Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:45:47 EDT
From: <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: BM-RJB issue (more developments)

In article <1992Oct5.232704@IASTATE.EDU>, jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
says:
>
>From    : S.Ramani
>Source  : The Times of India (Bombay), Date Oct 5, 1992
>
>* Neutral Experts Flay Govt, VHP (Talks on Shrine)
   ***************
>  Prasun Sonwalkar
>  Times of India News Service (TOINS)
>  New Delhi, Oct 4
>
>The four independent historians and archaeologists who participated
 **************************************************
>demand for permission to scrutinise the primary records relating
>to excavations carried in Ayodhya by Dr B B Lal in the late 70s.
>
>The four experts are Mr RS Sharma, Mr M Athar Ali, Mr DN Jha, and
>Mr Suraj Bhan.

I am really amused to learn these four gentlemen as neutral and independent
historians and archaelogists. First, none of them is an archaelogist. They are
the same people who represented BMAC side in the aborted negotiations which
Chandrashekhar's government initiated, and so they are hardly be called neutral
and independent. Second, all of these are notorious marxist historians who have
been ridiculing and insulting the Hindu culture and symbols in their writings.
In fact, some of the 'evidence' that BMAC submitted had contained articles writ
ten by the same people, in which they had even doubted the historicity or the
existence of Ram, Ramayan, Ayodhya:the very foundation of Hinduism and Indian
culture.

>According to them, the former union minister, Mr Subodh Kant Sahay,
>had stated that the primary records could not be made available on
>account of general elections in 1991 and also on account of `non-cooperation
>by the human resources development ministry' little realising that
>this amounted to the suppression of basic evidence by the Govt.

I wonder who is stopping the government from releasing these documents if they
are so important, make them public. I am sure the present government or the
previous governments were not VHP-friendly. This seems to be another dilatory
effort to prolong the whole issue, on the part of the government or the BMAC.

>In a statement, the experts said: "We also object to the manner
>in which the `kar sevak archaeologists' have indiscriminately
               *************************
>destroyed the remains of material culture by digging as deep as
>12 feet without any archaeological expertise and without the permission
         ************************************

This again shows the distortion of truth and the disinformation campaign that
has been launched.The above mentioned new archaeological findings were examined
by a team of 8 eminent archaeologists and historians (some of them were the
former members of ASI), and the whole operation was conducted in their presence
after the discovery of the first piece of remnants of the ancient temple destr-
oyed by Babar. A report of this survey was published in Times of India, July 4,
1992, and posted on SCI and MNS also.

>of the Archaeological Survey of India ... Thus on the one hand the primary
>archaeological records lying witht the Govt have been suppressed and
>the new ones are being fabricated on the other to support the (VHP) claim".
     *********************************************************************

This is what they call an honest and sincere attempt to discover the truth!
Without even examining the facts, the records, and the new findings, these self
proclaimed 'neutral experts' are prejudging the material as fabricated. Just
because this reinforces and reveals the truth about Ayodhya, and demolishes
the Babri Committee's and their marxist supporters phoney claims, so ignore it,
call it a fabrication. They are again following the same strategy: Obfuscation
of truth by raising irrelevant issues.

>The experts alleged that yesterdays meeting showed a `continuous shift'
>in the VHP stand on the temple issue. Its leaders earlier spoke of
>existence of Ram Temple below the structure, but later mentioned the
>existence of a Vishnu Temple, although Ram is only one of the 10
>incarnations of Vishnu.

This is typical of these marxist brand of historians: indulging in hair-splitt
ing. VHP and Hindus have been claiming that there was a temple at the disputed
site. And this was the birth place of Lord Ram which is matter of faith. The
temple  was destroyed at the orders of Babar. There is no shifting in this
stand. What difference does it make that whether it was a Shiva temple or
Vishnu temple or Ram temple: The important thing is that IT WAS A TEMPLE.
And in most HIndu temples, there are statues of different gods in addition to
the statue of the main deity to whom the temple is dedicated. So it is not
surprising that a Shiva statue was found in a Ram temple. According to the
Hindu mythology Shiva was Ram's (who was Vishnu's incarnation) devotee.

>Finally, when a statue of Shiva was said to have been found at a distance
>of 50 feet from the boundary wall of the structure, the VHP leaders
>put their faith in the existence of a Shiva Temple at what they call
>the Ram Janambhumi site, the experts alleged.
>

Dinesh Agrawal...