tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2569479119706420586.post5111998152659628939..comments2024-03-25T10:39:15.347-07:00Comments on India that every Indian envisages for: ASI excavation and other issues related to Ayodhya imbroglionirendra devhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634523433924171931noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2569479119706420586.post-58537211731579060632010-10-29T22:14:47.332-07:002010-10-29T22:14:47.332-07:00Mandir wahin banayenge ek inch bhi door nehi
Babar...Mandir wahin banayenge ek inch bhi door nehi<br />Babar ke auladon ki Ram Rajya ko Darklar nehiAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178596257505809929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2569479119706420586.post-11903829580437722782010-10-29T17:57:15.414-07:002010-10-29T17:57:15.414-07:00There are no issues or controversies regarding ASI...There are no issues or controversies regarding ASI issues. The so called questions or controversies are all creation of technically zero-knowledge and agenda based journalists and left biased historians like Romila Thapar. Note that historians whether they are rightists or leftists are not competent folks to question the technical aspects of the ASI reports. The entire jholawala group, which writes reams and reams of things about controversies, were summarily rejected by the court with proofs of evidence.<br /> ----------- See the example below and the extract from the actual judgment ------------------<br />The judgment has excellently rubbished the claims of Chuna Surkhi concept belonging to Mughal period. I am posting the rebuttal by HC and its conclusion with reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion. So there goes pseudo-secular Historians' idea of Islamic Structure pre-existing as ASI was able to find and pre-date the site to as early as 13th Century BC.<br />J Sudhir Aggrawal<br />Vol 18<br />Page 4314-4317 (page 65-68 in the vol) Para 3991<br />http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-18.pdf<br />VIII The contention of plaintiffs that use of lime motors was started by Muslim Emperors is baseless. It is well established that Choona Surkhi (lime mortars were used by the builder of the disputed structure right from 600 B. C. The excavations at Kausambi Mathura, Karwan (Gujarat) Bhitri (Ghajipur) Nalanda Taxila Ganwaria etc. proves that Choona and Surkhi with lime plaster where commonly used. R.S. Sharma in his book "Perspectives in Social and Economic History of Early India" has expressed similar opinion. Prof. Sharma in his book referring about use of Choona Surkhi at page 181 mentions as under:-<br />IX "No background study of trends in the economic history of Mathura can be complete without some idea of the technological factors operating in this Period. There is little doubt that unbanism reached its climax in northern and western India in this period. Several factors contributed to it. One such factor was the change in building methods. At Mathura and Ganwaria in Basti district in north-eastern Uttar Pradesh the flooring was made of brick concrete mixed with lime. This indicates the use of Surkhi which contributed to the stability of structures. Further, baked, tiles for roofing appear in the period at several places in both the Satavahana and Kusana zones including Mathura. These innovations added to the solidity and longevity of urban structures in the early centuries of the Christian era."<br />X. Dr. H.C. Bhardwaj – Ex-Professor of History of Technology of B.H.U., in his article titled "Town planning, building and building materials" also expressed similar view and while referring to mortars and plaster expressed his opinion that the earliest use of lime and gypsum comes from Indus civilization. <br />XI. Lime mortars have been used at Kausambi from 600 B.C. to A.D. 100. But it may be emphasized that by and large only mud mortar and plaster were used. The results of the chemical analysis (Table 2 and 3) show that the content of sand in the mortar was slightly higher than that in plasters. The average ratio of sand : lime Ca(OH)2 is about 1:1, whereas in the case of mortars the average is 2:1. For mortars, probably 2 parts of sand were mixed with one part of slaked lime.<br />[Read XII, XIII, XV , XVII, XVIII and XIX – I could not paste here as blog comment has size limitations ]<br />------------------------------- End of Example ----------------------------------------- ---------------<br />I request all the article writers to first read the judgment line-by-line and then write. Otherwise it will be just a bias written in several words.Muppihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07676750315619819604noreply@blogger.com