2)Identification of present day Ayodhya with Valmiki’s Ayodhya is incorrect
3)Variants of Rama story are proof that Valmiki version is not accurate
4)Buddhists texts state Kosala and not Ayodhya as Ram Janmabhumi
5)Ayodhya is a sacred place of Buddhists and Jains and not Hindus to that extent
6)Ayodhya has not been a place of pilgrimage for Hindus for a very long time
7)There was no Rama cult before thirteenth century
8)Babri masjid was built on virgin land
9)The remnants discovered from beneath the structure are of non-religious nature
10)The architectural remnants are brought from elsewhere and planted
Possibly an idgah or qanati mosque lays below Babri masjid
11)Babri masjid does not stand on birth place of Rama
12) There is no reference to demolition of Ram Janmabhumi temple at Ayodhya before 19th century
13)It is an assumption that Muslim rulers were invariably and naturally opposed to the sacred places of Hindus
1)Suvira Jaiswal, Former Professor of JNU (PHD under RN Sharma)
“I have read nothing about Babri Mosque. I did not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when Babri Mosque came into existence...
2)S.C. Mishra, Satyawati College, Delhi University (Ph.D. under D.N. Jha)
“I have heard of Jaziya tax. At present I fail to recollect when and for what purpose it was levied.I do not remember that the Jaziya was levied only on Hindus...
3)Shireen M,Prof AMU
“In my view,2 ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site.I had historical literary evidence,on going thru which,I conclude that disputed struct was mosque or mosque was not construct demolishing temple.”...
4)Sushil Srivastava, Ph. D. Allahabad Univ
“From the research carried out by me, I found no such evidence regarding this disputed site to suggest that this mosque had been built after demolishing temple.”
“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic…
“I have no knowledge of Epigraphy. I have no knowledge of Numismatic. I did not acquire any specialization in archaeology...
5)S Bhan,Retd. Prof, Kurukshetra Univ.Sent report to ICHR, then headed by Irfan Habib on the disputed site. In 2003,he along with the other 3 BMAC historians& I Habib questioned the objectivity of ASI in its ability to conduct “rigorous, scientific and impartial excavations
“.. I didnt try to know what is written in the Ramayana by Tulsi D. I didnt read what features a mosque may not have.I m not a spec. in epigraphy and numismatics.I m not a geologist. I m not a student of History.I m not a specialist in architecture”
“I didn’t make any study of any recorded history with regard to the disputed subject.”....
6) R. C. Thakran, DU. He was a student of Suraj Bhan and also part of the coterie that attacked ASI in 2003
“In newspapers and magazines, I have read Babur had built a mosque in Ayodhya. As a historian, I consider newspapers and magazines to be a source of knowledge…
7)D. Mandal, Retrd Prof, Allahabad University.He was a commi Party card holder &wrote book Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition,1993 based on the pics depicting excavation undertaken by Prof. BB Lal. Sketches used in the book were hypothetical, he told the court later.
“I neither know the meaning of ‘yagya’ nor of ‘vedi’.
8. Ashok Dutta, CU. He was part of the eight member team of Waqf and Left Historians that questioned ASI capabilities in 2003.
“…As an archaeologist at least I have that amount of knowledge to differentiate between mosque and temple.”...
“As I have mentioned that the Muslim people do not believe in idol worship, hence there is no question of associating terracotta figurine with Muslim culture..
Let’s now read the last testimony, the funniest of all..
9) Supriya Varma, Ph. D. from JNU. (Ph.D. under Prof S Ratnagar, JNU who in turn had written intro to Prof. Mandal’s book)
“I think very categorically it is very difficult to say that some of the finds of ASI relate to Hindu religious structures because...
“It is wrong to say that use of ‘Yaksh’ or ‘Yakshi’ is only limited to Hindu Dharmashastra. In fact, it is also associated with Buddhist religion.”...
Likewise there were many more testimonies which do no good to Babri but exposed left historians. 72/n onwards I discuss ASI findings
Inscription is in chaste and classical Nagari script Dated to 11th or 12th century recorded beautiful temple of Vishnu Hari,unparalleled by any other temple built earlier.
Described God Vishnu destroying King Bali(in Vamana avatar) & Dashanana(Ravana).Home ministry and Allahabad High court quizzed Dr K.V. Ramesh, former Director of Epigraphy, ASI in this regards.
1) Terracotta objects and fragments dated to Shunga period (2nd century BC), Kushan period (1st to 3rd century CE), Gupta period (4th to 6th century CE), post-Gupta Rajput period (7th to 10th century) and early medieval period (11th to 12th century CE) were identified.
2)Pillar bases were imp find (& their size was an imp evidence that the pillars once stood at them and that the pillars weren’t independent adornments).Foundations & nearly 50pillar bases were found from the excavations and the struct was definitely not for residential use
3)Glazed ware shards and glazed tiles at each successive levels were found during excavations.
4)Struct plan had garbha griha, mandapa,ardha mandapa & wide mandapa:distinctive feature of Hindu temples.
5) C14 dating dates Level 1 (lowest level excavated) as back as 13th Century BCE strengthening the Hindu belief that itihasa of Shri Rama is older than that of Shri Krishna and Hastinapur.
6) ASI concluded temple existed for long before Babri mosque.
Earlier form of Ram Chabutra was also excavated, which appeared to match the description of Joseph Tieffenthaler. There is lot more to explain but owing to Twitter’s limit I’m halting it here. Today’s judgment by CJI has definitely reinforced State’s support to Ram Temple.