[Reader-list] Fw: PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Thu Oct 7 21:10:51 IST 2010

Shuddha,
You are making a generalized statement thereby playing very safe. I don't believe you are so naïve to miss my point. Anyway, I grant you your little pleasures in the times when sanity is an endangered state of mind.

Regards,

Kamal Hak 
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

-----Original Message-----
From: shuddha at sarai.net
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:08:46 
To: <kamalhak at gmail.com>; <reader-list at sarai.net>
Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fw: PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Kamal,

All God(s) in the singular, or in the plural, regardless of who worships them, seem to me to be marauders of our fragile humanity I am yet to be convinced otherwise. . I do not recall defending any religion at all. I recall defending human beings, and the defence that I profess for human beings has nothing whatsoever with their religionsnit has to do with the materiality of their lives. I don't see people as suffixes attatched to the predeterminations of faith. 
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

-----Original Message-----
From: kamalhak at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:22:14 
To: <shuddha at sarai.net>; <reader-list at sarai.net>
Reply-To: kamalhak at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fw: PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Shuddha,
I have absolutely no problem with your choice of words or language describing that I call a God and you a marauder. Neither my faith nor my God is so weak that they will need to be protected against the vitriolic of biased mind. But, I have a question, can you dare say a similar thing about the God of some other religion, particularly of those whom you are never tired to defend?

Regards,

Kamal Hak

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

-----Original Message-----
From: shuddha at sarai.net
Sender: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:38:30 
To: <reader-list at sarai.net>
Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

-----Original Message-----
From: shuddha at sarai.net
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:53:26 
To: Bipin Trivedi<aliens at dataone.in>
Reply-To: shuddha at sarai.net
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Bipin Trivedi,

As far as I know, the ASI excavation report indicates a multiple stratigraphic layer. Which means that the structures immediately below the ground at the disputed site themselves sat on top of the remains of even earlier structures. If we take that into account we have to also ask what was demolished in order to make room for the structures that lay under the Babri Masjid. Have you considered whether or not the Ikshvaku clan, whose misogynist mass murdering prince  you celebrate, may itself not have destroyed extant cultures to build its palaces. So, now that one layer has been tackled, shall we launch a campaign to 'liberate' what lies beneath the birthplace of your favourite sacred  marauder?

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

-----Original Message-----
From: Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in>
Sender: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:19:20 
To: sarai-list<reader-list at sarai.net>
Cc: 'Patrice Riemens'<patrice at xs4all.nl>
Subject: [Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Siddharth Varadarajan article
http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/01/stories/2010100163711400.htm in Hindu,Romila
Thapar, PUDR surprises me when they writes Ayodhya judgment based on faith
only.

I think most of them even not read the judgment properly before writing
their views. This judgment was after marathon exercise of referring about
274 books thoroughly, 798 past judgments, documents presented by both the
parties and various ancient mythological books. As they argue, judgment is
not only based on faith but mainly based on 574 pages ASI report. ASI is not
an ordinary organization but credible historical survey organization and
there is no reason to doubt its credibility. It is surprising that reason
given by Varadarajan to doubt the ASI report that it was conducted on 2003
during NDA rule. Exactly pseudo secular type belief.

However if you don't consider this, but earlier also ASI took this study
between 1975 to 1985 under Historian B B Lal (under congress rule!) and
declared in 1990 that he found even bigger monumental existence in the past
bellow the present Babri Mosque. He also found at that time line of pillars
(stambh) on digging just 4 meter away from mosque. 

Not only this in July 1992, retired director of ASI Y D Sharma and K M
Shrivastav along with 6 other historians carried out search at Ramcoat where
mosque was there. They also found the traces of big temple there. Even it
was noticed by historian that some pillars used to built mosque was pillars
of temple and never found such type of pillars in any other mosques. 

They have found one Shilalekh also. But, communist historian made allegation
that it was stolen from Lucknow museum. However, the curator of museum
denied about any such theft from museum in press conference. He has shown
shilalekh in the museum to the press people and proved that both the
shilalekh are different. However, at that time Arjunsingh (key pseudo
secularist. He took many steps just to appease minority but averted by SC in
few cases) was union minister stopped the research immediately and took
custody of all the relevant documents and probably destroyed. Else traces of
temple would have been proved earlier only.

Main points of ASI reports are as under.
1. Found the traces of big temple just below the 3 gumbaj of mosque.
2. Found stone shilps of lotus, kaustubh, mani (pearl) and goddess embedded
on the wall.
3. Found stone bellow 20 ft showing name of Hindu goddess in devnagri lipi 
4. Found black pillars of bird shape.
5. Pair of 30 pillars (30+30) line found in north-south direction. 
6. Found round and other shaped bricks which were used in India only.
7. Found round stones kept on the top of the temple or shikhar.
8. History students can easily understand that land bellow 1 ft means about
100 years. So, the things found bellow 20 ft concludes that the material
found is at least 1500 to 2000 years old. While, Babar entered in India just
before about 500 years. 

These are just few things mentioned. The report is full of 574 pages proves
many more things. So, the learned judges (includes Mr. S U Khan also) after
going through such solid report/proof gave correct judgment. However, if
they would have gone other way of judgment would be suspicious actually.

Thanks
Bipin Trivedi

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>