Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited ‘eminent’ historians
by Dec 6, 2012
By R Vaidyanathan
It runs to more than 8,000 pages and it contains is a marvelous set of documents on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri case. On the 20th anniversary of the demolition, it is worth looking at some aspects of the judgment delivered by the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in September 2012.
The judgment, which awarded two parts of the disputed land to Hindu groups and one to the Muslim one, is now being contested by the parties in the Supreme Court, but it offers an extraordinary insight in to our culture, history, and civilisational ethos. It dwells at length on Persian sources, German writings, French observations, Urdu literature and, of course, Sanskrit evidence. It deals with archeology, history, linguistics, anthropology, zoology, literature, the puranas, the jataka tales and many other subjects and disciplines.
The sweep of the judgment and the canvas covered is mind-boggling and it makes one proud of our judiciary. This judgment will be quoted discussed and dissected by legal as well as academic experts for several decades.
But we shall not discuss the judgment's core aspects, and focus instead on what it has to say on our “eminent historians” who were shown to be not so eminent, and their attitudes fairly unacademic.
Many “independent experts”, historians and archeologists appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board but in the end the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed the objections raised by them about the ruins of a temple under the demolished structure. It was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to judicial scrutiny.
Interestingly many of these “experts” had deposed twice in the court - once before the ASI excavations and another after. Before the excavations they asserted that there was no temple beneath the disputed structure and after it was dug up they began to claim that what was unearthed was a mosque or stupa. Not only that, they found themselves withering under judicial scrutiny in spite of writing signed articles and issuing pamphlets and long public letters.
The judge asked pointed queries which might never been asked by their students.
The cross-examination covers several pages and a gripping reading. It shows the levels to which our academics have fallen and become hand maidens of the political machinery. Let us look at some of their statements, and how they do nothing to enhance their profession's reputation.
It runs to more than 8,000 pages and it contains is a marvelous set of documents on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri case. On the 20th anniversary of the demolition, it is worth looking at some aspects of the judgment delivered by the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in September 2012.
The judgment, which awarded two parts of the disputed land to Hindu groups and one to the Muslim one, is now being contested by the parties in the Supreme Court, but it offers an extraordinary insight in to our culture, history, and civilisational ethos. It dwells at length on Persian sources, German writings, French observations, Urdu literature and, of course, Sanskrit evidence. It deals with archeology, history, linguistics, anthropology, zoology, literature, the puranas, the jataka tales and many other subjects and disciplines.
The sweep of the judgment and the canvas covered is mind-boggling and it makes one proud of our judiciary. This judgment will be quoted discussed and dissected by legal as well as academic experts for several decades.
But we shall not discuss the judgment's core aspects, and focus instead on what it has to say on our “eminent historians” who were shown to be not so eminent, and their attitudes fairly unacademic.
Many “independent experts”, historians and archeologists appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board but in the end the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed the objections raised by them about the ruins of a temple under the demolished structure. It was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to judicial scrutiny.
Interestingly many of these “experts” had deposed twice in the court - once before the ASI excavations and another after. Before the excavations they asserted that there was no temple beneath the disputed structure and after it was dug up they began to claim that what was unearthed was a mosque or stupa. Not only that, they found themselves withering under judicial scrutiny in spite of writing signed articles and issuing pamphlets and long public letters.
The judge asked pointed queries which might never been asked by their students.
The cross-examination covers several pages and a gripping reading. It shows the levels to which our academics have fallen and become hand maidens of the political machinery. Let us look at some of their statements, and how they do nothing to enhance their profession's reputation.
]![]( "RamMandir_AFP")
Activists of the Bajrang Dal Party hold torches while standing behind a model of Ram Temple on the 14th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. AFP
Supriya Verma an, “expert” who challenged the excavations done by the ASI, had not read the radar survey report on ground penetration that led to the court order for excavation. Verma and Jaya Menon, another “expert,” were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted.
Activists of the Bajrang Dal Party hold torches while standing behind a model of Ram Temple on the 14th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. AFPSuvira Jaiswal says: “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told.” She also confessed that she “prepared a report on the Babri dispute after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussion with my medieval history expert in my department”.
Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
When opinion can be history why are they all screaming that "faith" cannot be an equally relevant criterion?
Archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar admitted she did not have any “field” experience as far as Babri was concerned and had written an “introduction” to the book of another “expert” who deposed before the court, namely Prof D Mandal. This expert witness for the Waqf Board admitted he wrote his “Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition” without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.
Suraj Bhan was providing evidence based on medieval history but another expert of Muslim parties, namely Shireen Musavi, says that Bhan is an archeologists and not a historian.
The ASI report submitted to the court after an excavation of the site had brushed aside the so-called Historians' Report to the Nation authored by RS Sharma, M Athar Ali, DN Jha and Suraj Bhan, released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama's birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith.” But Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Historians' Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by BB Lal”.
Shireen Musavi suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama's birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Musavi admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram Janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”
Prof Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University. He was appointed on an ad hoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior to that he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there was no archaeological evidence to show either the existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge and provide a sample about all these “eminences”
A few of his quotes: “I never visited Ayodhya”. “I do not have any specific knowledge of the history of Babur's reign.” “Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd Para of the editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for the first time, raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama's birth place. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the aforesaid preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.” “The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”
Further: “It is true that I have not seen the disputed building as yet. I did not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also did not make physical investigation of basalt stone.” “My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based on any article. My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given in the book (paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89 and chiefly on the photograph (paper no118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by Prof BB Lal near the Babri Mosque. It is also correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of BB Lal, as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janambhumi: Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct.” “Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63).”
Mandal also said: “It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss Shereen Ratnagar.”
The learned Judge rightly observes: “A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof BB Lal and beyond that made no further study/research, etc. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analysed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished before its construction. The own admissions and clarification this witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this witness is short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to qualify as an opinion of an expert which may be considered relevant on a fact in issue, by this court. “
The list goes on. Justice Agarwal refers to the signed statement of these experts and notes that “instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere, it tends to create complications, conflict and controversy. The experts carry weight with public opinion and conclude that ‘one cannot say that though I had made a statement 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.”
Clearly, the expertise of eminences has been exposed. If such a thing had happened in physics or chemistry or medicine or accounting, the concerned person would have been taken to task by their professional associations. Unfortunately, the social science disciplines in India are under the grip of Left charlatans and they are not accountable to any. It is important that they are made accountable. Many of the things they said hardened positions on both sides, and they cannot now wriggle out and claim what they said was not their expert opinion.
Their respective universities would do well to initiate action against them or take other disciplinary steps to improve the reputation of the profession of historian. The textbooks written or edited by them for schools and colleges should be revoked and other books of less eminent - but more honest - historians should be prescribed
They need to be made accountable and brought to book, howsoever highly networked or “eminent” they are. Is the HRD ministry, and various universities, listening?
The author is Professor of Finance and Control, IIM Bangalore, The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.
Understanding the "Salma-Sabrina" model of fact-checking & journalism.. http://www.mediacrooks.com/2014/09/eminent-follies.html#.VBkW2haFvzj …
Eminent Follies
It has been a convention in India for long. The moment the word “Eminent” gets attached to a person in political domain, it is invariably a license to peddle falsehoods and, in some cases, extreme concoctions of lies. Arun Shourie had to write a whole book called “Eminent Historians” to expose the falsehoods of many Commie historians. Some of these eminent historians also concocted fake stories about Ramjanbhoomi and Ayodhya to the Allahabad HC. Their testimony to the court was largely based on the “Salma-Sabrina” model of fact-checking when they were just quoting each other and had no first hand evidence of a mosque pre-existing at the disputed RJB site. To understand the nonsense of such “eminences” I recommend you understand their techniques of deception: “Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians” by Prof R Vaidyanathan. Our media and establishment had bestowed the title “Eminent” to another celebrity: Fali Nariman(FN). He is known as an “Eminent Jurist” or “Eminent constitutional expert”. One does not dispute his expertise on matters of law and Constitution but even Shobha De is a political expert, so…
The eminent FN recently gave a lecture to the National Commission for Minorities. The Indian Express reported it with the headline “Hinduism losing its benign face… no one at top stepping in”. To clarify, by “top” FN does mean Modi-Sarkar because Hindus otherwise don’t have anyone at the “top”. Maybe Shiva or Vishnu can be considered being at the “top” but Hindus don’t have a Pope or a Grand Mufti to tell them what to do. They are and have been an unorganised lot for ages. It is only in the last century that many Hindu organisations have sprung up but they too don’t constitute the “top”. Here are some samples and interpretations of his speech as reported by IE:
“But — recurrent instances of religious tension fanned by fanaticism and hate speech has shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain. And let me say this frankly — my apprehension is that Hinduism is somehow changing its benign face because, and only because it is believed and proudly proclaimed by a few (and not contradicted by those at the top): that it is because of their faith and belief that HINDUS have been now put in the driving seat of governance… We have been hearing on television and reading in newspapers almost on a daily basis a tirade by one or more individuals or groups against one or another section of citizens who belong to a religious minority and the criticism has been that the majority government at the Centre has done nothing to stop this”.
Nariman lauded the role of the Supreme Court in upholding minority rights on many occasions, describing it as a “Super Minorities Commission”. However, he said, the judicial outlook has undergone gradual change since the early 1990s when the BJP introduced the phrase “appeasement of minorities” in the political lexicon… “The label stuck; ‘minority’ became and has become an unpopular word. And after the same political party had included in its Election Manifesto in the general election of May-June 1991 the party’s resolve if and when it came into power to amend Article 30 to the disadvantage of minorities, ‘minority rights’ got less and less protected by Courts (including the Supreme Court of India) than they were before”
Firstly, the term “minorities” in India has invariably come to mean Muslims. If at all the NCM or media or any govt speaks for any minority it has always been the Muslims. I have not heard anyone from the establishment speaking for Sikhs. Did you hear anyone screaming about Saharanpur? And that wasn’t under a govt of the Hindu “top”. You don’t hear the NCM or media talking about Jews or Parsis. FN slams his own legal community by stating that the “judicial outlook” changed when the BJP introduced the phrase “appeasement of minority” in the 1990s. So the SC is swayed by political statements? And they sort of prove FN is right, don’t they? This report on the SC’s comment on “Sickular” actions of the Centre suggests so (read report):
The SC has stressed repeatedly on something that the so-called “minority” wages war against. This is from the same report I just quoted: “In the last two decades, the Supreme Court had stressed time and again the importance of enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as advised by the Constitution. Between the Shah Bano judgment in 1985, Sarla Mudgal judgment (1995) and John Vallamatom verdict in 2003, the court had thrice stressed the need for enacting a UCC, saying it would help forge national integration and remove dissimilarities”. I need not add that the “intolerant” Hindus have been unreasonably demanding this too. The UCC has been advised by the Constitution? Oh! But you see the Constitution doesn’t apply to certain communities who are being oppressed by Hindu fanatics. They have their own “Personal law board” which is superior to the Constitution. The “intolerant” Hindus refuse to see this fact.
The Indian Express drags in speeches of Yogi Adityanath to the context of FN’s speech. It does seem the Yogi has rattled the “Sickular” club. They don’t have any answers to questions he raises but keep referring to his speeches as “hate speech”. For instance, the Yogi consistently mentions rioting by Muslims anywhere, anytime for any reason even when there is no relevance to India but these “eminences” have no answer why. This is an enduring image from the Azad Maidan riots by Muslims:
The rioters destroyed a Jawan memorial, molested five female cops and two people were killed at Azad Maidan in August 2012. And Hindus have become intolerant? For giving speeches which the “Sickulars” judge as hate speeches? In response to the Azad Maidan riots a female cop, Sujata Patil, wrote a harsh, sarcastic poem and she was penalised and accused of fanning “communal hatred”. The “eminent” complainant against her hatred was one Nazar Mohammed Siddique, an accused arrested in the Azad Maidan violence case, who was allowed bail. This is what “Eminent Sickulars” call intolerance; that everyone should stand by and watch the unprovoked violence, destruction of national monuments and shut up. If they speak up, they are branded intolerant.
There is not an iota of truth in anything that Fali Nariman said. It is deception at best to an audience who just wanted to hear exactly the kind of speech he gave. They want that their “victimhood” be encouraged even as they refuse the recognise minority failures. Predictably, the stupid editor of DNA immediately pounced on the opportunity of FN’s folly to splurge on. DNA’s editor makes an interesting observation: “Far from the bogey of minority appeasement that the Hindu Right energetically propagates, a recent report compiled by the DGPs of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh warns of a gaping trust deficit building up among Muslims against the police forces”. It doesn’t occur to this editorialist that none of these states have a BJP or NDA govt. TN has never had an NDA/BJP govt. UP hasn’t had one in two decades. Maharashtra has had a Congress govt for almost 15 years. So the folly of this bogus argument is not evident to him. And for all this the “Hindu top management” is to blame? Whichever that is! Also, can this moron editor of DNA explain why the Maharashtra police was a mute witness to Azad Maidan? Or does he blame that on Modi-Sarkar?
What eminent celebrities like FN refuse and fail to recognise is that there is a widespread problem with “appeasement” of minorities (read Muslims) not just in India but in many parts of the world. There is unrest building in parts of UK and Europe. Anti-Muslim sentiment in the USA has peaked now. It is far higher than it was in the days immediately after 9/11:
That is not a poll conducted by Gallup or the “Hindu top”. That’s a poll by the Arab American Institute. How do our “sickulars” explain that? There are no conflicts in India between Hindus and Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, Christians or Jehovah’s Witness. There may have been stray ones in the past. So why is it always a Hindu-Muslim conflict? And if some “Hindu top” is responsible for “communalisation” one should ask the question:Who is the “Muslim top management”? The fact, as Najma Heptullah pointed out sometime back, is that Muslims are not “minorities” in this country anymore. They are no way comparable to other minority communities and in many towns and parts they are actually in majority or sizeable in population.
The recent floods in Kashmir have again revealed a regular behavioural pattern. The Army and NDRF were doing their best to help people and yet there were pockets where the rescue teams were pelted with stones and attacked. Ask our eminent Sickos to explain this behaviour and they won’t be able to. On the contrary, they foist a terrorist like Yasin Malik of JKLF as a “moderate” separatist and he is even reported to have hijacked a boat with food for flood victims. Here you go:
Yasin Malik is a darling at NDTV and other media houses. He is a darling of Commies like Suzy Roy and other Commie politicians. We are supposed to tolerant to such elements? I have to repeat what I posted about Karl Popper’s famous quote a long time ago:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
That’s all there is to it. People like Shiv Aroor and Gaurav Sawant of Headlines Today are slowly starting to speak. Sickos can lie only so much. They call Yogi Adityanath a hate-monger because he moves around in saffron. In absence of any explanation to his questions they scream “polarisation, polarisation”. Wear a suit and a tie like the Fali Nariman types and get invited to annual lecture circuits and you will be hailed as a “Secular”. Lie long enough and they will prefix your name with “Eminent”. We have seen all of this before.
So mis conceptions, faulty understanding, deliberate lies repeated by 'eminent distortians' has brought us to this despicable state where fallacies, lies , untruths dictate our public discourse
the constitution itself recognises only language and culture as the basis to determine majority/minority in any area of india. So it is not something that i concocted.
secondly, read both your articles - but not getting the intended end state you are aspiring.
mixed marriages between hindu and Muslims - hindu women with Muslim men is what love jehad is all about . So why would one want to encourage that ?
secondly, in case of mixed marriages across language and culture, one language, caste, culture cannibalizes another in most cases.
Now that the by poll results are out, MSM is screaming about defeat of communal politics.Ravinar will have to do a piece on this deluge of analysis and commentaries by "eminent" journos on how wise people of India have decided to return to secularism.
Narendra Modi is ignoring them , but i would have preferred to fix them. Till then we will have to tolerate. We are Hindus. Tolerance is in our blood. Hahahaha.
There is absolutely no question that Yogi Adityanath has rattled these pseudos to the core. He has thus exposed the hollowness of these folks. All he did was reverse the time honoured argument of Hindus should tolerate all kinds of threats and nonsense. The minute, he said, Hindus will retaliate if attacked, all hell broke loose.
We are always given this crap about "To you your religion and to us ours" is enshrined in Islam. I have heard this crap from "moderates" like Shahid Siddiqui also.I read a Pakistani Jew's tweet yesterday where he was arguing with a usual "moderate" muslim apologist. And he asked the question, would it be acceptable to the Muslim majority, if Hindu temples, Gurudwaras and Synagogues preached that Allah is a scam and Islam is false? Yet this is the kind of nonsense preached by Islam against Hinduism, not just in Muslim majority countries like Pakistan, but also in places like India, which are not declared Islamic states yet.
Hindus are not just expected to tolerate this nonsense being preached, but also attacks on their festivals, their women, their property, their temples and their whole way of life.
Dare they raise their voices, then morons like Nariman start talking bullshit. Nariman should realise, he and his entire tribe would not exist, nay prosper, if it were not for the generosity of Hindus. Today Nariman can make such statements only because he is sure he can walk away safely from that conference with angry Hindu reaction limited to a few tweets.
Here's a limerick dedicated to Nariman:
There's a Bawa called Nariman
Who jumped on the secular bandwagon
Said Hinduism is no longer benign
And that's a troubling sign
Although, without it, Bawas would be none!
's pride and self confidence and brainwashing with false socialist notions leding to low rate of economic growth which to rub salt in wound was termed as Hindu rate of growth where as actually should have been termed as Nehruvian rate of growth!
Of course this exercise would require a dedicated team of intellecuals and experts from academic field to work on this much needed project to be funded by the suitable agency to be completed within shortest period.
This white paper should once for all demolish the awe and myth of respectabilty of leftist pretenders who pass off themselves with superior hauter as some kind academic genuises,their cloak of respectability should be torn to tatters so that snake oil sellers dare never their voice in the national discourse and all the venues of public be barred to curtail their capability to spread their poison.
The white paper should be in suitable post modern English with all the high faultin jargon,let us pay them back in their own coin.
if one sells oneself cheaply how can one blame others??