[Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Sun Oct 10 09:58:15 IST 2010

You can find full detailed judgment on site: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/ 

First look at Pakistan legal system and its neutrality before criticizing Indian legal system and neutrality.

-----Original Message-----
From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of yasir ~?? ??
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 12:19 AM
To: Sarai Reader-list
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

It is also customary for judges to decide considering 'public opinion', in
this case the highly politicised public opinion of the dominating majority.
Its how they eventually balance the evidence, lack of it, and how the court
wants its judgement to be received, what consequences it wants to see, these
are also part of the judgement. a judgement may or may not be truth. Its
where one stands and makes a call.

btw is there a detailed judgement yet. and are there any dissenting judges.
how does that work in India.

best

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:

> Dear Javed,
>
> Criticisms are always welcome, but there should be some logic behind it.
> Criticism without any evidence just for their bias belief cannot be
> acceptable. Those opposing does not came forward with any kind of logical
> evidence. There was lot of arguments, proof produced by the other party in
> the court but could not able to convince the panel of judges and so their
> evidence was weak and could not withstand.
>
> No one can prove historical events since you will not find any witness.
> But,
> still history exists, historical events exist and effects present also.
> People living today has never seen historical
> personalities/events/monuments
> but feel/heard it from their ancestors and this chain of ancestors itself
> becomes one kind of proof and here the faith comes into existence.
>
> Not a single witness today for existence of Ram/Krishna/Paygamber/Ishu.
> Many
> believe that they are myth then also millions of people have faith in them
> and with their inspiration one want to live their life, nothing wrong in
> it.
>
> Thanks
> Bipin Trivedi
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Javed [mailto:javedmasoo at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:36 PM
> To: Bipin Trivedi
> Cc: sarai-list
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA
> JUDGEMENT
>
> 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/>
>
_________________________________________
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/>