Eminent Donkeys

Now that the judgment has been pronounced, a group of 130 academics, activists and intellectuals have demanded that the ASI report be published. In an open letter to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, they urged that the report “be made available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record.” – News Report

130 distinguished historians do not read the judgement, but make diversionary appeals

Dr S Kalyanaraman

Distinguished historians do not read the judgement but make appeals to divert attention from the Ayodhya judicial pronouncement.

When the whole judgement with all details of judicial evaluation of the evidence has been made public, what is this new appeal by ’eminent historians’ or ‘distinguished historians’?

It is clear that these historians have not read the judgement, nor have they read the following document which is part of the full text which runs to 8000 pages. They seem to be interested only in making polemical points and not concerned about integrity of historical narrative.

http://rjbm.nic.in/dvs/Final_Judgements_&_Annexures_Per_Hon’ble_Mr._Justice_Dharam_Veer_Sharma_pdf_FILES_FOR_UPLOADING/Annexures_PDF/Annexure%20III.pdf

This Annexure III is a complete evidentiary compendium of the Court detailing the pleadings of lawyers representing the defendants and plaintiffs and a detailed cross-examination of the ‘experts’ who contested the Archaeological Report. The ‘experts’ who are now complaining should note that this Report is a court document subjected to thorough judicial review. Why do the ‘experts’ now want only the ASI report to be published without the related Court proceedings which evaluated the Report and also evaluated the objections raised by ‘experts’?

IT is unfortunate that ‘experts’ are making demands of the judicial system without first reading the judgement, the Annex III in particular which rips apart and rejects the bogus opinions of  ‘experts’.

Archaeological Survey of India Four Reports made during the year 1862-63-64-65 by Alexander Cunningham CSI (1879) is evaluated in Pages 43 to 65 of Annex IV.

8000 pages of the judgement are available for ‘experts’ to read and learn about history. Vidyaa vinaya sampannaa is the tradition of Hindusthan. Why is this vinayam  absent from the pathetic plea of the ‘experts’ who are interfering with the judicial process?

Responses