Academics From India

"To be at the height of their calling, men of Science have to reject the very possibility of Materialistic doctrines having aught to do with the Atomic Theory; and we find that Lange, Butlerof, Du Bois Reymond—the last probably unconsciously—and several others, have proved it. And this is, furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanâda in India, and Leucippus and Democritus in Greece, and after them Epicurus—the earliest Atomists in Europe—while propagating their doctrine of definite proportions, believed in Gods or supersensuous Entities, at the same time. Their ideas upon Matter thus differed from those now prevalent... the Atomic Theory kills Materialism."

"The great names in Hindu medicine are those of Sushruta in the fifth century before, and Charaka in the second century after Christ. Sushruta, professor of medicine in the University of Benares, wrote down in Sanskrit a system of diagnosis and therapy whose elements had descended to him from his teacher Dhanwantari. His book dealt at length with surgery, obstetrics, diet, bathing, drugs, infant feeding and hygiene, and medical education."

"The atomistic theory of matter appears in well established and elaborated form in various systems of Hindu philosophy... The oldest of these systems... appears to be that of the Vaiseshika, attributed to Kanada... Whether or no the... theory antedated Democritus... is... uncertain. Professor Garbe's opinion is that beyond a doubt the Indian theory is a long time after the theory of Leucippus and Democritus. L. Mabilleau, on the other hand, considers the Vaiseshika system as several centuries earlier than Democritus. ...This theory recognizes nine distinct entities constituting the universe. These are earth, water, fire, air (or wind), ether (akasa), time, space, soul, and "manas." ...Time, space, and soul are not material, though existent. The "manas" is the medium through which impressions of sense are conveyed to the soul. The first four, therefore, correspond to the four elements of Empedocles; the fifth, ether, can be compared with little similarity to the ether of Aristotle. The first four elements are composed of atoms which are eternal, never created nor destroyed. Each of these four elements exists as atoms and also as aggregates of atoms. As atoms, they are imperishable. The elements which we see or feel are aggregates of atoms and as such are subject to change, but the atoms, which are invisible, do not change. ...Akasa, or ether, is assumed not to consist of atoms, but is infinite in extent, continuous and eternal. It cannot be apprehended by the senses, but is the carrier of sound. It is also described... as all-pervasive, occupying the same space that is occupied by the various forms of matter, and therefore devoid of the property of impenetrability, characterizing the atoms of other elements."

"In physics, the thinker Kanada, explained light and heat as different aspects of the same element, thus anticipating Clarke Maxwell's Electro-magnetic Theory, which unified different forms of radiant energy. Sankaracharya, in his Advaita thought expanded the concept of unity of matter and energy. Vacaspati recognized light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances, anticipating Newton’s Corpuscular Theory of Light and the later discovery of the Photon. In Botany, Sankara Mishra and Kanada have discussed the circulation of sap in the Plant and the Santiparva of Mahabharata has clearly stated that the plants develop on the strength of nutrients made through interaction of sunlight and materials obtained from the air and ground. Bhaskarcharya's concept of Differential Calculus preceded Newton by many centuries. His study of time identified Truti: The 3400th part of a second as the unit of time."

"As Gautama is the Aristotle of India, so Kanada is its Democritus. His name, which means the “atom-eater,” suggests that he may be a legendary construct of the historical imagination. The date at which the Vaisheshika system was formulated has not been fixed with excessive accuracy: we are told that it was not before 300 B.C., and not after 800 A.D. Its name came from vishesha, meaning particularity: the world, in Kanada’s theory, is full of a number of things, but they are all, in some form, mere combinations of atoms; the forms change, but the atoms remain indestructible. Thoroughly Democritean, Kanada announces that nothing exists but “atoms and the void,” and that the atoms move not according to the will of an intelligent deity, but through an impersonal force or law — Adrishta, “the invisible.” Since there is no conservative like the child of a radical, the later exponents of Vaisheshika, unable to see how a blind force could give order and unity to the cosmos, placed a world of minute souls alongside the world of atoms, and supervised both worlds with an intelligent God.66 So old is the “pre-established harmony” of Leibnitz."

"This is really startling. It not only surprises us but we are puzzled. Such kind of statements to public at large causes more confusion than clear the things. Instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy. Such people should refrain from making such statements or written work. They must be extremely careful and cautious before making any statement in public on such issues."

"Normally, the Court does not make adverse comments on the deposition of witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and the nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements, and the material got published by the persons claiming to be Expert Historian, Archaeologist etc. without making any proper investigation, research or study in the subject."

"The people believe that something, which has been said by a learned, well studied person, would not be without any basis. Normally they accept it as a correct statement of fact and affairs. Normally, these persons do not find a stage where their statement can be scrutinized by other experts like a cross- examination in a Court of law. In legal terminology, we can say that these statements are normally ex parte and unilateral. But that does not give a license to such persons to make statements whatsoever without shouldering responsibility and accountability for its authenticity. One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from others that I have uttered. No one, particularly when he claims to be an expert on the subject, a proclaimed or self styled expert in a History etc. or the facts or events can express some opinion unless he/she is fully satisfied after his/her own research and study that he/she is also of the same view and intend to make the same statement with reasons."

"Suvira Jaiswal, an ex Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi has deposed that according to her studies and research, there is no evidence that Babri Masjid was constructed after demolition of a temple of Lord Rama or that there existed any temple whatsoever where the Babari Masjid was situated. She also stated of not finding any evidence which may prove that the place in dispute was birth place of lord Rama."

"“I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when Babari Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to what was there at the site before coming into existence of Babari Mosque.”(Page 105)"

"The above extracts of her statement are self speaking. It is really surprising that a witness, claiming to be an Expert Historian, can make such serious statements on historical facts and that too without any study or adequate enquiry into the matter. Newspaper reports or what was told by some others or otherwise cannot be equated with the research work expected from an expert on the subject. She could admit her disagreement with a historian author of a book not after reading it but merely on the basis of some discussion made in her department."

"We do not know how much damage such kind of statements have already caused, but, if any, that has already been done. At this stage we can only hope and trust that the intelligentsia of this country particularly those who are experts in any discipline, shall live more responsible life, and before expressing any opinion or statement of fact particularly when that involves an extra ordinary sensitive matter, due care and caution shall be practised."

"“It is true that I am of communistic thought.”(E.T.C.)"

"“I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also influenced by Marxism. . ."

"A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and beyond that made no further or other study/research etc.. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analyzed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11 th or 12 th century which was demolished before its construction."

"“As per my research, there are such several places in Ayodhya, which claim to be the birthplace of Sri Rama. I cannot point out specifically as to the places which are claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. I did not consider it necessary to research on this point. . . . I did not study the history of Babari Mosque.”"

"“ I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with her also. . . . . . From her articles it appears that she is influenced by Marxism.” (E.T.C.)"

"Two systems of Hindu thought propound physical theories suggestively similar to those of Greece. Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world was composed of atoms as many in kind as the various elements. The Jains more nearly approximated to Democritus by teaching that all atoms were of the same kind, producing different effects by diverse modes of combination. Kanada believed light and heat to be varieties of the same substance; Udayana taught that all heat comes from the sun; and Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances and striking the eye."

"“I never visited Ayodhya” (E.T.C.)"

"Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who was appointed on adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there is no archaeological evidence to show either existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The statements made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness of his knowledge in the subject:"

"Similarly, for the last two decades I have been mutely witnessing the excruciating death of the real history of Ayodhyā on account of false and misleading interpretation of historical facts. Earlier I kept silent primarily because in the early nineties I was officially associated with the negotiations on Ayodhyā between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Since I did my duty diligently and punctiliously in the official capacity I remained aloof from the historical debate. But in the last leg of the legal proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, I thought that as our national motto is सत्यमेव जयते, truth alone triumphs, I must intervene in the Ayodhyā dispute... (Preface)"

"In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).(M.C. Joshi, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, ,quoted in Preface)"

"“I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur's reign.”"

"“But the unfortunate aspect is that he examined Waqai reports from one angle – that is he only saw the problem of succession of Ajit Singh and totally ignored the high-handedness of the Mughal officials in the form of bricking the doors of the temples, demolition of temples, confiscation of the property relating to the trusts of those temples which were demolished during the period 1679-80.” (p. 148)"

"He wrote that Muslims could only grant infidels personal security (aman) in a country they ruled for one year, lamenting that the government had long treated as grantees of personal security the Hindus of northern India, who openly followed their idolatrous religion, drinking wine, and sometimes even mating with Sayyid women. He complained that the irreligious Sunni Mughal rulers of India neither made war against the Hindus nor forced them to accept Islam. Legally, nonetheless, the lives and property of Hindus could be licitly taken by Muslims.” (p. 225)"

"Prof. M. Athar Ali was a great historian. Very few people could match him in his profound knowledge of Persian historical texts and students of history will remain grateful to him for his innovative writings. But it is a tragedy that even such great historians propound theories and pronounce decisions on the basis of a single source of unsubstantiated information which is in contradiction to other available informations... When Prof. Ali knows that these valiant Rajputs had sacrificed all these assignments and were ready to die, then such calumny against a valiant race is a gross injustice to them and a daunting distortion of historical facts.... Thus, University students are being taught false history to defend an indefensible policy of a ruler who was a religious bigot in toto. Please have some mercy on glorious history!"

"“ Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16 th century. Except for this, I do not have any knowledge of Babur."

"A confusing situation has been created by many modern historians who are not well versed in the Sanskrit language or who have a pre-determined agenda to follow. They have written long articles that the Ayodhyā mentioned in some Buddhist texts was situated on the bank of Gangā and not Sarayū and therefore different from the present-day Ayodhyā... But this has happened either due to the lack of the knowledge of the Sanskrit/Pāli language or on account of a deliberate attempt to confound the issue."

"According to a long-standing tradition prevalent in Korea a Princess of Ayodhyā, Suriratna by name, was married to a Korean King Kim Suro, the monarch of Kingdom Gaya (also known as Garak) located in the Korean country. As per the tradition, in July, 48 A.D. the Princess from the ancient sacred city of Ayodhyā embarked on her journey in a boat which anchored at a small harbour on the Korean peninsula. Her royal sojourn was in consequence to her father’s dream that she would get her husband in a small harbour in Korea. Upon her arrival, she was married to King Kim Suro who was the first King of the Korean Kingdom. ... Queen Sūriratna (Heo) is said to have given birth to 10 children who became founders of many dynasties. The powerful dynasty of the Gimhae Kim clan was started by her offspring and today six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae, and Lee from Incheon, trace their ancestry to this royal couple."

"Java’s capital at ‘Jogya karta’ for centuries has been named after Ayodhyā. ‘(A)Jogya’ is named after Ajodhya and karta means city. The main river in Java is called Serayu, which is apparently named after the Indian Sarayū on the bank of which Ayodhyā is situated. A cave in its proximity is called Kiskanda of the Rāmāyana. Similarly, a town Situbenda after the Setubandha is located in the extreme east of the principality."

"In his Malayalam autobiography, Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I, an Indian), Muhammad states: A team of Left historians in Jawaharlal Nehru University such as Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S. Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before the nineteenth century and Ayodhya was a Buddhist-Jain centre. Historians such as Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Athar Ali, D.N. Jha, Suraj Bhan, too joined and it became a big grouping…[they] instilled courage and gave false hopes to the BMAC [Babri Masjid Action Committee]. This resulted in a reversal of the thought process amongst Muslims who had till then, been pondering wholeheartedly about giving back the mosque and settling the matter amicably. They came to a renewed conclusion that the mosque will not be given…"

"Talking to Firstpost on his claims made in the book, Muhammed said the the action committee held several meetings under the leadership of Irfan Habib, the then chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research. "The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brain washing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib,RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali," he said."

"Here it is important to note that Svargadvar and Treta Ka Thakur temples were built during the regime of the Gadhawal Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries. An inscription of King Jayachandra of this dynasty relating to the Treta Ka Thakur temple was found and mentioned by Anton Fuhrer in his report. It is accepted by almost all scholars including Hans Bakker that these two temples were demolished by Aurangzeb’s order. Now the riddle remains why would the Muslim marauders who demolished Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā in 1528 A.D. leave these two temples unmolested, when they were standing just at a very short distance from it? The simple answer is that all the three temples were demolished by the same set of iconoclasts and they were none other than the marauders of Aurangzeb."

"Fedai Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s foster brother and favourite on account of Fedai’s unflinching support to him in the war against Dara and his worthy son Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also."

"The demolition of temples was taking place since the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign, nay, from his Viceroy’s days, when he had demolished the Somanâtha and Chintâmani temples in Gujarat. In 1661 when the King of Kuch Bihar was defeated by Mir Jumla, Aurangzeb’s Governor of Bengal, the principal temple of the capital of Kuch Bihar was demolished and a mosque was built thereon. The name of the capital was changed to Alamgir-nagar. In 1661-62 A.D. Abdun Nabi Khan, Aurangzeb’s Faujdar at Mathura, built a Jama Masjid in the heart of the city on the site of a mandir which was different from the famous Keshav Rai’s temple. It seems that after the execution of Dara Shukoh on 30th August, 1659 there was a jubilation in the conservative Muslim camp because he was executed for apostasy by the victorious Emperor Aurangzeb. Once Aurangzeb was in the saddle, his foster brother Fedai Khan, who was the Governor of Ayodhyâ, demolished all temples there at the Emperor’s command and built mosques at those places as marks of the triumph of the ‘true faith’ over the infidelity."

"Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts."

"Twelve Kasauti pillars in the disputed sturcture were the clear proof that the mosque had been built after demolishing a temple because the pillars stood in situ and therefore they were the part of the original structure. They had not been brought from any other place or from any other building. This is the basic understanding of archaeology"

"Even then, Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry."

"Given all the drama and moralistic bombast with which they used to surround this controversy, one would have expected their eagerness to report KK Muhammad's eyewitness account. But no, they were extremely sparing in their coverage, reluctant to face an unpleasant fact: the guilt of their heroes, the "eminent historians". These people outsourced the dirty work to Hindu and Muslim streetfighters and to Islamic terrorists, but in fact it is they who have blood on their hands."

""The Babri issue, would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia would not fallen prey to the brain washing of these historians"."

"Mr. Mahadevan's comments were really an objective analysis of the archaeological data. I can reiterate this with greater authority, for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavation in 1976-77 under Professor Lal...I was at the Hanuman Garhi site, but I have visited the excavation near the Babri Masjid and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the other. ... Ayodhya is as holy to Hindus as Mecca is to Muslims. Muslims should respect the sentiments of their millions of Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Rama temple."

"At the site where we got 12 pillars, they found 50 with the base and in 17 rows, indicating the presence of a huge temple. They also found ‘amalaka’ (a notched stone disk that sits on top of Hindu Temple ‘shikhara’) and ‘pranala’ (discharge outlet attached to the wall of a Hindu temple sanctum) and that too ‘magar pranala’ (crocodile-faced), which must be in a temple and not anywhere else. He also found over 263 terracotta idols. Do you expect this in a mosque? Then there was an inscription which clearly says that this temple is dedicated to Mahavishnu who killed Bali and Ravan. Also, in my work, I was the only Muslim… but in Mani’s excavation one fourth of the labourers engaged in earthwork were Muslims deputed to ensure that there was no bias or manipulation. Everything was videographed in the presence of an expert committee comprising independent people like lawyers and magistrates. The truth came out and proved some historians just wanted to complicate the issue. Muslims were ready (to find an amicable solution) and wanted to settle the issue without bloodshed. But a group of historians would not allow that."

"“A second issue was the attitude of Shi‘i clerics, government officials, and laypersons toward Hindus. The clerical attitude can be easily summarized. Sayyid Dildar ‘Ali Nasirabadi harbored an almost violent animosity toward Hindus, arguing that the Awadh government should take stern measures against them. He divided unbelievers into three kinds, those (harbi) against whom Muslims must make war, those (dhimmi) who have accepted Muslim rule and pay a poll-tax, and those (musta’min) whom their Muslim rulers have temporarily granted security of life. He insisted that Imami Shi‘ism accepted only Jews and Christians as protected minorities (dhimmis), and even they could only achieve this status if they observed the ordinances governing it. He differed with Sunni schools that considered Hindus a protected minority."

"Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism.”"

"The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement."

"When Prof. Ali knows that these valiant Rajputs had sacrificed all these assignments and were ready to die, then such calumny against a valiant race is a gross injustice to them and a daunting distortion of historical facts."

"A team of Left historians in Jawaharlal Nehru University such as Romila Thapar, Bipin Chanra, and S. Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before the nineteenth century and Ayodhya was a Buddhist-Jain centre. Historians such as Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Athar Ali, D.N. Jha, Suraj Bhan, too joined and it became a big grouping. [The Leftist drama] instilled courage and gave false hopes to the BMAC. This resulted in a reversal of the thought process amongst Muslims who had till then, been pondering wholeheartedly about giving back the mosque and setting the matter amicably. They came to a renewed conclusion that the mosque will not be given..."

"Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori, He was the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori. He invaded Ayodhyā with a large army and destroyed the famous Jain Adinath temple... Bartuh might have been a governor of Gahadavāla king at Ayodhyā who defended Ayodhyā valiantly and this is the reason that the Turkish invaders succeeded in demolishing only one temple (Adinātha) at Ayodhyā."

"Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”"

"Thus, on 28th February, 1659 when according to Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar Emperor Aurangzeb issued the firman of the religious tolerance through the office of his son Muhammad Sultan, the Emperor was in Rajasthan and the Prince was in Eastern India! How the twain met to consider sympathetically the condition of the Hindus of Benaras and issue a Firman from the imperial seat is beyond comprehension!"