[Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

[Zulfiya Hamzaki]

In lieu of the ensuing discussion, here are two articles that bring to light
ASI's controversial history:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2015/stories/20030801004000800.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article797088.ece

Regards,
Zulfiya


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Bipin
> I cannot prove anything about history that old. No body can. Show me
> one single historian who can be 100% sure about anything that happened
> before his/her lifetime. Yes, but we can probably be sure about the
> history that is happening in our lives. Such as the demolition of the
> Babari mosque - yes I can prove who did that on which date.
>
> By the way, in one sentense you are saying ASI uses scientific and
> universally approved formula - then another sentence you say their
> method uses "faith of the millions of people". Sorry that's not a
> scientific method. All scientific discoveries have to be vetted by
> other scientists before they can become theories. So if some
> scientists are systematically criticizing the theories of ASI, why are
> you scared of criticism, and why do you have to label them commies and
> pseudos etc.?
>
> Javed
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:
> > Dear Javed,
> >
> > I am not saying this, this is the general excavation law comes in the
> study
> > of history. You ask any history student or historian. The things found
> > bellow 20 ft. does not prove it as old as 1500 years, but there is
> > systematic and scientific method to derive its age. Formula to derive the
> > age is purely scientific and universally approved method.
> >
> > Are you sure that devanagri lipi was not used before 2000 years? Can you
> > prove it? There is no way to prove whether it is used at that time or
> not,
> > but age of the stone found on which this lipi carved was of that time.
> They
> > were not sure about birth place of Rama, but ASI findings leads to this
> > belief of course along with millions of people faith.
> >
> > There are so many historical personalities whose date/place of birth is
> > unknown and here only faith comes into existence.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bipin Trivedi
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Javed [mailto:javedmasoo at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:52 PM
> > To: Bipin Trivedi
> > Cc: sarai-list; Patrice Riemens
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA
> JUDGEMENT
> >
> > Dear Bipin
> > You may call me a pseudo-secularist or a Muslim fundamentalist. But I
> > have a few queries based on your message:
> >
> > - You say that "land bellow 1 ft means about 100 years. So, the things
> > found bellow 20 ft... is at least 1500 to 2000 years old." Is that
> > really from a history/archeology textbook? If someone dug a 10 feet
> > pit 50 years ago and left some bricks or other material would we
> > consider it a 1000 years old material?
> >
> > - You mentioned that "at 20 ft they found stone showing name of Hindu
> > goddess in devnagri lipi". Accoring to your estimate, 20 feet must be
> > 2000 years old. But was devanagri lipi already in use 2000 years ago?
> > That is really some news. According to my humble information, Nagari
> > lipi are first attested from the 8th century AD only.
> >
> > - the high court judgment says that they are not sure if Babur
> > actually built the mosque - they only concur it because of
> > circumstantial evidences. Also they are not sure about the date of the
> > mosque construction. But its amazing that they are hundred percent
> > sure of the exact place of lord Rama's birth (which predates the
> > mosque's construction by centuries). How did they reach that
> > conclusion?
> >
> > - Do you know the exact date/year/era of lord Rama's birth?
> >
> > Thanks, and it would be good if you could provide answers to some of
> > these queries.
> >
> > Javed
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/7/10, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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/>
>