Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians
The Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya case discredited many eminent
historians.
 "Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians")
By R Vaidyanathan 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. [caption id=“attachment_547984” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  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[/caption] 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, had darshan 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? The author is Professor of Finance and Control, IIM Bangalore, The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.
The Supreme Court has asserted that the views aired by historians on the Babri Masjid in a note shared in 1991 titled, ironically enough, “Historians’ Report To The Indian Nation”, is a mere opinion and cannot be considered as fact. The said report claimed that Ram Janambhoomi was not the birthplace of Shri Rama and neither was the existing demolished to build the Babri Masjid.
The report was written in May 1991 by four Far-Left historians: R S Sharma, M Athar Ali, D N Jha, and Suraj Bhan. Rajeev Dhavan, arguing for the Sunni Waqf Board, presented the report in the Court as material in favour of Babri Masjid in the ongoing day-to-day hearings in the Ayodhya Dispute. However, the Bench was not impressed.
The Bench said, “At the best, this report can be taken as an opinion.” It added, “The report appears to be a counterblast to VHP campaigns and claims in 1991. Neither the views of VHP nor that of these four historians can be treated as evidence. We have to decide this case on the basis of evidence on record. The Allahabad HC had refused to rely on this report as evidence.”
The Bench went on to puncture holes in the report compiled by the ‘Eminent Historians’. It said, “These historians did not have the benefit of the archaeological evidence. Had this report really been prepared after studying the data collected through an archaeological excavation by ASI (about the possible existence of a temple below the mosque), it could have had some meaning to it. But these historians have not examined the ASI data. The methodology they have adopted appears to be perfunctory, as was termed by the High Court.”
Even as early as 1978, thirteen years before the said report was written, the ASI had found evidence of a Hindu Temple buried under the Babri. Dr K.K. Mohammed, former Regional Director (North) of the ASI who was part of the said team, blames Left historians for the dispute not being amicably resolved.
“The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brainwashing by the Leftist historians. 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 the 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 told Firstpost.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) confirmed in 2003 after an excavation that structures under the Babri had “distinctive features associated with temples of north India”. This was the excavation that the Bench referred to in response to Dhavan’s arguments today. Dr Meenakshi Jain, PhD from Delhi University who specializes in cultural studies, explained the mounting body of archaeological and historical evidence of a Temple that was destroyed at the site in this talk for the Srijan Foundation.
Ram Mandir: SC Bench Junks Report Of ‘Eminent Historians’ As Mere ‘Opinion’, Not Evidence
R Jagannathan
Sep 18, 2019
Has the five-judge Supreme Court bench that is hearing the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit just told a bunch of Left-wing 'eminent historians' that their views may be bunk? It may have done so using far more diplomatic language.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, made its observations when the counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board, Rajeev Dhavan, asked the bench to take note of a grandly titled "Historians’ Report To The Indian Nation" written in 1991. The report argued that the disputed site was neither the birthplace of Lord Ram nor was a temple demolished to build the Babri Masjid.
Ayodhya Dispute-II: A Timeline of Events
](https://images.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/RamMandir_AFP.jpg){kind=link}
[contextly_sidebar id=”ytIacg78MWBFbBzpPAqdiRBZ1iYY3Y36″]
Between writing Part I and Part II of this series, I came across this article by Deepanjana Pal on a documentary by Anand Patwardhan on Babri-RJB episode named Ram ke naam. And trust me, it has all the ingredients highlighted in part I of series. There are emotions between lies and more emotions and more lies, which makes this Part II of the series all the more important. Here, I wish to highlight the impeccable scholarship of pro Ram Janma Bhoomi team and the struggles they had to go through.
The most vocal Babri campaigner, Professor Irfan Habib would want you to believe that the claim to Babri site “started only after 1934 riots”. Prof Romila Thapar would want to convince you that “divine or semi divine being worshipped by group” should not claim land by declaring it birthplace all of a sudden. 25 JNU historians led by Professor S. Gopal and Bipin Chandra would force to intervene because “beliefs claim the legitimacy of history”. Professor R.S Sharma would proclaim that Hindus in medieval times did not perceive invaders in “purely religious or Islamic terms” and that the archaeologists got caught in communal trap. Professor Sharma also would try to convince you that Ayodhya “neither appears as a place with a temple of Rama nor as a place of pilgrimage for to the Hindus”. “Not a shred of evidence” for Shri Ram Janma Bhumi.
How then did the court decide to grant the decision in favour of Ram lala? The answer to this is long, but has been summarized here.
Time Period – Before CE 1
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- Terracotta showing Sita mata being carried away by Ravana got buried in Kaushambi to be later excavated and be dated around 2nd century BC.
- Shri Rama story from Rishyashringa Jataka, on a Bharhut medallion and another Sama Jataka at Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh dated to 2nd century BC
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Preparing to deny “Rama cult” before 13th century.
Time Period – 1st to 12th Century CE
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- Even if we completely ignore oral history, establishment of name of Shri Rama was complete by 4th century.
- Valmiki in 3rd century, Kalidasa in 4th century, Prabhavatigupta queen (daughter of Chandragupta II) were all documenting Raam katha or praising Shri Rama in their literature.
- Parvarsena II in 5th century (Paunar, Wardha), Chandela King Dhanga in 10th century (Khajuraho), Parantaka I in 10th century (Chingleput, Tamil Nadu) were all building temples depicting scenes from Shri Rama Katha.
- Terrocotta got buried In Kachchi Kuti (in district of Gonda and Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh) to be later excavated and be dated around 5th century AD.
- Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, the whole of India was building temples, pillars, coins or statues in Shri Rama’s name to be used as sculptural evidence later.
- It was being recorded that all this is being done for Lord of Ayodhya / Koshalraj / Shri Rama through proper literary documentation, kavya, samhitas and architectural inscriptions, engravings and seals.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Preparing to deny “Rama cult” before 13th century. If anything, they were collecting Jain, Buddhist and other sources where the description of Ayodhya was Saket [even this was refuted later] or which were para-Ramayanas.
- Ayodhya slipped from under the Pratihara kings (9th century) to Mahmud Ghaznavi (11th century). Rashtrakutas regained power but again fell to Muhammad Ghori in 12th century.
- Leftists had not imagined then that the major blow to the future Idea of India will come from this period. Within half a century of death of Mahmud Ghaznavi, Gahadavalas had initiated a major temple re-building programme at Ayodhya, most important of them being – Chandra Hari, Vishnu Hari and Dharma Hari temples.
Time period 12th to 15th century CE
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- Shri Rama katha in regional languages, orally as well as in writing spread on the outskirts of Delhi sultanate. The power packed Kodanda-Rama gained massive popularity in the south.
- In 13th century Dharmanibandha (law code) by Hemadri (minister, Devagiri Kingdom) provided liturgical instructions for worshipping Shri Rama as incarnation.
- The Chalukya/Solanki King Jayasimha Siddharth (Gujarat), Prithviraja III (Ajmer) and several other Hindu kings styled themselves as Rama incarnates or adopted terminology vowing to exterminate the invading ‘mlechhanam’. There is no dearth of literature or archaeological evidence from this period that Ayodhya-Naresh Shri Rama was worshipped throughout India.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- This was the main period of Islamization by the invaders and it would be incorrect to call them explorers because they were not willing to assimilate. Building temples was precluded, so no major temple of significance came up till 18th century where Ghori, Lodhi, Mughals, etc. ruled.
- Between 28th March 1528 to 18th September same year, Babar stayed near Ayodhya as per his memoirs. It is said that Babri masjid was created during this period.
- Belief is pir Fazl Abbas Musa Ashikhan goaded Babar to demolish mandir and raise mosque instead. Two pillars present on pir’s grave in Ayodhya resemble 14 pillars inside Babri. New janmasthan temple was built north of Babri masjid.
Time Period 16th to 18th century CE
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- Efforts to reclaim temple space kept stirring rigorously. Todar Mal, Marathas, Rajputs, Jaisinghpuras and several other kings kept seeking opportunities to rebuild the lost temples, including in Ayodhya and occupy the lost dignity.
- In 18th century, the Kapad dwar collection having at least 8 maps of Ayodhya got created. These maps would go long way in proving Shri Ram Janma Bhumi. In one of the maps the temple of Shri Rama is discretely marked, in another map the palaces, kunds, ram kot, vedis, chabutra, Seeta chowki etc. are clearly marked. The marking of chhathi denoting the birthplace is present in another.
- William Finch, foreign traveler from 1608 to 1611 AD (arrived 80 years after Babar) noted high reverence placed on Ayodhya by the Hindus. He does not note anywhere namaz being offered.
- Tieffenthaler (1766-1771) mentions destruction of mandir, Hindus worshipping vedi, celebrating Rama navami, 14 black stone pillars of temple, 12 black stone pillars of mosque, location of Janmasthan where Hindus prostrate after 3 parikrama. He too does not mention Muslims offering namaz.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- The BMAC experts later would proclaim the following:
- Rama cult is a 13th century phenomenon
- Babri masjid is built on virgin land
- It is a Doordarshan’s Ramayana serial inspired non-righteous demand
- VHP and Hindus are fueling communal hatred
- Location of Ram Janma Bhumi is not known
- Wajid Ali Shah, the last nawab of Oudh, sent purcha to British resident, Major James Outram containing 5 documents which said Delhi’s king built temple and Hindus had accepted they would be “meddling with the mosque” (1722-1739)
- British officials noting Nawab and others’ actions in conflict in Hanumangarhi in 1855
Time Period – 18th century CE
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- British commissioners, officials compiling historical and topographical data noted Ayodhya as “Hindu city”.
- Carnegy wrote “It is locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were three important Hindu shrines… at Ayodhya” These were the Janmsthan, the Sargadwar mandir and Treta ka Thakur.
- (Sir) H.M, Elliot noted “on the first of these Babar built the mosque which still bears his name…”
- British accounts talk at length about most sacred spot being destroyed and the bitterness this caused. These were written to be used as exhibits later.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Leftists would later accuse the colonial historians and archaeologists for setting “the communal trap” (Prof. R.S. Sharma). They would say
- Ayodhya “always had cosmopolitan attitude”
- British writings are suspicious
- “Birth place temple of Rama” has become “strongly entrenched in the psyche..” implying that it is merely a faith that needs to be dislodged
- British writers were “not impartial” when they “insisted” on calling Babri masjid the Janmasthan
Time Period – 19th Century CE
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- Hindus continue to claim the site. Large crowds kept visiting Ayodhya particularly on occasions like Rama Navami.
- Rajab Ali Beg Surur in Fasanah-I-Ibrat in 1860 stated how mosque was created by Babar’s regime on the spot of Sita ki rasoi as it was religious rule to “put a stop to blasphemous practices”.
- First available record on contest at the site is a report dated 28th November 1858, by Sheetal Dubey, thanedar of Oudh describing Nihang organizing “Havan and Puja of Guru Gobind singh and erected a symbol of Sri Bhagvan, within the premises of the Masjid”. 25 sikhs were also stated present at the “Mandir Janam Asthan”.
- There are several records of the litigations (Kehm Dass, Mahant Raghubar Das), reports and follow-up orders generated in this time which would help the Pro-RJB lawyers later.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Muhammad Asghar wrote to British govt. in 1858 complaining “Fire has been lit there for light and Home is continuing there. In whole of this masjid, ‘Ram Ram’ has been written with coal.” He stated the ‘Janamsthan had been lying desolate, where Hindus had been worshipping for hundreds of years’.
- On his complaint, thanedar was suspended and fined, the newly constructed chabutra demolished and Hindus ousted. This was the irrefutable proof that Hindus prayed in and around the Masjid that Leftists would deny in 21st century.
- In 1861 Mir Rajib Ali, in 1866 Muhammad Afzal would claim things like imli trees, removal of Charan paduka, erection of new door near wall of RJB etc. that would go on describing the layout, accessories, Murtis , chulha, yagya vedi etc. at RJB. Leftist historians would later confirm not coming across these or other land records.
Time Period – 20th century Pre-Independence
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- 1912 riots broke out in Ayodhya and adjoining Faizabad on the issue of cow slaughter on Bakr-Id. According to Dist Magistrate “the reason why cow slaughter was started in 1910 was probably because Mohammadans were annoyed at the order of Government … and determined to sacrifice cows … with the object of establishing a precedent”
- Constant cause of friction, strained relations kept being mentioned in government records, Home Department.
- The contract for the construction and repair work of the masjid was awarded by the order dated 12th May 1934. Several engraving, construction elements of masjid as we see today come from this event from 1934-1935.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Leftists would later argue that the claim to RJB started only after 1934.
- Professor Romila Thapar said that the court observing that only Friday prayers were offered and outer courtyard was out of Muslim control etc. from these records is “annulled respect for history and seeks to replace History with religious faith”.
Time Period – 20th century Post-Independence to Pre-Babri demolition
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- On 20th July 1949, Kehar Singh, Deputy Secretary of the UP Government, wrote to S.S. Hasan, Commissioner, Faizabad to erect “a decent and vishal temple instead of a small one that exists at present”. In a letter to Chief Secretary dated 26th December 1949, Bhagwan Sahai pointed to the tremendous cost of tax payer for policing “a deserted and almost unused mosque permanently”.
- In another letter dated 2nd December 1949, K.K.K. Nayar said the Commissioner had given him scheme to surreptitiously remove the idol from the mosque and that this idea was “fraught with gravest danger to public peace… Hindus are ready to kill and die in the cause”. The solution he offered was to exclude both Hindus and Muslims with exceptions of pujaris, who can offer bhog and puja to the Murtis.
- 1969-1970 Department of Archaeology of Banaras Hindu University conducted excavations at Ayodhya under Professor A.K. Narain. Excavations revealed that the first occupation of Ayodhya could be ascribed to the early Seventh century BC.
- Between 1975 and 1980, Professor B.B. Lal undertook the project- Archaeology of Ramayana Site and published summary in Indian Archaeology 1976-1977 –A review.
- 1980s – VHP and other Hindu nationalist groups launched collective campaign to construct RJB mandir.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Leftists (quotes from Suraj Bhan, People’s democracy 3rd March 1911) would argue, of course, without research and only to be discredited later that:
- Stone pillars forming part of Masjid structure is “absolutely unfounded”
- Carvings of pillars don’t “specifically relate to Rama temples”
- Structure collapsed by itself anytime between 11th century and 1528 for the pillars to be re-used in Babri Masjid
- [And this one is the best] Even if “hypothetically speaking, some remains of a Rama temple were found below Babri masjid, wrongs of past cannot be rectified today.”
- Apart from obnoxious and ill-founded moral high ground, leftists were preparing to provide absolutely nothing well researched in the legal arguments. They were however dishing out books, pamphlets, opinion-editorials and conferences and seminars condemning the communal historians.
Time Period – 20th century Post-Independence to 1989
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- September 1990, L.K. Advani started rath yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya. Rajiv Gandhi invited representatives of BMAC and VHP and evidence of both sides were presented on 26th December to his government and exchanged.
- On 10th January 1991, it was decided that the evidence would be divided under four heads – History, Archaeology, revenue records and law. This is where deep study of each of the above mentioned records came together.
- June 1992, more archaeological findings came forward during leveling the ground at Ayodhya.
- In 1992, booklet from Pro-RJB side was published containing pictures of pillar bases (size of bases was an important and definitive evidence in archeological findings which would destroy “pillars were brought from outside” argument)
- No progress was made other than exchange of evidence. Leftist Historians who were ready with 42 academics few weeks back in signing a statement that there was absolutely no proof of a pre-existing temple at Babri site, at the exchange of evidence kept demanding more and more time to evaluate the evidences.
- Till December 1992 BMAC representatives stayed away from talks.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- Professor Irfan Habib accused B.B. Lal of being “prophet” of the movement, indicted him of being inspired by Biblical archaeology.
- 13th May 1991 Left Historians who had participated as BMAC experts regretted in writing to the government that they were doing negotiations with the VHP.
- Prof. D Mandal stated that those were not pillar bases but walls. The 14 stone pillars were decorative pieces and not load-supporting pillars. Based only on pillar base pictures (and no individual research) concluded that mosque was built on an open space. They said that the June 1992 evidence was planted (although it was proven to be done under required supervision).
- On 8th November 1992, they stated “…despite our frantic and continuous search for presence of temple at Babri site for last twenty-two months, so far we have not been favoured with any luck”
- Till December 1992 BMAC representatives stayed away from talks.
- On 6th December 1992 Babri masjid was demolished.
Time Period – Post Babri Demolition
Pro – Rama Janma Bhumi researchers
- The most important discovery from Babri demolition was a Gahadavala inscription.
- Ideally this stone slab that fell from the wall of Babri should have settled the Ayodhya controversy once and for all. It was THE PROOF that a temple lay beneath the masjid. Professor Ajay Mitra Shastri, specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics stated
- Inscription is in chaste and classical Nagari script
- Dated to 11th or 12th century
- Recorded beautiful temple of Vishnu Hari, unparalleled by any other temple built earlier
- Constructed in temple city of Ayodhya, situated in Saketa mandala
- Described God Vishnu destroying King Bali (in Vamana avatar) and Dashanana (Ravana)
- On being asked by Home ministry and Allahabad High court, Dr K.V. Ramesh, former Director of Epigraphy, ASI also deciphered same information and dated the slab to mid-12th century.
- Lucknow museum Inscription number 53.4 broken on upper right was compared against the slab broken on bottom right because of Prof Irfan Habib’s charge of it being stolen. Lucknow inscription was ‘fragmentary’ while Ayodhya inscription was 5 feet by 2 feet. The dates didn’t match as alleged by Irfan Habib – to have been stolen in 1953 and to be kept hidden till 1992.
- In 2003 Special Bench of Allahabad High court directed Archaeological Survey of India to undertake excavations at Ram Janma Bhumi, revealing remains from beneath the disputed site.
- Terracotta objects and fragments dated to Shunga period (2nd century BC), Kushan period (1st to 3rd century CE), Gupta period (4th to 6th century CE), post-Gupta Rajput period (7th to 10th century) and early medieval period (11th to 12th century CE) were identified.
- Pillar bases were important find (and their size was an important evidence that the pillars once stood at them and that the pillars were not independent adornments)
- Foundations, trenches, and nearly 50 pillar bases were found from the excavations and the structure was definitely not for residential use, but public use purpose
- Glazed ware shards and glazed tiles at each successive levels were found during excavations.
- Structural plan had garbha griha, mandapa, ardha mandapa and wide mandapa- distinctive feature of Hindu temples.
- C14 dating dates Level 1 (lowest level excavated) remains to as back as 13th Century BCE strengthening the Hindu belief that itihasa of Shri Rama is older than that of Shri Krishna and Hastinapur.
- In short, ASI concluded temple existed for long before Babri mosque.
- Earlier form of Ram Chabutra excavated, which appeared to match the description of Joseph Tieffenthaler.
Left Historians and BMAC researchers
- On ASI excavations, Leftists argued court is giving “tacit judicial recognition” to the principle that monument could be destroyed if there were grounds for assuming that a religious site of other community had previously stood at the site.
It was also time for historians and archaeologists to try to discredit the find. Sample this:
- D Mandal without seeing the inscription said “it may or may not be fake”
- Leftists hitherto saying Saketa is different from Ayodhya started saying the precise location is doubtful. Prof Mandal pronounced “If it is a genuine inscription and if the information as contained therein is correctly interpreted, in that case, the temple as referred to should be looked for somewhere else, as there was no temple at the site of the Babri masjid in Ayodhya…”(New Age, 11-17 April 1999). He offered absolutely no reason for this reasoning.
- Sita Ram Roy (“without seeing the photograph, estampage of the inscription or its decipherment”) stated etymologically the terms Vishnu Hari both mean Vishnu, so they cannot connote Lord Vishnu, “rather it signifies an individual person named Vishnu Hari”. Roy also stated mandir could also mean dwelling house or palace and not temple because Devalaya means temple.
- Dr. K.M. Shrimali said “capabilities of modern day stone cutters and carvers should neither be underestimated nor denied”.
- Irfan Habib in People’s democracy, 2002 declared “certainly a plant as far as mosque is concerned” and the slab is in “mint-fresh condition” and certainly came from “a private collection”. He also later on said the missing inscription No. 53.4 from Lucknow museum is the slab
- Prof Habib’s critique came even before the ASI report, accused ASI of “deliberately ignoring mosque below the Babri mosque” and “wish to find…the remains of temple”. He said pillar bases could be low stalls for shops, and condemned report as “an unprofessional document, full of gross omissions , one sided presentations of evidence, falsification and motivated inferences”
- Other leftists too questioned the registers, entries, supervisor diary and stratigraphy (usually done layer, dynasty or century wise- ASI did all three), makara pranala, circular shrine, glazed tiles etc. that were made. None of these stood counter-questions.
- Idgah or qanati was alleged to be beneath the temple, to which court observed surprise at the possibility. Later Suraj Bhan disclosed to court that it was done to counter the “propaganda” of temple remains.
While writing this piece I had to force myself to stop somewhere. The matter is in Supreme Court and several other articles can explain the judgment of Allahabad High Court. This part was written only to highlight how real and fake historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, numismatics expert and lawyers work. While real independent researchers were going through thousands of documents, land records, Itihasa, epics, granthas, archives of administration letters, foreign travelers’ records, Babarnama, invader’s records, court records, and sculptural and archaeological evidences; the fake researchers were intellectualizing the conflict and pouring an unhealthy dose of Nehruvian secularism into masses through main stream media. While real researchers toiled, leftist historians personally attacked Prof B.B Lal and others of professional dishonesty.
The number of articles dished out by the Leftist Historians on Babri is huge and the quotes one can get surprised at are countless. If we carefully observe the dates, at each successive massive blow to the “Idea of India” brigade in the court by the knowledgeable pro-RJB experts, pro Babri Historians were again writing their busted in court lies as facts. They were accepting in court that the virgin land under Babri was their reactive lie, yet were again pushing same virgin land theory in their op-eds. They were being discredited left, right and centre in the court through the legal records, land records, literary and archaeological evidences, yet they kept the reigns of media narrative in their hands. How and why? You tell me.
Irfan Habib had said “a purely Muslim kind of structure is being appropriated as a Hindu one” and called this “a regular part of the VHP kind of propagandist archaeology rather than report from a body called Archaeological Survey of India”.
References
Jain, Meenkashi 2013 Rama and Ayodhya, Aryan Book International
Decision of Hon’ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters, http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do
People’s Democracy http://peoplesdemocracy.in/
No comments:
Post a Comment