High Court exposed "secular" historians in Ayodhya verdict

[seedhi]

Many of us know that the "secular" historians will go to any length to discredit and distort history to suit their politics. The Ayodhya case was no exception - they tried to discredit historical and archaeological evidence, deliberately providing misleading testimonies to the court. Thankfully, they were completely taken apart by the judge.

How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause NEW DELHI: The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict. While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny. Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions. To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness. Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar. Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place. Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience. "Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted. He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was "startled and puzzled" by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history". Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that "instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy." He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion. "One cannot say that though I had made a statement but 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," Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms

[seedhi]

I am posting some material I found on other forums where the verdict was discussed. This is how the judge critiqued the testimony of "secular" historian SC Mishra.

1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said: “At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important.” “These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that 'the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier'. My today's statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.” (E.T.C.) "I have read a journal 'Epigraphica Indica' in regard to inscription...... One of its editions makes mention of an inscription and contains an article which makes mention of inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a statement in this very court that there was just one pillar inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.” 1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian...also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement on page 54...Babar was his favourite subject However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in Baburnama..contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written...he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic . . . The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language. 1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein ornot. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir Baqi. 1344. ...Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to aconcrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation.On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term "revelation" and its meaning. 1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said: ....I never came by air but on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. ... 1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different statement on page 201 as under: " I travel by rail and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times.” 1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion.

Link: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJB-BM%20vol-06.pdf Pages 1468-1483

[seedhi]

Another "secular" hostorian Sushil Srivastava.

“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also." (E.T.C.) “It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in reading and writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian language, which neither I can read nor write,..father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian languages..father in law felt that the translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage is not wholly correct...can not say whether out of three inscriptions one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no knowledge of these two language..In my book I have written about the three inscriptions after getting the same translated in English. For English transcription I have requested my father-inlaw and got it done from him....he know Arabic and Persian...style of Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this mosque was constructed by Babar or not...basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law realized so. I have written this fact in my book.†"I have not the least knowledge of art or science of calligraphy...true that, in the foot note of my book, I have mentioned those books too which I have not read...true that I have a very little knowledge of history.†Vol 7, Page 1511 (12/251) 1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed upon the motive of this witness certain facts antecedents to the publication of his book “The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under Special Marriage Act. When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim..I married according to Islamic rites." My wife encouraged me for this work." (E.T.C.)“ In the Preface of my book I have written that Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to popularize the historical truth." 1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate†which she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian.. 1357. ..Though the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page 222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history. That being so according to own statement of the witness his statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act...We in fact find it surprising with the kind of dishonesty, such person has shown.. 1357.On page 106 on the one hand he admits that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic, Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish, Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15 has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter without having made an in-depth study on the subject and hasdeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge of history. On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier statement he said that he has made research on the question as to how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not expected from a responsible Expert Historian.

Page 1487 http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJB-BM%20vol-06.pdf

[seedhi]

Secular historian Prof Suvira Jaiswal of JNU

3618. PW-18 Suvira Jaiswal, an ex Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi has deposed that according to her studies and research, there is no evidence that Babri Masjid was constructed after demolition of a temple of Lord Rama or that there existed any temple whatsoever where the Babari Masjid was situated. She also stated of not finding any evidence which may prove that the place in dispute was birth place of lord Rama. In her cross-examination, she said: “This is correct that I am expert in Ancient History. It is also correct that I have come to this Court to tender evidence as specialist in Ancient History. . . . My specialization is based on investigation into written sources.†“On the topic that Muslim rulers constructed mosques after destroying temples, neither I conducted any study nor made any compilation of books in this respect. . nor I have read any report in this respect.†(E.T.C.) “My aforesaid statement that at the place where Babari Mosque was situated, earlier no temple existed there, is my own opinion. It is correct to say that I am giving statement on oath regarding Babari Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge, rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.†“As per my research, there are such several places in Ayodhya, which claim to be the birthplace of Sri Rama. I cannot point out specifically as to the places which are claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. I did not consider it necessary to research on this point. . . . I did not study the history of Babari Mosque.†(E.T.C.) “I have not studied history of the period after 12th century but as a historian I can tell that in 16th century Babar got constructed Babari Mosque in Ayodhya.†“Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site, was on the basis of newspaper or what the others told, i.e., from the report of historians. By historians' report I mean “Historian Report to Nationâ€. This is the same report which was prepared by Surajbhan and Dr. R.S. Sharma. In this report, historians D.N. Jha and Athar Ali were also included. I alongwith my companions also published a pamphlet entitled “Rajnaitik Durupayog Babari Masjid Ram Janmabhumi Vivad†(Political Misuse, Babari Mosque-Rama Birthplace Disputeâ€). . I had prepared this Pamphlet from the news published in newspapers and after having a discussion with Medieval Expert of my Department.†(E.T.C.) “I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when Babari Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to what was there at the site before coming into existence of Babari Mosque.â€(Page 105) “I do not agree with the opinion recorded in the book by the historian Dr. Aziz. . . . . . I have not read the book of Dr. Aziz Ahmad. But discussion about it was held in the Department. . . . this discussion was held amongst experts in medieval age in my department. This is correct that I regarded the said discussion as true, but on that subject, I have neither read nor wrote any book.†“The basis of my disagreement with the opinion expressed by Prof. Lal about the pillars, is the opinion and reports of other archaeologists. On this subject, I have read the book of D.Mandal, who is an archaeologist. In this connection I had discussed with my colleague Prof. Ratnakar and also read the articles of Surajbhan.†(HC observes) 3619. The above extracts of her statement are self speaking. It is really surprising that a witness, claiming to be an Expert Historian, can make such serious statements on historical facts and that too without any study or adequate enquiry into the matter. Newspaper reports or what was told by some others or otherwise cannot be equated with the research work expected from an expert on the subject. She could admit her disagreement with a historian author of a book not after reading it but merely on the basis of some discussion made in her department. 3621. In fact, what appears from her statement from pages 116-117 that she has deposed to support the statement of PW-16, 20 and 24. The reason is also apparent. She admits to have obtained her Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. (Prof.) R.S.Sharma, who was at Patna University and later on came to Delhi University. He is a co-author of the article “Historian Report to Nation†along with Suraj Bhan- PW-16 and two others. The opinion of an alleged expert, which is not based on her own study and research work but reflection of other's opinion, in our view, shall not qualify to be considered relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal (supra).

3604-3634 http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJB-BM%20Vol-15.pdf

[seedhi]

Prof Shirin Musavi, Aligarh Muslim University

3627. PW-20 Prof. Shirin Musavi Professor in the History Department, Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh also deposed that she did not find any evidence or material to show that Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing any temple or that any temple ever existed at the disputed site. She also said that the place in dispute was never known as Ram Janam Bhumi or Ram Janam Asthan. Some of the extracts from her cross-examination are reproduced hereunder to throw light as to how much opinion of the above witness is creditworthy and honest, and is relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act: .... “As per my knowledge, reference of the fact that during his period after demolishing any temple Babar got constructed a mosque, is not historically found. It may be that material of any temple could have been used for construction of any mosque, as it was a common practice prevalent those days.†(E.T.C.) “As per my knowledge, disputed structed was divided in two parts in 19th century. There was some dispute that there is Sita Rasoi, so, perhaps one portion of disputed structure was separated for worship.â€(E.T.C.) “This is true that there is museum in Jaipur built on the name of Sawai Man Singh which exists today also. It is also true that in that museum, there are more than one map of Ayodhya drawn on cloth. The historians say the entire collection as Kapad Dwar Collection. It is true that in that Kapad Dwar Collection there is a painting annexed with the map wherein temple of three Kapolas is indicated. (of her own said) It is mentioned in Kapad dwar, which is an official catalogue, so far as I remember, at no.176 it is written that it had been purchased from a saint in Rs.5/-. This Kapad Dwar collection is not of 1717 AD but of late 18th century. Late 18th century means after 1750.†(E.T.C.) “In my view, to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site. I had historical literary evidence, on going through which, I reached the conclusion that this disputed structure was mosque or mosque was not constructed after demolishing temple. Whatever evidence I read, that were either contemporary evidence or nearing the contemporary and also studided late evidence in this connection.†(E.T.C.) “ However, as a matter of fact, I did not read in any source that this mosque was built here after demolishing any temple. It is not specifically written anywhere that any vacant land was lying on which a mosque was built.†(E.T.C.) “The disputed structure was not a part of the course of my study, but I had myself studied about it. I started study on this topic from 1986.†(Page 120) “The Gazetteer is not treated as a source of history; so, I never read it seriously." (E.T.C.) “I do not consider 1854 Gazetteer to be relevant to the study of history of 16th Century.†(E.T.C.) "After 1986 I tried to know the nature of the land over which Babri Mosque was built but since there was no mention in any of the sources that this land was acquired by force or was constructed after demolishing any temple." (E.T.C.) “The legend of Ayodhya being the birth place of Rama is found from 17th century prior to which there is no legend about Rama's birth place in the medieval History. †(E.T.C.) “Through gynaecological (sic) survey and exploration and excavation survey, it can be discovered whether a temple existed or not at that place.†(E.T.C.) “Evidence of the fact whether any building prior to the disputed structure existed or not on the disputed site, can be had only through archaeological exploration.†(E.T.C.) “ It is true that I do not possess any historical evidence whether any building existed on the disputed structure on disputed site. On her own, said that negative evidence in this regard is available. Negative evidence is as follows: 1. Had any building been demolished , naturally, it would have been written in inscription that this mosque was built after demolition of any building or temple. 2. Recent contemporary historians would have made reference of this fact in their articles.†(E.T.C.) “It is correct that in Sikh literature this is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had Darshan of Sri Ram Janam Sthan and had bathed in the river Saryu.†(E.T.C.) “I have not studied any book on the History of Ayodhya separately. I have only studied S.P.Gupta's book 'Ayodhya' which is adduced in evidence.â€(E.T.C.)

[seedhi]

Prof. (retd) D Mandal, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University.

3628. PW-24 Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who was appointed on adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there is no archaeological evidence to show either 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 shows the shallowness of his knowledge in the subject: ... “I never visited Ayodhya†(E.T.C.) “I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur's reign.†(E.T.C.) “ 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 editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Shangh 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 afore-said preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.†(E.T.C.) “The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion. A book written by me (exhibit 63) was not written in series; instead, it was published in series. This series is called 'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know whether there is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times Series', which is only for the criticism of religious organizations. It is true that a book titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags' has been published under this series, but I have not read this book.†(E.T.C.) “Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'. I have no knowledge of a book 'The Question of Faith' under this very series, nor have I read it. I know under which series the aforesaid book was published. Faith has nothing to do with archaeological history. I do not properly remember that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or not. I remember names of two members comprising the editorial board of this series, first of them being Prof. Romila Thapar and the other being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do not remember names of the rest of members. It is true that Sarvapalli Gopal ji is also a member of the editorial board of this series.†(E.T.C.) “I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is of Communistic thought or not. But Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism.†(E.T.C.) “It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has written editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila Thapar was a professor at Jawahar Lal Nehru University. In this very University was Shereen Ratnagar also, who was a teacher.†(E.T.C.) “I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an archaeologist.â€(E.T.C.) “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.†(E.T.C.)3650 “My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only 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 no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by Prof.B.B.Lal near the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm Bhumi: Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct.†(E.T.C.) “Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63).†(E.T.C.) “ 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.†(E.T.C.) “It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant Tiwari, who drew figures for me in my book, went ahead with the drafting as I wished. Laxmi Kant Tiwari was a skilled draftsman.I never even visited Ayodhya.†(E.T.C.) “The main objective of my research was to see whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not.†(E.T.C.) “As per my research, initial signs of human population in Ayodhya are found from the 6th -7th century BC.†(E.T.C.) “I know that there was Islamic population from the 13th century to the 15th - 16th century.†(E.T.C.) “On the basis of the source material which I used and studied in course of my research, I speak of the disputed structure as Babri Masjid. I did not make any research to see whether it was Babri Mosque inasmuch as it was not a subject of my research. It is correct to say that I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid on the basis of that very source material.†(E.T.C.) “It is correct to say that I term the disputed structure as Babri Mosque on that very source material on which others term it as such. For this very reason I term it as Babri Mosque, otherwise its being Babri Mosque is not a subject of my research.†(E.T.C.) “It is correct to say that I do not believe those persons who termed the disputed sructure as Rama Janm Bhumi; for this very reason I have not described it as such, and as a matter of fact it was not a subject of my research.â€(E.T.C.) “ Since it was not the issue of my research to see whether these stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not 3653 make any research on them, and for this very reason I did not make any research to see whether they may be of the temple. . . . It is true that human figures are engraved on the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46.†(E.T.C.) “The subject of my knowledge is archaeology and my speciality is in field archaeology under it and in stratification method under field archaeology." (E.T.C.) “I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist. He has also deposed in this litigation. I have knowledge of it also.†(E.T.C.) “ I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with her also. . . . . . From her articles it appears that she is influenced by Marxism.†(E.T.C.) “I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also influenced by Marxism. . . . . .I know Sri R.S.Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav, D.P. Agarwal, S.C. Bhattacharya, N.C. Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also have talks with them." (E.T.C.) “Our objective was to study or discover whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not. My objective did not have any relation to the structure above the ground. Whatsoever materials had been discovered by that time was, in my opinion, sufficient to derive a conclusion as to whether there was any temple below the structure or not.†(E.T.C.) “It is true that by observing materials discovered through excavation I will not be in a position to tell whether there was a temple or a mosque.†(E.T.C.) “It is true that I am of communistic thought.â€(E.T.C.) “ I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did not get any degree or diploma in archaeology.†(E.T.C.) “As per my study and knowledge, the disputed structure was subsequent to the 12th century AD.â€(Page 78) “The map given in the supplement is, in my opinion, a primary source. I did not enquire as to whether the map given in the supplement is correct or not.†(E.T.C.) “Primary source of my book is paper no.118C1/36.â€(E.T.C.) 3629. 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. B.B.Lal and beyond that made no further or other study/research etc.. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analyzed 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 onstruction. 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.

So the above guy managed to write an entire book on the archaelogical evidence of the disputed site WITHOUT EVEN VISITING AYODHYA, and also without having acquired any degree in archaeology.

[saneindian]

Nanga kar diya bhai. But obviously the media which till the judgement came was tom toming "the verdict should be respected in letter and spirit" and changed its tune to "Verdict is biased and is not based on facts" would never publish these excerpts from the judgement.

[seedhi]

Many thanks for digging it out Seedhi ... I had wanted to dig deeper into the judgements but I didnt know the courts went to this extent BRF

Someone else dug this out on BRF, I have just resposted from there. Hope no one minds.

[seedhi]

Justice Aggarwal is the one who has meticulously taken these "secular"experts to task. He even did not accept many testimonies from the Hindu side which werent based on firm facts. But there is a qualitative difference in that the "secular" experts made a mockery of the whole process by being deliberately deceptive and speaking on subjects in which they had made no research and had no qualification to comment upon.

[ravishingravi]

This proves complete pawnage of "faith" theory tossed around. Thanks for that. I am confident that SC will uphold HC judgement, maybe with greater precision.

[f2000560]

Marxist history has the same authenticity as Nazi histography both have been discarded to the loony bin in the rest of the world yet in india card carrying marxist are allowed to contort, distort, and hoodwink the public and get accorded the status of intellectuals in the process. the sooner we can get rid of this generation of JNU/AMU professors with their stranglehold of the academia the better.

[kumble_rocks]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here... Me thinks that evidence presented for Ram janambhoomi is sketchy at best !

[straight.drive]

If you are contesting the fact that mosque was not built on temple then you are wrong. Even ASI has confirmed that a temple existed there and mosque was built over it. Better to believe in Archaeologists rather than arm-charied pen happy leftie loonies in JNU/DU/AMU.

[seedhi]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here... Me thinks that evidence presented for Ram janambhoomi is sketchy at best !

Firstly, there is loads of evidence collected by the ASI of a temple below the Babri structure. The excavations were done in the presence of representatives of the litigants and involved both Hindu and Muslim workers. But more importantly, there is a difference between lack of evidence (according to you) and a deliberate attempt to mislead the court - for example writing an entire book on the archaeology of the site and deposing before the court WITHOUT EVEN VISITING AYODHYA . Or deposing before the court as an expert in history without having studied any of Ayodhya's or Babar's history. The court has itself pointed out that the only purpose of the depositions of the pro-Muslim so called experts seemed to be either cast aspersions on the ASI or to deliberately mislead the court and cause confusion.

[ravishingravi]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here... Me thinks that evidence presented for Ram janambhoomi is sketchy at best !

Yes that and too many pseudo secularists

[kumble_rocks]

I was thinking of writing a long scathing reply but realized the futility of it all .... given your penchant for NEVER EVER providing straight answers and the less said the better about your perception of "Right and Wrong" and what constitutes "proof" in your opinion.

Yeah right ! Just because I have independent opinion , you have a beef ! So what do you want me to say , All Muslims are bad , Gandhi is a coward , Godse is brave .. yada yada yada ! Give it up ! It's not gonna happen , not in this lifetime ....................

[yoda]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here...

Seems like your favorite reply when it comes to topics related to Hinduism. Do you have it saved somewhere for copy/paste? :giggle:

[kumble_rocks]

Do you have it saved somewhere for copy/paste? :giggle:

Nah ! I am not that smart unlike you !:winky:

[kumble_rocks]

Once in a while try to back up your opinion thru things like facts ...

And you think you do ?

[ravishingravi]

Oh boy ! And I thought that all right wing religious loons were confined to our parosi site . We certainly have our fair share here... Me thinks that evidence presented for Ram janambhoomi is sketchy at best !

So, now that you know right wing loons so well, explain what part of OP even remotely felt like jingoistic backing for Ram Temple. It is not the poster's opinion. It is a link to the testimonies of some of the so called experts.