Read Comments

chandan said on 10/2/2010 12:11:43 PM:
good thinking

Amit said on 10/1/2010 5:53:53 PM:
y do d hindu population think tat india belongs only 2 em...it belongs to muslims n scores of other religions n caste hu live n work for d prosperity n development of india hand in hand.y shud d minorities always hav to prov their patriotism.y this cynical attitude....does'nt the minorities pay the same taxes as the majorities...rnt they governed by d same govnt n follow d same rules n regulation as followed by hindus......dnt they breath d same air as d hindus and live on d same soil.thn y dis fight ovr religion.v r not goin 2 live hre 4 ever.as long as v liv cnt v live peacefully.tats wot al religion teaches n preaches.live n let live.no religion supports killing n violence.its humans for their temporary gain poison d minds f innocent in d name f religon n ignite communal riots n hatred. y do v need political parties wid religion their main motto n hatred 2wards d rest not belongin 2 em.. wt do a common man b it a hindu or a muslim or christian gain from a temple or mosque constructed in ayodya.y shud d whol nation burn for such silly dispute n bring huge ecnomical loss as wel as human lives plus d shame.v should mov away 4m thse matter n hav strong political parties hu r secular n address d progress of d nation nt parties lik bjp hu create hatred n drag india centuries behind to d mughal era. fight 2 defeat thse rogues,thse hate mongers n strive 4 a peaceful n powerful united india.jaago india IN BETWEEN THE Yr. 1949 & 1984, THE TEMPLE GATES WERE RE-OPENED OR THE ISSUE WAS GIVEN A FILIP BY FORMER PRIME-MINISTER Mr. RAJIV GANDHI, DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN HE USED TO BE WITH THE RAMAYAN SERIALs RAM CHARACTER ARTIST Mr. ARUN GOVIL. Mr. RAJIV WAS THE FIRST LEADER WHO USED THE AYODHYA ISSUE FOR POLITICAL GAINs. NOW EVERY YEAR BY NOVEMBER THE MEDIA REMINDS OF THE BABRI MASJID INCIDENT AS IF ITS LIKE CHRISTMAS OR THE COMING NEW YEAR, OPENNING UP THE WOUND AGAIN WHEN ITS SEEMS HEALING! IS IT BECAUSE THERE IS A VIDEO & PHOTO RECORDS AVAILABLE?? WHY THE MEDIA IS DEAD SILENT ABOUT THOSE TEMPLEs' DESTROYED IN THOUSANDs PRE&POST INDEPENDENCE, UPON WHICH MANY MOSQUEs' HAVE BEEN BUILT, IS IT BECAUSE VISUAL RECORDS' ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR HIDDEN AWAY????? Who r v Hindu or Muslim? Wen there's 'Ali'in Diwali & 'Ram'in Ramzan, Help INDIA in being UNITED Spread dis SmS as Far as u can..for 24Sept..:-) [Suddenly on Thursday, 23 Sept., hours before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court was to deliver the long-awaited judgment on the Ayodhya title suit, the Supreme Court deferred the verdict till September 28; further delays are now inevitable. We are of the view that the sudden intervention by the apex Court was unwarranted in law, and will vitiate the atmosphere for the disposal of politically or communally sensitive cases in future.] [Prof B.B. Lal excavated the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya as a part of a project titled ‘Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites.’ One trench was immediately to the south of and almost parallel to the boundary wall of the Babari Masjid, the intermediary space being hardly four metres. The lowest levels in this trench was characterized by early Northern Black Polished Ware, and on the basis of Carbon-14 dates provided by the Birbal Sahni Research Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, the beginning of settlement at Ayodhya goes back to the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BCE. We publish excerpts – Editor] In the uppermost levels of this trench, hardly 50 centimetres below the surface, were encountered rows of pillar-bases, squarish on plan and made of brick-bats sometimes intermixed with a few stones. While most of these bases were well within the trench, a few of them lay underneath the edge of the trench towards the boundary wall of the Masjid. Associated with the pillar-base-complex there were successive floors made of lime mixed with brick jelly. No coin or inscription was found on these floors but on the basis of the associated pottery and other antiquities the entire complex could be dated from the twelfth to fifteenth century CE. Attached to the piers of the Babari Masjid there were twelve stone pillars which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings but also figures of Hindu deities. 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. A summary report on the essentials of the excavations at Ayodhya was published in Indian Archaeology 1976-77 – A Review, pp. 52-53. Since the main objective of the excavation was to ascertain the antiquity of the settlement, the brief report in the Review did not make any mention of these pillar-bases. In fact, these had nothing to do with the main enquiry. 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 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 Babari 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 fantasy 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 Archaeological Survey of India, they gave up their first exercise in denial… In this context it needs to be added that, after a recent order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the Archaeological Survey of India carried out excavation in the area which earlier lay underneath the Babari Masjid and has discovered that the series of pillar-bases continues all over the area… On December 6, 1992, the Masjid was demolished by the Kar Sevaks who had assembled in a 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 sculptured panels and architectural components which must have once constituted parts of the demolished temple. Besides, there were three inscriptions… …the largest one is engraved on a stone slab, measuring 1.10 x .56 metres, and consists of 20 lines. It has since been published by Professor Ajaya Mitra Shastri of Nagpur University in the Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-93), pp. 35 ff. (Professor Shastri, who unfortunately is no more, was a distinguished historian and a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics.) The relevant part of his paper reads as follows: - The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. 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 a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akritam nripatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alayani) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, line 17) 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 the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana i.e. Ravana). The inscription makes it abundantly clear that there did exist at the site a temple datable to circa 11th-12th century CE. The sculptures and inscribed slab that came out from within the walls of the Masjid belonged to this very temple. It has been contented by certain historians that these images, architectural parts and the inscribed slab were brought by the Kar Sevaks from somewhere else and surreptitiously placed there at the time of the demolition of the Masjid. This contention is absolutely baseless. Transportation of the above-mentioned material from elsewhere would have required the use of many trucks, an act which would have certainly been noticed by the innumerable representatives of the print and electronic media present on the spot to cover the event. On the other hand, a reputed journal, India Today, published in its issue dated December 31, 1992 a photograph which shows the Kar Sevaks carrying on their shoulders a huge stone-slab sculpted with a long frieze, after having picked it up from the debris. The above-mentioned historians have also alleged that the inscription has been forged. … So many eminent epigraphists of the country have examined the inscribed slab and not even one of them is of the view that the inscription is forged. Anyway, to allay any misgivings, I append here a Note from the highest authority on epigraphical matters in the country, namely the Director of Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey of India, Dr. K.V. Ramesh. … according to [Ramesh] this temple was built by Meghasuta who obtained the lordship of Saketamandala [i.e. the Ayodhya region] through the grace of a senior Lord of the earth, viz. Govinda Chandra of the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a vast empire, from 1114 to 1155 CE. … 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 Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a ceratin 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. Kya Banane aaye the, Kya Bana bethe ; Kahi Mandir Bana bethe, Kahi Masjid Bana bethe ; Humse to jaat acchi hai Parindo ki ; Kabhi Mandir pe Ja bethe, Kabhi Masjid pe Ja bethe. Brahmins were not rich people in the pre-colonial India. That is how the caste system was meant to work. Money handlers were the Banya, the traders, the Saodagors, the shopkeepers, etc. The workers were the wealth producers, and though they were the lower castes, Brahmins had no power to snatch the fruit of their labor because the priestly caste was restricted from doing that by strict Shastriya laws. Hindu kings and princes were of Kshatriya caste. Even the rich temple managers, those who were at the gate, receiving money, alms and gifts from the devotees, were surprisingly non-Brahmans. Brahmins and economy were kept as far away from each other as possible. Brahmins were to lead an austere life, be devoted scholars, and do priestly duties for the community.Brahmins were strictly prohibited from engaging in commerce. There were, of course, thieves and thugs among Brahmins. When caught thieving Brahmins were to be punished 16 times the punishment that a shudra would normally receive for the same crime. For certain crimes, such as stealing food stuffs like a juicy cuke from the vine of someone else's garden, a Brahmin would be punished less than a shudra, or not punished at all based on the logic that the poor Brahmin had no means of livelihood other than begging or what he received as fee for his priestly duties. It is the British who invented in their fertile 19th century imagination (curiously, not before their colonial intentions of gobbling rich India) the unreal formula of upper caste equals upper class. In Mughal India the potters, weavers, fishermen, washermen, dairy men, and even ordinary farmers were economically better off than a poor Brahmin. The British not only looted our wealth, but did something no other looter of India did. They destroyed our wealth-producing economic system, and then institutionalized the caste system as an empty shell of social oppression. Mohandas K. Gandhi was of a Banya caste. He was not a Brahmin and hence had no firsthand knowledge of Sanskrit and the Shastra or the Hindu jurisprudence. He had no authority to make pronouncements on whether or not caste system could be abolished, or that it was "an integral part of Hinduism." Had he been a learned Brahmin with some command of Shastra and the laws, he could have and should have boldly opted for abolishing the caste system seeing that it served no useful economic purpose any longer. A generation before Gandhi there were learned Brahmins, and I know of one, who strongly proposed the abolition of the caste system. But I doubt the British would let go of an instrument to beat the poor with, one that they could innocently claim not to have "invented."

Srinivasr said on 10/1/2010 5:23:27 PM:
It's a long battle ended and given rise to another. Though the verdict is kind of a compromise for all the three parties involved, it may give rise to another court battle shortly.