Ayodhya

[Guest]

An old ASI report comes to mind
Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->August 25, 2003 18:31 IST
Last Updated: August 25, 2003 19:35 IST


In what could be a turning point in the Ayodhya dispute, the Archaeological Survey of India has reported to the high court that its excavations found distinctive features of a 10th century temple beneath the Babri Mosque site.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The report said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure (Babri Mosque).

Among the excavation yields it mentioned were stone and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure.

The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India, the ASI report said.

The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The Govt wants to have it's cake and it too while not wanting to put on weight. In case of Rama Setu, ASI is the know it all body without ASI having done an iota of work. In Ayodhya issue, ASI report after an detailed study is shoved aside.
Make up your minds folks? Which way will you have it?
And where the heck are those looneys who used to harrass the then PM - Vajapayee day in and day out for Ram temple - cat got their tounge now?

[Guest]

no no no Virenji, too bad you expect so much from the secularists.

When ASI excavations started revealing that the mosque was built by destroying the temple, they started moving the goal post.

1. First they started saying that the excavation is a forgery. They set up a 'night vigil' of the excavation site - by posting a couple of worthies from the AMU, Calcutta Univ, JNU etc on rotation basis - to 'monitor' the excavations. Irfan Habib led this.
2. When it came to nothing, and the finds were above any shadow of doubt, then they started saying that the 'structure' which was discovered beneath might have been anything - like a dharmashala or bauddha vihara - anything else but a temple.
3. Next when 'certainly a temple' evidenced started coming, then lost it and moved goal post again. Even if it was a temple, then no evidence that Babar destroyed it - or it did not go down because of natural causes.
4. Finally, they packed the goal post and took it home. Proving that a temple existed before the mosque was constructed is not enough for them. ASI must prove that Rama "existed", and was born at that very spot.

Look up Irfan Habib's website for the details. Dr. Elst's and Dr. Shivaji have mighty destroyed each thread of this fabric of falsehood, and yet Irfan Habib and his club keep the lie running on that site as if it were some 'research'. Also see IH's Saraswati lies.

[dhu]

Online Book - Shourie, Dharampal, Gurumuthy, Govindacharya:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_con.html
Contents
<b>Ayodhya And The Future India</b>
<img src='http://www.cpsindia.org/images/ayodhya.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION:
SOCIETY HAS ITS REASONS TOO                                      

Chapter 2
THE BUCKLING STATE
<b>ARUN SHOURIE</b>
                                                                         
Chapter 3
DARK FOREBODINGS
<b>S. GUHAN</b>
                                                               
Chapter 4
COMING TOGETHER
<b>ABDUS SAMAD</b>
                                                                     
Chapter 5
BUILDING BRIDGES
<b>CASIMIR GNANADICKAM</b>
The Most Reverend the Archbishop of Mylapore Madras

Chapter 6
THE INCLUSIVE AND THE EXCLUSIVE
<b>S. GURUMURTHY</b>

Chapter 7
THE FUTURE VISTAS
<b>K. N. GOVINDACHARYA</b>
                                                                    
Chapter 8
UNDAMMING THE FLOW
<b>DHARAMPAL</b>
                                                             
Supplementary Notes                                                          
Contributors and Participants      <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/nov/24/...-was-felled.htm

How the Babri Masjid was felled: A first-hand account

---------

He mentions something about steel containers for mortars and then in his account doesnt mention mortar use.

--------

Anyway an interesting filmy account .

[dhu]

[url="http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=970"]Ayodhya: A Historical Watershed [/url] by Girilal Jain

Implicit in the above is the proposition that while India did not cease to be India either under Muslim or British rule despite all the trials and tribulations, she was not fully Mother India. And she was not fully Mother India not because she was called upon to digest external inputs, which is her nature to assimilate, but because she was not free to throw out what she could not possibly digest in the normal and natural course, This lack of freedom to reject what cannot be assimilated is the essence of foreign conquest and rule. The meaning of Ayodhya is that India has regained, to a larger extent than hitherto, the capacity to behave and act as a normal living organism. She has taken another big step towards self-affirmation.

NR_Tatvamasi: RNS (Rajnath Singh) points to a bbc report that claimed Ram Janmabhoomi movememnt was a bigger people movement than 1942

[Guest]

Current Congress Party is extension of British Imperialism, there suppression on Ayodhya movement or denial of Temple is part of British colonialism to suppress colonies culture and religion of majority population and prop up minority to create havoc in nation.

[Guest]

Liberhan report a key to the votebank

November 29th, 2009

By Arun Nehru





The Justice Liberhan Commission, appointed to investigate the December 6, 1992, demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, has taken 17 years and 48 extensions to submit its report, at a cost of approximately Rs 8 crores to the taxpayer.



I am a little surprised that all the political parties are trying to score debating points on a report that was leaked to the media with the sole purpose of playing votebank politics and creating divisions within our society. The leak did not result in the desired controversy but instead brought together the Opposition and forced the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) to table the report within 24 hours. This decision was a good damage-control exercise.



Justice Liberhan’s report places individual culpability for the demolition on 68 people, the bulk of whom are drawn from the Sangh Parivar — Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).



The report should be consigned to the archives at the earliest to avoid political damage. Motives will be attributed to the fact that while former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao has been exonerated, former prime minister Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee has been named in the report. This is very sad. The government’s Action Taken Report (ATR), according to media reports, indicts no one in particular and has little substance. If the government proceeds on this report it will lose credibility with both, the majority and the minority community. Media reports already indicate negative reactions from the Muslim community which has demanded an apology from Justice Liberhan for certain remarks made against their community. I have a feeling that few in the media will devote much time to the report after reading the ATR.



Votebank politics is a reality as both majority and minority votes have the capacity to swing electoral results. We saw this happening in favour of the BJP in 1999 and then for the Congress in 2004 and in 2009.



We are now in a state of flux and with the Left and the BJP losing ground it is inevitable that there will be a realignment of political forces. Religion and caste still play a major role in elections. Currently, the Congress has an advantage but in politics nothing can be taken for granted. The results of the Assembly elections in Haryana and the byelections in Uttar Pradesh are just two examples. In Uttar Pradesh, the minority votes from the Samajwadi Party can travel both to the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Congress. All three parties will do everything possible to woo the minority community as they may determine close to 150 seats out of 400 in Uttar Pradesh.



The major electoral battle will come in the Assembly elections in 2011-12 in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Kerala. Here the minority vote will be crucial for all the parties as these four states have the highest minority population in the country.



The Liberhan Report and its contents may well leave everyone confused and I don’t see any advantage in this for any party. The cases relating to the Babri Masjid are already filed in Lucknow and Rae Bareli and they will probably go on for another five to ten years. Thereafter, appeals will go to higher courts. I don’t think this issue should be allowed to fester for another decade.



The leakage of the report is a serious matter and I do not subscribe to the view that the home minister or Justice Liberhan had anything to do with it. Anyone who was part of the commission or in the home ministry could have leaked the report. Considering that so many pages had to be photocopied it was obviously someone who had easy access to the documents. The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, expressed regret and promised a full investigation into the leak. But I have grave doubts if anything will happen. Had anyone been serious about this lapse, the Central Bureau of Investigation would have been called in.





Sensitive issues have been leaked before and it will happen again. The media coverage of one year after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks may push out the Liberhan Report from the headlines. This will suit both the UPA and the Opposition, and the voting public will be saved from the trauma of living in the past.



The challenges on internal security will increase with time. Considering the constraints of a coalition government and the fluid situation in Pakistan, the UPA government and the home minister have done well.



The United States adopted strict security measures after the bombing of the World Trade Centre on September 9, 2001. After 26/11, whatever we do will not be enough. The situation in West Asia continues to be explosive and we all know the chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are media reports that the Pakistani prosecutors have charged seven men with planning and helping to carry out the 26/11 attacks. All this means very little and may well be happening to ensure that aid from the US is not disrupted. The US is in a difficult situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Various terrorist organisations are aware of this and their infiltration in the Pakistan government, the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence is extensive.



Things may get worse in the immediate future. Whilst we may engage the global powers to provide assistance, the ground reality is that bomb blasts occur daily in the cities of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We face severe challenges from several fronts and whilst we have much to do there is little doubt in my mind that the UPA government is giving internal security all its attention. Compared to 26/11, there is a marked improvement in our capability to tackle the challenges for the future.



Arun Nehru is a former Union Minister

[ramana]

P Chidambaram is making brave speeches in the Lok Sabha and in the process impugning PVNR. PC was aatwerp during that time. However read his speech to get an idea of what drives the crony secular mind.

[Husky]

Don't know if this was posted already. (It appears the actual content of the blogpost is older than 7 Dec 2009)



http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2...dr-bb.html

Monday, December 7, 2009

Ram temple below Babri structure - Dr B.B. Lal





Thanks to Dr S.Kalyanaraman for sending this valuable part from Dr BB Lal's book on the excavations he conducted at Ram Janma bhoomi, that establish beyond doubt that a magnificent Ram temple existed before it was demolished to build the Babri structure.







From the book:



[color="#FF0000"]"RAMA: HIS HISTORICITY, MANDIR AND SETU :

EVIDENCE OF LITERATURE, ARCHAEOLOGY AND OTHER SCIENCES" –[/color]



[color="#0000FF"]BY DR. B.B. LAL[/color]



ARYAN BOOKS INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI (2008)





Dr BB Lal's work ‘Was there a temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’ can be viewed with colour photographs. The URL is: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Cha...odhyabblal



[color="#2E8B57"]"ARCHAEOLOGY COMES INTO THE PICTURE" – (pp-15)[/color]



When the Britishers left India in 1947, there was an yawning gap in our knowledge of ancient Indian history. We had at one end of the scale the Harappan Civilization which, in its Mature Stage, ranged in date from circa 2600 to 2000 BCE, and on the other the period of Sodasa Mahajanapadas (Sixteen Big States) beginning around the sixth century BCE.





Archaeologically, very little was known about the intermediary period and thus it was loosely termed as the 'Dark Age', although there was nothing 'dark' about it. It was indeed a great challenge for Indian archaeologists. (pp-15)





- - - . The readers will kindly forgive me for this seemingly unwanted and long introduction. But I thought it was necessary to let the readers know how, encouraged by the results (though by no means immense) of [color="#FF0000"]my excavation at Hastinapura [ that established the historicity of the Mahabharata ][/color], I embarked upon my next project, namely 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites'. Though conceived while in the Survey [ASI], I could not undertake it since as the Director General almost all my time was taken up by administrative and other allied matters. It was only after my voluntary retirement from the Survey [ASI] in 1972 that I could plan to take up this project, to begin with at the Jiwaji University, Gwalior, and later with full attention at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study at Shimla. The Survey [ASI] helped me in the field work which ran from 1977 to 1986, by deputing staff of its Excavations Branch, which for most of the time was headed by Shri K.N. Dikshit..(pp-19)





[color="#2E8B57"]"WAS THERE A TEMPLE IN THE JANMA BHUMI AREA AT AYODHYA PRECEDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

BABRI MASJID?" (pp-54)[/color]



As mentioned earlier (pp-20), excavations were carried out in the Janma-Bhumi area at Ayodhya as part of the project 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites'. Of the trenches laid out in this area, one was immediately to the South of and almost parallel to the boundary wall of the Babri Masjid, the intermediary space being hardly four metres. (pp-50)





- - - . Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid there were twelve stone pillars which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings but also figures of Hindu deities (Figs. 2.3 and 2.4). It was self evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the

Masjid but were foreign to it. Since, as already stated, the pillar-bases were penetrating into the Masjid complex, a question naturally arose whether these bases had anything to do with the above mentioned pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid.(pp-55)





- - - However, since these pillar-bases raised a question about their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Masjid, which evidently had originally belonged to a Hindu temple, these did draw public attention. The first reaction that came up from a certain category of historians [Eminent Historians] was to deny the very existence of these pillar-bases. Their approach was simple: if there were no pillar-bases, the question of their relationship with the pillars affixed to the piers of the Babri Masjid became automatically redundant. These historians took recourse to publishing all sorts of unsavoury comments in the newspapers. However, when they were told that the pillar-bases were not someone's fancy but their photographs (along with the negatives), taken at the time of the excavation, did exist in the photo-archives of the Excavations Branch of the ASI, they gave up their first exercise in denial, of which more would be said later. (pp-55)





- - -. Curiously, events take their own course. On December 6, 1992, the Masjid was demolished by the Kar Sevaks who had assembled in large number at the site. The demolition, though regrettable, brought to light a great deal of archaeological material from within the thick walls of the Masjid. From the published reports it is gathered that there were more than 200 specimens which included many scuptured panels and architectural components which must have constituted parts of the demolished temple. Besides, there were three inscriptions, of which two are illustrated here (Figs 2.5 and 2.6) (pp-61)





Of the above mentioned three inscriptions, the largest one is engraved on a stone-slab measuring 1.10 x .56 meters, and consists of twenty lines (Fig 2.5). It has since been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puruttatva No. 23 (1992-93), pp-35. (Professor Shastri, who unfortunately is no more, was a distinguished historian and a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics). The relevant part of the paper reads as follows: 'The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century A.D. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance for our purpose here. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that [color="#FF0000"]a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones and beautified with a golden spire unparalleled by any other temple built by the earlier kings was constructed.[/color] [color="#2E8B57"]This wonderful temple was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala showing that Ayodhya and Saketa were closely connected, Saketa being the district of which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes God Vishnu as destroying King Bali (apparently in Vamana manifestation) and the ten headed personage (ie Ravana). (pp-63-64)[/color]





The inscription makes it abundantly clear that there did exist at the site a temple datable to circa 11th-12th century CE [A.D.]. The sculptures and inscribed slab that came out from within the walls of the Masjid belonged to this very temple.(pp-64)





It has been contented by certain historians [Eminent Historians] that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slab were brought by the Kar Sevaks from somewhere else and surreptitiously palced there at the time of the demolition of the Masjid. This contention is absolutely baseless. - - - On the other hand, a reputed journal India Today, published in its issue dated December 31, 1992, a photograph (Fig 2.7), which shows the Kar

Sevaks carrying on their shoulders a huge stone-sculpted with a long frieze, after having picked it up from the debris. (pp-64)





The above mentioned historians have also alleged that the inscription has been forged. This is behaving like the Village School Master of Oliver Goldsmith, who, 'though vanquishedwould argue still'. So many eminent epigraphists of the country have examined the the inscribed slab and not even one of them is of the view that the inscription is forged. [Note: Emphasis as appearing in the book] Anyway, to allay misgivings, I append here a Note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, ASI, Dr. K.V. Ramesh (Appendix II). In it he first gives a summary of the inscription, then an actual reading of the text and finally an English translation thereof. While many scholars may like to go through the Note, it maybe straightaway here that according to it this temple was built by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala (i.e. Ayodhya) through the grace of the senior Lord of the earth viz Govinda Chandra, of the Gahadavala dynasty who ruled over a vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE. (pp-66)





In this entire context, it also needs to be added that there exist hundreds of examples, all over the country, of the destruction of temples and incorporation of their material in the mosques during the mediaeval times.For example, right in Delhi there is the Quwwatu'l-IslamMosque ('Might of Islam') near the Qutb Minar, which incorporated parts of a large number of temples that had been wantonly destroyed by Qutub-ud-din Aibak. Fig. 2.8 shows, standing within the mosque complex, a colonnade which was constructed by using sculpted pillars of the demolished 27 Hindu and Jain temples. This was a matter of glory for the conqueror as has been recorded by himself in an inscription still existing on inner lintel of the eastern entrance of the mosque (Fig. 2.9). Its English translation, by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, is as follows: ' The fort was conquered and this Jami Masjid was built in (the months of) the year 587 [1191-92 A.D.] by the Amir, the great and glorious commander of the army, (named) Qutub-ud-daulat-wa-d-din, the Amir-ul-umara Aibak Sultani, may God strengthen his helpers. The material of 27 temples, on (the erection of) each of which 2,000,000 Deliwals had been spent, were used in (the construction of) this mosque. May God the great and glorious have mercy on him who should pray for the faith of the founder of the good (building) (pp-66).





To sum up, the evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janma Bhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babri Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of historians and archaeologists - and others of the same ilk - is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has revealed itself. (pp-68)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





COMMENT:



Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of [color="#FF0000"]Shri K.K. Muhammad[/color] , Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist ( Madras Circle ) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on 15 Dec 1990 :

" I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-'77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER."



Muhammad went to add: " Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Rama Temple."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[color="#FF0000"]ABOUT DR, B.B. LAL[/color]



The blurb states:



"A world renowned archaeologist, Professor B.B. Lal was the Director General of the ASI. His excavations cover a very wide range. At Kalibangan, Rajasthan, he unearthed a prosperous city of the Harappan Civilization. The excavations at Hastinapura have established that there was a kernel of truth in the Mahabharata, even though the epic is full of interpolations. The excavations at Ayodhya have shown that the Ramayana too has a basis in history. In 1961 he conducted excavations in Egypt too.



The President of India has honoured him with Padma Bhushan.

[dhu]

[url="http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263310"]The BJP Hypocrisy[/url]

Koenraad Elst

On 6 December 1992, in the presence of BJP leader L.K. Advani, Hindu activists demolished the Babri Masjid, a mosque structure imposed on the site in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple during the era of Muslim occupation. Only days after the event, an investigative commission led by Justice M.S. Liberhan was mandated to inquire into the facts and causes of the demolition. Seventeen years and an astronomical budget later, the Liberhan report was first leaked to the press and then finally presented in the Lok Sabha. It is hopelessly shoddy and biased, but its malicious conclusion that the BJP leadership engineered the demolition, though false, is paradoxically quite fair and fitting.



The Liberhan Commission's reported finding that the Bharaitya Janata Party leadership is guilty of the "criminal" demolition of the Babri Masjid, has provoked some protests and denials in BJP and pro-BJP circles. These implicitly assume that the demolition was indeed a crime, that Advani & co have to be absolved from it, and that the guilt must be shifted to Congress Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi (r.1984-89) and Narasimha Rao (r.1991-96). Meanwhile, Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharati, then second-rank BJP leaders, have owned up their responsibility, but they happen to be the leaders who ended up clashing with the BJP. Hindu activists loyal to the Ram temple cause will commend their steadfastness. They will also praise Rajiv Gandhi for starting the process of replacing the usurper Babri structure with a proper Ram temple; and Narasimha Rao for passively helping the demolition by his refusal to intervene. By contrast, the BJP leadership’s denial of responsibility will only earn it their contempt.



To be sure, a more orderly procedure to replace the mosque structure with proper temple architecture would have been preferable. Advani had a point in lamenting the breakdown of RSS discipline that made way for the demolition fervour. But even what actually took place was a lesser evil compared with the continuation of the Babri structure, at least in the real world. For one thing, it saved many lives. Just compare the riot toll in the years preceding the demolition with those in the subsequent years. After the Muslim revenge had run its course with the Mumbai bomb attacks of 12 March 1993 (which set the pattern for later terrorist actions in London, Madrid, Bali, Delhi etc., one of the international offshoots of the Ayodhya affair), all was relatively quiet on the Hindu-Muslim front until 2002. The demolition and its aftermath, shocking though they were, triggered a catharsis that sobered up the marching crowds, both Hindu and Muslim. Imagine what riots would have taken place had the Babri eyesore remained standing, a scandal to Hindus and a prop to Muslim hopes of taking it back. Indeed, the prospect of endless Ayodhya-related riots is probably the unstated reason (apart from putting the BJP on the defensive) why Narasimha Rao allowed the demolition to be completed.



As for the pre-planned nature of the demolition, it has always been obvious. This too the BJP should concede unequivocally. Members of the demolition vanguard have told me about their training and the equipment they had brought. They also mentioned the name of the mastermind of the whole operation; it was not Advani nor A.B. Vajpayee. Which brings us to the most startling fact of the demolition’s aftermath: the total refusal of the Indian media to investigate the details. Collectively, they spurned the scoop of the decade, viz. a cover picture with the caption: “Meet the mastermind of the Ayodhya demolition.” The reason is that they found it more expedient to blame Advani and barred themselves from publishing or indeed finding anything that might disturb this story-line.



Once the vanguard had started its operation on 6 December 1992, the rest of the crowd followed. For them at least, the demolition had indeed not been pre-planned. And this unprepared crowd included the unwilling Advani. He and most BJP leaders (if not all -- I cannot claim completeness for my data) clearly were not in on it, and the Liberhan report offers no proof for their involvement either, only some suppositions about what they “must” have known. Even so, they did bear a political responsibility. Today the BJP says that if Home Minister P. Chidambaram did not personally leak the Liberhan report, he remains politically responsible. That makes sense, but the same principle naturally applies to the BJP leaders’ responsibility for the demolition. They should have owned it up right then, and they can still do so now.



Justice M.S. Liberhan is unconvincing in his unfounded allotment of blame for the demolition's technical preparation to them. But it is petty-minded to make a fuss about this, because their political responsibility is so undeniable. Focusing on the technical whodunit is politically incorrect in that it misrepresents the whole issue as conceived by the pro-temple movement. The crime is not that a usurper structure was demolished, but that the government (egged on by the English media, the CPM, the JNU historians and similar usual suspects) had been thwarting the restoration of a Hindu sacred site to its pilgrim constituency, the Hindus. The right [color="#0000FF"]policy [/color]would have been to acknowledge and act upon the self-evident principle that a Hindu sacred site should be in Hindu custody and adorned with Hindu architecture. Will the secularists insist on the imposition of a Ram temple on the Kaaba site in Mecca, or on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Of course not, and for the same reason there should not be a mosque on a hill that for centuries has been the main site dedicated to Rama.



Some people were ready to act upon this simple and logical insight. When Rajiv Gandhi had the locks on the Babri Masjid opened, he clearly embarked on a policy of accommodating the Hindus in compensation for (and in proportion with) the plentiful Muslim “appeasement” by his own and previous governments. It was a typical instance of the Congress culture with its compromises and horse-trading. Nothing very noble, but with the virtue of pragmatism. That approach would normally have led to a deal, with the Ayodhya site for the Hindu lobby and some sweeteners for the Muslim lobby, of which package the ban on Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was an opener. Indeed not quite noble, but it would have saved a lot of lives and political energy. Today the Rama Janmabhumi temple would have become just one among many uneventful Hindu places of pilgrimage. Come to think of it, that option could still be tried by the present Congress government.



But in 1989-92, that option was thwarted by the offensive of Babri ultras, and by this I don’t mean the warriors for Islam but the conformistic intellectuals shrieking and howling that the contentious building was the last bastion of “secularism”, a matter of high [color="#0000FF"]principle[/color], of life and death. Under their fierce calls for “hard secularism”, no administrator dared to reduce the controversy to its true and manageable proportions anymore. Not the Congress, not the various left-populist parties, and not the BJP either. They were all paralysed and consequently bought time all while taking sides against the weaker party, the pro-temple movement with its vacillating and politically incompetent leadership.



And this shows us another sense in which the BJP is politically responsible for the demolition and for its erratic implementation by an unguided crowd. They too took the side of the status-quo against the Hindu demands. The Hindutva rank and file defied its leaders because it felt cheated by them. After the 1991 elections, when the BJP rose to the rank of largest opposition party, the Ayodhya demand was ditched, first mentally, then gradually also in practice. The activists felt that the leaders didn't mean business, that they didn't dare to push for the logical next step, viz. physically replacing the mosque structure (already in use for Hindu worship) with temple architecture. It was clear that the leaders had no clue on how to go about it. As it later turned out, in 1998-2004, even with the mosque gone and the BJP in power, Advani & co didn't move a finger towards the construction of the temple. So the ordinary activists had rightly sensed the unwillingness of the leaders to take the movement forward. That is why they took the [color="#4169E1"]law [/color]into their own hands.



The leaders could have avoided this outcome by charting a political roadmap towards a negotiated temple construction and then staying the course. Instead they tried to give the issue a quiet burial all while still making some increasingly faint pro-temple noises in order to retain their vote-bank. For that hypocrisy, they ought to pay a price. The Liberhan findings are shoddy and biased, but the disgrace now suffered by the BJP leaders and worsened by their denials is well-deserved.

[Guest]

[url="http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jan/17/rao-did-groundwork-for-constructing-ram-temple.htm"]Rao did groundwork for constructing Ram temple'[/url]

Forming the apolitical Ram Temple Trust -- comprising heads of various Hindu mutts and religious bodies from across the country -- was one of the hardest political gambles that Rao, known as the 'apara Chanakya', had to play to checkmate the Congress' biggest political rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party , on the Ayodhya issue, according to the book.



"They (BJP) say they will build the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Is Lord Rama their own," PV questioned, even as he was immersed in deep thoughts over the temple issue, Prasad recollects in his book.



To counter the BJP on the temple issue, PV came up with an "amazingly new strategy", Prasad writes, saying the then prime minister wanted the Ram temple constructed through an apolitical trust, excluding the Viswa Hindu Parishad, with full support of the Government of India .

[Guest]

Ayodhya attack brain killed

OUR CORRESPONDENT

Srinagar, Jan. 18: Security forces today claimed to have killed the mastermind of the 2005 fidayeen attack at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi complex.



Jaish-e-Mohommad commander Abu Dawood was killed in an encounter with joint team of the army and police in Narol forest of Mendhar in Poonch on Sunday night.



Dawood was the divisional commander of Jaish. He was in charge of the border districts of Rajouri and Poonch in Jammu.



Poonch police chief Manmohan Singh said the encounter took place last night. “We have found an AK-47 rifle, three magazines, a pouch, one mobile, two SIM cards of Aircel and Airtel and photos of Osama Bin Laden and literature of the Jaish,” Singh said. “He (Dawood) was the mastermind of the Ayodhya attack.”



Five armed terrorists were killed by the police at Ayodhya in July 2005 and the police later arrested five militants from Mendhar for their alleged involvement in the attack.

[Capt M Kumar]

INDORE: Bringing to the fore yet again the party's

pet issue, new BJP President Nitin Gadkari on Thursday said the Ram temple in Ayodhya is its soul and appealed to the Muslims to adopt a "generous" attitude by giving up their claim on the disputed site.



In his presidential address at the opening of the two-day National Council here, he also spoke on issues seeking to broadbase support for the party like wooing Dalits and minorities and the need to instill a new work culture in the organisation without resorting to sycophancy.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...588901.cms

[Capt M Kumar]

The Supreme Court today agreed to consider a plea for removing alleged unreasonable restrictions imposed by the authorities in Ayodhya on worshipping of Lord Rama in the temple at the disputed site.



"We will consider your plea," a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma said while asking Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy, a party in the matter, to move a fresh application in this regard.



"You have to a file proper application and then only the respondents can file response," the Bench said and gave three weeks time to him to submit the application. http://news.in.msn.com/national/article....282&page=2

[Capt M Kumar]

“We have been asked by adhyakshji [party president Nitin Gadkari] not to say anything on this subject,” a senior leader confirmed here on Thursday, even as he let it be known that since the BJP was “fully committed” to the building of a “grand Ram temple” at the disputed site at Ayodhya, “it was but natural party cadre would join the full mobilisation plan” being made by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliate, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. http://hindu.com/2010/09/11/stories/2010...121600.htm

[Guest]

Riots will start.

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='Mudy' date='11 September 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1284183699' post='108238']

Riots will start.

[/quote]



Are Hindus prepared to stop islamic rioting

The demographic balance has tilted more islamic since 1992



My main grouse against the Ram Temple movement was that it under-estimated muslim rioting

power and did not take adequate precautions to arm and organise Hindus against this event

[Bharatvarsh2]

How about we tackle the more urgent problem of the growth of the Christian and Islamic cancer in India and other lands that are still majority like Nepal and Bali and Eezham?



It doesn't matter if the Hindus rebuilt the mandir, it will be pulled down when Hindus lose their demographic advantage.



This is a peripheral issue in light of the threats we are facing.

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='13 September 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1284330501' post='108269']

How about we tackle the more urgent problem of the growth of the Christian and Islamic cancer in India and other lands that are still majority like Nepal and Bali and Eezham?



It doesn't matter if the Hindus rebuilt the mandir, it will be pulled down when Hindus lose their demographic advantage.



This is a peripheral issue in light of the threats we are facing.

[/quote]



We should focus on nipping islamic and EJ cancer

first

[rcscwc]

BJP and Sangh are very clear: There SHALL be a mandir. Muslims must accept that BJP is at least honest about its stand.



Which party has taken a clear stand: There SHALL be a masjid? NONE.



So whatever the verdict. There CANNOT be a masjid at the site. No Govt. shall dare to destroy The make shift temple. Even if the judgement goes in favour of muslims, it cannot, even then there CANNOT be a masjid there.