[Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

Sun Oct 10 11:23:31 IST 2010

That second comment is totally uncalled for. sounds like you haven't gotten
out of KG.

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Bipin Trivedi <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:

> 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/>
>
>