09-20-2003, 06:37 AM
Links to background information and FAQs on Ayodhya
In view of the mass negative psy ops this is generating, i think a thread is necessary to discuss and give us continual updates and on the scenario and build a ready volume of articles to refer to.
Today Advaniji was aquitted from the Babri mosque demolition case and saying thus, some foreign media and the Kaangress have launched into yet another attempt to malign the BJP and break the case to rebuild the Ram mandir. A few reports as listed.
1) Advani cleared over Ayodhya
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3122466.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3122466.stm[/url]
Mosque demolition: Is justice being done ?
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3123096.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3123096.stm[/url]
Profile: Lal Krishna Advani
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2075803.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2075803.stm[/url]
What now for LK Advani?
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3123578.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3123578.stm[/url]
Why is Advani let off the hook, asks Oppn?
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=190973"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...how?msid=190973[/url]
Babri demolition case chronology :
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=178878"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...how?msid=178878[/url]
ASI report proves BJP point: Advani
[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/10ayo.htm"]http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/10ayo.htm[/url]
Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report
[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm"]http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm[/url]
2)[url="http://www.ayodhya.com/"]http://www.ayodhya.com/[/url]
3) Archeological Society of India Says Temple Existed at Ramjanmabhoomi
Site
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...ll/html/uncomp/[/url] articleshow?msid=145797
LUCKNOW, INDIA, August 25, 2003: The Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) said a temple-like "massive structure" existed beneath the
disputed site in Ayodhya in its 574-page report. The ASI report,
submitted on August 22, was opened by the three-member Full Bench,
comprising Justice SR Alam, Justice Khem Karan and Justice Bhanwar
Singh on Monday. The bench has given six-week time to contesting
parties for filing their objections on the sensational revelations made
by the ASI in its two-volume report. "Viewing in totality and taking
into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just
below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural
phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the
disputed structure along with yield of stone and decorated bricks as
well mutilated sculpture of divine couple...., fifty pillar bases in
association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are
distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India,"
concluded the ASI in its report. The ASI team, led by Hari Manjhi and B
R Mani, had excavated the disputed site for nearly five months between
March 12 and August 7 2003 on the March 5 order of the High Court. In
its report on the famous excavations, the ASI has dwelt at length the
period from circa 1000 BCE to 300 BCE and from Sunga (first century
BCE) to Kushan, Gupta, Post-Gupta up to Medieval Sultanate level (12-16
century CE). The ASI report mentions a huge structure (11-12th century)
on which a massive structure, having a huge pillared hall (or two
halls), with at least three structural phases and three successive
floors attached with it was constructed later on. "There is sufficient
proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a
minimum of 50 x 30 meter in north-south and east-west directions
respectively just below the disputed structure," states the report.
To prove its point, the report says that during the course of digging,
nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation, below calcrete blocks
topped by sandstones were found. It also suggests that the center of
the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the
central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period
which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in
the makeshift structure. Significantly, the ASI report did not give any
weightage to the glazed wares, graves and skeletons of animals and
human beings found during the excavations. Rather it suggests that the
glazed tiles were used in the construction of original disputed
structure. Similarly, the celadon and porcelain shards and animal
bones, skeletons recovered from trenches in northern and southern areas
belong to late and post-Mughal period, it adds. In drafting its report,
the ASI has also given importance to the carbon dating to ascertain the
period of soil and artefacts found during digging. About the habitation
around the disputed ground, the ASI report observed that "below the
disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the
Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined
to a limited area and population settled around it as evidenced by the
increase in contemporary archaeological material, including pottery."
The ASI report has come as a rude shock to the Sunni Central Wakf Board
and other Muslim organisations. "It is baseless, misinterpreted, based
on wrong facts and drafted under intense political pressure," reacted
Jafrayab Jilani, counsel for SCWB while announcing that they will
challenge the report.
4) What we need to know about Ayodhya
Author: NS Rajaram
Publication: Vijay Times
Date: March 12, 2003
[url="http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/188.html"]http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/188.html[/url]
5) Ayodhya
Layers of truth
ASI report, hinting at a Siva temple beneath
the Masjid, could debunk Janmabhoomi claim
[url="http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm"]http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm[/url]
Quote:[url="http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/ayodhya.html"]http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/ayodhya.html[/url]
BRIEF HISTORY - 1528 THRU 1934 :
RECENT HISTORY - 1934 THRU 1992
[url="http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch1.html"]http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch1.html[/url]
Arnold Toynbee's view of Ayodhya
[url="http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/"]http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/[/url]
BJP's white paper on Ayodhya
[url="http://www.ayodhya.com/ayotemplet.jsp?sno=4"]http://www.ayodhya.com/ayotemplet.jsp?sno=4[/url]
Some FAQs on Ayodhya
[url="http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ayodhya/intro.htm"]http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ayodhya/intro.htm[/url]
Ayodhya and After by Koenraad Elst(online book)
[url="http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030602&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1"]Secrets Of The Shrine[/url]Â
Sandipan Deb gets into the heavily-guarded excavation site at Ayodhya and finds clues to a confusing past Updates
SANDIPAN DEB
The following article refers to the dastardly role that the Communists played in the Ayodhya drama.
[url="http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/gupta.htm"]ROLE OF INTELLECTUALS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON AYODHYA ISSUE[/url]
S.P. Gupta Chairman. Indian Archaeological Society.
In view of the mass negative psy ops this is generating, i think a thread is necessary to discuss and give us continual updates and on the scenario and build a ready volume of articles to refer to.
Today Advaniji was aquitted from the Babri mosque demolition case and saying thus, some foreign media and the Kaangress have launched into yet another attempt to malign the BJP and break the case to rebuild the Ram mandir. A few reports as listed.
1) Advani cleared over Ayodhya
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3122466.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3122466.stm[/url]
Mosque demolition: Is justice being done ?
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3123096.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3123096.stm[/url]
Profile: Lal Krishna Advani
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2075803.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2075803.stm[/url]
What now for LK Advani?
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3123578.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3123578.stm[/url]
Why is Advani let off the hook, asks Oppn?
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=190973"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...how?msid=190973[/url]
Babri demolition case chronology :
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=178878"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...how?msid=178878[/url]
ASI report proves BJP point: Advani
[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/10ayo.htm"]http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/10ayo.htm[/url]
Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report
[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm"]http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm[/url]
2)[url="http://www.ayodhya.com/"]http://www.ayodhya.com/[/url]
3) Archeological Society of India Says Temple Existed at Ramjanmabhoomi
Site
[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...ll/html/uncomp/[/url] articleshow?msid=145797
LUCKNOW, INDIA, August 25, 2003: The Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) said a temple-like "massive structure" existed beneath the
disputed site in Ayodhya in its 574-page report. The ASI report,
submitted on August 22, was opened by the three-member Full Bench,
comprising Justice SR Alam, Justice Khem Karan and Justice Bhanwar
Singh on Monday. The bench has given six-week time to contesting
parties for filing their objections on the sensational revelations made
by the ASI in its two-volume report. "Viewing in totality and taking
into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just
below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural
phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the
disputed structure along with yield of stone and decorated bricks as
well mutilated sculpture of divine couple...., fifty pillar bases in
association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are
distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India,"
concluded the ASI in its report. The ASI team, led by Hari Manjhi and B
R Mani, had excavated the disputed site for nearly five months between
March 12 and August 7 2003 on the March 5 order of the High Court. In
its report on the famous excavations, the ASI has dwelt at length the
period from circa 1000 BCE to 300 BCE and from Sunga (first century
BCE) to Kushan, Gupta, Post-Gupta up to Medieval Sultanate level (12-16
century CE). The ASI report mentions a huge structure (11-12th century)
on which a massive structure, having a huge pillared hall (or two
halls), with at least three structural phases and three successive
floors attached with it was constructed later on. "There is sufficient
proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a
minimum of 50 x 30 meter in north-south and east-west directions
respectively just below the disputed structure," states the report.
To prove its point, the report says that during the course of digging,
nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation, below calcrete blocks
topped by sandstones were found. It also suggests that the center of
the central chamber of the disputed structure falls just over the
central point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period
which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in
the makeshift structure. Significantly, the ASI report did not give any
weightage to the glazed wares, graves and skeletons of animals and
human beings found during the excavations. Rather it suggests that the
glazed tiles were used in the construction of original disputed
structure. Similarly, the celadon and porcelain shards and animal
bones, skeletons recovered from trenches in northern and southern areas
belong to late and post-Mughal period, it adds. In drafting its report,
the ASI has also given importance to the carbon dating to ascertain the
period of soil and artefacts found during digging. About the habitation
around the disputed ground, the ASI report observed that "below the
disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the
Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined
to a limited area and population settled around it as evidenced by the
increase in contemporary archaeological material, including pottery."
The ASI report has come as a rude shock to the Sunni Central Wakf Board
and other Muslim organisations. "It is baseless, misinterpreted, based
on wrong facts and drafted under intense political pressure," reacted
Jafrayab Jilani, counsel for SCWB while announcing that they will
challenge the report.
4) What we need to know about Ayodhya
Author: NS Rajaram
Publication: Vijay Times
Date: March 12, 2003
[url="http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/188.html"]http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/188.html[/url]
5) Ayodhya
Layers of truth
ASI report, hinting at a Siva temple beneath
the Masjid, could debunk Janmabhoomi claim
[url="http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm"]http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm[/url]