[Reader-list] Re: reader-list Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2

[info at amneheskandari.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: <reader-list-request at mail.sarai.net>
To: <reader-list at mail.sarai.net>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: reader-list Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2


> Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
> reader-list at mail.sarai.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> reader-list-request at mail.sarai.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> reader-list-owner at mail.sarai.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Fw: ayodhya (vidya shah)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:43:17 +0530
> From: "vidya shah" <vidya at breakthrough.tv>
> Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: ayodhya
> To: <reader-list at sarai.net>, <vijay at amnesty.org>, "Pimple Minar"
> <minar_p at yahoo.com>, "Shirin Khan" <shirin.khan at timesgroup.com>,
> "rohini mukherjee" <rohinimukherjee at yahoo.com>, "tgoenka"
> <tgoenka at mailbox.syr.edu>
> Message-ID: <002b01c37050$2a2888e0$a5ed41db at abc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Parthiv Shah
> To: vidya at breakthrough.tv
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 6:53 PM
> Subject: Fwd: ayodhya
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Statement on
> THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA'S
> REPORT ON AYODHYA
> The report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
> submitted to the Ramajanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Bench of
> the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, on 22 September and
> released on 25 September 2003, is an absolutely
> unprofessional document, full of gross omissions,
> one-sided presentations of evidence, fraudulent
> falsifications and motivated inferences. Its only aim
> is to so ignore and twist the evidence as to make it
> suit its "conclusions" tailored to support the
> fictions of the Sangh Parivar about the previous
> existence of a temple. The following is a list of the
> ASI's major acts of omission and commission:
> FORGETTING THE BONES
> One decisive piece of evidence, which entirely negates
> the possibility of a temple, is that of animal bones.
> Bone fragments with cut marks are a sure sign of
> animals being eaten at the site, and, therefore, rule
> out a temple existing at the site at the time. The
> Report in its "Summary of Results" admits that "animal
> bones have been recovered from various levels of
> different periods" (Report, p.270). Any serious
> archaeological report would have tabulated the bones,
> by periods, levels and trenches, and identified the
> species of the animals (which in bulk seem to be of
> sheep and goats). There should, indeed, have been a
> chapter devoted to animal remains. But despite the
> statement in its "Summary", there is no word about the
> animal bones in the main text. This astonishing
> omission is patently due to the ASI's fear of the
> fatal implications held out by the animal bone
> evidence for the temple theory.
> GLAZED WARE
> The glazed ware, often called "Muslim" glazed ware,
> constitutes an equally definite piece of evidence,
> which militates against the presence or construction
> of a temple, since such glazed ware was not at all
> used in temples. The ware is all-pervasive till much
> below the level of "Floor No.4", that is falsely
> ascribed in the Report to the "huge" structure of a
> temple allegedly built in the 11th-12th centuries. The
> Report tells us that the glazed ware sherds only "make
> their appearance" "in the last phase of the (sic)
> period VII" (p.270). Here we directly encounter the
> "Period Fraud" of the Report (see below). On this page
> (270), Period VII is called "Medieval Sultanate",
> dated 12th-16th century A.D. But on
> 1
> p.40 "Medieval-Sultanate" is the name for Period VI,
> dated 10th and 11th
> centuries. In Chapter V (Pottery), there is no
> statement made at all to the effect that the glazed
> ware appears in "the last phase of Period VII" as is
> asserted in the Summary. Rather, it is there
> definitely stated that "the pottery of
> Medieval-Sultanate, Mughal and Late-and-Post Mughal
> period (Periods VII to IX)... indicates that there is
> not much difference in pottery wares and shapes" and
> that "the distinctive pottery of the periods is glazed
> ware" (p.108). How the "Summary" obtained its "last
> phase" can only be guessed at: perhaps at some stage
> it had been conceded that the glazed ware was also
> found in Period VI (also "Medieval -Sultanate") and
> was then prudently put in its "last phase", because
> otherwise it would militate against a temple being
> built in that period. All this gross manipulation has
> been possible because not a single item of glazed
> pottery is attributed to its trench and stratum in the
> select list of 21 (out of hundreds of items actually
> obtained) items of glazed ware on pages 109-111.
> Seeing the importance of glazed ware as a factor for
> elementary dating (pre-or post-Muslim habitation at
> the site), a tabulation of all recorded glazed-ware
> sherds according to trench and stratum was essential.
> That this has been entirely disregarded shows that the
> glazed-ware evidence being totally incompatible with
> any temple construction activity in Period VI, could
> not simply be provided.
> Even as the Report stands (going not by its "Summary",
> but by the description in the main text, p.108), the
> presence of Glazed Ware throughout Period VII
> (Medieval, 12th-16th centuries) rules out what is
> asserted on page 41, that a "column-based structure" -
> the alleged 50-pillar temple - was built in this
> period. How could Muslims have been using glazed ware
> inside a temple?
> THE "PERIOD" FRAUD
> The ASI's Report is so lacking in elementary integrity
> that it tries to achieve its object by manipulating
> nomenclature. In Chapter III, "Stratigraphy and
> Chronology" it has names for Periods VI and VII that
> are coolly altered in the other Chapters in order
> simply to transfer inconvenient material of Period VI
> to Period VII and thus make Period VI levels purely
> "Hindu". On pages 30-41, the nomenclature for Periods
> V, VI and VII is given as follows:
> Period V: Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th to 10th Century
> Period VI: Medieval -Sultanate, 11th-12th Century
> Period VII: Medieval, 12th-16th Century
> Now let us turn to "Summary of Results" (pp.268-9).
> Here the nomenclature is altered as follows:-
> Period V: Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th-10th century AD
> Period VI: Early medieval, 11th-12th century
> Period VII: Medieval-Sultanate, 12th-16th century
> This transference of "Medieval-Sultanate" from Period
> VI to Period VII has the advantage of ignoring
> Islamic-period materials like Glazed ware or
> lime-mortar bonding by removing them arbitrarily from
> Period VI levels to those of Period VII so that their
> actual presence in those levels need not embarrass the
> ASI in its
> 2
> placing the construction of a "massive" or "huge"
> temple in Period VI. The device is nothing but a
> manipulative fraud.
> THE "MASSIVE" FANTASY
> While digging up the Babri Masjid, the excavators
> found four floors were found, numbered, upper to
> lower, as Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, Floor No.4 being the
> lowest and so the oldest. Floor No.3 is linked to the
> foundation walls of the Babri Masjid - the ASI's
> "demolished" or "disputed structure" - built in 1528.
> Floor No.4 is described by the Report as "a floor of
> lime mixed with fine clay and brick crush", i.e. a
> typically Muslim style surkhi and lime-mortar bonded
> floor. It is obviously the floor of an earlier mosque
> (qanati or open mosque or an idgah); and a mihrab and
> taq were also found in the associated foundation wall
> (not, of course, mentioned in the ASI's report). Such
> a floor, totally Muslim on "stylistic grounds" (a
> favourite formula in the Report), is turned by the ASI
> into a temple floor, "over which a column-based
> structure was built". (On this latter assertion, see
> below: "Pillar-less Pillar Bases.") No single example
> is offered by the ASI of any temple of pre-Mughal
> times having such a lime-mortar surkhi floor, though
> one would think that this is an essential requirement
> when a purely Muslim structure is being appropriated
> as a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has occurred
> (page 41), we are then asked to imagine a "Massive
> Structure Below the Disputed Structure", the massive
> structure being a temple. It is supposed to have stood
> upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures 23,
> 23A and 23B), it has been "reconstructed". (Though one
> may still feel that it was hardly "massive" when one
> compares Figure 23 (showing Babri Masjid before
> demolition) and Figure 23B (showing the reconstructed
> temple with 50 imaginary pillars!) Now, according to
> the ASI's Report, this massive structure with 46 of
> its alleged 50 pillars was built in Period VII, the
> Period of the Delhi Sultans, Sharqi rulers and Lodi
> Sultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the Grand
> Temple, to the "Muslim" period is not by choice, but
> because of the presence of "Muslim" style materials
> and techniques all through. This, given the Sangh's
> view of medieval Indian history, must have been a
> bitter pill for the ASI's mentors to accept; and,
> therefore, there is all the more reason for them to
> imagine a still earlier structure assignable to an
> earlier time. Of this structure, however, only four
> alleged "pillar bases", with "foundations" below Floor
> 4, have been found; and it is astonishing that this
> should be sufficient to ascribe them to 10th -11th
> century and to assume that they all belong to one
> structure. That structure is proclaimed as "huge",
> extending nearly 50 metres separate the pillar-bases
> at the extremes. Four "pillar bases" can hardly have
> held such a long roof; and if any one tried it on them
> it is not surprising that the result was "short-lived"
> (p.269). All of this seems a part of the VHP kind of
> propagandist archaeology than a report from a body
> called the Archaeological Survey of India.
> Before we leave this matter, a small point. The four
> alleged pillar bases dated to 11th-12th centuries are
> said "to belong to this level with a brick crush
> floor".
> 3
> Really! Surkhi in Gahadavala times! Any examples,
> please? None! Now one can see why it had been
> necessary to call this period (Period V) "Medieval
> -Sultanate" (p.40) though it is actually
> pre-Sultanate, being dated 11th-12th century. By
> clubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate,
> the surkhi is sought to be explained; but if so, the
> "huge" structure too must come to a time after 1206,
> for, apparently unknown to ASI, the Delhi Sultanate
> was only established in that year. And so the earlier
> allegedly "huge" temple too must have been built when
> the Sultans ruled!
> Since the entire basis of the supposed "huge" and
> "massive" temple-structures preceding the demolished
> mosque lies in the alleged "pillar bases" it is time
> to consider what these really are and what they imply.
> PILLAR-LESS "PILLAR BASES"
> One must first remember that what are said by the ASI
> to be pillar bases are one or more calcrete stones
> resting upon brickbats, bonded with mud or just heaped
> up. In many the calcrete stones are not found at all.
> As one can see from the descriptive table on pages
> 56-67 of the Report not a single one of these supposed
> "pillar bases" has been found in association with any
> pillar or even a fragment of it; and there are no
> marks or indentation or hollows on any of the calcrete
> stones to show that any pillar had rested on them. The
> ASI Report nowhere attempts to answer the questions
> (1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at the
> base, and (2) how mud-bonded brickbats could have
> possibly withstood the weight of roof-supporting
> pillars without themselves falling apart.
> Despite the claims of these "pillar bases" being in
> alignment and their being so shown in fancy drawings
> (Figures 23, 23A and 23B), the Report is curiously
> chary of giving a detailed grided plan showing each
> base in relation to a set of others on a scale
> sufficient for one to check whether their positions
> are in alignment. This was especially important since
> there were objections raised that the ASI was ignoring
> calcrete-topped brickbat heaps where these were not
> found in appropriate positions and selected only such
> brickbat heaps as were not too far-off from its
> imaginary grids.
> But the most astonishing thing that the ASI so
> casually brushes aside relates to the varying levels
> at which the "pillar-bases" stand. Even if we go by
> the ASI's own descriptive table, as many as seven of
> these 50 "bases" are definitely above Floor 2, and one
> is level with it. At least six rest on Floor 3, and
> one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since these are
> undisputedly floors of the Mosque, how come that so
> many pillars were erected after they had been laid out
> --- in order to sustain a temple structure over them!
> More, as many as nine "pillar bases" are shown as
> cutting through Floor No.3. So, are we to understand
> that when the Mosque floor was laid out, the pillar
> bases were not floored over? It is thus clear that
> what we have are simply not "pillar bases" at all, but
> some kind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits, which
> continued to be laid right from Floors 4 to Floor 1.
> Dr Ashok Dutta of Kolkata University, an
> archaeologist, who was among those who volunteered to
> watch the doings of the ASI during the excavations,
> has given
> 4
> an explanation for these brick-bat deposits, which
> offers a clear and elegant explanation. When the
> surkhi- lime mortar bonded Floor No.4 was being laid
> out over the mound sometime during the Sultanate
> period, its builders must have had to level the mound
> properly. The hollows and depressions then had to be
> filled by brickbats topped by calcrete stones (often
> bonded with lime mortar) to fill them and enable the
> floor to be laid. When in time Floor 4 went out of
> repair, its holes had similarly to be filled up in
> order to lay out Floor 3. And so again when Floor 3
> decayed, similar deposits of brickbats had to be made
> to fill the holes in order to lay out Floor 2 (or,
> indeed, just to have a level surface). This explains
> why the "pillar bases" appear to "cut through" both
> Floors 3 and 4, at some places, and at others "cut
> through" Floor 3 or Floor 4 only. They are mere
> deposits to fill up holes in the floors. Since such
> repairs were needed in time all over the floors, these
> brickbat deposits are widely dispersed. Had not the
> ASI been so struck by the necessity of finding pillars
> and "pillar bases" to please its masters, which had to
> be in a proper alignment, it could have found
> scattered over the ground not just fifty but perhaps
> over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats. A
> real embarrassment of riches of "pillar bases", that
> is - only they are not pillar bases.
> THE CIRCULAR ILLUSION
> Much is made in the ASI's Report of the "Circular
> Shrine" (pages 70-71), again with fanciful figured
> interpretations of the existing debris (Figs.24 and
> 24A). Comparisons with circular Shaivite and
> Vaishnavite shrines (Fig.18) are immediately made. The
> ASI had no thought, of course, of comparing it with
> circular walls and buildings of Muslim construction -
> a very suggestive omission. The surviving wall, even
> in ASI's own drawing makes only a quarter of circle,
> and such shapes are fairly popular in walls of Muslim
> construction. And then there are Muslim-built domed
> circular buildings. But even if we forget the
> curiously one-eyed nature of ASI's investigations, let
> us first consider the size of the alleged "shrine".
> Though there is no reason to complete the circle as
> the ASI does, the circular shrine, given the scale of
> the Plan (Figure 17 in the Report), would have an
> internal diameter of just160 cms. or barely 5½ feet!
> Such a small "shrine" can hardly be worth writing home
> about. It goes without saying that, as admitted by the
> ASI itself, nothing has been found in the structure
> that can justify it being called a shrine.
> STRAY "TEMPLE" FINDS
> No Vaishnavite images have been found. All finds are
> stray ones or, as with the black schist pillar,
> visible within it when the Masjid had stood but broken
> by the Karsevaks (who says they love temple remains!)
> and buried in the Masjid debris in 1992. Whatever
> little in stone has come out (as one decorated stone
> or inscribed slab-used in a wall), like stones with
> "foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapadi door jamb with
> semi-circular pilaster, lotus motif," (p.271), are in
> total very few, and all easily explicable as belonging
> to ruins elsewhere and
> 5
> brought for re-use. The extremely short list that the
> ASI is able to compile shows that they did not come
> from any "massive" temple at the site, but brought
> randomly from different earlier ruins.
> SAFFRONISED ARCHAEOLOGY
> The bias, partisanship and saffronised outlook of the
> ASI's Report takes one's breath away. In almost
> everything the lack of elementary archaeological
> controls is manifest. The one-page carbon-date report,
> without any description of material, strata and
> comments by the laboratory, is meaningless, and open
> to much misuse. There has been no thermoluminescence
> (TL) dating of the pottery; no carbon-dating of the
> animal or human bones. No care has been exercised in
> chronology, and Period I "Northern Black Polished
> Ware" has been pushed back to 1000 BC in the "Summary
> of Results" (page 268), when even in Chapter II
> "Stratigraphy and Chronology", the earlier limit of
> the period is rightly placed at 6th century B.C. (page
> 38). The urge is obviously to provide the maximum
> antiquity to habitation at Ayodhya, however absurd the
> claim.
> Quite obviously saffronization and professional
> integrity cannot go together. What all well-wishers of
> Indian Archaeology have to consider is how, with a
> Report of the calibre we have examined, there can be
> any credibility left in the Archaeological Survey of
> India, an organisation that has had such a
> distinguished past. Today there is no professional
> head of the ASI; a civil servant, completely subject
> to the desires of the Government of the day is in
> charge as Director-General. It cannot be overlooked
> that the occupant of the office of Director-General
> was changed almost simultaneously with the High
> Court's direction to the ASI to begin the excavations
> in early March. The signal given thereby was obvious;
> and the present Report should come as no surprise.
> Politicians gloating over it are precisely those who
> have got it written.
> National honour was deeply compromised when the Babri
> Masjid was demolished. Now the good repute of the
> Archaeological Survey of India has also suffered an
> irremediable blow. When will the list of
> Saffronization's victims end?
> 6
> SAHMAT
> 8, Vithalbhai Patel House
> Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
> Tel-23711276/ 23351424
> e-mail: sahmat at vsnl.com
> 29.8.2003
> The Ayodhya Excavation 2002-3
> The excavation was ordered to find out if there
> existed any Hindu temple below the BabriMasjid. The
> GPR survey was also ordered to help find if there were
> anomalies indicating the possibility of architectural
> remains below the mosque. The GPR survey could have
> made the excavation economical both in time and money.
> But the excavation undertaken from 12th March, 2003
> came out to be an area excavation. The excavation has
> distorted the Mughal levels allover leaving no scope
> for cross checking the evidence collected by the
> present excavation or for taking up excavation in
> future with improved techniques and with better
> perspective. To that extent it is a loss to our
> cultural heritage.
> The report on the present excavation has also been
> submitted. It is infact a report on the total data
> collected and not specific to the problem at hand. It
> practically abides by the perspective of 'Rewriting of
> history' School. In doing so the date of the NBPW
> Period ( Early historic era) has been pushed back to
> at least 1000 B.C., (three to four centuries earlier
> than the established date). Secondly, it has tried to
> highlight in its attempt at periodisation the Sunga
> Period, Rajput Period etc. for no sound reason.
> Besides this, it has used the data selectively and
> ignored some crucial facts relating to the Babri
> masjid complex, the massive burnt brick structure
> found below the mosque (assumed to be a temple of the
> 10th-11th centuries) and the base (for woodenposts)
> having bearing on the problem.
> It is well known that the temples are characterised by
> its architectural type i.e. its plan and the
> superstructure, etc. , the objects associated with its
> function and placed in their original position inside
> the temple. Important temples in the past were known
> for their styles. The Nagar style as known form the
> famous Khajuraho temples,became popular in North India
> between the 9th and 12th centuries.
> The excavation report has come out with a thesis that
> there have been found remains of an Early Medieval
> temple constructed in the 11th-12th century which
> continued to exist until the early 16th century (when
> the Babri Masjid was constructed over this complex).
> This thesis is based on the following assumptions:
> 1. that the 'massive' burnt brick structure was
> constructed in the 11th-12th centuries.
> 2. that there have been found at least 50
> Pillar-bases associated with this structure,
> particularly with its last floor.
> 3. that a circular depression ( Ghata shaped), in due
> east of the centre of the central dome of the Babri
> Masjid and the central point of the western wall of
> the preceding 'massive' burnt brick structure, was cut
> into a brick pavement.
> 4. that the site excavated was not inhabited after the
> Gupta period. It was put to public use only, thereby
> implying its use for religious purposes.
> The ASI has claimed the existence of a 'massive' burnt
> brick structure below the Babri Masjid complex or the
> existence of some genuine circular, rectangular or
> squarish constructions of brickbats or of stones
> termed in the report as 'pillar bases'. But the report
> has willfully ignored crucial evidence from the
> Ayodhya excavation. This is briefly discussed as under
> :
> 1. The alleged alleged 'massive' burnt brick structure
> belongs to the Sultanate Period and not to the early
> medieval period ( 11th-12th centuries) as its floor
> as well as the plaster on the wall, are made of lime
> and surkhi mortar, used in the Sultanate and Mughal
> Periods. Lime mortar has also been used in the
> construction of the so called pillar bases assumed to
> be associated only with this structure. Moreover, an
> arch, 'Mehrab' so typical of the medieval period, was
> noticed by me on the inner face of the 'massive' burnt
> brick structure to the south of the make-shift temple
> when I visited the site in June.
> 2. The plan of the alleged 'massive' burnt brick
> structure tallies with that of the Babri Masjid
> complex in its extent and construction of the central
> dome exactly over the central point of the western
> wall of the former and not with Burnt brick structure
> of the Post-Gupta period. Secondly the southern
> chamber of the Babri Masjid overlies the remnants of
> this pre-Babri Masjid burnt brick structure.
> 3. The 'massive' burnt brick structure was not a
> Hindu temple complex is clear from the fact that it
> does not correspond with the typical by Hindu Nagar
> style of temple of the early medieval period.
> Secondly, the foundation of the western wall of the
> 'massive' burnt brick structure has in it sculptured
> stones (like those found used in the temples) The
> Hindus immerse the temple remains ( when out of use)
> in water. They do not bury these under the earth or in
> the foundation walls. The southern hall of this
> 'massive' structure is nearly as large as that of the
> mosque. Temples of the past neither had such large
> square halls nor a plan similar to it. No artifacts
> used in the temples such as the icons, conch shell,
> Aarti lamps, dhoopdan etc. were found inside this
> chamber or in any other context within the alleged
> massive structure.
> The above facts clearly points out that the 'massive'
> burnt brick structure belonged to the Sultanate period
> ( 1206-1526) and not to the 11th-12th centuries:
> Secondly, its plan and architectural features exposed
> so far helps to infer that it was a mosque and not a
> temple. It is unfortunate that the report has not made
> us wiser on the problem. Rather it has stood behind
> the Hindutava viewpoint.
> Prof. Suraj Bhan
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Access Hotmail from your mobile now. Click here.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20030901/89af8301/at
tachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> reader-list mailing list
> reader-list at mail.sarai.net
> http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>
>
> End of reader-list Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2
> *****************************************
>
>