Archive for October, 2010
So-called eminent Historians of India : in their own words under cross-examination in the court over the Ayodhya dispute -1
Post-updated…….
Exhibit historian Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra : (bold parts are due to me, and not highlighted as such in the original judgment).
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Vol 6,
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf
Page 1468 (219/251)
Quote:
“At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important.”
“These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that ‘the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier’. My today’s statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.” (E.T.C.)
“I have read a journal ‘Epigraphica Indica’ in regard to inscription…… One of its editions makes mention of an inscription and contains an article which makes mention of inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a statement in this very court that there was just one pillar inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.”
1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian…also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement on page 54…Babar was his favourite subject However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in Baburnama..contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written…he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic
.
The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language.
1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein ornot. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir Baqi.
1344. …Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to aconcrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation.On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term “revelation” and its meaning.
1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said:
….I never came by air but on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. …
1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different statement on page 201 as under:
” I travel by rail and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times.”
1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
Vol 6, Page 1487 (238/251)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf
Next expert witness – Sushil Srivastava
“It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in reading and writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian language, which neither I can read nor write,..father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian languages..father in law felt that the translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage is not wholly correct…can not say whether out of three inscriptions one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no knowledge of these two language..In my book I have written about the three inscriptions after getting the same translated in English. For English transcription I have requested my father-inlaw and got it done from him….he know Arabic and Persian…style of Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this mosque was constructed by Babar or not…basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law realized so. I have written this fact in my book.”
“I have not the least knowledge of art or science of calligraphy…true that, in the foot note of my book, I have mentioned those books too which I have not read…true that I have a very little knowledge of history.”
Vol 7, Page 1511 (12/251)
1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed upon the motive of this witness certain facts antecedents to the publication of his book
“The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under Special Marriage Act. When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim..I married according to Islamic rites.”
My wife encouraged me for this work.” “ In the Preface of my book I have written that Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to popularize the historical truth.” 1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate” which she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian..
1357. ..Though the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page 222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history. That being so according to own statement of the witness his statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act…We in fact find it surprising with the kind of dishonesty, such person has shown..
1357.[…]On page 106 on the one hand he admits that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic, Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish, Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15 has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter without having made an in-depth study on the subject and hasdeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge of history.
On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier statement he said that he has made research on the question as to how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not expected from a responsible Expert Historian.
Next expert witness Prof. Suraj Bhan
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … Vol-07.pdf
Page 1513 (14/251)
Vol 7
1359. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination has said: “Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid.”“Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at the site and could not even see the inside inscription.”
1360. The statement of PW 16 … is solely based on two inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed building in Persian language though neither the witness can read Persian nor could see the inner one. ..though the witness claims that the inscriptions which were installed when he visited the premises were the same as were installed at the time of construction of the building..shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as published in different books..but the statement has been made on pure conjecture and surmises.
J. Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15
Page 3061- (102/251) para 3603
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … ol-15.pdfA
“At page 113 of my book, I have written that this probability cannot be ruled out, i.e, cannot be completely ruled out, i.e, no other ancient construction would have existed at the place of Babri mosque……This conclusion of mine is based on Cunningham’s report.”
“It is true that stones were found in the mound below the Babri mosque. The size of the stones in this mound was very big, i.e. very large stones were present.”
“Q. You have just stated above that in the mound below the Babri mosque large stones were present, did you mean by “long size bricks” or “long size stones?” “Ans. I mean by long size bricks.” (ETC)
3604. He has written a book “An Inquiry on the Disputed Mosque”. On page 87 thereof, he has written that in 17th century, the people started claiming that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar after demolishing a temple but on page 256 of his cross examination, he said that the 17th century mentioned on page 87 of his own Book is wrong and it ought to be 19th century:
“At page 87 of this book, 17 century is written, which is wrong. In fact, it should be 19th century. Further said that the supposition that Babar had got constructed the mosque after demolishing the temple, commenced in the first half of 19th century. By first half of 19th century, I mean the period between 1801 to 1850. The amalgamation of Avadh Province in East India Company took place on13th Feburary 1856. i.e. since the British rule.” (ETC)
3605. He has further said:“To my knowledge, prior to 1526, except Syed Salar Masoodi and Ibne Batuta, no any other foreign Muslim Traveller had come to Ayodhya.” (ETC)
“means that it cannot be wholly ignored that where Babri mosque situated, earlier, there had been any old structure or ancient construction.” (ETC)
“This Babari mosque had not been in possession of Muslims during 1853 to 1855.” (ETC)
3607. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW 15 has been challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement at page 129 observing that Shshil Srivastava is a Modern Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
The Muslim judge in the Ayodhya dispute reminds Muslims of Hudaybyah
The three judge panel of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, has finally delivered three separate sets of judgments on the disposal and questions of title and rights to a disputed land. The land in question being an ancient site, now reported by the Archaeological survey of India to have been occupied by humans from at least 1300 BCE, and traditionally long held by faithful Hindus to be the birthplace of an avatar of Vishnu or the “supreme” in Hindu philosophy.
There have been traditional narratives of pre-Islamic religious structures and complexes on the site to have had undergone a series of iconoclastic attacks by Islamists and Islamic rulers who consolidated their military power on the northern plains of India from the late 13th century CE up to and including the mughal period. The latest incident of vandalism is attributed to a commander under Babar, the leader of a faction of the neo-convert Mongols in or around 1538, when he destroyed most of what Hindu structures had existed and built a mosque. This is attested to by Islamic chroniclers and foreign travelers. This is a different and larger issue discussed threadbare from both Islamophile and Hindu sides.
What I find most interesting is however the reported statements of one of the judges, a Muslim by faith, among the panel.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805067.ece
Justice Khan said:“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. “However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.”
Now taken together that is a dangerous piece of text! Is he a judge in an Indian Court of Law or he is here representing Alim or a Mufti? He has to interpret Indian law as it exists and not argue himself as a Muslim or Islamic scholar on behalf of Muslim litigants in the case? What is more dangerous is the “subtext” of which he seems to be very particular.
From the “Hindus” he wants “sacrifice” and tyag, but from the Muslims he clearly mentions the tactical retreat involved in Hudaybya from which ultimately Muslims emerged victorious. Maybe he thinks that under the careful management of the rashtryia educational apparatus most Hindus kept ignorant of the actual history of early Islam as narrated by accepted Islamic narrators, would be unaware of the real significance of mentioning “Hudaybyah” to Muslims and especially Islamic theological establishment.
This was a “treaty” meant to be and clearly intended to be “broken” as soon as the early muslim army around its leader gained enough strength and the treaty was simply to buy time. This is what he clearly indicates in the following lines to that reference. Mentioning this in the context of the Janambhumi case can only be interpreted in one way – it is a reminder or a “subtext” message that for “survival” of Islamism in the current world, where more and more non-Muslims were becoming aware of the underlying agenda of Islamism and taking political action to prevent the spread of Islam – it was necessary to make a show of compromise. This is only to buy time and “strike back” as and when “opportunity arises”.
Moreover the claim that no blood was dropped in entering Mecca is false. There were executions, including of women who had once composed sarcastic poems ridiculing the the founding father of Islam when he secretly preached his faith in Mecca for three years before negotiating a move to Yathrib outskirts with the Yathrib Jews. The entry into Mecca followed from victory in a battle against the last Qureysh army to resist him.
Hudaybya was about gaining time and pretending cooperation simply to mask the preparations for final annihilation. The treaties were typically faithfully maintained by the non-Muslim parties but were always broken on some pretext [dreams/message from Gabriel/suspicion] when opportune and the groups finished off /driven off/killed off/enslaved.
A unique position
“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”
That bolded part is curious! it is almost verbatim from some major Islamic works – and as a theme occurs in many Islamic core texts as a strategy of war and impose the system on non-Muslims.
Is the “subtext” also a message to the Indian Muslim to wait and remember the history of Islamic spread – pretending to compromise when militarily weaker, and make a show of cooperation so that the core group is not wiped off in a conflict for which they are not prepared. Wait and gain strength and annihilate the ex-treaty-group.
Some on the media have called for “moving on” and derided “revanchism”. Moving on is a collective business – we cannot move on if only one subgroup are asked to and tries to move on. All the reactions of the Sunni Waqaf board, and people like Irfan Habib show that the Islamists are not prepared to move on. For them, the supposed past glories of the supposed military invincibility of Islamic regimes in parts of the country – the one-sided extraction of surplus from the majority non-Muslims and the abuse of the very basics of humanity through abduction of women and whole-sale enslavement as well as religious torture and conversion which was tuned to a fine art of state policy and finance [which Irfan Habib and his father both acknowledge in their early works] – is something that cannot be abandoned.
Every fruit of such repression is cherished as a symbol of Islamic identity in India. Why? Why don’t pro-mosque voices trying to be neutral on terms set by the Islamists or their tactical supporters among non-muslims – fail to also point out the fact, that the Owaisis and Habibs [representing the supposed extreme opposites in intellectual “liberalism” among the Indian Muslims] are solidly refusing to give up on their past?
It should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest training in logical analysis that the sole reason for such cherishing of Islamic structures of the past in India – is exactly because of what they are associated with in the Indian Muslim mythology. These are all symbols of imagined Islamist triumph over the culture and religion and society of the “Hindu”. Without these landmarks, the version of Islamism in India that hopes for the “Islamist revanchism” in some future time point when hopefully Indian Muslim alone or with external help can be mobilized to finish the unfinished business of Islamization – can be kept alive.
Islamists are very keen users of site or structural iconism. It is ironic that those systems which claim greater abstraction in their theology and abhor visualizations of the “supreme” are maddeningly obsessed with “houses” and “property” and “structures/building” of the “supreme”. This is because they realize that visualizations are almost a must for the majority of any community to consolidate identities.
What is particularly revealing about the virulence with which Islamists are running the campaign about the disputed site is the connection it has to historical atrocities on Hindus. In a way the struggle in their mind is on two levels – the outer symbolic one of triumph and the imagery of Ba(r)barism that is being diluted and hence will lose its iconic message for the future. The inner level is that one of the highest and most popular deity of the Hindus seem to be winning back against Islamism’s highest deity. It is a retreat of Islamism’s “God” before the “Hindu” “God”.
This is a crucial thing to understand as to why it is important to roll back every such presence and structure. It is the Islamist refusal to move on that is the key to dealing with them. Every structure cleaned of Islamist memory of “triumph” over the “Hindu” or the “buddhist” or the Sikh – both humans as well as their “supremes” or cherished deities, is a psychological crushing of the spirit of Jihad and delegitimizing its hidden currents that is constantly seeking to “strike when opportunities arrive” along the expression that justice Khan uses in his verdict.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Dikgaj's Weblog 