Archive for the ‘Gyanendra Pandey’ Category

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (3)?

January 14, 2016

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (3)?

Malda map, IHC, poppy cultivation

Why the eminent historians are not punished for their lies and falsehood spread with their popularity[1]: As R. Vaidhyanathan[2] pointed out, “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? ” Though, he raised this issue three years back, it was ignored and perhaps not noticed by many or such views were blacked out in the media, so that others might look at. Only one side views are presented to the readers, so that they believe what they read?  Now, coming to the issue, what Azam Khan told has to be noted in the context.

03-01-2016 violence Malda by Mus;ims preplannedAzam khan started “homosexual” controversy dragging RSS (November 2015): According to a report in Nai Dunia, the loudmouth SP leader, while commenting on the contentious issue of homosexuality, said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) members are like that (homosexuals)[3], thus, the Zeenews reported. Driving his point home[4], Khan maintained ”this is the reason why the RSS people don’t marry.” This was reported on November 20th, 2015. The RSS had, however, taken a strong objection to Azam Khan’s statement and said that the SP leader has lost his mental balance. Khan’s comments came after Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, last Saturday, said that the “judgment on gay sex should be reconsidered” by the Supreme Court. “Supreme Court’s 2014 verdict banning gay sex is not in accordance with evolving legal jurisprudence and court needs to reconsider it,” Jaitley said while speaking at Times LitFest. Was it progressive or regressive view of a rightist? Thus, instead of appreciating, they stooped down to create problems and run riot for some reason. Incidentally, another case has also to be mentioned and discussed here, where, also the eminent historians were involved. It is nothing but the case of VJA Flynn, Australian professor, numismatist, Persian scholar and writer of books with some of them.

VJA Flynn case involving eminent historiansHow the eminent historians promoted smuggling of antiquities through Vincent John Adams Flynn: Dr. (Vincent John Adams) Flynn, the Australian Professor who used to come to India and smuggle out pre-Mauryan antiquities including coins and was caught red-handed at Indira Gandhi International Airport and then escaped through Indo-Australian Diplomatic agreement. He has been a very close and good friend of A.A.A. Rizvi, Nural Hassan, Irfan Habib and other “eminent” and “elite” historians of India! He has authored books with A.A.A. Rizvi, B.P. Saxena In 1993, “The officers of DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence), Delhi Zonal Unit, intercepted a consignment of antiquities which were being allegedly attempted to be smuggled out to Hong Kong in six packages vide shipping Bill No 416 dated January 19, 1993 by making false declaration as handicraft items of stones. The alleged antiquities were loaded from a container which was parked at ICD Tughlakabad, Okhla.” What were the items? 18 stone sculptures of deities, certified to be antiquities, by the Archaeological Survey of India. DRI officers caught hold of Girish Dhawan and registered a complaint that his services had been engaged for documentation and processing of shipping bills in question, for `a huge sum of rupees’. One learns from the text of the Delhi High Court judgment dated May 1 that the complaint had been filed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act; queerly, “no complaint was filed for the violation of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.”

Which eminent historians and archaeologists gave certificates to VJA Flynn?: At the court, the accused relied upon a 1996 decision of the Delhi High Court: Dr. V.J.A. Flynn vs S.S. Chauhan[5]. That story was about Flynn and Sadasivan Mudaliar who were allegedly leaving for Sydney via Hong Kong by Air India Flight on June 21, 1994. “On being intercepted at the airport, it transpired that in the baggage of the petitioner there were coins which were suspected to be antiquities the export of which is prohibited under Section 3 of the Antiquities Act,” reads the text of Justice Usha Mehra’s verdict dated March 4, 1996. Flynn’s defence was that he had bought the rare coins from a shop in Bangalore. “He further states that he had been collecting the coins for over 50 years for his own delight and enjoyment. Some of these coins were of copper and silver.” Thus, he would have got certificates from his friendly-historians to the effect that they were only less than 100 / 50 years. Incidentally, their names were not mentioned, but, from the certificates produced to Custom authorities, who issued such certificates could be noted. Meanwhile Superintending Archaeologist examined the coins and prima facie opined that the same were antiquities.

Colonial impunity, Commonwealth courtesy and delay in bureaucracy helped Flynn to flow out of India!:  Antiquity is defined as including: “any coin, sculpture, painting epigraph or other work of art or craftsmanship; any article, object or thing detached from a building or cave; any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals or politics in bygone ages; any article, object or thing of historical interest; any article, object or thing declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be an antiquity for the purposes of this Act, which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years; and any manuscript, record or other document which is of scientific, historical, literary or aesthetic value and which has been in existence for not less than seventy-five years.” Justice Mehra pointed out that the predecessor Act, that is, the Antiquities Act, 1947, had made all the provisions of the Customs Act applicable to an offence committed under the Antiquities Act. However, the 1972 Act had omitted the applicability of all the provisions of the Customs Act. Accordingly, provisions of the Customs Act are now applicable only for confiscation and penalty, said the judge. Punishment and prosecution had to be under the Antiquities Act, she added, before quashing the complaint. In the Dhawan case, DRI submitted that the Flynn decision had been taken to the apex court through a Special Leave Petition[6].

Malda riot by the Muslims after IHC on 3-1-2016IHC ended with resolution on 30-12-2015 and the riots started on 03-01-2016: So when Hindu religion, beliefs, system and Hindus have been under such orchestrated, constant and continuous attacks, criticism and blasphemical talks and acts, can all such aggressive and intrusive acts be tolerated by the meek, mild and naive Hindus? The Times of India had in a report said that Tiwari, who claims to be the working president of Hindu Mahasabha, had called Prophet Muhammad the first homosexual in the world[7]. It is clear that TOI published such news in isolation without giving the context or full speech. Then, it adds that, “Tiwari’s statement had come a day after UP Cabinet minister Azam Khan called RSS members homosexuals”. According to reports, around one lakh Muslims on Friday 01-01-2016 gathered in Muzaffarnagar, demanding death penalty for Tiwari[8] i.e, fatwa for him! Straight away capital punishment ordered without arrest, trial etc., though, at the other side, the same progressive, leftists and other categories oppose it.

Malda set on fire buy the muslimsChauri-chaura type attack on Policce stations: Protesters under the banner of ‘Ittehad-e-Millat’ led by Maulana Khalid, closed their business and demonstrated against the Hindu Mahasabha activist [9]. Similar protests against Tiwari have been reported from Bengaluru and Delhi. Protesting against some `blasphemous` statements made by a Hindu Mahasabha leader Kamlesh Tiwari, a large number of people on Thursday 07-01-2016 went on a rampage in Purnea district of Bihar, torching vehicles and attacking a police station[10]. The Union Home Ministry has asked the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal for a report on the mob violence on Sunday, during a protest march at Kaliachak, a town near Malda which is the headquarter of the district of the same name. Protesters had set fire to a police station and damaged vehicles[11]. On Sunday, over a lakh protesters gathered for a rally called by a little-known Muslim organization Idara-e-Shariya against a right-wing activist’s alleged hate speech in Uttar Pradesh. The crowd then ransacked the jeep and attacked the Kaliachak police station and vehicles parked outside it. They also ransacked police barracks and a Block Development Officer’s office. Police sources said the mob also ransacked a locality where mostly Hindus live, but there was no retaliation and so no clashes and no loss of lives. Again, there was no condemnation from the IHC or any other tolerant activists for such unlawful attacks, mob violence and looting of public and private properties. However, the IHC had been quick enough to pass the following resolutions and incited the Muslims, as in Malda, the Muslim population has been sizeable[12] and all such acts to start within a week of the winding up of the 76th session at the Goud Banga University on December 30th 2015.

© Vedaprakash

14-01-2016

[1] R Vaidyanathan, Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited ’eminent’ historians, Dec 6, 2012 16:05 IST.

[2] R Vaidyanathan is Professor of Finance and Control, IIM Bangalore, The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.

 http://www.firstpost.com/india/babri-demolition-how-hc-verdict-discredited-eminent-historians-547549.html

[3] http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/sp-leader-azam-khan-stirs-fresh-controversy-says-rss-leaders-are-homosexuals_1828366.html

[4] Zeenews, SP leader Azam Khan stirs fresh controversy, says RSS leaders are homosexuals, Last Updated: Monday, November 30, 2015 – 15:22.

[5] VJA Flynn vs Union of India – 2004 (163) ELT A59 (SC); VJA Flynn vs Union of India – 2004 (167) ELT A177 (SC).

[6] http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/06/12/stories/2006061200621600.htm

[7] http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/this-is-what-kamlesh-tiwari-said-about-prophet-muhammad-which-infuriated-muslims_1833716.html

[8] http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/this-is-what-kamlesh-tiwari-said-about-prophet-muhammad-which-infuriated-muslims_1833716.html

[9] http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/who-is-kamlesh-tiwari-why-1-lakh-muslims-are-demanding-death-penalty-for-him_1833614.html

[10] http://zeenews.india.com/news/bihar/malda-fire-reaches-bihars-purnea-protesters-ransack-police-station_1842893.html

[11] http://www.ndtv.com/cheat-sheet/mob-violence-near-malda-home-ministry-asks-mamata-government-for-report-1262797

[12] India cultural forum, Indian History Congress: “Don’t break monuments, don’t incite religious sentiments”, Jan.11, 2016.

Advertisements

What Irfan Habib was doing at the “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

October 31, 2013

What Irfan Habib was doing at the “Convention for People’s Unity Against Communalism”?

How and why anti-Modi, anti-BJP propaganda should be anti-Hindu?

How and why anti-Modi, anti-BJP propaganda should be anti-Hindu?

Comrade historian joins the “Third Front”: Inaugurating the convention, noted historian Irfan Habib, an Indian Marxist historian of ancient and medieval India, talked of how during the Partition there were enough instances of Hindu-Muslim amity. But he acknowledged the secular character of the country was hit by events like the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 violence in Gujarat where Muslims were at the receiving end of Hindus[1]. So, as usual, he just takes the balancing of “communalization” or “secularization” of the 1984 and 2002 events, but make others to forget the riots of other years. However, Indians know very well that Irfan Habib never cared for 1984 or the secular historians dominating the forums like Indian History Congress (IHC), Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Forum for Secular Historians etc., and passing resolutions favouring “secular”, “non-communal”, “anti-communal” forces!

Habib speaks at AMU 2010

Irfan Habib excused on health grounds, but inaugurated the Conference: Though, non-Congress secular political players have shown keen interest to join the left sponsored conclave, noted intellectuals with secular credentials are giving it a miss with alibis of health reasons or foreign trip preventing them to attend, though the convention  enlisted as non-political participants of different calibres . Irfan Habib  excused himself on the health ground[2], but he inaugurated the conference. From this, Indians have to understand their true colours of opportunism, treacherous gangsterism, ideological duplicity etc. For appearing in Courts, the accused, appellants, respondents of various categories take shelter under “health grounds” to evade judicial proceedings. In the same way, “eminent, elite” historians also follow such judious-dodgers, but as Prakash Karat had obviously requested, indeed, he appeared and inaugurated!

Habib speaks at Sahmat 2004

Anti-communal or anti-Modi or anti-BJP or anti-Hindu: Indian voters have to identify consciously, who have wanted to associate and parade as “secularists” in India against the interests of Indians under the guise of “secularism”, “communalism” and so on.

They include –

  • Shyam Benegal, theatre personality
  • Raj Babbar, actor and Congress spokes person
  • Mallika Sarabhai activist and classical dancer who was among those petitioning the Supreme Court on the 2002 Gujarat riots,
  • Prof U R Ananda Murthy, Kannada literature.
  • Irfan Habib, Left historian

Politically, parties could be anti-Modi, anti-BJP etc., but how they could be anti-Hindu? How all the anti-Hindu forces, radical elements, fundamental ideologies and others gang themselves to drive the bandwagon of perfidious secularism? They should note how different categories of them come together. To give one example, in 2010 note the persons who came together: Justice P.B. Sawant, Justice Hosbet Suresh, Justice SHA Raza, Justice Rajinder Sachar, economist Professor Prabhat Patnaik, historians Professor Irfan Habib and Professor Shireen Moosvi, etc attended the three-day symposium “Faith and Fact: Democracy after the Ayodhya Verdict” and gave sermons as usual[3]. About NCERT text books, again they come together[4]. They do not care for Supreme court judgments, though very often, they sermon that judiciary should be respected and so on! Therefore, “secular Indians” cannot keep silence about these personalities playing double game with Indian citizens. They have to identify them and unveil them.

Moosvi, Habib, Patnaik-sahmat-communalism combat-social scientist

“The Hindu” does not know Irfan Habib: “The Hindu”, as usual, characteristically reported[5] under the caption “Congress wary of Delhi meet helping BJP”, without mentioning that the comrade Irfan Habib inaugurated the conference. Ironically, though it elaborates about “attack on Congress”, it suppresses many facts including one that Congress was very happy to support and even sponsor it indirectly as Arnav Goswami was suggesting in the evening[6]. “The Hindu”, though poses as “secularist”, now perhaps, everybody has understood that it has been “anti-Hindu”, carrying on its propaganda. Even in the case of RJM issue, how it suppressed the writings of Dr R Nagaswamy, K. V. Raman and other historians is well-known.

Irfan Habib twitter

Text of the resolution adopted at the Convention for People’s Unity & Against Communalism[7]: In the case of “Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid” issue, “The Hindu” generously accommodated the communist, Marxist, secularist, anti-communalist, atheist, radical and other categories of histories to spit venom in its columns including the subsidiary “Frontline”! Thus, without “Irfan Habib”, it has faithfully given the following as the text of the resolution of the Conference:

“India is a country with various religions, languages, castes and cultures. But there is an underlying unity in the diversity. A unity, which is based on the unity of the people, which makes us all Indians.This unity of the people and the country is under threat from the communal forces. While the people of India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians and many others fought together for independence, the communal ideology and communal organisations stayed away and instead sought to divide the people. The people rejected the communal ideology and India became a secular democratic republic.At present, the communal forces are once again seeking to raise communal issues and create communal tensions. In the light of the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections, the communal campaign has been intensified. This has resulted in outbreak of communal incidents in various parts of the country. The riots in Muzaffarnagar are the most glaring example.

It is necessary for the secular and democratic forces to unitedly counter the communal forces of all varieties and maintain people’s unity.

This Convention calls upon the secular and democratic forces to strengthen their efforts amongst the people and mobilize them for rebuffing the communal forces, preserve communal amity, defend our composite culture and strengthen the unity of the people”.

 

Marxist historian work together ideologicallyHere, also the work of Irfan Habib is noted. Therefore, now perhaps all these “eminent-elite” historians may join “Third-Front”!

Vedaprakash

31-10-2013


[6] CNN-IBN debate on the “Third-Front” in which Raja, D. P. Trivedi of NCP and others participated on 30-10-2013.

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

October 16, 2010

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or

Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

Vedaprakash

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid and eminent hisorians: The eminent historians would appear immediately, whenever “Rama” appears in the headlines of Indian media. They start interpreting historicity of “Ramayana” according to their own way without any regard for the other view or perspective[1]. Even in the case of Sethu-samuthram, they started writing in “the Hindu” and EPW grinding their mills as usual[2]. Of course, the left media does / did not want the opinion of the others[3]. They vociferously lecture and write that they would appeal against the judgment and so on, but disappear thereafter. They exploit every forum like IHC etc., only to project their viewpoint[4]. Romila Thapar roared, “We would appeal against this jugment”, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came[5], but nothing happened! And the faithful readers of “The Hindu”, Frontline, EPW and the devoted members of IHC etc., also do not bother as to why their eminent historians tell lies or play such dubious games? Why they believe the eminent historians, because of their eminence or for their duplicity? Have they ever thought about them as to why they behave like that? Now, again these left / eminent intellectuals / historians have been busy with issuing statements. Besides, historians and experts others too join!

130 experts sign – ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice[6] (14-10-2010): Now 130 experts have come out with an open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India! The news reports say like this, “The Allahabad High Court based a significant part of its judgment in the Ayodhya case on the evidence provided by the Archaeological Survey of India’s report on its excavations at the site, submitted to the court in 2003. They accuse that the report is still hidden from the public eye, and a virtual gag order placed on archaeologists who acted as observers during the excavation[7]. Now that the judgment has been pronounced, a group of 130 academics, activists and intellectuals have demanded that the ASI report be published. In an open letter[8] to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, they urged that the report “be made available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record.” The ASI report, which concluded that a temple had existed at the site, has been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves at all levels which indicated Muslim residence”[9].

Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court: “In May, archaeologists Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court for sharing their observations in a book, titled “Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation”, published by Tulika in 2007. The orders in that case have been reserved”. That means they know the implications of the law. That is why they have been keeping quite since 2003!

The open letter and signatories: “The open letter notes that, “the world at large is equally constrained to silence. Such a judicially ordained zone of uncertainty curbs freedom of expression and fair comment.” Indians have never seen them in other caes where such issues have been involved. Thus, they want to selective!

Signatories: “The letter was signed by well-known Indian academics such as Sumit Sarkar, Uma Chakravarti, K.N. Pannikkar, K. Satchidanandan, Ajay Dandekar and filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, as well as less well-known Indian citizens – a software engineer, a textile design consultant, a teacher[10]. Academics from abroad – including those from universities in London, Chicago, Stockholm and Copenhagen – have also signed the letter, as friends of India”. This type of letters have been issued since 1992 and many times, the so-called signatories say that they have simply agreed to include their names in such letters. In some cases, they did / do not know also about the inclusion of their names!

Romila Thapar and others: Statement issued through Sahamat (01-10-2010): Another report goes like this: “Questioning the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, a group of left-leaning intellectuals on Friday said the judgment was “yet another blow to the secular fabric of the country” and the “repute of our judiciary”.  The scholars, including Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik and C P Chandrasekhar, said in a statement through the platform of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) that the verdict had raised “serious concerns” because of the way history, reason and secular values had been treated in it. “The view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations — the presence of animal bones throughout as well as the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque,” the statement noted.

The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian’s perspective[11] (01-10-2010): Under this caption, the view of romila thapar appeared in “The Hindu”. It goes like this, “It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with religious faith.

“The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

“The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief[12]. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

“The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

“The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

“A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage[13] was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.

Has created a precedent[14]: The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.

What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed[15]. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the pas[16]t to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence”.

Earlier stand – Irfan Habib (01-10-2010): “With the three judges pronouncing differing opinions on the historical and archaeological aspects of the case in the Allahabad High Court’s judgement on the disputed land in Ayodhya, many leading historians have been left bemused. “It’s not a logical judgement with so many parts going 2-1. One does not accept the logicality of the judgement,” said Irfan Habib, a noted historian and a former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research who earlier taught at the Aligarh Muslim University. He noted that the verdict seemed to legitimise the events of 1949[17], when an idol was placed inside the mosque, by constant references. On the other hand, by minimising any mentions of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the court seemed to be disregarding it, he said. He also expressed surprise that two judges questioned the date of construction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the involvement of emperor Babar or his commander Mir Baqi, since there had been clear inscriptions to this effect before the demolition. “Things that are totally clear historically, the court has tried to muddy,” he said[18].

D. N. Jha: “The historical evidence has not been taken into account,” said D.N. Jha, history professor at the Delhi University. Noting the judgement’s mention of the “faith and belief of Hindus” in reference to the history of the disputed structure, Dr. Jha asked why the court had requested an excavation of the site.“If it is a case of ‘belief,’ then it becomes an issue of theology, not archaeology. Should the judiciary be deciding cases on the basis of theology is a question that needs to be asked,” he said.

Supriya Verma, one of the observers: Professional archaeologists also noted that the judges did not seem to rely heavily on the Archaeological Survey of India’s court-directed excavation of the site in 2003, at least in the summaries of their verdict available on Thursday evening. “Somewhere, there is doubt about the credibility of that report,” said Supriya Verma of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who acted as an observer during the ASI excavation. She noted that neither Justice Sudhir Agarwal nor Justice Dharam Veer Sharma even referenced the ASI report to support his conclusion on the existence of a temple on the site before the mosque was built. “It is almost as though they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. They are clearly conceding that there was no archaeological evidence of a temple or of its demolition…It is a judgement of theology,” she said.

Jaya Menon, one of the observers: Another observer of the ASI excavation, Jaya Menon of the Aligarh Muslim University, noted that the ASI report itself did not provide any evidence of a demolition, and only asserted the existence of a temple in its conclusion. “So I don’t know on what basis they made their judgements,” she said. The ASI report had been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves which indicated Muslim residents.

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Allahabad case: The eminent historians, historical experts  and leftist manufacturers never bother about their secular credentials.  It is not known as to why these coteries should always support for the Masjid or Muslim cause. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question, which is criticised by them:

Sl.No Witness no Name of the witness
1 Witness No. 63 R.S. Sharma
2 Witness No. 64 Suraj Bhan
3 Witness No. 65 D.N. Jha[19]
4 Witness No. 66 Romila Thapar
5 Witness No. 70 Irfan Habib
6 Witness No. 72 B.N. Pandey
7 Witness No. 95 K.M. Shrimali
8 Witness No. 99 Satish Chandra
9 Witness No. 102 Gyanendra Pandey

Then, where is their loci standi in criticising the judgment and Court? As witnesses, definitely, they could have deposed before the judges presenting their “historical facts” as they only know how to interpret! The public perhaps, even today do not know that in secular India, these historians stood witnesses to the Muslims! Why none has appeared for Hindus or temple cause? When the cold-blooded terrorist and heinous killer like Kasab is given legal aid, why none appeared for the non-Muslim and non-mosque group? Where is secularism? Would they come out in the public what they told to the judges in the Court? However, the poor show showed in the court by them raises many questions.

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause: Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude:  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 Allahabad High Court judge 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 courts astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

The vociverous historians could not give evidences properly as witnesses with all their extertise[20]: Some instances underlined by the judge are[21]:

  • Suvira Jaiswal[22] 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 on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.

  • Supriya Verma[23], 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[24] 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…[25] the judge 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[26]. Justice Agarwal 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.

When the matter is subjudice, one has to obey law: It is a simple matter that whenever, any issue / case is pending with the Court, as the matter is subjudice, it should not be discussed or the decisions cannot be drawn in favour of anybody. However, these left historians etc., have been always speaking and writing supporting for Muslim cause or against Hindus, as is evident from their own recorded / printed statements / articles always published in the selected in few journals / ndewspapers. Unfortunately, they have even agreed to be witnesses for the Wakf Board in the Allahabad Court as their names are figuring. Ironivcally, they are called as Sunni Wakf Board experts![27]

When religions rely upon belief system, so also secularism historians too belive so ignoring objectivity: Like believers and dis-believers historians too believe and compel others to believe their perspective without any objectivity. As their objectivity differes, their perspective also differ, but try to argue with ideology, as could be understood by others. With belief system, no two ideologists could come together; with objectivity no two historians could accept the same historical event in the same view or pwerspective; here, the media has been projecting only one view. So what about the other view and why the media does not provide opportunity to accommodate their view? Should “audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide” be applicable only to the Courts according to the principle of natural justice or the historians do not want to follow?

The same pattern as noted in the case of DK, DMK and other rapid atheists and radical experts is noted in the case of these eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts: As it is pointed out in the case of DK[28]-DMK[29] radicals and rabid atheist groups that they do not come to Courts or face courts, though, they used to cry and roar that they are not afraid of Courts and so on. Here, also, suppressing the facts, these historians talk and write one thing in the dailies and cover up their mumbling and bungling in the court. The court recordings of the witnesses have been actually exposing their hollowness of expertise, deceptiveness of historical knowledge and their dubious role as witnesses. That they accuse even without seeing, even without reading or just discussing with others etc, prove their capacity of manoeuvring and manipulation of academics. How they get PhDs etc., only prove such academic degradation and professional pampering without any shame or remorse. It is open secret that the JNU, AMU, DU, IHC, ICHR and others at one side and BMAC, Sunni Wakf Board, AIMPLB at the other side have been playing communalism under the guise of secularism. Just by accusing others they cannot live, survive and continue their careers in this competitive world.

Why the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts did not respond to the remarks of the Judge? Definitely, the remarks of the Judge have been questioning the integrity of the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts, who deposed before the court as witnesses! They cannot simply brush aside such exposure, as it casts aspersion on their position. The English reading Indians and Indian students may doubt their veracity, reliability and uprightness, as they read their writings or listen to them. Therefore, they should go to court to clear the mess instead of shooting out letters to the Chief Justice just like politicians.

Indians and Indian youth should note as to whether these Sunni Board experts should teach history. Very often, it is said, claimed and propagated that India is / has been secular. Yes, how then the eminent historians professional archaeologists acted as Sunni Wakf Board experts and deposed as witnesses to the Muslims? Why these retired historians, senile professors and their working agents always make clamor about history, historicity and historiography in India, as if they are the sole selling agents of such stuff? Nowadays, the fact is that a few have been takers for history and most of the universities have dispensed with history subject. Definitely, the so-called historians have lost their importance and thus they tried to struggle for survival with the political and communal support. Now, the documents are available to all and the facts are known to everybody who access them through internet or otherwise. Common people may not know or understand the deceptive talkings and writings of the eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts, but slowly they come to know. They easily understand that who want to settle the dispute and who want to continue the dispute for their stakes. Definitely, Muslims and Hindus want to settle the issue once for all, but these history gamblers and politicians want to continue. Therefore, the will of people prevail.

Vedaprakash

16-10-2010


 

[2] Romila Thapar, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007).

…………………., Historical Memory without History, in Economic and Political weekly, VOL 42 No. 39 September 29 – October 05, 2007, pp.3903-3905.

K. N. Panikkar, Myth, history and politics, Frontline, October 5, 2007, pp.21-24.

Suraj Bhan, “Government should have stood by ASI”, Ibid, pp.19-20.

[4] During the 2007-IHC session, Suvira Jaiswal was making such satatements. Then, in Delhi also they tried take up the matter. Now, in February 2011 at Malda, they may raise the issue. However, the Indians have to weait and see.

[5] In “the Hindu”, as usual, the news appeared with her photo and all, but after that everbody would have forgot about it! However, their warrior-like talk, veiled threatening and tactics of suppression of facts cannot be acquired by others.

[6] The Hindu, ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice, Published: October 14, 2010 01:54 IST | Updated: October 14, 2010 02:03 IST; http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/14/stories/2010101464751800.htm

[7] How this has been a blatant lie has been exposed by the judge and that is why these guys have now tried to save their image by writing such letters. Of course, the media gives due publicity to such hypes and gimmicks.

[8] However, their mumbling, jumbling and bungling deposes before the Court have been kept as closed secret!

[9] Thus the eminent historians look for a non-vegetarian kitchen of Muslims there instrad of a temple. The same experts declared that the 16” inscription was planted by the Karsevaks in 1992.

[10] When Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti works on the same lines, the same eminent historians make fun of having such diversified experts, but now they themselves have such signatories, just to project their strength.

[11] The Hindu, Published: October 2, 2010 00:41 IST | Updated: October 2, 2010.

[12] There is nothing new in Romila’s argument, as she repeats the same matter again and again. The unfortunate thing is that she like her friends always want others should accept their views!

[13] How they contradict in their views legally can be noted in such statements. When convenience comes, they forget law, when law is against them, they start talking generalization or raise the bogey of “Hindutva”!

[14] Law precedence is created in the Court. Yes, definitely, the judges are the persons to create and others have to accept. Of course, the appealable legal remedy is there.

[15] But whatever happened also cannot be forgotten. When the same historians want to whitewash the temple destruction of the Muslims and accept only the Muslim contribution, such type of exclusivist logic is not explained. Why the students should not know the facts? In law it is said audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide. How then historians want to decide without knowing the other side?

[16] Why then the interpretation of the past is always different for different historians? Nowadays, historians do not want objectivity also. How then they woerry about accuracy, when they themselves are not worried about it?

[17] Acts and Rules are within the time frame work. All know that Places of Worship Act is there and it e3xempts only this place and not others. Why then they talk about pre-1947 and after 1947, when law its4elf  cannot do so?

[18]The Hindu, Historical evidence ignored, say historians, dated October 1, 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805087.ece

[23] It is interesting to note that the ASI report talks about a shrine followed by a temple with different structural phases, it also talks of “animal bones recovered from various levels of different periods”. If any shrine and a temple existed how can anyone account for the animal bones, Supriya Verma asks? She also maintains that stones and decorated bricks could have been used in any building, not necessarily only in a temple. Also, the carved architectural members have come from the debris and not from the stratified context.

[24] She got appointment in the AMU after she started supporting the cause of mosque and appeared as Sunni Wakf Board expert!

[25] The historians who deposed as witnesses and as well as others should carefully read this and understand their postion. They cannot pretend as if nothing happened or pose as great authorities and roam here and there in historical forums and conferences. Now Indians have also understood their double-games, double-speak and double-standards.

[26] Nowadays, just like medical experts or specialized doctors, these historians ad archaeologists trading charges like this – so-and-so is an expert in that field and he alone can know the truth and others cannot know the truth. Such type of exclusive mind-set exposes their arrogance and weakness and not the real expertise.

[27]Asghar ali Engineer, Archaeological Excavations and Temple, September 1-15, 2003,  http://www.csss-isla.com/arch%20150.htm

[28] Vedaprakash, Old Judgments and  New thoughts in the present context: S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  others., http://vedaprakash.indiainteracts.in/2008/08/09/old-judgments-and-new-thoughts-in-the-present-context-s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others/