Posts Tagged ‘The Hindu’

Tying Sacred thread to pigs, cutting of sacred threads of Brahmins, Dravidian radicalism and anti-Brahminism: Dravidian Prohits becoming dominant!

August 11, 2017

Tying Sacred thread to pigs, cutting of sacred threads of Brahmins, Dravidian radicalism and anti-Brahminism: Dravidian Prohits becoming dominant!

N. Ram and DK- Veeramani - Murasoli 10-08-2017

The Dravidianization of Marxist Hindu: During 197o, the Dravida Kazhagam extremists had been emboldened with the DMK rule and started attacking Brahmins on every pretext.  In thos days, the cutting of sacred thread and attacking of one Ganapathy, Brahmin employee of “The Hindu” was famous[1], as it was nicknamed as “Mount Road Maha Vishnu” by Karunanidhi. With the labouur activities of Ramajayam, DMK leader, the offices of “The Hindu” slowly came under the grip of Dravidian polity. When Kanimozhi was divorced and mentally disturbed, she was accommodated in the editorial office of “The Hindu”. Priya daughter of Ranganathan was married to Dayanidhi Maran and thus, “The Hindu” has been “dravidianized” with all the dominant Marxism. Now, N. Ram inaugurated the Platinum Jublie of “Murasoli” on 10-08-2017 evidently his relative’s daily and praised the Dravidian movement like anything just sitting by the side of K. Veeramani! Ironically, Kamal Hassan, another Brahmin also was there to praise the “Dravidian civilization”! Here, it has to be mentioned categorically that though Ram and Kamal have been Brahmins, they have been completely secularlized enough to be more anti-Hindu. Thus, this event took place incidentally, three days after the incidence of tying sacred threads to four or five pigs by another radical wing of Dravidar Kazhagam.

Sacred thgread to pigs - Priyanka- 07-08-2017

“Poonool to Pings” ceremony carried on the road with violence: The story was reported apologetically as Priyanka Tirumurthy wrote that, “The poonool turns a Parappan into a Brahmin and a Tamilian into a Shudhran” – This startling message is embossed on a poster that carries the image of a pig wearing the ‘sacred thread’, or poonool (or poonal) as it is called by Tamil brahmins[2]. Circulated by the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (TPDK), the poster is an invite to an event where pigs would be adorned with the poonool, in a symbolic protest against Brahminism. ‘Panrikku Poonool podum porattum’, a protest where pigs will be made to wear the holy thread, was set to be held at the Sanskrit College in Chennai on 7 August 2017. The day marks Avani Avittam, which is a sacred day for Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is on this day that they change their sacred threads in a yearly ceremony. According to the TPDK, holding a protest on this day will create shockwaves amongst the Brahmin community[3]. “Brahmins wear the poonool because they want to differentiate themselves from other castes and make themselves seem superior,” says S Kumaran, Chennai President of the TPDK. “By default, the society views being compared to a pig as an insult and so we decided to use the animal,” he explains. According to this Dravidian fringe group, resentment towards Brahmins has seen a dip over the last decade but they are hoping to revive the sentiment in the state.

Sacred thgread to pigs - India today 07-08-2017

So, why plan this provocative protest now?: “With the BJP in power at the Centre, the RSS, which is basically a Brahmin outfit, has gained too much power. This is aimed at countering any effort to suppress the lower castes,” says Kumaran. When asked about the attacks of the intermediate castes on Dalits, he said, “Yes, Gounders and Vanniyars discriminate and incite violence against Dalits. But why do they do it? It is because centuries back, Brahmins created the four varnas and a hierarchy of superiority.” Last year, the TPDK tried to burn effigies of Lord Rama, Sita and Lakshmana to symbolically show opposition to ‘Aryan invasion’, a theory which has since been discredited. Now, walls across the city are painted with invitations to this anti-Brahmin protest. Anyway, the Marxist Brahmin Ram or the atheist Brahmin Kamal never cared for this and the ceremony went on well with the blessings of Periyar from the heavens. The position of  “Papatti” is not known.

PDk gang with police - a pig was caught- 07-08-2017

Indifferent Hindutwavadis: The Tamil Nadu BJP is, unsurprisingly, not impressed by this. “How can you ridicule something that is very personal to a community? If they think the sacred thread doesn’t make anyone superior, why even protest against it?” ask BJP youth wing President for Tamil Nadu, SG Suryah[4]. “They are also forgetting that it is not just Brahmins who wear this thread,” he adds. Aravindan Neelakandan, writing for the right-wing magazine Swarajya, argues that many communities like potters, carpenters and goldsmiths also don the sacred thread. Valluvars, Purohits and astronomers of Parayar community are also known to wear the sacred thread, he says, adding that wearing the sacred thread is not exclusive to one set of people. “But this is not socially accepted,” says Kumaran. “Nowhere in the vedas does it say that nobody but Brahmins can wear this thread,” he claims. What’s more, the Dravidian outfit is aware that they would not receive police permission to conduct this event. “But we will manage to carry this out without approval from the police,” says Kumaran[5]. Note: The TDPK has since changed their poster, which has been reflected here. An error in the name of the TDPK spokesperson has also been rectified.

Sacred thgread to pigs-PDMK went to court- - Indian Express- 05-08-2017

When TPDK went to court, the Hindu advocates did not care (04-08-2017): A writ plea has been made in the Madras High Court for a direction to the authorities concerned to grant permission to the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (TPDK) to conduct the ‘poonool to pig’ (varaham) festival in front of the Sanskrit College in Mylapore on Avani Avittam on August 7, 2017[6]. Justice M S Ramesh, before whom the petitions from two Kazhagam functioneries came up on Friday, posted the matter to Tuesday (August 8) after directing the Public Prosecutor to file the counters[7]. It also prayed to the court to grant permission to conduct Ravana Leela at the same venue on August 7, 2017. According to the petitioner, a community called Parpanar conducts an event called Avani Avittam on Avittam Natchatram, which falls on August 7. On that day they wear a thread made up of cotton called poonool in the name of upanayanam. The story behind wearing poonool is that once a poonool is worn by a Parpanar he will get a rebirth and will be equated to God. Burning the effigies of Rama, Lakshmana and Seetha will form part of the Ravana Leela[8]. When the petitioners approached the Mylapore police for permission, the latter not only refused the nod but also threatened them with preventive arrests[9]. In spite of the Court direction, the drama went on as reported and videographed.

PDௐ gang -Another person with police - caught by police- 07-08-2017

Four or five pigs brought tied, dragged on the road with dying of one pig: A pro-Dravidian group brought Chennai’s Royapettah to a standstill by attempting to make pigs wear holy threads on the road. Volunteers of Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam (TPDK) brought four pigs near the AIADMK headquarters and tried to make them wear holy threads as a protest against Brahminical ideology and casteism. They named this festival “adorning poonool (holy thread) to pig”, on the day of Aavani Aavitam, a day Brahmins consider sacred. TPDK cadres said that by wearing the ‘poonool,’ Brahmins consider themselves to be superior, and that attempts were made to make pigs wear them to break this thought process. Even though hundreds of cops were stationed in Royapettah, TPDK volunteers released the pigs on the road, frightening the commuters[10]. Police then detained the protesters and seized the pigs[11]. Last year [2016], the same group burnt effigies of the Hindu deities Rama and Sita in protest.

PDk gang with police - pigச் secured by police- 07-08-2017

Blue cross and other right activists kept quite: Virtually, none cared for this cruel act of dragging pigs on the road with mouth died and probably drugged, as otherwise, they would have created hell on the roads. In English, it is said that “Pig” means young and “Swine” is aged. Animal activists say this happens every year. They also say that such acts in fact end up giving more prominence to the caste that they are fighting against. In the video, a couple of guys allegedly belonging to the Dravida group are seen dragging the pig with the sacred thread[12]. This incident reportedly happened on August 7 in Chennai near AIADMK office. This is also seen as a deliberate action against Brahmins[13]. Periyar said, “If you happen to see a snake and a Brahmin, kill Brahmin and leave snake”, so if the faithful followers had realy belief in their Guru, they must have chosen “Snake” instead of  pigs to perform their radical ritual. However, they have chosen the pigs, that too tied.

© Vedaprakash

11-08-2017


PDk gang with police - a pig secured by police- 07-08-2017

[1] It is not known whether V. Ganapathy mentioned in this article is the same Ganapathy of 1970s.

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/i-was-attacked-dk-members-1989-reporting-attacks-brahmins-i-let-them-get-away

[2] The Quint, TN Outfit to Make Pigs Wear Sacred Thread to Protest Brahminism, Priyanka Thirumurthy, Updated: 22 July, 2017 6:34 PM IST.

[3] https://www.thequint.com/politics/2017/07/22/dravidian-outfit-to-make-pigs-wear-sacred-threads

[4] The News Minute, Dravidian outfit to make pigs wear sacred thread on Avani Avittam day to protest Brahminism, Priyanka Thirumurthy, Saturday: 22 July, 2017 6:34 PM IST.

[5] http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/dravidian-outfit-make-pigs-wear-sacred-thread-avani-avittam-day-protest-brahminism-65563

[6] Indian express, Plea to permit ‘poonool to pig’ festival on Aug 7, By Express News Service  |   Published: 05th August 2017 01:28 AM  | Last Updated: 05th August 2017 07:27 AM.

[7] http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2017/aug/05/plea-to-permit-poonool-to-pig-festival-on-aug-7-1638604.html

[8] The News Minute, Dravidian group moves Madras HC seeking permission for ‘Pig Poonal’ event, Saturday, August 05, 2017.

[9] http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/dravidian-group-moves-madras-hc-seeking-permission-pig-poonal-event-66293

[10] Indian today, Chennai: Pro-Dravidian group tries to make pigs wear holy threads to protest against casteism , Pramod Madhav | Edited by Ganesh Kumar Radha Udayakumar, New Delhi, August 7, 2017 | UPDATED 13:11 IST.

[11] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/thanthai-periyar-dravida-kazhagam-chennai-protest-pigs-sacred-thread/1/1020481.html

[12] Asianet.newsable, Bearing the brunt of the anti-Brahmin movement, this pig is brutally tortured, Aug. 8, 2017, 11:24 a.m.

[13] http://newsable.asianetnews.tv/video/bearing-the-brunt-of-the-anti-brahmin-movement-this-pig-is-brutally-tortured

Advertisements

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also! (1)

May 29, 2017

Gandhi Congress conducted Cow-slaughter in public in God’s own country Kerala with highest litracy and Beef-fest also! (1)

Democratic Youth Federation of India - cow-killing and beef eating Communists

DYFI national president Mohammed Riyaz, led the protest: Police in Kannur in north Kerala on 28-05-2017 (Sunday) booked 16 Youth Congress activists who slaughtered a cow in public and cooked its meat and distributed it[1]. The brazen act was committed in front of a huge crowd in Kannur Saturday during the ‘Beef Fest’ held by the Left and Congress parties in Kerala to protest against the Center’s ban[2]. “We will eat beef to show our protest against the central government. We want to tell this to Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” said DYFI national president Mohammed Riyaz, who led the protest[3].  Deccan Chronicle captioned apprpopriately[4], “Youth Congress conducts public cow slaughter in Kerala”, yet Congress has to reckon for the consequences[5]. Actually, how and why one gets an idea of “beaf-fest”, beef-the cow meat eating carnival is thought of and organized immediately? Why the choice of beef and not any other meat or flesh? Thus, the radical elements wanted to show off that it has been a communal protest and not secular or otherwise. An embarrassed Congress sought to distance itself, saying the party will not support anyone who has violated the law, but a Youth Congress activist who led the protest said he had no regrets[6]. They were charged under IPC Section 428 and section (ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960[7]. Several youth groups of the ruling CPI (M)-led LDF and Congress-headed UDF opposition have organised these festivals to protest against the Centre’s recent decision to ban sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter, a move criticised by several states. But Saturday (28-05-2017)’s slaughter seems to have backfired.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur CPM minister participated

The CPI(M)-led DYFI and SFI were in the forefront of the protests: “The Hindu” reported as follows: “With every political party barring the BJP coming out against the Central notification banning sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets, protests erupted in several parts of Kerala on Saturday, many of these places witnessing ‘beef festivals’ organised by student and youth activists. The CPI (M)-led DYFI and SFI were in the forefront of the protests, but the Opposition Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) was also in the fray, holding marches, burning effigies and organising public kitchens where beef was cooked and served to activists and passersby[8]. Among those who came out against the Central directive was Congress Working Committee (CWC) member A.K. Antony, who, while addressing a meeting to mark the 53rd death anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru, called upon party workers not to attach any importance to the Central notification and ‘tear it and throw it into the dustbin’[9].

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur-Bindu Krishna - Bhagwati Kuzh-beef

  • In Thiruvananthapuram, the agitation was led by the DYFI and SFI. Addressing activists, DYFI national president Mohamed Riyaz said, “We will cook beef and eat beef and also protest against the Central government. That is what we want to tell Narendra Modiji.”
  • In Kochi, the DYFI-SFI activists were joined by Tourism and Cooperation Minister Kadakampally Surendran and CPI (M) district secretary and former Rajya Sabha member P. Rajeev, who partook in the beef festival, the former accusing the Central government of cutting at the very root of people’s right to eat what they wanted. Youth Congress activists also took out a march against the Central measure.
  • At Kannur, Youth congress activists publicly butchered a cow to protest against the central notification while in Thodupuzha in Idukki district, protesters took out a march with the head of a buffalo[10].
  • In Kollam, Congress activists led by District Congress Committee (DCC) president Bindu Krishna cooked beef in front of the DCC office. The Centre, she said, had no right to interfere with the livelihood of lakhs of people. “This is nothing but a intrusion into the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country,” she said[11]. Ironically, this lady also participates in Bhagawati Amman festival to boil Pongal! So the Kerala secularism works differently. She may talk about Gandhi giving discourse about non-violence and also cook and eat beef.

The Hindu also added a photograph with the details: Minister for Tourism Kadakampally Surendran (right) and CPI(M) Ernakulam district secretaray P Rajeev participatin in a beef festival organised by SFI in front of Ernakulam Town Hall on Saturday to protest the Centre’s ban on sale and slaughter of cattle. Photo: Thulasi Kakkat   | Photo Credit: Thulasi Kakkat.

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- 2

How long the antics, gimmicks and tricks could go on by the radicals and ideologists?: “Beef-fests are held to protest ban on sale of cattle for slaughtering cow in Kerala market” says news report[12]. The sale of cattle, cow-slaughter, sale of meat are different aspects, but, they try to confuse all without reading the Act properly[13]. In Tamilnadu, the DK used to perform “Unnum vradham” (eating penance) in front of or against the persons, who are engaded in “Unna vradham” (fasting)! Here, in Kerala, “the Go’s own country” and with 100% literacy, beef-eating festivals are held live not against any “non-beef eating festivals”, as if all meats are eaten, but, beef is not eaten. None would engage in prostitution, if prostitution is banned or restricted or regulated. I do not find anyone who protests against “closure of wineshops” drink! Therefore, if the CPIM and Mohammedan groups start doing antics of cooking beef on the roads, they can do all on the roads as a part of their demo. Perhaps, they want to repeat what the British tried to do that resulted in 1857. In other worrds, they are trying to create tension between the groups and start run rioting. With the ideological expertise and the subversive activities, they are capable of doing that.

Rahul condemn beef eating

Congress caught into dilemma of Cow-slaughter politics: Congress leader Mahathma Gandhi had been against Cow-slaughter and promoter of “Ramrajya”. However, Sonia Congress has become “secular” with the Mohammedan and Christian support. Sonia herself is seen as “Christian” and foreign by many Indians, though, rarely such views are publicized. Sharad Pawar, Jayallita and others openly named her as “Sonia Maino”. Recently, in UP, Congress badly lost its political power, with the rise of BJP with more than absolute majority. Thus, definitely, Congress cannot pay heavy price in this issue. Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi on Sunday condemned the public slaughter of a calf in Kerala by Youth Congress workers and said the party did not support it[14]. “What happened in Kerala yesterday is thoughtless, barbaric and completely unacceptable to me and the Congress Party. I strongly condemn the incident,” Rahul said in a tweet[15]. Kamudi another local daily dubbed Rahul saying that youth congress members are brainless[16]. Whether they would be thoughtless or brainless[17], they had obviously colluded with the other radical elements of Kannur. Evidently, he was advised to do so, as otherwise, the Congress could loose whatever support it has in the “cow belt”, as now, it has lost ground there. Thus, in a face saving manner, the comdemnation has come from him, instead of Sonia Gandhi, the President![18]

© Vedaprakash

29-05-2017

28-05-2017 beef-fest Kannur- Rahul comndemns thru twitter

[1] Hidusthan Times, Police book Youth Congress workers for slaughtering cow in Kerala market, Hindustan Times, Ramesh Babu, Thiruvananthapuram, Updated: May 29, 2017 00:26 IST.

[2] Onmanorama, Kannur Youth Cong workers slaughter cattle in public, police file case, by PTI, Sunday 28 May 2017 10:58 PM IST.

[3] TIMESOFINDIA.COM, Rahul Gandhi ‘strongly condemns’ cow slaughter in Kerala by party workers, Updated: May 28, 2017, 10.44 PM IST

[4] Deccan Herald, Youth Congress conducts public cow slaughter in Kerala; BJP condemns, Krishnakumar, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DH News Service, May 28 2017, 14:54 IST

[5] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/614052/youth-congress-conducts-public-cow.html

[6] http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala/2017/05/28/kannur-youth-congress-workers-slaughter-cattle-public.html

[7]  http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/youth-congress-workers-slaughter-cow-in-kerala-market-animal-activists-cry-foul/story-MW0w6xgd17R15CEBrjMAoN.html

[8] The Hindu, Kerala sees ‘beef fests’ in protest against ban on sale of cattle for slaughter, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, MAY 27, 2017 16:35 IS; UPDATED: MAY 27, 2017 21:48 IST

[9] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/beef-fests-across-kerala-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/article18590014.ece

[10] MetroVaartha, ‘Beef fests’ held in Kerala, CM appeals to PM to repeal new cattle law, Saturday, May 27, 2017,15:52 ISTBY ANJU

[11] http://metrovaartha.com/en/2017/05/27/beef-fests-held-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/

[12] Economics Times, Beef fests held to protest ban on sale of cattle for slaughter, by PTI, May 28, 2011, 01.11 AM.

[13] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/beef-fests-held-to-protest-ban-on-sale-of-cattle-for-slaughter/articleshow/58875898.cms

[14] TimesNowTv, Kerala Congress Youth activist butchers calf to protest cattle slaughter ban, May 28, 2017 | 21:34 IST | SOURCE : Times Now, Agencies

[15] http://www.timesnow.tv/india/video/kerala-congress-youth-worker-arrest-calf-slaughter-centre-ban/61882

[16] kaumudiglobal.com, Rahul Gandhi dubs Youth Congress members brain-less, Posted on: 22:10:52 May 28, 2017 Last edited on:22:10:52 May 28, 2017

[17] http://kaumudiglobal.com/innerpage1.php?newsid=92024

[18] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rahul-gandhi-strongly-condems-cow-slaughter-in-kerala-by-party-workers/articleshow/58884172.cms

Richard Huckle, Vijesh Kooriyil and Hasan Suroor: How these pedophiles are different to be treated variously under secularism or otherwise by the British and Indian media?

June 9, 2016

Richard Huckle, Vijesh Kooriyil and Hasan Suroor: How these pedophiles are different to be treated variously under secularism or otherwise by the British and Indian media?

Pedophiles connected with India are prosecuted in London CourtsJune 2016 flooded with pedopphile cases adjudicated in London, but connected with India: In June 2016, pedophile cases are adjudicated and decided in London courts prosecuting various categories, as reports appearing in the media. They are first Richard Huckle, second Vijesh Kooriyil[1] and then, columnist Hasan Suroor. Indians really have to wonder as to how all these pedophiles have been connected with India, particularly South India. Indians do not know as to such pedophile cases would be decided in June one by one.  Richard Huckle was visiting Bangalore Christian orphanage,   Vijesh Kooriyil hailing from Malappuram and Hasan Suroor, the famous columnist of “The Hindu”! As Indians are imbibed with secularism, western and leftist ldeologists, they are made to think as this prosecution has been of the British type or secular type. Richard Huckle has been Christian, Vijesh Kooriyil obviously Hindu and Hasan Suroor Muslim! Whether the court cases are timed, reporting coincidental or assumed pattern incidental would be decided in due course. However, the accelerated interest, swift attention and rapid curiosity exibited by certain Indian media makes Indians to concentrate in the news. Yes, the Hasan Suroor has been picked up by “The Hindu”, “Outlook, “Scroll.in” etc., to come out with response evidently heaving a sigh of relief. First look at the news appearing in the media.

hasan-suroor-muslim-apologetic-columnistCharged Hasan Suroor found not guilty: A UK court on Tuesday (07-06-2016) dropped a case of “sexual grooming” against an Indian-origin British journalist, London-based Indian journalist and columnist Hasan Suroor for lack of evidence and declared him not guilty[2]. Suroor was ‘trapped’ by a vigilante group at a spot in south London and subjected to aggressive and threatening questioning by the group. The Crown charged Mr. Suroor with violating Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual grooming of a child) and Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act (1981)[3]. The Crown formally withdrew charges as its chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear. Further, Mr. Suroor has no digital footprint of grooming, which is common marker of online sexual grooming, his lawyer Paul Mason told The Hindu[4].

hasan-suroor-muslim-apologetic-columnist-supporting-isSerious allegations were sought to be pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from an “unregulated” vigilante group: Suroor, who was arrested by British Transport Police (BTP) last November 2015 after an anti-paedophile sting operation in London, is now planning to sue the vigilante group, Unknown TV, behind the sting for damages[5]. “Following a further review of the case there is now no longer a realistic prospect of conviction,” the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) told Blackfriars Crown Court in a written submission on Tuesday (07-06-2016). The judge ruled that he had decided to return an “unequivocal verdict of not guilty”. The judge ruled he had decided to return an “unequivocal” verdict of “not guilty” and criticised the prosecution’s handling of the case[6]. He said he was “extremely concerned” that such serious allegations were sought to be pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from an “unregulated” vigilante group[7]. But, Indians wonder as to such an advanced country could have such “unregulated” vigilante group moving all over the London city prouling on alleged pedophiles and the CPS to book case pursued on the basis of a “telephone call” from them.

hasan-suroor-leftist-is-supporter-hindutwa-opponent-twitters-2A written order declaring Suroor innocent is to be issued on 24 June 2016: A written order declaring Suroor innocent is to be issued on 24 June 2016 along with a ruling on his application for his legal costs to be reimbursed. Suroor’s lawyer Paul Mason said: “The robust stand we took has paid off.” The CPS is yet to officially comment on the case[8]. Suroor had been caught on camera as he was confronted by members of Unknown TV, organisers of the sting operation who alleged he was waiting for a 14-year-old girl[9]. A member of the anti-paedophile vigilante group had allegedly posed as a 14-year-old and allegedly solicited Suroor on social media[10]. Groups such as Unknown TV pose as minors on dating and social networking sites in an attempt to catch adult men who solicit sex with minors[11].

Parvathi Menon, The Hindu columnistParvathi Menon expert on “Ayodhya related secular issues”[12] reports about the case: It is intriguing that the “Outlook” has come out with apologia sort of support to Saroor[13], that too, an article type written by[14]Dipsikha Thakur is a trainee journalist with Outlook. She graduated from Cambridge earlier this year with a BA in English and Classics.” She has written a lengthy story, as if, she was writing for her examinations. But, “The Hindu” has been more professional, as it has bandwagon of historians category of columinists (Bangalore’s residential editor of The Hindu). Thus, Parvathi Menon came for resucue[15], “The charges of sexual-grooming filed …have been withdrawn for lack of evidence, although the judge hearing the case at the Blackfriars Crown Court has set the date for formally declaring Mr. Suroor, “not guilty” on June 24…….”. She has been so faithful and loyal to mention him as “Mr.Suroor was ‘trapped’”……….. subjected to aggressive and threatening questioning by the group. …….. as its chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear……… Further, Mr. Suroor has no digital footprint of grooming, which is common marker of online sexual grooming, his lawyer Paul Mason told The Hindu……..”. Paravthi Menon as been a vigorous writer on Ayodhya related issues[16] commenting upon the Supreme Court judgment and so on, particularly criticizing Hindutwa[17].

Vijesh Kooriyil Crown Court“….chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear….”: The proceedings, as reported by the British media has been intriguing, for the following reasons:

1.       The CPS is yet to officially comment on the case.

2.      The written order to be out on June.24, 2016.

3.      The complaintant / witness did not co-operate or became hostile.

4.      That is, the chief witness Jonathan Clark, a member of the vigilante group, withdrew his support for the prosecution and failed to appear…

5.      The Vigilant group may appeal.

Why then, the particular Indian media houses react differently for Hasan Surror, but keeping silence on the first two pedophiles ant the related issues. When India has already been affected by the pedophile menace, how they could react with bias towards Hasan Suroor alone without caring for thousands and perhaps, lakh of Indian children, young boys and girls, teenage girls and others. Really, it is ironical that they play “communal card” under the guise of “secularism”!

© Vedaprakash

09-06-2016

[1] Kerala Paedophile failed to turn up at Oxford Crown Court on Tuesday to face trial for repeatedly raping a young boy in Oxford between 2010 and 2011. The court heard the 29-year-old business manager was on unconditional bail when he told his solicitors he was going to attend court, before boarding a plane to Delhi from Heathrow on Monday night (06-06-2016). But a jury of seven women and five men unanimously found Kooriyil guilty of both rapes on the boy who was aged six or seven at the time.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14536619.International_manhunt_launched_for__dangerous__child_rapist_who_fled_on_the_eve_of_his_trial/

[2] Firstpost.com, Indian-origin UK journalist Hasan Suroor found not guilty in paedophile sting case, PTI  Jun 8, 2016 07:25 IST

[3] The Hindu, Crown Prosecution withdraws charges of sexual grooming against journalist Hasan Suroor, Parvathi Menon, London, June 8, 2016 Updated: June 8, 2016 19:12 IST

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/crown-prosecution-withdraws-charges-of-sexual-grooming-against-journalist-hasan-suroor/article8705923.ece

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/08/hasan-suroor_n_10349758.html

[6] The Hindusthan Times, Case against Indian-origin scribe Suroor dropped in UK, Updated: Jun 08, 2016 10:42 IST

[7] Scroll.in, Not enough evidence against journalist Hasan Suroor in child abuse case, says UK by Scroll Staff

[8] http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/case-against-indian-origin-scribe-suroor-dropped-in-uk/story-NF7rt7o8aoStnOxb6ZvdcK.html

[9] The allegations are related to a sting video shot by the group, in which a group of men are heckling Suroor and accusing him of paedophilia. According to Outlook, the 65-year-old journalist did not deny the group’s allegations that he had met a 14-year-old girl online and that they exchanged sexually suggestive messages. They agreed to meet, and while he was waiting for the girl to show up, the group members appeared with a camera and cornered him. http://scroll.in/latest/809547/not-enough-evidence-against-journalist-hasan-suroor-in-child-abuse-case-says-uk

[10] The Huffington Post, Indian-Origin Journalist Hasan Suroor Found Not Guilty In Paedophile Sting Case, Posted: 08/06/2016 13:41 IST Updated: 08/06/2016 13:42 IST

[11] http://www.firstpost.com/india/indian-origin-uk-journalist-hasan-suroor-found-not-guilty-in-paedophile-sting-case-2822400.html

[12] http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090790.htm

[13] Outlook, Hasan Suroor and the question of culpability, Thursday, 09 June, 2016.

[14] http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/hasan-suroor-and-the-question-of-culpability/295868

[15] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/crown-prosecution-withdraws-charges-of-sexual-grooming-against-journalist-hasan-suroor/article8705923.ece

[16] http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2019/stories/20030926005613100.htm

[17] http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-menon300304.htm

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/