point to such as plaque, pillars, Hindu markings – have other interpretations in the eyes of the reputed historians like D.N. Jha, Irfan Habib and Jay Menon that’s why it’s a contested fact…


Arun Jaitley: It is a contested fact between ideologically motivated historians of different varieties. The others have will say something else. But in a democratic society, governed by the rule of law, ultimately, the disputed fact has to be decided even if it’s an expert judgment by a court of law.

[Bade]

XVIII. It is thus fully established that lime mortar, lime plaster, Surkhi choona were in use in India continuously much before the arrival of Muslims in India. It is well established that lime and surkhi was used prior to 1st century B.C. and was in continuous use as such the objection of Sunni Central Waqf Board and others Muslim parties to the effect that lime surkhi made appearance from Islamic period is without any basis and mearly an objection for the shake of objection only.

It gives a new meaning to "Choona laga diya" by the Historians who suggested the lime and surkhi argument to support the Waqf board plea !

[ramana]

From what I recall surkhi was the material of choice before Portland cement made its foray in the fifties. Surkhi was made by crushing limestone with broken bricks in a crusher powered by oxen. Most construction sites used to have a 'ganuga' a circular stone lined ring with a post at the center. The ox was yoked to the center and dragged the stone crusher wheel.

[ShivaS]

One of the oldest techniques of making lime and slaked lime was to get it from marine sources namely sea shells, clams etc. Because the manufacture of this involves large amount of heat energy, the villagers used briquettes of Coww dung mixed with rice husk in the klins (in addition to fire wood to sart the falme).

This was then shipped in open or covered with palm leaves for transport on bullock (after you add sand it becomes Sandra Bullock) carts. Then this was added to sand and water to grind it into paste in buffalow drawn circular (aah again annular) grove made up of granite stones(lined bottom and as walls) the grind stone it self was carved out of Granite. All these techiques were exported to west from India and China. (remember Bhadrachala Ramadas movie, ramadas is in Tanisha prison the whip him to pull this contraption). The product depending upon the finess of paste could be used as plaster final finish or Bonding.

Ramana ji>> you plastered your message while I was crafting it.

[chaanakya]

Can they not Date using Carbon, one for the slab itself and its mortar and the for the scribe added later on? Ofcourse if it is chiseled then I don know!! Maybe any residual metal from the chisel and date it?

From ASI Reports

The northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) using people were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya. During the first millennium B.C. although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed, the material culture is represented by terracotta figurines of female deities showing archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks etc. The ceramic industry has the collection of NBPW, the main diagnostic trait of the period besides the grey, black slipped and red wares. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this
level. On the basis of material equipment and 14 C dates, this period may be assigned to circa 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.

The site has been dated at least 1000BC by C14 carbon dating. More later on this.



J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4300 (page 5 para 3987 in the vol)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

[Muppalla]

The site has been dated at least 1000BC by C14 carbon dating. More later on this.

That makes it pre-buddist and pre-jainism time line and we need to escavate more and reconstruct the structure digitally.

[chaanakya]

Meanwhile continuing further

part IV

III. The findings of ASI Report must be appreciated in the light of a most important factual & legal angle of the
Parties' Case. This litigation commenced in 1950. From the very beginning, it has been the case of Hindu Parties that
at the spot of Babri Masjid, there had existed a Temple and that the Masjid was erected at the site of the Temple after
demolishing it, while it has been the case of Muslim Parties that the site was a barren vacant piece of land which came
to be vested in Babar as Emperor/Sovereign who had conquered the Delhi throne( This is the sum and substance of Sunni waqf Board's Case) ASI excavation revealed pre-existence of 'massive structure' underneath DS. The Muslim Parties did not amend their Pleadings to take any alternative plea to meet the discovery of the massive structure beneath DS; legally, they cannot be heard to say that there had existed some Muslim religious structure at the site in whose place Babri Masjid was erected.

IV. Without prejudice to detailed submissions on ASI Report elsewhere, suffice it to mention here that the Western Wall (W5) of DS stands directly over Western Wall (W16) of the Temple without any layer of earth or other strata between the two walls which should have existed at the top if there was no structure on spot when construction of Babri Masjid commenced. W5 standing directly over W16, proves that Babri Masjid was erected over and with full knowledge of pre-existence of a structure. ASI found 50 pillar bases of pillars which could support a roof (some of them inside the baulk between trenches), a Subsidiary Shrine of Lord Shiva (in the Southern portion of the disputed area), a number of walls attached to Temple's old Wall (W16), several walls running East-West as well as North-South showing 'Massive Structure' below DS, mutilated Uma-Maheshwara Divine Couple stone sculpture (a typical feature of Iconoclastic behaviour) and a number of 'finds' which would typically belong to a Hindu Temple.

V. It was argued on behalf of Sunni Board that Wall 16 could be a Kanati Mosque or Eid-gah or some other Muslim religious structure. This contention is not acceptable for want of Pleading (indeed against their Pleading); it also fails structurally and does not explain several other walls found attached to Wall 16. The existence of a 'Mandir Janmasthan Ram Chandra at Birthpalce of Ram since ancient times with Idols of Ram Chandra ji & others installed therein' is admitted in para 27 of joint WS dt. 2.12.1950 of 5 Muslim Defendants (D1 to D5) in OOS 1 of 1989 (filed by Gopal Singh Visharad). The
said Defendants had vaguely pleaded that that Temple 'existed in Ayodhya' – the exact spot was not specified. Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad explained in para 27 of his Replication that that Temple was situated within boundaries described by him which sets its location to be close towards North of East-West Rasta which runs abutting on the North side of disputed area. This situation is admitted by Sunni Board in para 32 of their written statement dated 24.2'89 to Visharad's suit (see para 5 above). The significance of this set of pleadings is that as early as 1950, Muslims had admitted existence of a (i)Temple of Ram Chandra (ii) at birthplace of Ram (iii) since ancient times. It cannot be argued that the 'admission' by the 5 Muslim Defendants must be accepted or rejected 'as a whole', because the pleading is designedly half-truth and it is open to Court to 'separate the grain from the chaff'. The existence of such a temple does not find mention in the earliest independent account of the locality by Tieffenthaler in 1786 although other tell-tale details were recorded as indicated in para 17 above; it would have found mention if it was reputed as a Janmasthan temple. The important aspect of these Pleadings must be appreciated. Besides the above admissions in para 27 of joint WS of the 5 Muslim Defendants, an oral pleading was made by their Lawyer under Order X CPC that Babar erected Babri Masjid on entirely barren/open land over or under which there never existed any structure of any sort. Two of these Defendants are also Co-Plaintiffs in Sunni Board's Plaint filed 10 years later; consequently the admissions made by the Muslim Defendants in OOS 1 of 1989 (written or oral) are legally binding upon Sunni Board in OOS 4 of 1989, and they cannot take a case of Kanati Masjid, Eid-gah or other Muslim religious structure underneath DS.

VI Certain nomenclatures which have figured from time to time could call for elucidation. 'Masjid Janmasthan', prima-facie indicates a Masjid which exists at Janmasthan, otherwise it could have been named as 'Masjid Ramkot'. 'Chabutra Janmasthan', which Tieffenthaler mentioned to be indicative of place of birth of Ram and his 3 brothers cannot signify exactly the spot where the 4 brothers could have been born. Dashrath had 3 queens each of whom had her own palace. Carnegy's account (1870) mentions that Ramkot, the Fort had 8 royal mansions where dwelt Dashrath and his wives. Obviously, the Chabutra alone could not be the place where Dashrath, his 3 wives could live and give birth to 4 children. That is why Mahant Raghubar Das mentioned in his plaint (1885) that in Ayodhya there was Bhumi Janmasthan containing
Chabutra Janmasthan, that he was Mahant of Bhumi Janmasthan and was in possession of Chabutra Janmasthan with a small Temple on it. 'Bhumi Janmasthan' could be the entire Palace situated at Ramkot including the site of DS while for reasons of caution and wisdom, 'Chabutra Janmasthan' could be called as birthplace of Ram. In any case, the entire area within the parameter of Parikrama was treated by the devotees as hallowed by divinity, hence worshipped as Bhumi
Janmasthan, viz., the disputed area. Indeed, both the Courts in Mahant Raghubar Das' case were persuaded to reject the prayer for erecting a Temple on Chabutra Janmasthan because a Temple could not be allowed to exist in immediate vicinity of Masjid otherwise it could lead to perpetual bloodshed. That is why Hindu devotees/Mahant etc content themselves with calling the Chabutra as Janmasthan while continuing to extend their possession in the Campus and perform worship also inside DS

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4309-4312 (page 61-63 in the vol)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

[chaanakya]

chaanakya-ji

I couldn't locate the full-judgement link. Appreciate if you can post the link.

TIA

Majority Judgement is by J Sudhir Aggrawal and written in 20 Volumes. Paragraphs are numbered seriatim
I am quoting from Vol 18 http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

Full Judgement of J S U Khan is here http://www.rjbm.nic.in/suk/O.O.S.%20Nos ... 201989.pdf
Justice D V Sharma has given separate Judgements for each suit in one volume each except for Suit 4 which is in four volumes.

Rest are recordings or depositions, documents etc produced in evidence.

All links are found here. Use fleshget to download all materials with one click as I did.. But its voluminous and would require lots of time to go through .
http://www.rjbm.nic.in

[SwamyG]

As per Dr.R. Nagaswamy (who was an expert witness on the ASI report)
Regarding the antiquity of the structures; the primary temple structure (at a lower level) is ascribed the period 1st-2nd century BC. The first secondary temple structure (circular shrine) is around 10th century. And, the second secondary structure (Ram Chabootra) is crica Akbhar time.

Note:
1) Primary temple structure is dedicated to the primary deity. Secondary structures are dedicated to other deities metaphysically related to the primary deities.
2) Dr. R. Nagaswamy needs no introduction for folks who follow South Indian temples/archaeology. He is involved in temple cleaning and renovation in TN.

Linky: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/dvs/Final_Judgem ... %20III.pdf

[chaanakya]

Part V

Meet the pseudo experts and real experts. Did I hear loss of H&D for them in one of earlier posts.

XXXIX. A perusal of the objection filed by the SCBW 4324makes it clear that the objection has been filed on baseless and concocted facts and no material evidence has been produced by the opposite parties in support thereof. The
SCBW in support of its objection has examined as much as seven witnesses out of which six witnesses namely Prof.
Suraj Bhan (PW-16), Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal (PW-24), Dr Jaya Menon (PW-29), Dr R.C. Thakran (PW-30), Dr Ashok Dutta (PW-31), Dr Supriya Verma (PW-32) are said to be experts of excavation. But a scrutiny of the cross examination of these witnesses makes it clear that except Prof. Suraj Bhan none of them has any experience of field archaeology. Prof. Suraj Bhan, who has conducted some excavations as mentioned by him in his affidavit, made it clear during cross examination that the reports of the alleged excavation have not been published so far.

XL. The plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 have examined Dr. R. Nagaswamy, a renowned archaeologist and expert of
temple architecture who is a retired director of ASI and had appeared as an expert archaeologist for and on behalf of
Government of India in a case pending before London courts. The highest court of London recognised him as an
expert archaeologist and based its judgment on his evidence. Dr. R. Nagaswamy has supported the report of
ASI and proved the same to be correct and trustworthy.

XLI. In addition to him Dr R.D. Trivedi who was also director in ASI and is an expert of temple architecture of North India has also been examined by the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 89 who on the basis of discoveries made during excavation by ASI has proved the existence of a 4325 Nagar style Hindu temple then prevalent in Northern India. EW. Shri A.K. Sharma has also been examined by the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 89 who is undisputedly a field archaeologist and has carried on various excavations and is still carrying on excavation work and the reports of his excavation have been published in various journals.

XLII.Dr Rakesh Tiwari, director, U.P. State Archaeology, has been examined by the plaintiffs in support of their case.
It may be mentioned here that at the time of leveling near the disputed site in June 1992, plenty of artifacts relating to
Hindu temple were found near the disputed site. Dr Rakesh Tiwari in his official capacity as director has prepared a
list of 263 artifacts relating to Hindu temple and has proved before the court that the artifacts found at the time
of leveling prove existence of a big Hindu religious structure at the site. A perusal of the list prepared and filed
in the court proves the same to be temple artifact. In addition to the above, inscriptions written in Nagari script,
images of Ganesh, Lakshmi, Sadanand and Vrishabh, etc., further prove existence of Hindu temple on spot.

J Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 18
Page 4323-4325 (page 74-76) para

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

[ramana]

Inder malhotra recounts the inauguration of Somanth Temple in dated article

All the PM's Men

Note how the problem started with JLN and his idea of secularism as anti-Hinduism.

[Patni]

Ayodhya: Nirmohi Akhara ready for talks, 'modest temple'

LUCKNOW: Peaceniks in Ayodhya got a boost on Monday as the head of Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Bhaskar Das, broke his silence, saying he was open to talks with the president of Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Prishad (ABAP), Mahant Gyandas. Gyandas and Hashim Ansari, the original plaintiff from the Muslim side in the 60-year-old Ayodhya title suits, had met on Sunday and are working on a compromise formula.

However, the 81-year-old Bhaskar Das made it amply clear that the Nirmohi Akhara -- a Hindu martial sect which now legally holds one-third of the land at the disputed site -- has "conditions which need to be taken into account before any concrete step in the direction is taken".

"The overture made by Mahant Gyandas is a welcome step and I am ready to lend any help to the amicable and peaceful solution to this issue from whichever quarter it comes," he told TOI. He was at pains to explain that there could be other players in the peace bid as well. "Ayodhya has a host of peace-loving seers who would love to see the deity housed in a proper temple and Gyandasji happens to be only one among them," he said.

Admitting that Gyandas was in touch with Bhaskar Das, the latter's lawyer and close confidant, Ranjit Lal Verma, said talks between the two could pave the way for a settlement. "However, the Nirmohi Akhara will have no compromise on the issue of the management rights over Ram Lalla. The right to take care and offer prayer and bhog to the deity must vest with a `bairagi' -- a celibate -- and no `grihastha' (family man) can lay a claim to it," the Mahant said. This issue, sources said, could be a bone of contention in peace talks.

Quoting the mahant, Verma said what Nirmohi Akhara wants is a respectable structure to house the deity and a modest temple would do. "We certainly don't harbour ambitions of setting up a grand temple formula," he said, adding, "In fact, 90% Muslims in Ayodhya who are in touch with Mahant Bhaskar Das have no objection to our plans. They want peace at any cost."

Bhaskar Das, said Verma, is also in touch "with peace-loving and uncomplicated persons" such as Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, president of Ram Janmabhoomi Trust and head of Bada Sthan Devendra Prasadacharya. Then they are keeping channels open to Jagadguru Swaroopanand Saraswati, the head of Jyotirpeeth and Dwarka Peeth. Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Nirman, headed by Janmejay Sharan, Swaroopanand's close aide, who also belongs to Ramanuj sect like the Nirmohi Akhara, is listed as plaintiff No 20 in suit No 4 filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board.

Meanwhile, Gyandas sounded optimistic about coming up with the blueprint of the mutually acceptable formula pretty soon. Nirmohi Akhara, he said, was a part and parcel of the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad and would, therefore, be receptive to the peace plan.

"Whatever I am doing has blessing of the entire Sant Samaj and all 18 akharas. It is a serious venture and even as a few sceptics dismiss Hashim Ansari, the main plaintiff in the title suit, as a man of little consequence, his wish cannot be ignored," Gyandas said.

"Muslims everywhere feel that this dispute needs to be settled out of court now. ABAP may succeed in putting together and sealing such a plan with the blessings of the sant samaj," he said.

It seems to me that efforts are on for "Damage Control" under pressure from the pseudo seculars and to build up a case for co-habitation of a modest temple along with a modest mosque. IMHO efforts are being made to torpedo any "Bhavya Mandir" plans to contain any more erosion of vote bank.

[SwamyG]

I am not sure why Irfan Habib and co claim that the lime-surkhi combination comes from Muslims.
1) http://books.google.com/books?id=T7ZHUh ... ia&f=false This book talks about a brahmanical shrine near Vidisha (10kms from Sanchi), build around the 2nd century BC showing traces of lime-mortar.
2) http://books.google.com/books?id=2swhCX ... ar&f=false The book is on Cholas expeditions. It talks about Gangaikondacholapuram a city founded circa 1020 AD. The surface of certain walls were noticed to have 4cm of lime mortar. The binding material used for the construction of the walls were clay, lime mortar mix & jaggery juice (extracted from sugar cane). If I am correct the South India did not see the fury of the Muslim invaders till the 13th century. Cholas were known to import horses from Arabia, but there is no mention that lime and mortar was from the Muslims regions.

On what basis are these fake historians crying hoarse? A simple google search throws up more information about lime-mortar being present in India before the Mughals. Seriously how can they get away from such an allegation? Or is there some basis for these people to claim this know-how passed from elsewhere to ancient or medieval Indians?

[Dilbu]

Nirmohi ready to join forces to ensure temple

Mahant Bhaskar Das said the Akhara would cooperate provided it gets prominence in whatever arrangements are made for the construction of the temple.
The Nirmohi Akhara, which has been granted one-third of the disputed land in Ayodhya as per the Allahabad High Court’s order, on Tuesday said it was ready to cooperate with another litigant in the title suit --the Ramlala Viraajman -- for the construction of a temple.

“For mutual consent and cooperation for construction of the temple, a senior member of Ram Janmbhoomi Nyas, Ram Vilas Vedanti, today met me and we had a detailed discussion over the issue,” Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara Bhaskar Das told PTI.

[brihaspati]

AbhishekD wrote
Further I believe that Indic civilization is unique because it is an amazing capability to mould and accomodate the "OTHER" into its dharmic ways by the instrument of "ACCOMODATION". This is a unique capability that is not with any other civilization. In order to attain "ACCOMODATION" Indic civilizations have done everything. They have gone to war and they have also ran away from a war. They have suffered losses and they have won great victories, but the idea is to always to uphold DHARMA, TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUNESS.

In the face of extreme agression such as Islamism hindus have stood tall and defended themselves and always repelled agression. But after they have won and defeated intolerance, they have always spread their Indic value and not transformed themselves in the process to defeating agression. Once Ram Janam Bhumi is acknowledged as a place that is sacred to Hindus and Once the extreme agreesion on hindus is acknowledged, we need to spread our value system, the Hindu Value System.

The story is an old, old one - starting from circa 630 CE., and the exact mindset which actually allowed the problem to grow in the first place. Not many people are told that for three years the founder of Islam preached in secret in Mecca, and the only response that the Meccan non-followers gave was at most some ridicule or sarcastic verses that a few men and women composed lampooning specifically the convenient appearance of Gabriel etc. When the insanity increased to the extent that some of the followers actually began to shed blood of those who dared to criticize them - then the Meccans actually offered the prevalent medical technology to cure the disease - "banishing demons" - to cure the leader of Muslims of his supposed visitation from non-human/extra-terrestrial[heavenly] entities. Only when this reached an impossible intensity where everything that the meccans practised or believed in was being attacked by the party of Muslims that the emigration of the Muslims took place to the outskirts of Yathrib - a settlement fo Jews which was later renamed Medina by the muslims after all the Jews were "cleared" in stages.

There are many other instances of the Meccans trying to "tolerate" and accommodate. Because they did not solve the problem by finishing off the movement right at the beginning by liquidating the source of the trouble physically - as Muslims did later to any opposition or criticism - we have been saddled with this darkness ever since.

"Accommodation" with everything is an impossibility. Those who even claim this about and demand from the "Hindu" are either complete morons or astute anaesthetizers working on behalf of forces like the islamists. Strangely, such demands for accommodation are never raised for "Christians" to tolerate and accommodate all aspects of say Nazism or Islamism. Never such demands of Islamism itself to tolerate aspects of non-Islamism. Only the "Hindus" must "accommodate". This is a modern theory - for even the core texts of Sanatana Dharma do not show tolerance for everything and anything - if so, then Ram should have tolerated and accommodated Ravana's abduction of Sita. The Pandavas should have stayed put and not gone to war. The whole of "Geeta" is about not accommodating and not tolerating.

Get this modification of "Hindu value system" according to the desired tactical needs of Islamists or similar forces off our backs and do not try to impose it on us.

And I think that the Hindu Value System does not differentiate between a mandir or a masjid. If a masjid does come up near the mandir in Ayodhya, it will be ok. I dont know why Muslims would want to build a mosque near the mandir. I would advise them not to do that. It does not serve any purpose.
But the fight should be to reclaim the land and reclaim the legacy of Lord Ram and the acknowledgement of the extreme islamic aggression in mediaval India. A masjid after acknowledgement is not something that I will oppose or be against of.

Are you at all aware of the history of "masjids" in general? Do you even know what the first "masjid" and since then amny other "masjids" were primarily used for? They were the place where the leader in the first masjid gave the call for an assassin to go and finish off a woman who had lampooned the leader. The deed was done under cover of darkness, by snatching away the suckling baby from the woman and stabbing her through the heart. And it was the masjid again where the assassin came back nad reported his deed and was publicly and formally praised. This was the place from which calls for genocidic cleasning of Jews were given and arms distributed and "raiding parties" gathered. Search out the history of masjids in India and what they were used for during the partition riots - Nakhoda Masjid in Calcutta for example. Please don't try to do an equal=equal to Masjids with Mandirs. They are not equal in the eyes of most of us.

Further my desire to acknowledge the demolition and to make it clear that it was completely wrong, stems from my desire that Hindus take the right lessons from this history. I see the entire episode as a tragedy where everybody got just injustice and violence including muslims (some people have called it dhimmitude or p-sec, which is very different from what I am saying, this is known as chivalry and righteousness). It is a seminal lesson for humanity that religious aggression brings only injustice and violence and that everybody needs to avoid it and this lesson needs to be learnt by everybody. Hindu value system does not condone religious aggression as the islamic value system does.

I know I may still not have been able to convey my point and people can disagree that if a mosque comes up after the acknowledgement there is nothing wrong, but that is ok.

Demolition was not wrong from an ethical sense - even if some court finds it wrong on some legal point in the future. The initial demolition of Hindu structure was not "legal" or ethical, and hence whatever Islamic structure went up on the demolition or using materials of the demolition, was illegal and unethical. A proper justice system would have ruled it an illegal structure and ordered it to be demolished. There is an important precedence we need to look into - almost all houses, buildings specifically associated with Adolf Hitler - his Bavarian holiday home for example - and most of SS or Nazi sites were systematically demolished.

Strictly speaking, they could not be illegal structures since the legal-constitutional process was at least formally followed by Hitler and his party to come and stay in power. Even then those structures were razed to the ground - because they stood as symbols of a monstrosity that humanity should never again look back to as icons in the future. The masjids of India should be seen on in a similar light.

It is the false demands of "liberalism" founded on extreme naivete about Islamic history and its methods that allowed Islamism to grow in the first place. We may have to compromise on an interim basis and allow some Islamic structure to come up beside the Bhavya Mandir. But just as the Islamists will wait to one day demolish this Mandir and reconstruct their masjid on the entire area, so will we have to wait to treat all vestiges of icons of Islamism - in exactly the same way as Hitler's sites were treated.

[Anantha]

LINK
by Dr Gautam Sen
Romila Thapar -The empress has no clothes

Thapar’s US Congressional acclamation seeks to validate a blatantly provocative view of India’s past, espoused mainly by its Stalinist fifth column, assorted Islamist jehadis and militant Christian evangelists. The US Congressional committee resoundingly reaffirms the bitter American animus harboured against Hindu India that has been the ceaseless feature of US foreign policy towards it since Independence. It was this vicious hatred and a half-baked strategic calculus that prompted US support for Pakistan’s genocide in East Pakistan in 1971.

The Kluge Prize selection committee might have imposed a simple test on Thapar by requiring her to present examples of two positive statements that she has composed on the Hindu past in her entire career. Instead what the decision of the Kluge committee suggests is racial arrogance, contempt for Hindu sensibilities and the malign influence of a powerful Bostonian non-Hindu Indian, infamous for campaigns belittling Hindu suffering by outright lies.

It is only in India that a historian without adequate command of Sanskrit can claim expertise on its ancient past right across its entire length and breadth. Social status is all that counts in feudal India, a feature on display in virtually every aspect of its social life and all that is required to silence disbelief. In a pathetic attempt to apply deep thought to Mahmud of Ghazni’s invasions of India, Romila Thapar piles one speculation upon another, fabricating motives and thought processes with abandon. She writes as if she had been a contemporary of the conqueror, priests and participants in major historical events over several centuries. She turns notions of scepticism in judging historical evidence on their head. Her personal authority becomes the only referent for increasingly wild assertions! There is no scholar of ancient Europe or any other part of the world that would dare advance ludicrous claims to expertise without command of the relevant languages and usually over a modest geographical expanse. The likes of Fernand Braudel and Chris Wickham are very rare indeed and Romila Thapar might wish to consult their historical oeuvre in penance for a multitude of sins.

A central purpose of her banal lifetime agenda has been to legitimise the destruction of Somnath by Mahmud of Ghazni. According to Romila Thapar, he was motivated purely by greed, a secular impulse that supposedly erases any iconoclastic religious rationale.
One startling claim she also appears to make is familiarity with supposedly extant corroborative Persian and Turkish sources on his lack of religious conviction.


This article should give insight on why Ms. Thapar behaves like she does and from where her power comes.

[brihaspati]

[.

"Accommodation" with everything is an impossibility. Those who even claim this about and demand from the "Hindu" are either complete morons or astute anaesthetizers working on behalf of forces like the islamists. Strangely, such demands for accommodation are never raised for "Christians" to tolerate and accommodate all aspects of say Nazism or Islamism. Never such demands of Islamism itself to tolerate aspects of non-Islamism. Only the "Hindus" must "accommodate". This is a modern theory - for even the core texts of Sanatana Dharma do not show tolerance for everything and anything - if so, then Ram should have tolerated and accommodated Ravana's abduction of Sita. The Pandavas should have stayed put and not gone to war. The whole of "Geeta" is about not accommodating and not tolerating.

I dont know where you got the idea that I am talking about accomodation with evil. Evil is evil. Even dharma says that it is a right of a person to fight against Adharma. Indeed in India evil is not defined in black and white. Even a small wrong can be treated as adharma. Nazism, islamism all these things are evil and people who propogate it are spreading adharma. I do not see accomodation in this spirit. "ACCOMODATION" is an essential instrument in the spreading of the Hindu value system. Accomodation can have severals shades, but one thing that it is not is the appeasement of evil or adharma. Accomodation is certainly not appeasement as you make it feel like.

ACCOMODATION has helped the Indic people live as equals among each other in a dharmic way of life without questioning the other person. Sometimes it can be expanded and stretched to bring in a new entity into the dharmic way of life(the new kid on the block is Indian Muslims), but ACCOMODATION will never negotiate with adharma or evil. If adharma rises then we have to rise to kill and eliminate it. ACCOMODATION just means that a value system does not seek to eliminate the "OTHER" instead it seeks to live as equals in a dharmic way of life.

You claimed that Hindus equated mandirs with masjids, the demolition was wrong and condemnable, and you want that legality of the demolished Islamic structure on the grounds and a future masjid both be accepted - and in that context you repeated your thesis about accommodation being the "Hindu value system". Exactly what do you want us to "accommodate"? If the "other" has evil aspects, or there is an iconic presence that represents "evil" do you want us to accommodate that too?

What exactly do you see that is "dharmic" in this particular "other" which we should not seek to eliminate? I can reel out lists of things from the principal text of this religion of "qitab" - a text that cannot be modified, challenged, altered, even in parts and pieces and supposed to be valid and imposable on all humanity for ever into the future - and an integral and core defining aspect of the faith system - that can never be compatible with any thread within what you call "dharmic"! It seems that you have not studied that faith, not gone through its core texts and what place those textual definitions have in that faith, its jurisprudence and the solid connection between its practical historical implementation and what is set out as the agenda in the texts. Only someone completely unacquainted with the tenets of that system can claim that the "dharmic" way of life can "accommodate" any aspect of that "other" system.

What exactly does you accommodation imply for other disputed sites? Do you want us to drop pursuing those other cases? An "eminent" journalist published a list of 83 temples I think - destroyed and/or built over by Islamics. Almost all of them are ripe for fighting over. In fact if we go along looking up every Islamic site, we may find reasons to challenge each of those structures. Only the demolition paved the grounds for some further archaeological finds which would have been impossible or not allowed by Islamics if the structure stood. The same obstruction that will be applied against digging up foundations even by side-trenches for existing structures. In some cases the Islamist narrators write how Islamics actually dug up the foundation stones of temples to erase their existence completely. Those traces may be difficult to find. But in most other cases some archaeological evidence will exist. Do you suppose that the islamics will allow such excavations unless the "structures" themselves cease to exist?

[BijuShet]

...
Political realities have already changed. The P-secs are being called for what they are. Today they have no where to go. There half truths have been called out extensively in the judgement. History has a unique way of expressing itself. The stories of Mahabharata and Ramayana have been rewritten and sanitized over several centuries. I am sure you know that Duryodhan of Mahabharata was actually Suryodhan which over years became Duryodhan. Who made it change from Duryodhan to Suryodhan, the victor. By giving this example I am stating that the last word on Islamic Medieval India has not been written. History will be written slowly. Padre dheere dheere uthenge.

We hindus will write that history not the P-secs. We will ultimately define islamic history of India. The first shot has already been fired. P-secs are running scared and the greatest weapon for hindus is Truth. The truth will reveal and we need to be steadfast in our approach and opposition and hurdles are always there. Opposition or hurdles should not deter our convictions and our path. Our conviction is based on the Hindu Value System of Dharma and Righteousness. Today we are grappling with our identity and fighting for our right to define our identity, but we need to have a conduct based on our convictions and not based on our opposition.

P-sec, islamism, muslim aggression is the opposition and we need to fight it and in a way that is honorable and dharmic. And again as I have stated a mosque if it does come up near Janamsthan then that should not hurt our sensibilities. Our convictions are not against the mosque, our convictions are to reclaim the holy site and to undo the aggression against us.

I hope I have out more better now.

Abhishekji I do not agree that the Political realities have changed but that is a separate discussion for another time. Just read the link from the post by Ramanasaar below "Lest We forget". The media while reporting for the past few days decided to mute out cries of Jai Shri Ram as it was deemed inflamatory. If saying "Jai Shri Ram" (in India) is politically incorrect then P-seculars are winning the fight in the media. What is it that you want to change when you write "We will ultimately define islamic history of India"? There is already a version written by { deemed as } eminent historians and accepted as true but only the informed ones know that it is inaccurate. The rest of India including young children are not being taught the truth. Truth in todays world is about perception and not reality. You believe in fighting a clean fight against an opponent who will always fight dirty and yet hope to prevail. That my friend only happens in stories and movies. Since you are well versed in Ramayan and Mahabharat it would help you to read through the sections detailing the battles fought to secure Dharma.

[archan]

Use this thread for informational posts only. Posts that are for asking a question, making fun of something/someone, gloating, ranting etc. can please go in the old thread in the GDF. Lets try to keep this as useful and informative as possible. Thanks.

[SwamyG]

One more reason to believe people want to move forward, but the nefarious elements in the society do not want things to be solved amicably.
Ayodhya litigant begins talks; gets death threats

Ayodhya, Oct 6: Mohammad Hashim Ansari, a litigant in the Ayodhya title suit case, has alleged that people with political interests are plotting to eliminate him.

Buzz up!
A week after the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid land dispute, the oldest litigant in the case has claimed threat to his life.


“When I started to talk about peace with Mahant Gyandas (president of the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad) those doing politics on this issue felt their shops will get closed and they are issuing threats and plotting to eliminate me,” 90-year-old litigant said.

He claims that he started exploring possibilities of an amicable solution only after the consent of the Sunni Central Waqf Board.

The board, on the other hand, has denied this.

Mr Ansari holds that if the issue can be sorted out through talks, then that is the way to go.

“If the issue could be sorted out through talks today, tomorrow or two months, it should be done. After all we have three months time,” he said.

The HC prescribed three months of status quo while delivering its verdict on the 60-year-old dispute over the land, which was divided one part to the Muslim board, two to the Hindu parties.

Md Hashim Ansari alleges threat to life

The oldest litigant in the Ayodhya title suit case, Mohammad Hashim Ansari has claimed threat to his life, saying people playing politics over the issue were plotting to kill him. "When I started to talk about peace with Mahant Gyandas (president of the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad) those doing
politics on this issue felt their shops will get closed and they are issuing threats and plotting to eliminate me," Ansari claimed.

The 90-year-old maintained that he started exploring possibilities of an amicable solution only after the consent of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, a claim denied by the Board.

Ansari said that if the issue could be sorted out through talks, it should be done.

"If the issue could be sorted out through talks today, tomorrow or two months, it should be done. After all we have three months time," he said.

Ansari said that he was deeply hurt by the Sunni Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani's statement that he was merely a litigant. "Being a simple litigant means that I carry bags. It is an attack on prestige and an insult".

"I only intended to douse flames of fundamentalism at any cost and Jilani cannot become a hindrance for me," Ansari, who is making efforts for an out-of-court settlement of the Ayodhya title dispute, said.

Demanding an apology from Jilani, Ansari said if the Sunni Board's counsel did not take his words back then he will not pursue the case further. "If Jilani does not apologies then I will finish this issue right here and will not talk to anyone on the Babri mosque."

"To keep Hashim mum is a almost impossible and I will establish harmony at all cost," he said.

Ansari also appealed to Hindus not to fight and keep calm.

"I would like to request my Hindu brothers that don't fight because it will result in loss to the nation and the community as well," Ansari said.

He said people know how honestly he struggled for the cause of the mosque for 60 years. "I hope the people and media will continue to support me".

Soon after the verdict, Ansari had called for burying the dispute and making "a fresh start", a view shared by 84-year-old Mahant Bhaskar Das of Nirmohi Akhara.

[SwamyG]

Ram Lalla's 'tailor' stitches together a story in harmony

He heads no religious group or political party but his is the voice for peace struggling to be heard. Sadiq Ali, who has been stitching clothes for the Ram Lalla deity in Ayodhya for over a decade, says he is living proof that the entire dispute has nothing to do with religion.

'Not only the clothes of Ram Lalla, I have been stitching the robes of sadhus for over last one decade. It's enough to establish that the Ayodhya issue is no longer a Hindu-Muslim problem, instead it has transformed into a fight against communal forces,' added Ali, who runs a tailoring unit in Ayodhya's Dohari Kuan area.

In his view, communal forces backed by some politicians want to keep the Ayodhya issue alive for vested interests.

'We all know that the issue has been exploited by several politicians. Even today when voices for amicable settlement of the issue are being raised, there are some who don't wish to end the issue for their political interest,' Ali said without naming any person or outfit.

'I just know that Muslims and Hindus of Ayodhya want an amicable settlement... And they should certainly not be ignored while working out a formula for an amicable settlement.'

[ramana]

Actually its a fight between the pseduo-secular forces and the Hindus -Muslims. The fight is to decide who stays at teh helm and pilots India's future. As long as the pseudo-seculars who are the 'virtual' gungadins of the Macualay pilot the ship of India it will always be treading waters (lost in the doldrums) and never reach its "tryst with destiny."

[ramana]

N Ram had an editorial immeditately accepting the decision. It was Romila aunty who went nuts in his paper. And add S Vardarajan.

But it is heartening to see so many comments that were against the fake historian.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article807232.ece

Even The Hindu could not stop itself from giving a nod. The pseudo-seculars with the agenda-driven-historians seems to have been caught off-guard after the few hours of the verdict. It took some hours for them to jump the wagon of "move forward as a united country" to the bandwagon "Muslims were betrayed onlee, India lost secularism, ASI is saffornized" ityadi.

The judgment for one brief moment froze everyone in their tracks and let them speak their hearts. Sort of Satya Harishchandra peetam style. They had to realize and admit the truth.

So many people, even on this forum have realized the miasma they were in prior to the verdict. Suddenly all those stories of temples being destroyed were no longer stories but 'bilkul satya vachan' after seeing the pdfs of the pillar bases. The pillar bases were the clincher.

[Gus]

from Muppalla's link above,

Karan Thapar: A second part of the judgment that the judges have concluded that the mosque was built upon a previous structure, which they say was a Hindu temple. And that they accept without questioning an ASI report which is highly disputed and therefore considered by many top historians to be questionable?


Arun Jaitley: Well, the views of those historians may be questionable. Ultimately in a democratic society, which is governed by constitutionalism – you can’t have convenience as constitutionalism. You’ve a system where the court appoints the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) as an agency. Some left of centre historian is not the ASI. The ASI, in turn, hires the best international experts. What is the evidence that they have? They have plaques that were recovered immediately upon the demolition of the disputed structure by the ASI. They have pillars and material, which have been recovered by the ASI. Then you had ASI hire an international, I’m told a Japanese agency, which did various other studies by digging below the existing structure to find out whether there was a structure before it – they did laser studies. Now I’ll just place the evidence before you because I have been seeing some adverse comments coming from vested interests and come to a conclusion that the court has given. It is disputed as long as the report doesn’t come. Once there is cross-examination on that report, once grill the ASI for days together and the judges give their opinion it is no longer disputed, although subject to the right to appeal. That becomes a fact that a historian is entitled to criticize the judgment but India will be governed by a judgment delivered by a court and not the opinion of some politically-inclined historian.

That was a very straightforward reply that explains how the ASI report has been cross-examined and is now accepted as fact and he also concedes that there is a right to appeal. Now what does this a-hole thapar say?

Karan Thapar: That is very much a contested answer that you give me. First of all the ASI report needs to be interpreted as different interpretations are as valid as each other. When you need someone to judge different interpretations that person needs to have the expertise to do so. Whatever else judges may be of the Allahabad High Court, they are not expert historians to decide that.

WHAT???? This guy is a malevolent liar. And Jaitley does well here in refuting this nonsensical argument..

Arun Jaitley: Thankfully, we don’t have a kangaroo system where TV studios or anchors become judges. We are governed by constitutionalism where the judges on the strength of expert witnesses are the judges of even expert evidence. Judges are not expert handwriting witnesses, judges are not expert archaeological witnesses – they can decide questions of science depending on what is the medical evidence. A judge is not a doctor but the expert will come and give evidence and the judge will opine on that – that’s the system we have.

[ramana]

Hindu cartoon captures the issues very well about the irrelevance of the polticians in solving the RJM:

[Atri]

Brief history of RamJanmabhumi site - ASI report Summary
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf

J. Sudhir Agrawal, Volume 18, page 4299 onwards, Majority Judgement

The northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) usingpeople were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya. During the first millennium B.C. although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed, the material culture is represented by terracotta figurines of female deities showing archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks etc. The ceramic industry has the collection of NBPW, the main diagnostic trait of the period besides the grey, black slipped and red wares. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level. On the basis of material equipment and 14 C dates, this period may be assigned to circa 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.

The Sunga horizon (second-first century B.C.) comes next in the order of the cultural occupation at the site. The typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpin, engraver etc. represent the cultural matrix of this level. The pottery collection includes black slipped, red and grey wares etc. The stone and brick structure found from this level mark the beginning of the structural activity at the site.

The Kushan period (first to third century A.D.) followed the Sunga occupation. Terracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of votive tanks, beads, antimony rod, hair pin, bangle fragments and ceramic industry comprising red ware represent the typical Kushan occupation at the site. Another important feature of this period is the creation of large sized structures as witnesses by the massive structure running into twenty-two courses.

The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century A.D.) did not bring any qualitative change in building activity although the period is known for its Classical artistic elements. However, this aspect is represented by the typical terracotta figurines and a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta) and illustrative potsherds.

{my comments: There goes the claim by Michael Woods made in his documentary (Story of India part:4) regarding Ayodhya becoming Ram-Janmabhumi in reign of Viramaditya Chandragupta-2 when he constructed huge ram temple there.}

During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.), too the site has witnessed structural activity mainly constructed of burnt bricks. However, among the exposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrine which speaks of its functional utility for the first time. To recapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan, it is circular whereas internally squarish with an entrance from the east. Though the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision for pranala, i.e., waterchute which is a distinct feature of contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuna plain.

Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh - twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern.

{perhaps, This temple was destroyed once and rebuilt again in even more grand form. Perhaps Gazni destroyed it and later Rajputs rebuilt it to the one which stood before demolition by babar (if any)}

And other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level - twelfth to sixteenth century A.D.) It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it . There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.

In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the present excavation in northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at present).

The centre of the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly 15x15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this central point a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify the place where some important object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.

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.

It is worthwhile to observe that the various structures exposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature or functional utility as no evidence has come to approbate them.

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 the 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 I (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 and population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery.

The same is further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces etc. from Period IV (Gupta level) onwards and in particular from Period VI (Early Medieval-Rajput level) and Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level).

The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its antiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. (1250±130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates. The lowest deposit above the natural soil represents the NBPW period and therefore the earliest remains may belong to the thirteenth century B.C. which is confirmed by two more consistent C14 dates from the NBPW level (Period I), viz. (910±100 B.C.) These dates are from trench G7.

Four more dates from the upper deposit though showing presence of NPBW and associated pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780±80 B.C., 530±70 B.C. And 320±80 B.C.. In the light of the above dates in association with the Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) which is generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. it can be pushed back to circa 1000 B.C. and even if a solitary date, three centuries earlier is not associated with NBPW, the human activity at the site dates back to circa thirteenth century B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

Wow.. This exact same site as been occupied and being for 3300 years at a stretch... In its entire occupation of 3300 years, it was not used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes at all..

[Patni]

The tragedy of Indian Muslims is their leadership

Firoz Bakht Ahmed | Wednesday, October 6, 2010

After the Allahabad high court judgment, I was shocked to see the same old faces, the so-called Muslim leaders (or rabble rousers) on various TV channels claiming to represent Indian Muslims. These so-called representatives have, over the years, ruined their followers emotionally, sentimentally, educationally and economically.

These are the same lumpen clerics and intelligentsia who were responsible for taking the Babri issue to the streets, adding to communal tensions, letting the historic mosque be razed to the ground and then leaving the hapless community to fend for itself.

In the aftermath of the Babri verdict, not a single incident of violence was reported from any Muslim area — which suggests that they’ve accepted the court verdict.
Article continues below the advertisement...

The current crop of Muslim leaders dictates terms and espouses views on issues that extend from the public domain to the privacy of bedrooms. Battered by populist rhetoric and the provocative militancy of its myopic and ill-educated clerics and shallow youth, the country’s second majority (not minority!) stands at the crossroads.

The fact is Muslims also revere Ram and they have no objection to a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Iqbal, the poet of the east, has written a wonderful and moving poem on the authenticity of the existence of Ram: He Ram ke wajood pe Hindostan ko naaz/Ahl-e-nazar samajhtey hein usko Imam-e-Hind.

The greatest tragedy of Indian Muslims is their leadership. The other day, Syed Shahabuddin was trying to open old wounds instead of looking for a newer India. Certainly, he didn’t represent the views of common Muslims. His remarks will close whatever creaking doors the Hindu brethren have opened to Muslims.

Afflicted by educational backwardness, social stigmatisation, administrative apathy, religious orthodoxy and political expediency, the Muslim community is caught in a pincer. A large chunk of the blame must go to their so-called representatives. The clerics who have been seduced by the state to jump into the political fray are poorly versed in the community’s problems. They are too suspicious to appreciate any effort by anyone to uplift the madrassas.

The Muslim intelligentsia also suffer from a complex which makes them think about minority rights that have been denied to the community. During every election, it has been proved that all of them indulge in pernicious vote bank politics.

At the same time, Hindus must not think that the Allahabad high court verdict is a stamp of approval on the destruction of the Babri Masjid. No act of violence is acceptable. But in a ghettoised situation, churlish political middlemen have emerged as interlocutors for the two communities, picking on sensational issues to tighten their stranglehold on the people they pretend to represent.

They end up diverting the attention of the people from real bread and butter issues to Shah Bano, Babri, Vande Mataram, Jamia Millia and the Aligarh Muslim University’s minority character, Taslima Nasrin, etc.

For an ordinary Indian Muslim, the basic issues are education, employment, implementation of the Sachar report and safety and security. It’s certainly not the Babri Masjid. Muslim leaders should offer this patch of land to the Hindu brethren to build the Ram temple.

The current Muslim leadership has completely failed to understand the aspirations of the youth aiming for excellence in an enlightened future. There is a desire to compete rather than grovel and grope for quotas and special favours and Muslim youth are disillusioned by the Ghulam Nabis, Najmas, Shahabuddins, Ahmad Patels, and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvis.

Muslims should realise that they have to change their whole outlook. They are now disliked by a large section of the majority community. This is reflected in the attitudes of not only Hindu communal politicians but also the media, which ends up presenting Islam in less than favourable light. India is a country of great diversity. No single community can claim credit for the richness of its culture, heritage and traditions. What’s praiseworthy is that despite this diversity, India has remained united.

Muslims in India today must make all possible efforts to remove the cobwebs of religious prejudice and historical distortion. They must try and cultivate the Hindus in the same manner and spirit as their great leaders, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Syed Ahmad Khan, did.

In a democracy which is becoming increasingly religion- and caste-based, Indian Muslims must befriend Hindus and desist from agitating on non-issues. There is little doubt that the Hindu response to the ills of Indian Muslims, if articulated properly, will be positive. It will not only help remove the many prejudices against them, but will also create a proper environment for a meaningful and lasting understanding with the Hindu community. Muslims have lost this opportunity by failing to offer the temple site to them in the first place.

[ramana]

It just struck me that the "muslim" intellegentia comprising of political operators and some of the ulema are acting just as they would under the Sultanate. Only their supportes are the fake seculars elite who allow them to dominate the Muslim masses and keep them from developing.

[surinder]

Is there a documentary film---using real footage, and computer animation---that can explain the structure and the findings and the claims.

Such simple film would be most effective in describing the area and its surroundings and separate fact from fiction. Computer regeneration of the burried structure would be nice.

[ramana]

Patni posted....

No time for triumphalism

Barkha Dutt (INDIA)

6 October 2010
Variously described as an example of “judicial statesmanship” (Soli Sorabjee) and “an astonishing, one-sided judgement” (Rajeev Dhawan), the Allahabad High Court’s Ayodhya verdict is likely to be one of the most furiously debated judicial conclusions in the history of Modern India.

It appears to have evoked both hope and disquiet, depending, perhaps, on one’s expectations, politics and ideology. Interestingly, the one adjective used uniformly across the legal divide to capture the essential character of the verdict was that it was “panchayat-styled justice.” But polemics aside, as we wade through the thousands of pages that make up the three distinct perspectives of the court, the verdict must be assessed by the benchmark set by one of the judges himself. Does it, as Justice S.U. Khan asks movingly in his prelude, succeed in clearing the “innumerable landmines” from the 1,500 square yards where “angels fear to tread”?

A panchayat, by definition, seeks to keep peace in the village by brokering a compromise between maximalist positions. Understood in this manner, the judgement seems to aim at being politically astute rather than legally brilliant. And indeed many questions are being raised about whether a dangerous precedent has been set by the specificity with which matters of faith seem to have become points of law. Could the majority judgement not have reached the same conclusion without, for instance, being evidentiary in approach?

In other words, could the decision to divide the property between Hindus and Muslims have been based more on a deference to religious beliefs and sensitivities on both sides than on any stated empiricisms? These are issues that will be deconstructed by legal experts in the weeks to come. For the rest of us, the real question is the one posed by the judges themselves: can the verdict provide an opportunity for national healing? The answer to that question lies in a series of things that must not happen in the aftermath of a verdict that in any case will get locked by the Supreme Court. We also have to appreciate that the judges were left to play the role of sarpanch, because the men and women who should have — our politicians — failed to initiate a process for any real reconciliation. And in our understanding of where we go from here, we must take our cue from how the country responded in the immediate aftermath of the verdict — dignified, sober, restrained, and mostly, eager to move on. To build on this national mood, here are some 
essential prerequisites.

Petty triumphalism and gloating by those who see themselves as “victors” after the judgement is not just a loathsome response but one that is counter-intuitive to public expectation. The first discordant and ugly note was struck by the individual lawyers for several Hindu groups who violated every tenet of legal decency by rushing out of court into the glare of television cameras, flashing the victory sign, proceeding to oversimplify a complex judgement into dangerous generalisations. The court should not have permitted this to be the first
dissemination of the verdict in the public domain. It smacked of the worst sort of small mindedness. And it is this lack of grace that we must not allow our politicians in the days to come.

So far, the BJP and even the RSS have been essentially restrained and responsible in emphasising that the verdict must not be posited in terms of victory and defeat. But, should the party have been so quick in using the verdict to talk about a “grand mandir” at Ayodhya? If, as the party argued, the Allahabad High Court had paved the way for national reconciliation, then could the BJP not have shown a little more magnanimity of response? For instance, Lal Krishna Advani, whilst talking about a Ram Mandir, could have also been more specific in welcoming the building of an adjacent mosque. Both Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal have underlined the “very unique” historic tradition of Hindus and Muslims offering prayers alongside at the site before the 1857 mutiny. The BJP could have focused more than they did on this syncretic history of India’s religious edifice.

Equally, if any Ram Mandir is to built in a spirit of “reconciliation” then the truth of the demolition of December 6, 1992, must be addressed first. Yes, the thuggish and shameful demolition was not legally connected to the four title suits being determined by the Allahabad High Court. But since the judges showed enough innovation in their decision to divide the property between the communities, an observation — at the very least — about the demolition would have added more moral fibre to their good intentions.

The Congress, whose own history is far from above-board when it comes to Ayodhya, has also been strangely wishy-washy in taking specific action against the perpetrators of the demolition. It is important to underscore that this verdict — with its varied perspectives on what the nature of the structure was — does not change the fact that there needs to be accountability for the appalling breakdown of the law in 1992. We must understand that the Babri Masjid per se was not as important to the Indian Muslim, as the demolition made it. And finally, while justice for 1992 remains a live issue, Muslim leaders too must allow their community’s younger generation to embrace new priorities and dreams and not keep them locked into narratives of the past. Their rhetoric too needs to be responsible and non-inflammatory in these 
sensitive times.

In short, grace and generosity of response is what we expect from all the stakeholders. That, and a reminder that in Ayodhya, the flowersellers outside the Hindu temples are all Muslims, as are the men who craft the Hindu icons that the devout worship. That is the India we know and love. That is the India we must preserve.

Typical piece to try and discredit the judges and on expected lines from her. Wonder what is the significance of using UAE paper? I suspect its an attempt to get one of the desert kingdom to officially comment on whats purely internal matter of India!

[ramana]

Maybe because of this?

ShyamD posted in West Asia Thread:

UAE paper praises Ayodhya verdict

Indo-Asian News Service
Abu Dhabi, October 01, 2010

Dividing the Ayodhya disputed site among litigants was the only logical way out, said a United Arab Emirates (UAE) newspaper on Friday, commending the judgment by an Indian court. "After six decades, India's judiciary attempted to certify that the country's secular face remains unbroken with a long-awaited ruling on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute," the Gulf News said editorially.

"In attempting to be fair, the three judges - two Hindus and one Muslim - from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a three-part verdict which seemed to be inspired by three lines of logic - political, religious and legal.

"And the government pleaded for calm, patience and acceptance of the ruling," it said. "For one of the judges, who retires today, it turned out to be the most important verdict of his life,"

The judges ruled that the entire disputed land in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh should be divided among the Sunni Waqf Board, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect.

"A pro-Hindu ruling could have damaged the Congress party's relations with India's Muslims, thus denting their secular image and also their vote bank," the paper said.

"A pro-Muslim verdict would have raised the possibility of communal violence as it would have threatened the Hindu groups at the site with eviction. This in turn would have boosted the prospects of the Bharatiya Janata Party," it said.

The third alternative, or a split, was the only logical option under the circumstances, the paper said.

"India has travelled a long way since that fateful day in 1992 when the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu fundamentalists, triggering some of the worst communal riots," it said. "That should never be repeated."

[chaanakya]

X-posted from GD .



On request from Prasad

On request from Prasad. The issue under examination where expert depositions are considered by HC( extracts I am posting are relevant to these issues)

(A) Existence of Temple & Demolition :
The questions are whether there existed a temple before the alleged construction of disputed building which was demolished and thereafter the building in dispute was constructed. Here issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4) and 14 (Suit 5) need be answered.
“Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged by defendant no.13 ? If so, its effect ?” “Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site ?”

How Judges tears into the PS witness who are self proclaimed Eminent Specialists. in History or Achaeology etc. These eminent intellectuals demonstrate their ignorance under cross examination. Judges have recorded their statements to ascertain their sincerity in propounding a certain view of History. I will state later what Judges said. But first read the statements made by these expert witnesses who have appeared on Behalf of Plaintiff in Suit 4 and 5. (Sunni Waqf Board)


J. Sudhir Aggarwal
Vol 15
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-15.pdf
Page 3563 ( 64 of the Vol)

3542. On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4), certain expert witnesses, (Historians) were examined to tell us that according
to their expert opinion, which they have formed after due research and enquiry, the conclusion drawn is that no temple
existed at the disputed site at the time when the said construction was made and there was no demolition of any
alleged temple for constructing the disputed structure. The nature of the issues is such where one cannot expect a direct oral evidence. An incident of several hundred years ago, if occurred, what were the circumstances, when and how it happened, can only be seen/ inferred from the historical material, if any. By its very nature, there cannot be any direct evidence in the form of a witness. A documentary evidence in the form of inscription, if available, could be of immense help. One helping hand in such matters, where the issues pertain to science, art or other matters in the Court may form its opinion by taking help of opinions of Expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the Court to consider opinion of the persons specially skilled in such matters.

Judges then proceed to discuss nature , reliability and other related aspects of Expert Evidence citing various court judgement. More on this later if members are interested.


Page 3584 ( 85 of the Vol)

3586. Expert evidence thus is only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be considered along with other pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and which is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a scientific opinion which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their views would be made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them. They do not, indeed, wilfully misrepresent what they think, but their judgment becomes so warped by regarding the subject in one point of view, that, when conscientiously deposed, they are incapable of expressing a candid opinion.

Then Judges list out expert witnesses and the case made out by Experts in deposition and cross examination.

3597. We have given just in brief some of the principles, well settled, which may guide a Court while considering opinion of an expert. We have to weigh the experts' opinion made available to us in the matter in dispute though in two directions and will try to find out the most creditworthy and reliable opinion. In the light of the above, we proceed to consider the opinion of the experts, who have made their deposition as historians. On behalf of the pro-mosque parties i.e. Muslims, PW 13-Dr. Suresh Chandra Mishra, PW-15 Dr. Sushil Srivastava, PW-18 Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, PW 20 Prof. Shirin Musvi have been examined as Experts (Historians); PW 16-Prof. Suraj Bhan, PW 24 Prof. D Mandal, PW-27 Prof. Shereen F. Ratnagar, PW-28 Dr. Sita Ram Roy, PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon, PW 30 Prof. R.C. Thakran, PW 31 Dr. Ashok Dutta, PW 32 Dr. Supriya Varma and DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid have been examined as Experts (Archaeologists). O

Please be careful to remember their position as expert and that they can not claim to be expert in other discipline .Like Archaeologist can not be expert historian or vice versa. In subsequent posts we would state their cases as it appeared in the Court and Court's appraisal. The statements made by these experts are a mater of record now and they can not claim otherwise in public discourse where there is usually no challenge from ordinary uninformed and least bothered with History type of Indians , nevertheless they form the bulwark of massive pressure generated through misinformation.Also remember that these are the most vocal opponent of the Judgement saying that it is based on faith. So we must know how far they succeeded in facts and logic and reasoning. And what were their credibility as per their own statements.

Page 3501-3601(92-102 of the Vol)

3598. PW 13, Suresh Chandra Mishra, has deposed his opinion that as per in-depth study which he has made about the dispute of Babari Mosque, he has come to know that this Mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi and no demolition was made before its construction. No evidence he could find suggesting existence of any temple at the disputed site. Appointed as a Reader in Saraswati Co-educational College affiliated with Delhi University in August 1973, he did his Ph.D.in 1985 from the same University, while in service. He claimed his specialization in Ancient History:

So there was no temple according to this witness.And he knows where is the Birth place of Rama. What are we waiting for.

“I have learned where his birth-place is. This place lies between Ayodhya Brahma-kund and Rishi-Mochan ghat. I have given all this statement and my findings by going through books and by carrying out surveys, investigations and enquiries.”
<snip>

“I made study with regard to the disputed structure, even at the site. The most important thing from the historical point of view which I found, was a dome of this structure depicting flower-petals, a triangular shape, its courtyard, a lion carved out on the exterior wall, and the Muslim glazed ware in the base part of the masjid, which features were the symbols showing it (this structure) to a mosque."
<snip>

Prithvi Raj Chauhan was king of Ghazni; he was a king of its adjoining area. "


“I have heard of Jazia tax. I fail to recall under whose rule or at which time the Jazia tax was imposed. At present I fail to recollect when and for what purpose it was levied. I do not remember that the Jazia tax was levied only on Hindus.”



“In my knowledge, there was no Vishwanath temple in Kashi 100 years ago.. . . . . . I do not think that the Gyanvapi mosque was constructed by demolishing half of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. I also do not take it to be true that the said construction was raised by Aurangzeb. It is wrong to say that Aurangzeb built the Gyanvapi mosque by demolishing half of the Kashi Vishwanath temple."



“The finding which I have inferred in regard to Ram Janam Bhumi, is based mainly on my study of Skandha Purana and is also based on plenty of pilgrimage-related literature which extends up to the 17th century and on my survey. I
have tried to check the measurements given in the book. I did not try to take measurements on the site. But I have
tried to verify its veracity by observing them with the eyes. I had done this work in 1989-90.”



“When I went there in 1989, the idol of Sri Ramlala was present there. But it is not so that it was the same idol which was present there in the year 1966. I can say this definitely the idol of Sri Ramlala which I saw in 1989, was not there in 1966. There were few guides with me, who told that this idol was not that of 1966.” (E.T.C.)

“ I do not know the name, address etc. of my guides.”
(E.T.C.)

“Actually he was neither a guide. He had just met by chance. . .. . . .. . .Actually I had no guide.”


“I have read many books written from the time of Babarnama to 1989, regarding construction of Babri mosque. I do not remember the name of any book right now. I must have read it.”

“The witness was shown item no. 26 at page no. 97 of paper no. 107C-1, which is the English translation of the book of Trifenthelar. The witness said that the translation was not the correct translation of the original book. It is true that in this doubtful translation it has not been written that the Babri mosque was built after demolishing a temple, but in the original book it has been written that it is superstition of Hindus. I do not know French language but I have read its translation. I do not remember the name of the translator. The witness produced the translation of said book in Court, which according to him was the correct translation, and filed its photocopy in record, which was numbered as paper no. C-2/154.” (ETC)


“I had made some attempts to know the history of the disputed structure. I had attempted to trace out potteries. I had seen a record at that place, which was within the Babri mosque. I had mainly made only these two attempts. I had not carried out any excavation. By record, I mean the inscription at the Babri mosque.”

3599. An expert witness is like any other witness and has to be tested in the same manner. We find that the learned counsels of various defendants cross examined PW 13 very elaborately and his entire statement is running in 288 pages. All kinds of questions have been asked from him to test his veracity, competence, expertise etc. He claims to have visited disputed site in 1964 and on pages 33 said:

“My curiosity about the disputed site and the disputed building cropped in 1989-90 but I had knowledge of the dispute from before. I came to have knowledge of this dispute in and around 1968.” (ETC)

3602. Following part of his statement, cross examination, in our view, would reflect on the reliability of the opinion of the aforesaid witness:

An expert who claims that Prithviraj Chauhan was King of Gazani and that he checked measurements with his eyes and relied upon some unknown un-named guides ,whereas there was no actual guide, how much reliance could be placed on his opinion. DU should examine his and remove from the post of that third rate college where he misguides students and also re-evaluate his Ph D.

[ramana]

Wow so many careers are biting the dust. All those PWs must have been also examined. Any of the DW's similarly examined?

[ramana]

Another op-ed in Pioneer

Otherwise Judicious verdict

An otherwise judicious verdict
October 07, 2010 2:30:44 AM

S Gurumurthy

Despite the Sunni Waqf Board’s failure to prove its possession of any part of the disputed site in Ayodhya, dividing the land into three parts may make resolution of the conflict that much more difficult

The otherwise legally proper and judiciously sound Ayodhya verdict has suffered serious a legal haemorrhage by the decision of Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal to divide the disputed land into three parts and give one-third each to Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. This final part explains that fatal infirmity. An issue where law is mixed with facts, it calls for some strenuous reading to know what the deadly defect in the judgement is. To recall, the short facts are: In their two suits, the Hindus claim the disputed site as exclusively their own; in their suit, the Muslims claim it exclusively as their own; in its suit, the Nirmohi Akhara too claims it as exclusively its own. None of them had asked for nor would accept to share the disputed land with any other or the others.

To simplify for the law for the uninitiated, the law says that a person filing a suit has to plead his case properly and clearly, and also ask for reliefs in clear terms. The court will look only what suitor says in his plaint and his opponents in response, nothing else, to know what is the case. It will then frame the contentious issues and decide them on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidences tendered by them. The principal issues decided on that basis by Allahabad High Court, unanimously or by majority 2:1, in the present case are: One, the rights of the Hindus over the Rama Janma Bhoomi never ceased at any point in time; two, the Muslims were never in possession of the disputed premises at any point in time; three, the Muslims failed to prove their possession of any part of the disputed land; four, the last time the Muslims did namaz on the disputed property was on December 16, 1949; five, the Hindus never admitted possession by Muslims at any time, even in the suit of 1885; six, Muslims never acquired title even by adverse possession; seven, the Akhara never had possession nor acquired title by adverse possession; eight, the suits of Muslims and the Akhara, having been filed beyond the limitation period, are dismissed. On this basis, the court dismissed the suits of Muslims and Akhara, thus disentitling to any relief. While, Justice DV Sharma allowed the suits of Hindus in full, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan allowed the Hindus’ suit partly.

On why they ruled partitioning of the disputed land, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan have said that under a provision (Order 7 Rule 7) in the Civil Procedure Code they had the authority to give less relief than what the Hindus had prayed for in their suits. So by assuming that they had the power to reduce the share of the Hindus, the two judges seem to have thought that they had also the power to give the balance to Muslims and Akhara ; in the process what the two Judges have done is to give Muslims and Akhara rights, which Justice Sharma and Justice Agarwal have separately declared they do not have. Also none of the three parties had asked for what the High Court has done. The first principle is that, any relief beyond what the suits set out in pleadings and prayers can only be given at the instance of one of the parties; not by the court on its own motion like it has done in this case. If parties themselves had not asked for anything outside the pleadings, the court cannot go beyond their pleadings at all. The law on this point has never been in doubt. The Madras High Court has ruled in 1998 (Arunachalm Pillai Vs Ramu Mudaliar and others) that where each party claims exclusive title to the property and none of them accept the right of the other (exactly as in the Ayodhya case) the question of partitioning the property between them does not arise at all (under the very provision of law cited by the two judges in Ayodhya case). The Patna, Calcutta, and Madras High Court itself have ruled this principle earlier. As far back as 1991 the Supreme Court (in Om Prakash Vs Ram Kumar (1991) 1 SCC 441) had ruled that even if a party asks for reliefs outside his pleadings the court can never allow it when doing so will prejudice rights of the other party.

So the settled legal position is this: Even if parties, like the Ayodhya parties, who have filed suit asserting exclusive rights against one another, ask for partition, the court cannot grant it; and in no event the court can do it without the parties asking for it. None of these judicial rulings seem to be noticed by the two judges. Had one of the parties asked for partition, the other party would have brought the case laws to the court’s notice. That is why law requires that the court should decide no issue that is not put to the parties. An order contrary to this principle is, in law, without jurisdiction. Civil law pundits would cite the old maxim of ‘Coram Non Judici’ to say that the courts — read Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal — have no jurisdiction to do what they have done.

Now, that they have passed the judgement, the judges will now have to write a decree in accord with the judgement. Assume that the judges can write a decree in the Hindus’ suit giving them less than their claim of one-third share. The suits of Muslims and Akhara having been dismissed, how could a decree be written in their favour? If no decree could be passed in their favour in their suits, they cannot get the one-third share at all. And no decree could be passed in the suits of the Hindus in favour of Muslims and Akhara! Therefore, the one-third gift by the two judges to them each will be only on paper. So, a new battle will start only at the point if the two judges attempt to write the decree for two-third of the disputed land in favour of the Muslims and Akhara whose suits stand dismissed.

The legal unsoundness aside, the decision to divide the disputed land and award one-third each to the Muslims and Akhara, stands out contrary to the spirit of the otherwise judicious judgement. It has put roadblock on the temple construction; how could a temple to which a million people come on Ram Navami be accommodated in one acre of land (a third of the disputed area) along with a mosque beside. It will be an invitation to a law and order disaster. Many idealists welcome this action of the two judges as an ideal solution. But, in sensitive issues like relations between Hindus and Muslims (many among whom still share bitter memories of past) the ideal is not practical; only what is practical is the ideal. This sense of Idealism without practical sense is that what seems to have led the two judges into the judicially erroneous decision to divide the disputed land. QED: The historic Ayodhya judgement has, thanks to this fatal defect, now less potential to resolve the dispute and more potential to escalate it.

On the contrary its all the more necessary to carry the spirit of the judgment forward and allow the building of a mosque in a suitable location.