[Reader-list] PSEUDO SECULARISTS NOW OPPOSING AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

[Bipin Trivedi]

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/>