Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2981106.stm Brian -------------------- YogaVidya.com BrianDanaAkers.com -------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 The report actually says that there is no sign of a 'temple', although there is partial to conclusive evidence in 15/30 NEW trenches (total trenches dug up is 72) of a pre-existing structure at the site. In the 42 trenches dug up earlier, the results were similar. There was some evidence of pillar bases belonging to a pre-Babri structure from some of these 42 trenches as well. This is why the Courts of Law extended the period of excavations, so that some more evidence might be unearthed. The ASI report means that it is UNCLEAR if the pre-existing structure was a temple or not. The report takes into account ONLY the evidence from the 72 trenches. When this evidence is taken into account together with the 250 odd artifacts unearthed from between the walls of Babri, it is possible to conclude the opposite, viz. the Babri replaced a pre-existing temple at the site. In the Indian media reports of the last two days themselves, one can read diametrically opposite reports. Thus, Sify.com highlights the existence of a structure below Babri, Rediff.com. IExpress and TOI highlight that there is no temple. The BBC used even the latter set of reports selectively (because the TOI report at least mentioned that 15/30 new trenches had some pillar bases) and gave its own spin. The ASI itself has NOT made its report public. The media reports are all based on a press briefing made by Zarfaryab Jeelani and other officials of AIBMAC at Lucknow two days back. The organization has hired 4 'independent' archaeologists, whose stance on political issues, as well as their association with political/social organizations that are left of the center, are too well known to need further comment. I hope the moderator does not censor my message. Vishal INDOLOGY, Sfauthor@a... wrote: > > > 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2981106.stm > > > Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 INDOLOGY, Sfauthor@a... wrote: > > > 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2981106.stm > > > Brian > That story is a quote of a Times of India story and is not accurate. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/02111600.htm No structural anomalies found in new trenches: ASI Lucknow, June 11. (PTI): In a significant development in the ongoing excavation at the acquired land at Ayodhya, the Archaeological Survey of India has said, in its progress report, that no structural anomalies suggesting evidence of any structure under the demolished Babri mosque had been found in 15 of the new trenches dug up at the site. The report, submitted to the special bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court yesterday, said the Tojo Vikas international ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey had pointed out structural anomalies at the disputed site but the excavation in 15 new trenches did not confirm to the Tojo survey, sources here said today. Structural anomalies were, however, detected in 15 other trenches, the report said. The ASI has, in its earlier report, submitted to the court in April last sought permission of the court to undertake digging in 30 new trenches. The ASI had so far carried out excavation work in 72 trenches, of which 30 trenches were dug after taking permission of the High Court. ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 The academic lists have so built walls around themselves that it is not clear that they can see anything beyond their own biases. Anyway, here is a news-article posted here with the hope that some of them will see it, and it will penetrate the ivory tower. -Arun Gupta http://www.outlookindia.com/ full.asp?fodname=20030623&fname=Ayodhya+%28F%29&sid=3 AYODHYA No Escape, Left Or Right The article Secrets Of The Shrine on the excavation findings has been accused of being untrue and partisan. Really, the author asks. SANDIPAN DEB OUTLOOK India, 23 June 2003 As I stood a few metres away from the makeshift structure that houses the Ram Lalla idol in Ayodhya on a dog day afternoon in mid-May and watched a Sikh videographer recording the process of recovery of some artefact from a trench close by, I knew I was in trouble. Whatever I wrote about my visit and the findings of the excavation, I would enrage both sides of the mandir-masjid debate. There was no escape. I was right. In the last few weeks I have been called a running dog of the VHP, and a lunatic leftie. One mail on our website even promised that when the Hindu revolution comes, I should vamoose to Bangladesh. In addition, there have been accusations that I never visited the site, that the stone slab I had mentioned in my June 2 article with early Devanagari inscription on it did not exist, that I be hauled up for contempt of court. Let's tackle the stone slab matter first. On May 29, The Times of India reported: "(Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said that) the inscription has neither been removed nor photographed till date. Even the plaintiffs or defendants have no idea about this particular inscription which is lying upside down." Okay. But on June 12, the same paper quoted unnamed ASI officials as saying that it would take a long time before anyone can say that the fourth letter is the sacred sign swoaham followed by the word 'Ram'. "Our own epigraphist has managed to decipher only one word, that is, 'pala' in the inscription," the official is quoted. The ASI officials' view totally corroborates the copy of the inscription we carried in Outlook. I had written: "The pro-mandir men immediately saw the fourth letter as the Hindu sacred sign swoaham, followed by the word 'Ram'...Non-VHP observers see no swoaham there, neither do they make out Ram." Yet, my article has been accused of being "partisan and inaccurate". The stone slab is still underground, since trench J3 was flooded. The water is being pumped out now and the slab will perhaps be unearthed in the next few days. As for charges that I was nowhere near the site and fabricated my story, based on the fact that my name is not entered in the visitors' register, did you expect me to visit the disputed area wearing a fluorescent Outlook T-shirt handing out copies of the magazine to the policemen? Which brings me to the question of bias. While most papers covering the new ASI report last week said that it claims there was no structure under the Babri masjid, what the report actually says is that of the 30 recent trenches, the team has found man-made structures in eight, and none in 16. In five, they couldn't decide due to "structural activities at the upper levels" (mainly the plinth of the Babri masjid). One trench they did not survey. Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls "in east-west orientation", several in "north-south orientation", "decorated coloured floor", several "pillar bases", and a "1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with yaksha figurines on four corners". Now that I am sounding like a "running dog of the VHP" to the "lunatic lefties", let me quickly add that they also found "Arabic inscription of holy verses on stone". But what many people have missed out on?due to bias or sloth?is that these are findings only from the period of May 22 to June 6. This is not the full list. If they read the earlier reports, they would also find listed several walls, a staircase, and two black basalt columns "bearing fine decorative carvings with two cross-legged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers are raised upwards". The ideology does not matter. A journalist must report the facts. So let me apologise for two errors I made. One is grave: I wrote that the ASI reports to Murli Manohar Joshi; it actually comes under Jagmohan.The other is a technicality: the ASI did not project a photograph of the Devanagari inscription on a screen for the excavation observers to see, they showed a large photographic print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.