[Reader-list] How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause

[Bipin Trivedi]

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. 

"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..." the judge has noted.

Read full article bellow.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-es
pousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms

NEW DELHI: 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 of the Allahabad High Court judges 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 court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued
pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they
were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts. 

He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected - one
had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book
penned by a witness. 

Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal 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 "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of
discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma,
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 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..." the judge has 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 another
expert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is
an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history". 

Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and 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. "One cannot say that though I had made a
statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not
based on my study or research but what I have learnt from what others have
uttered," Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough
original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed. 

Read more: How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause - The
Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-es
pousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms#ixzz11viLUfM7