So-called eminent Historians of India : in their own words under cross-examination in the court over the Ayodhya dispute -1

Posted on October 7, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims |


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, … vol-06.pdf

Page 1468 (219/251)

1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said:
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) … vol-06.pdf

Next expert witness – Sushil Srivastava

“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also.” 

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 … 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.”

“This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather, it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per the means of Mir Baqi…It was so written in the stone inscription at the mosque and the same had also been seen by me before demolition of the mosque”

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.

Next expert witness PW 15, Sushil Srivastava,, on behalf of muslim parties
J. Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15

Page 3061- (102/251) para 3603 … ol-15.pdfA

3603. About PW 15, Sushil Srivastava, we have already dealt in detail while considering the issues about the date of construction of the disputed building. The aforesaid witness has given a new theory that the building in dispute was constructed much earlier from the period when Babar came to India and must have been constructed before commencement of Mughal period. It is clearly against the pleadings of Muslim parties on whose behalf he has appeared as an expert witness. He also admits of teaching “Modern History” and on page 220, he admits that he has a very little nowledge of History. He, however, admits that there was a possibility of an earlier structure at the place where the disputed building was constructed:

“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)

3606. All the Muslims parties have denied of any riot or dispute among the two communities in 1855 but this witness gave a different stand and admitted such a clash: “After 1855, no clash took place at the disputed place between Hindus and Muslims.” (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.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

7 Responses to “So-called eminent Historians of India : in their own words under cross-examination in the court over the Ayodhya dispute -1”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

Good effort culling out relevant information to expose the bullshitting eminent historians.


These eminent historians are nothing but well compensated(in one form or the other) foot soldiers in the larger game of converting India into the Islamic Ummah by the Islamic ‘luminaries’ who abound not only in India but abroad too.They have sold their souls to the devil himself!

Erasing of ancient culture by Islam happens in Iran too:

Good Article Keep it up…and best of luck in exposing indian Enemies

Egypt too:
“It’s sad, but it’s very true … I’ve been fooled and misguided by people who loved me the most, thinking that they were doing the right thing… For many years I have followed some seventh century hallucinations of a barbaric culture. Shame on me! I just wished the Arabs had never invaded my country 1400 years ago… Because of a bunch of 3000 armed bandits on camels and horses, the glory of our Ancient Egyptian civilization is vanished. Only great edifices remained. Will we ever get out of this everlasting agony? Will Egypt ever get out of this infernal trap? Will we ever gain back the Glory of our ancestors? I’m afraid it’s already too late…”

Everywhere and throughout time it is the same, and none of it peaceful.

Islamic Crusades: An Introduction

Islamic Crusades 1: The Occupation of Constantinople

Islamic Crusades 2: Before Islam… Egypt, Iran, Iraq

Islamic Crusades 3: The Co-Option of Jerusalem

Islamic Crusades 4: Lessons From the Thai Jihad

Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783? (America)

Islamic Crusades 6: India’s Millennial Burden

Islamic Crusades 7: India’s Modern Struggle

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: