Ayodhya – Archaeological survey of India report

 

 The Archaeological Survey of India Report

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the mosque site at the direction of the Allahabad Bench of the Uttar Pradesh high court in 2003. The archaeologists reported evidence of a large 10th century structure similar to a Hindu temple having pre-existed the Babri Masjid. A team of 131 labourers including 29 Muslims – who were later on included on the objections of the Muslim side- was engaged in the excavations. In June 11, 2003 the ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. In August 2003 the ASI handed a 574-page report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

The ASI, who examined the site, issued a report of the findings of the period between May 22 and June 6, 2003. This report stated:

“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 vaksha figurines on four corners’ as well as “Arabic inscription of holy verses on stone” Earlier reports by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among other things a staircase and two black basalt columns ‘bearing fine decorative carvings with two crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers are raised upwards’.

The excavations give ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure. Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have been found beneath the Babri fabrication. The bricks used in these perimeters predate the time of Babur. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., have been used in these walls. These decorated architectural pieces have been anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Dev Nagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years. Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides the clue to the existence of some structure or the other at that place during the last 2,500 years.

More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillar-base rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) has been found. These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a construction material in our country since over 2000 years and in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi Surkhii has been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes and sizes were neither in vogue during the middle ages nor are in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago. Many ornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the excavation. Terracotta idols of divine fugurines, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day terracotta idols are used in worship during Diwali celebrations and then put by temple sanctums for invoking divine blessings. The Gupta

and the Kushan period bricks have been found. Brick walls of the Gahadwal period (12th Century CE) have been found in excavations.

Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential habitation there. The excavation gives out the picture of a vast compound housing a sole distinguished and greatly celebrated structure used for divine purposes and not that of a colony or Mohalla consisting of small houses. That was an uncommon and highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people. Hindu pilgrims have always been visiting that place for thousands of years. Even today there are temples around that place and the items found in the excavations point to the existence of a holy structure of North Indian architectural style at that place.

Radar search

In the January 2003, Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard performed a search with a ground-penetrating radar. The survey concluded the following:

“There is some structure under the mosque. The structures were ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site”.

Claude Robillard, the chief geophysicist stated the following:

“There are some anomalies found underneath the site relating to some archaeological features. You might associate them (the anomalies) with pillars, or floors, or concrete floors, wall foundation or something. These anomalies could be associated with archaeological features but until we dig, I can’t say for sure what the construction is under the mosque.”

The final ASI report of August 25, 2003 stated that there was evidence of a large Hindu temple having pre‐existed the Babri mosque. Midway into the excavations the courts ordered the removal of the head of the ASI excavations for not following the excavation norms.

Update 2nd Oct 2010

After the Ayodhya Verdict, some of the “Eminent historians” who are on the payroll of the left brigade have started questioning the ASI report. This is an old trick which has been played so so so many times by the Leftists that it has lost its effect. The ASI report was out in 2003 and was in public domain for 7 years and to try to create a circle of doubt over the report which is conclusive evidence is a part of their game.

The following newspaper reports on 2nd Oct are worth reading. Note that on 1st Oct, Economic Times which is from the same family of Times of India had printed an article raising doubts on ASI report…It seems good sense has now dawned upon them..and hopefully the good sense will prevail.

‘No loopholes in ASI evidence’

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-loopholes-in-ASI-evidence/articleshow/6669039.cms

Abhinav Garg, TNN, Oct 2, 2010

NEW DELHI: “In our view, the conclusion drawn by the ASI in the project accomplished within an extra-ordinary brief period and with such an excellence precision and perfection deserve commendation and appreciation instead of condemnation.” — Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

Though criticized by a section of historians, the Archaeological Survey of India’s 2003 excavation report has been critical in allowing the Allahabad high court in reaching a verdict that years of negotiations and entrenched politiking had not yielded.

The ASI view that evidence pointed to the existence of a temple, forms the key material evidence relied upon by the court. Perhaps keeping in mind the criticism of ASI’s findings, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma in their comments have countered allegations of the report being influenced by powers that be.

They emphasized that the court controlled excavation was transparent. The charge that the finding of a huge structure preexisting the Babri Masjid, was “managed” has been addressed in detail. It had been alleged that the report was “biased and imagined” and failed to faithfully reproduce the actual findings.

But the judges have decisively recalled the facts of the case. While Justice Agarwal pointed out how representatives and lawyers of each party in the suit were permitted to shadow ASI officials during the actual excavations, Justice Sharma highlighted how “even Muslim members have also signed the report of ASI.”

“The court has taken full care and issued specific directions to maintain transparency. Two judicial officers remained posted there. The excavation was conducted in the presence of the parties, lawyers and their nominees. Nobody can raise a finger about the propriety of the report on the ground of bias,” Justice Sharma observed, rejecting pleas that the report be discarded.

The court said that the ASI report contains all the details including details of stratigraphy, artifacts, periodisation as well as details of structures and walls. The pillar bases mentioned in the report establishes beyond all doubt the existence of a huge structure.

In addition to above, existence of circular shrine, stone slabs in walls with Hindu motifs and more particularly sign of Makar Pranal in wall No. 5 (wall of disputed structure), divine couple and other temple materials, etc. conclusively proves the existence of a hindu religious structure, the judges have argued.

Another grievance related to ASI allegedly ignoring key evidence thrown up in the form of bones of animals found from the sites. This, it was argued, disproved that the structure below was a Hindu one since animals couldn’t have been killed there. But the judges countered by relying on a host of ancient literary Hindu texts sanctioning animal sacrifice.

“It is a well known fact that in certain Hindu temples animal sacrifices are made and flesh is eaten as Prasad while bones are deposited below the floor at the site itself,” Justice Agarwal noted, upholding the ASI findings that a Nagara style northern Indian temple existed prior to the disputed structure. HC was also surprised to note the “zeal” in some of the archaeologists and historians appearing as witnesses on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board who made statements much beyond reliefs demanded by the Waqf.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/There-were-enough-artefacts-to-prove-site-a-scared-place/articleshow/6669027.cms

‘There were enough artefacts to prove site a sacred place’

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/There-were-enough-artefacts-to-prove-site-a-scared-place/articleshow/6669027.cms

CHENNAI: Artefacts found by archaeological excavations at the disputed site in Ayodhya proved that it had been a sacred place and not merely a human habitation, according to archaeologist R Nagaswamy. He had given expert advice to the Allahabad high court’s Lucknow bench that heard the title suits in the Ayodhya case. The oldest structure for which evidence was dug up belonged to the 3rd century BC, said Nagaswamy, former director of archaeology in Tamil Nadu.

“The excavations done by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) brought to light several carved stones that indicated the presence of a sacred place. Some of the material unearthed included pillars with engravings on them, an outlet for water in the form of a crocodile mouth,” he said.

While the ASI carried out excavations on the HC’s orders in 2003, Nagaswamy presented a report to the court, explaining in detail the artefacts unearthed by the ASI. “The artefacts proved that they belonged to a sacred place and not just any human habitation. The existence of a shrine was one of the crucial pieces of evidence presented to the judges,” Nagaswamy said.

Showing an array of photographs of various artefacts, the expert said the excavations were carried out to a depth of 50 to 60 feet below the surface. “The ASI found several layers of artefacts belonging to different periods and there was evidence of a massive stone religious structure belonging to the 10th century AD,” Nagaswamy said.

The ASI carried out two types of excavation. The first was an electro-magnetic survey without any digging, and later, it carried out site excavation in the presence of the parties to the case. “The time given by the court to the ASI was only three months, and within that time, it came out with some important findings,” he said. “The judges asked me to explain as to how I arrived at the conclusions on various artefacts and I gave them all the details and explained my conclusions to them,” he said.

Among the pieces of structural evidence that the ASI found were an ‘amalaka’, a stone disk-like piece normally found in N Indian shrines, and some terracotta figures showing human busts adorned with jewellery.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Ayodhya – Archaeological survey of India report

  1. Pingback: Ram Temple at Ayodhya – Will Muslims Heed to Nazneen ? | Arise Bharat

  2. Gauthama rama Sharma

    What Sri Rama and mohammed preached to this world was just love ! true religion is to love our country men. What happiness are we going to achieve building a stone structure (temple or mosque) over the Grave of our fellow country men. Rama was karuna moorthy and renounced all his belonging for others. We should follow rama and show love towards muslims. Due to mistake of few arrogant, brainless religionists the lay man suffers. We all want nothing but an Happy and United India.. This is the wish of every normal hindu or muslim. Else the abode of lord will always be closed.

    God is omnipresent.. Idiots don’t realise this !

    DONT MASK YOUR HATRED TOWARDS OTHERS
    AS LOVE TOWARDS GOD
    IF YOU HAVE TRUE LOVE.. WALK THE PATH RAMA WALKED
    FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES MOHAMMED PREACHED.

    My dear muslim brothers.. Don conclude wrong about the whole hindus due to mistakes of few. There are millions of hindus outside who love you. The same to my hindu brothers there are muslims out there ready to bring united India.

    this is the land where, Dr.abdul kalam and Swamy Vivekananda were born. Shame on us, how are we going to become super power by 2020 if we fight amongst us. Politicians will never build a hospital or school there. All due to votes. please think if you feel what i said is right spread this news of love, TOWARDS UNITED INDIA.

    Reply
    1. Sharda Bhonsle

      @ Mr. Sharma,
      YOu write:
      “Mohammed preached to this world was just love”

      That is patently false. Have you even bothered to read a page of the Kuran or Hadith before making such a fool of yourself? Almost 60% of the Kuran is hate speech towards “Kafirs” (non-muslims), including repeated exhortations to muslims to “kill the Kafirs where-ever you find them” (Kuran 9:5). The Hadith has entire chapters on “fighting and killing in JIhad”.

      It is people like you, totally ignorant of the facts, who are the real danger to Hindus, because they blind HIndus to plain facts and instead take them into a fool’s paradise where “all muslims are loving”. Yes, there are many muslims who are indeed loving, but the Islamic religion is a religion of hatred. And the muslims who practise the true teaching of Mohammed should be beheading every HIndu they meet, as is explicitly commanded by Kuran 9.5.

      Reply
  3. Skanda

    The problem really, is that both the court judgment and ASI report are improperly presented in popular media as usual. A few things we should be clear of:

    1. ASI never said the land is janmabhumi. It said that a massive Hindu religious construction existed underneath the vandal structure built. That its parts date back to 100BC or older or later is not what is important.

    2. The court mentioned that the place is janmabhumi according to Hindu beliefs, and said it belongs to Hindus for that reason. ASI report of a temple only establishes that it is a place of strong Hindu religious connection. It is neither the court nor the ASI nor Muslims who can comment on whether the belief of janmabhumi is justified.

    3. You call it Babri or anything else, it came into existence on top of a Hindu construction, and should give way to Hindus when they claimed it. To ask in which year the Babri is constructed, and how, whether the temple was already in ruins when it was vandalized and its parts used in the Babri structure, is just hairsplitting.

    4. The court clearly mentioned that the central part had a Hindu structure and it should justly go to Hindus. At the same time all the three judges took enough care to avoid inflammation of the matter, by avoiding the question of vandalism. This should be understood as the court’s attempt to avoid maligning Islam and to avoid provoking Hindus. It cannot be understood as lack of evidence – it is just not important to the case and is hence left out in the interest of social peace.

    5. People who ask for evidence, are not people who care about it. No amount of evidence is going to convince them – their only intention is to keep throwing questions at you, and keep eternally delaying your rightful ownership on your shrines.

    6. People who want to see facts and decide what is just, have overwhelming evidence and facts. They were clear and have stopped questioning, not after ASI survey but the moment temple remains were found to be used in the demolished Babri construction.

    7. People who have sense of proportion do not talk of evidence but of what grievance Hindus have for centuries, and what one should do to not make them lose their patience. After all the goal should be to make the intolerant learn tolerance, and not to make the tolerant lose the tolerance.

    Reply
  4. Venkat

    Now, some points are clear.

    1. The findings of ASI – Their report is very clear about the existence of a structure underneath. And they need not lie or cheat and even if they try to it’s just not possible to do so! You cannot put structures underneath overnight and claim later on they were found. Their job is well known by now throughout the country and in case of any doubt it has to be verified by any international expert on the subject.

    2. The point is – the place where all this debate is going on. It is a sacred place for one community. And it is well known throughout the World. Now, why would a particular structure exist in a particular place of a city or town is the point. Kashi and Mathura, for example. And also in this case. Why one religious structure has to exist just besides the structure of another community? And whose structure was standing there is for all to guess. And it can be seen easily.

    3. The Learned Judge himself has said that it has come up on the ruins of a Temple and some of its material is used for subsequent construction.

    4. Let us make this very sensible in continuation of the spirit shown by the Hon’ble Judges. Even now a chance is there to amicably solve this issue. To all who are hot headed and hate as a concept, my only request is please see for what it is. Giving up 1/3 of land (on their own account they said they would if the existence of Temple is proved) would mean they get land elsewhere too but most importantly win the Trust of the large number of people.

    Thanks.

    Reply
  5. K Giridhar

    Please do not mind, if I say this, no religion is an exception to activities of “religious desecration”. This is well recorded in Indian history. But, the most important thing is how we understand this. These things have happened when civilizations were not advanced. Let us not the burden of the past tether us. It is time really not to use any unparliamentary words to our brethren. Any religion, including Hindutva, Islam or Christianity profess “love your neighbour” concept. Further, we cannot move ahead without single hand of our brethren left out. It is not possible to march towards progress.

    Reply
    1. pawan

      Then make on you house land and don’t suggest any one other. When this would have had with your house then you have felt. it is easy to say hard to impliment.

      Reply
  6. K Giridhar

    I am also of the opinion that the ASI could have more meticulous in such sensitive matters and should have shown professionalism in the interest of the country. Further, as any history student knows, many religions flourished in India. And many ‘constructions’ were made on older or vandalized ‘constructions’. Materials many or sometimes re-used. If history, is not scrutinized scientifically, conclusions will be highly erroneous. Northern Black Polished Ware were found in some lower layers indicating the site was inhabited since 1000 300 BC. This is followed by imprints of several dynasties. Time had signed each. These are in-fact, invaluable. Religious sentiments may be addressed by erecting small “religious structures” and the site including other parts of ayodhya should be properly excavated and history should be documented well for the posterity.

    Reply
  7. Skanda

    Asim and Razzak,

    Oh now that court has given a judgment, the Muslims start searching for holes in the ASI report? What were these people doing when the ASI report was published? Does any one of you guys know any Archaeology to be able to discuss the report? Do you understand that carbon or any other dating is irrelevant in this case? Do you realize that the very fact of finding temple remains in the site is more than sufficient evidence for the site to be given back to Hindus?

    All this aside, do you Muslims have any shame and honesty? Having vandalized thousands of Hindu temples, you people file cases in courts instead of gracefully returning the sites to Hindus? Why do you need reports and proofs if you have the intention to live and let others live?

    The Muslims got fed in Bengal and created a havoc, they created Pakistan. They get fed in Kashmir at the Hindu tax payer’s money and start movements to break the country? I do not imagine anyone other than the Muslim community could be more ungrateful, dishonest and shameless.

    The Muslims must, if they have any conscience or shame, if the world has to believe they could ever be a civilized community that can coexist with others, stop arguing and return the Hindu sites to Hindus. They must stop terrorism, they must stop helping the infilterating terrorists, they must stop the separatist movements.

    The onus lies on you folks.

    Reply
  8. Asim

    The wording of the ASI report clearly indicates its ONLY goal was to prove that a temple structure existed before the mosque. references such as “Janma Bhumi”, “over 2000yrs”, “…constructions at the Janma Bhumi Surkhii has been extensively used.”, etc clearly indicates this report was BIASED to begin with.

    ASI should have referred this place as some ‘site’ not as Janma Bhoomi or Moqsue. Also it probably deliberately failed to prove whether the structure was in ruins before the mosque was built or forcefully demolished.

    Carbon dating could be used to easily ‘date’ an artifact. Wonder if it was used at all?

    ASI is a sham.

    Reply
    1. pawan

      sham on you that your kind of people are still their in India. When the country was devided for your religion and you are of such a mind then why you have not left the country then. leave it now you are no longer required to or have moral to stay in india just leave India and go to pakistan (Islamistan).

      Reply
  9. MA RAZZAK

    Now that the judgement of the High Court is with us, which is based on the ASIs report, which is incomplete in itself. The ASI report stated that there was an evidence of a huge structure beneath the Babri Masjid site but it has never stated that the Mosque built there by Babar some 400 years ago was after demolishing the so called huge structure,also the ASI report says that the remains underneath belongs to 2500 years, which might have got damaged and collapsed, owing to many reasons one of which could Natural Calamity, over the yeas. But, as we all know that the Idols inside the main tomb have been placed with a clear intention to grab the site and the subsequent demolition of the mosque is also an act for creating hatred among the citizens and by issuing misleading statements and tampering the facts the politicians have damaged the image of our country and of its democratic values.. The judgement could have been more better had some more aspects of the ASIs report could have been properly looked into. However I am personally of the opinion that the judgement could have carried more value if the comments of Mr.Raja Sounder have been considered without creating the tension filled atmosphere, which the country is facing now. Hope the Hon. Supreme Court considers all these issues before pronouncing its verdict.

    Reply
    1. K Giridhar

      The ASI report (have not read directly) but gleanings from the opinions quoted by others gives an opinion that there were several in-habitations in different periods (under the mosque). Let us not get confused about this. However, the ASI, apparently has not excavated all the layers. The issue of masjid or janmabhumi, should be put to rest by adhering to the court judgment. As a citizens of India, we must know what the past had hidden there. We must get the historical site to be excavated in detail so that we will not miss important details of history.

      Reply
  10. Raja Soundar

    This is a good report, that helped change my mind on this issue. If we have a strong evidence from ASI findings, we should preserve the entire site for generations, making this a tourism site. A place of such a historic importance cannot be allocated by law to individual communities but maintained as a precious asset by government. Neither a temple nor a mosque must be built and the place be developed as a tourism spot.

    Reply
  11. Prasanna

    Details of suits pending original trial before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court

    Lawsuit No. 1
    The first suit (regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 of the court of Civil Judge Faizabad) was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad on January 16, 1950. The Visharad was then districts president of Hindu Mahasabha, District Gonda.The relief claimed in the suit was:- An injunction restraining the defendants from removing the idols installed in the building and from closing the entrance and passage or from interfering with the puja and darshan. Notices were issued to the defendants and an interim injunction was ordered on the same day. Interim injunction was confirmed by the Civil Judge on March 3, 1951. An appeal was filed by the Muslims in Allahabad High Court. The High Court upheld the order of the Civil Judge vide judgement dated April 26, 1955. The bench was chaired by Chief Justice Shri Mootham and Justice Shri Raghubhar Dayal. The order is effective till date.

    Lawsuit No. 2
    An identical suit (regular Suit No. 25/1950) was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Dass on December 5, 1950 in the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad against the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad and the same five Muslim individuals who were defendant in the Suit No. 1. Both these suits were connected and consolidated with each other.

    After confirmation of the interim injuctions on March 3, 1951, the City Magistrate of Ayodhya cum Faizabad passed an order on July 30, 1953 closing the inquiry into possession of the parties and consigning the record of the proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. 1898. However the receiver appointed by him was allowed to continue to look after and manage the darshan, puja of Ramlala, Virajman.

    Later on Shri Paramhans Ramachandra Dass was elected as working president of Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas as well as all India chairperson of Digambar Akhara of Ramanand Sect. (This Suit No. 2 was withdrawn by the plaintiffs by an application dated August 23, 1990.)

    Lawsuit No. 3
    During the pendence of the above two suits without any further proceding, a third suit (regular Suit no. 26 / 1959) was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya through its Mahant on December 17, 1959. The plaintiff prayed for a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for removal of the defendant no.1 from the management and charge the said temple of Janmabhoomi and for delivering the same to the plaintiff through its Mahant and Sarbarhakar. (At later stage the receiver was appointed under the orders of High Court.)

    Lawsuit No. 4
    Fourth suit was filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Wakf and some Muslim individuals on December 18, 1961 against the Suit No. 1, 2 and 3. The relief claimed in the suit was:-(a) A declaration to the effect that the property indicated by letters ABCD in the sketch map attached to the plaint is public mosque commonly known as ‘Baburi Masjid’ and that the land adjoining the mosque shown in the sketch map by letters EFGH is a public Muslim graveyard as specified in para 2 of the plaint may be decreed. (b) …a decree for delivery of possession of the Mosque and graveyard in suit by removal of the idols and other articles which the Hindus may have placed in the Mosque as objects of their worship be passed in plaintiff’s favour, against the defendants. (Note: The claim in respect of graveyard was withdrawn by the plaintiff after the judgment of the Supreme Court dated October 24, 1994 reported in (1994) 6, S.C.C. 360 (Ismail Faroqui vs. Union of India) and a new claim for relief was added. (bb) The statutory Receiver be commanded to hand over the property in dispute describing in the Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint by removing the unauthorised structures errected there on.

    Also the claim has been confined to the site of the disputed structure including the premises of its inner and outer courtyards.

    All the above four suits were consolidated for joint hearing by an order of Civil Judge Faizabad dated January 6, 1964. A mass mobilisation programme started in 1984 with demand to open the locks put at the gates of inner courtyard. An Advocate Shri Umesh Chand Pandey of Faizabad filed an application in personal capacity before the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad in the month of January 1986. The then Civil Judge Faizabad Shri KM Pandey ordered on February 1, 1986 to open the locks.

    The order was challeged by few Muslims in the High Court. During the pendency of the application, the unexpected incident happened on December 6, 1992 and now the application has become infectious.

    Lawsuit No. 5
    This regular Suit No. 236 / 1989 was filed on July 1, 1989 in the court of Civil Judge Faizabad in the name and on behalf of Ramlala Virajmaan at Sri Ramjanmabhoomi as plaintiff No. 1 and Asthan Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Ayodhya as plaintiff No. 2, by a retired Judge of High Court Justice Deoki Nanadan Aggarwal as their next friend. He also named himself as plaintiff No. 3. All the parites in the Suits No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were made defendants. The plaintiffs claimed the reliefs:- A declaration that the entire premises of Sri Ramjanmabhoomi in Ayodhya as described and delineated in annexures I, II and III belong to the plaintiff deities. (B) A perpetual injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any objection to, or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new temple building at Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Ayodhya.

    Suit No. 1, 2, 3, & 4 were transferred to Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court through its order dated July 10, 1989 for original trial. On February 5, 1992 the fifth suit was also transferred to High Court and consolidated and connected with the above four suits for joint hearing. On the same date February 5, 1992, the application of Paramhans Ramchandra Dass dated August 23, 1990 for withdrawal of Suit No. 2 was allowed and refused to decide even the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue in the Suit No. 4 filed by Sunni Wakf Board.

    Consolidation of all these suits was reaffirmed by order dated May 7, 1992. By the same order the Suit No. 4 of Sunni Central Wakf Board was declared as the leading case. All the remaining four suits were renumbered by the High Court as

    1. R.S. 2 / 1950 of Gopal Singh Visharad as……. OOS No. 1/ 1989.
    2. R.S. 26 / 1959 of Nirmohi Akhara as………… OOS No. 3 / 1989.
    3. R.S. 12 / 1961 of Sunni Wakf Board as……… OOS No. 4 / 1989.
    4. R.S. 236 / 1989 of Ramlala Virajmaan as…….. OOS No. 5/1989.
    (O.O.S. means – Other Original Suit)

    The detailed article is at http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=364&page=7

    Reply
  12. K.Neelakantan

    What do you expect from this spineless goverenment. To appece the vote bank even thay will give total India . Nothing can be expected from this Govt.

    Reply
  13. R.Krishnan

    Very informative and to my mind quite objective. Hope good sense will prevail and the people agree to rebuild Sri Rama’s temple there. This spot is holy for Hindus and not so for the Muslims. This point should be driven to the minds of people.

    Reply
  14. K. RAJAMANI

    Informative. In our country where pseudo secularists pampered by the Government exist in large number, such articles should open their eyes. We fervently hope the glorious temple for Lord Rama comes up at Ayodhya as early as possible.

    Reply
  15. Ananth

    Very Informative. Why did court remove the Head of ASI.?
    What are the norms? Archaelogist is a professional and he should give his opinion acoording to his professional ethics. This appears to be political interference in judicial matters.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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