Left historians prevented resolution of Babri Masjid

[Roybot]

Gotcha!
Mosques were built near the existing temples.

Its not built near the temple, the mosque is built right on top of the temple, the prison cell of Kansha, which is revered as the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. The huge temple that you see in Mathura is not the actual temple

 

[nair]

@Levina this is what I was talking about.. the entrance of the mosque was blocked from front, - once you come up from prison cell you land infront of this mosque

Its not built near the temple, the mosque is built right on top of the temple, the prison cell of Kansha, which is revered as the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. The huge temple that you see in Mathura is not the actual temple

Ridiculously laughable statement.

Why do you think so?

 

[scorpionx]

@Levina this is what I was talking about.. the entrance of the mosque was blocked from front, - once you come up from prison cell you land infront of this mosque







Why do you think so?

Before I explain, may I ask those who seem to endorse his claim to please elaborate how exactly Left historians has prevented resolution of Babri Masjid? No doubt Sangh will find in this man their blue eyed boy.

he said adding that even Qutub Minar and Taj Mahal were built on the debris of Hindu temples.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

@Levina the man's missing the point. Whether there were temples or not, you gotta stop a historically desctructive process. 100s of years ago some invader razed a temple, and you want to bring the mosque down in a country where Islam has been in existence for 100s of years? This isn't fantasy revenge republic. Accept it and move on.

@Levina the man's missing the point. Whether there were temples or not, you gotta stop a historically destructive process. 100s of years ago some invader razed a temple, and you want to bring the mosque down in a country where Islam has been in existence for 100s of years? This isn't fantasy revenge republic. Accept it and move on.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

@Levina the man's missing the point. Whether there were temples or not, you gotta stop a historically desctructive process. 100s of years ago some invader razed a temple, and you want to bring the mosque down in a country where Islam has been in existence for 100s of years? This isn't fantasy revenge republic. Accept it and move on.

@Levina the man's missing the point. Whether there were temples or not, you gotta stop a historically destructive process. 100s of years ago some invader razed a temple, and you want to bring the mosque down in a country where Islam has been in existence for 100s of years? This isn't fantasy revenge republic. Accept it and move on.

If move on that Simple when it is always the majority who is doing the move on....it is the majority who is labelled as intolerant even though they have not bought down these so called structures from their holiest places when they are even in huge number to do it. (babri was an example of what masses can do if they really want to do) but they have not done it till the water is crossing above hte head.
Minorities need to understand, that as they cannot tolerat Hindus building ShivLing in mecca, the same way they should not object bringing down of mosques from hindus religious places.

As per me that is the biggest solution ..

 

[Guynextdoor2]

If move on that Simple when it is always the majority who is doing the move on....it is the majority who is labelled as intolerant even though they have not bought down these so called structures from their holiest places when they are even in huge number to do it. (babri was an example of what masses can do if they really want to do) but they have not done it till the water is crossing above hte head.
Minorities need to understand, that as they cannot tolerat Hindus building ShivLing in mecca, the same way they should not object bringing down of mosques from hindus religious places.

As per me that is the biggest solution ..

Not interested in drivel. This is not mecca and if you want temple then take a time machine and go back 200 years. This is the republic of India not BJP Disneyland.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I have to agree with one member here though more often than not, I disagree with him. Babri Masjid is an issue left behind in history. Babur did destroy temples, and in some awestuck by its architecture converted it into mosques. Not only that, there are lots.
The temples should have been built by the time of Marathas, when they had conquered India, but to be honest, they were busy raiding other kingdoms thus leading to its downfall.
Now in a democratic India, it looks tough. We have 17 crore Muslims to our country's name. An act of Parliament will be a show of force of Majority Hindus. And they will never compromise for one reason: Politics surrounding it. Even if they give up, SP, INC, BSP, now AAP wont allow them to do so.
If Pillars have been unearthed, and evidence points out to an ancient Hindu structure, what should be the SC judgement? @Levina @nair and others. ?

 

[Levina]

@Levina this is what I was talking about.. the entrance of the mosque was blocked from front, - once you come up from prison cell you land infront of this mosque

Hmm
I have a vague memory of it.

If Pillars have been unearthed, and evidence points out to an ancient Hindu structure, what should be the SC judgement? @Levina @nair and others. ?

If I were the judge, I would ask govt to build a temple near the existing mosque, without disturbing the existing structure of course. The idea is to kill this issue once and for all. As long as there's a mosque, Hindus will demand a temple, not that they are not justified to do so, since I strongly believe that like several other mosques this one too was built on a temple. This article says there's ample proof of a temple that existed.
IMO, Hindus and Muslims must learn to co-exist.

Before I explain, may I ask those who seem to endorse his claim to please elaborate how exactly Left historians has prevented resolution of Babri Masjid? No doubt Sangh will find in this man their blue eyed boy.

You're smart.
Not many here can verify the statement made by Mr.Mohammed since none of us are archeologists or historians(who were involved in the Babri masjid discussion).
But the author says this....

. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib,RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali," he said.

But then the archeolgists did find proof of a temple at Babri.

According to Muhammed that the Left historians even tried to mislead the Allahabad High Court on the issue. Even after the court had pronounced its verdict Irfan and his team were not ready to accept the truth. They simply questioned the logicality of the verdict.

Misleading HC!!!

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Hmm
I have a vague memory of it.

If I were the judge, I would ask govt to build a temple near the existing mosque, without disturbing the existing structure of course. The idea is to kill this issue once and for all. As long as there's a mosque, Hindus will demand a temple, not that they are not justified to do so, since I strongly believe that like several other mosques this one too was built on a temple. This article says there's ample proof of a temple that existed.
IMO, Hindus and Muslims must learn to co-exist.



You're smart, aren't you? Not many here would know if the statement is true or not since none of us are archeologists or historians, who were involved in the Babri masjid discussion.
But the author says this....



But then the archeolgists did find proof of a temple at Babri.


Misleading HC!!!

U cant convince VHP or RSS. They will settle for nothing but temple at that exact place

 

[Levina]

U cant convince VHP or RSS. They will settle for nothing but temple at that exact place

I do not understand the reason why Hindus and Muslims should continue fighting on this issue despite the judgement ...
Court awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board: The Hindu - Mobile edition

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I do not understand the reason why Hindus and Muslims should continue fighting on this issue despite the judgement ...
Court awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board: The Hindu - Mobile edition

Politics. The oldest litigant in that issue, one Muslim wanted to withdraw, but was shot down by AIMPLB. THey cant face common masses if they do. And so does VHP and RSS.

 

[scorpionx]

Hmm
I have a vague memory of it.

If I were the judge, I would ask govt to build a temple near the existing mosque, without disturbing the existing structure of course. The idea is to kill this issue once and for all. As long as there's a mosque, Hindus will demand a temple, not that they are not justified to do so, since I strongly believe that like several other mosques this one too was built on a temple. This article says there's ample proof of a temple that existed.
IMO, Hindus and Muslims must learn to co-exist.


You're smart.
Not many here can verify the statement made by Mr.Mohammed since none of us are archeologists or historians(who were involved in the Babri masjid discussion).
But the author says this....



But then the archeolgists did find proof of a temple at Babri.


Misleading HC!!!

Not a single historian has disputed that there was a temple beneath the mosque. If Mr.Mohammad feels that it was the left historians who are impeding a resolution on Babri and misleading the court then he should be more respectful to the facts and careful about his judgement. The HC asserted that,the portion under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure where the idol of Ram Lalla had been kept in a makeshift temple was the birthplace of Lord Rama“as per faith and belief of the Hindus."
Do you think the above judgement is justified from a Muslim's point of view? Long before these absurd left vs right version of history started a scholar pointed out that there had been at least fourteen different sites in Ayodhya that were regarded by devotees to be the actual birth place of Ram. In case of Babri a status quo between the two communities existed for centuries that the Hindus worshipped only in the Ram Chabutra area, just to the left after the main entrance to the compound and the Muslims prayed in the three dome structure. Now read the FIR lodged by Sub-Inspector Ram Dubey of Ayodhya PS based on constable Mata Prasad's report dated 23rd December 1949. It reads,

"According to Mata Prasad (Paper No 7) when I reached the Janam Bhoomi ground 8 O'clock in the morning, I came to know that group of 50-60 persons had entered Babri mosque after breaking the compound gate lock of the mosque or through jumping across the walls [of the compound] with a stair and established therein, an idol of Shri Bhagwan and painted Sita Ram etc on the outer, and inner walls with geru (red loam). Hans Raj on duty asked them to defer but they did not. These persons have already entered the mosque before the available PAC (Provincial Armed Corps) guards could be commanded. Officials of the district administration came at the site and involved themselves in necessary arrangements. After wards a crowd of 5-6 thousand persons gathered around and while chanting bhajans and raising religious slogans tried to enter the mosque but were deterred and nothing untoward happenedthere on because of proper arrangements. Ram Das, Ram shakti Das and 50-60 unidentified others entered the mosque surreptuously and spoiled its sanctity. Government servants on duty and several others are witness to it. Therefore it is written and filed."

HC verdict completely ignored this report and delivered its verdict merely on the merit of faith and belief. This verdict if expects Muslims to accept it with good will, makes a mock of itself by denying every essence of egalitarian and secular principles of Indian constitution and vulnerable to be challenged on reasonable grounds.

 

[ranjeet]

Before I explain, may I ask those who seem to endorse his claim to please elaborate how exactly Left historians has prevented resolution of Babri Masjid? No doubt Sangh will find in this man their blue eyed boy.

Remnants of temple found by archaeologists are mere claims and BS written by left wing biased historians is the Gospel truth.

And that BLUE EYED BOY jibe demonstrate how "TOLERANT" the liberals are when questions are raised about lies peddled by the incestuous group of historians by someone with credentials.

 

[scorpionx]

Remnants of temple found by archaeologists are mere claims and BS written by left wing biased historians is the Gospel truth.

And that BLUE EYED BOY jibe demonstrate how "TOLERANT" the liberals are when questions are raised about lies peddled by the incestuous group of historians by someone with credentials.

Are you ready for a debate on the analysis of the remnants found at the site? If not please stay away from this debate. Your regular verbal diarrhea is irritating.

 

[ranjeet]

Are you ready for a debate on the analysis of the remnants found at the site? If not please stay away from this debate. Your regular verbal diarrhea is irritating.

Topic is about Left wing nutjobs who strut around as historians not the analysis of remnants found at site. Here is what high court observed about these historians.

Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians - Firstpost
It runs to more than 8,000 pages and it contains is a marvelous set of documents on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri case. On the 20th anniversary of the demolition, it is worth looking at some aspects of the judgment delivered by the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in September 2012.

The judgment, which awarded two parts of the disputed land to Hindu groups and one to the Muslim one, is now being contested by the parties in the Supreme Court, but it offers an extraordinary insight in to our culture, history, and civilisational ethos. It dwells at length on Persian sources, German writings, French observations, Urdu literature and, of course, Sanskrit evidence. It deals with archeology, history, linguistics, anthropology, zoology, literature, the puranas, the jataka tales and many other subjects and disciplines.

The sweep of the judgment and the canvas covered is mind-boggling and it makes one proud of our judiciary. This judgment will be quoted discussed and dissected by legal as well as academic experts for several decades.

But we shall not discuss the judgment’s core aspects, and focus instead on what it has to say on our “eminent historians” who were shown to be not so eminent, and their attitudes fairly unacademic.

Many “independent experts”, historians and archeologists appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board but in the end the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed the objections raised by them about the ruins of a temple under the demolished structure. It was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to judicial scrutiny.

Interestingly many of these “experts” had deposed twice in the court — once before the ASI excavations and another after. Before the excavations they asserted that there was no temple beneath the disputed structure and after it was dug up they began to claim that what was unearthed was a mosque or stupa. Not only that, they found themselves withering under judicial scrutiny in spite of writing signed articles and issuing pamphlets and long public letters.

The judge asked pointed queries which might never been asked by their students.

The cross-examination covers several pages and a gripping reading. It shows the levels to which our academics have fallen and become hand maidens of the political machinery. Let us look at some of their statements, and how they do nothing to enhance their profession’s reputation.


Activists of the Bajrang Dal Party hold torches while standing behind a model of Ram Temple on the 14th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. AFP

Supriya Verma an, “expert” who challenged the excavations done by the ASI, had not read the radar survey report on ground penetration that led to the court order for excavation. Verma and Jaya Menon, another “expert,” were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted.

Suvira Jaiswal says: “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told.” She also confessed that she “prepared a report on the Babri dispute after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussion with my medieval history expert in my department”.

Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”

When opinion can be history why are they all screaming that "faith" cannot be an equally relevant criterion?

Archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar admitted she did not have any “field” experience as far as Babri was concerned and had written an “introduction” to the book of another “expert” who deposed before the court, namely Prof D Mandal. This expert witness for the Waqf Board admitted he wrote his “Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition” without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.



Suraj Bhan was providing evidence based on medieval history but another expert of Muslim parties, namely Shireen Musavi, says that Bhan is an archeologists and not a historian.

The ASI report submitted to the court after an excavation of the site had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by RS Sharma, M Athar Ali, DN Jha and Suraj Bhan, released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith.” But Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Historians’ Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by BB Lal”.

Shireen Musavi suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Musavi admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, haddarshan of Ram Janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”

Prof Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University. He was appointed on an ad hoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior to that he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there was no archaeological evidence to show either the existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge and provide a sample about all these “eminences”

A few of his quotes: “I never visited Ayodhya”. “I do not have any specific knowledge of the history of Babur's reign.” “Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd Para of the editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for the first time, raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama's birth place. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the aforesaid preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.” “The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”

Further: “It is true that I have not seen the disputed building as yet. I did not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also did not make physical investigation of basalt stone.” “My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based on any article. My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given in the book (paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89 and chiefly on the photograph (paper no118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by Prof BB Lal near the Babri Mosque. It is also correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of BB Lal, as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janambhumi: Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct.” “Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63).”

Mandal also said: “It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss Shereen Ratnagar.”

The learned Judge rightly observes: “A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof BB Lal and beyond that made no further study/research, etc. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analysed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished before its construction. The own admissions and clarification this witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this witness is short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to qualify as an opinion of an expert which may be considered relevant on a fact in issue, by this court. “

The list goes on. Justice Agarwal refers to the signed statement of these experts and notes that “instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere, it tends to create complications, conflict and controversy. The experts carry weight with public opinion and conclude that ‘one cannot say that though I had made a statement I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research, but what I have learnt from what others have uttered.”

Clearly, the expertise of eminences has been exposed. If such a thing had happened in physics or chemistry or medicine or accounting, the concerned person would have been taken to task by their professional associations. Unfortunately, the social science disciplines in India are under the grip of Left charlatans and they are not accountable to any. It is important that they are made accountable. Many of the things they said hardened positions on both sides, and they cannot now wriggle out and claim what they said was not their expert opinion.

Their respective universities would do well to initiate action against them or take other disciplinary steps to improve the reputation of the profession of historian. The textbooks written or edited by them for schools and colleges should be revoked and other books of less eminent — but more honest — historians should be prescribed

They need to be made accountable and brought to book, howsoever highly networked or “eminent” they are. Is the HRD ministry, and various universities, listening?