Understanding Indian History with Advocate J. Sai Deepak

[Mancode]

On 1/23/2023 at 11:35 AM, Raven_Rayes said:

If he has that many citations and references, he should publish in academic journals, and open up his facts for serious investigation. lmao.

instead of giving youtube interviews and writing books, that no one in the field would even read..

 

from where??

mccalauy , romila thapaar??

[telugu_fan]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:05 AM, Raven_Rayes said:

so basically ASI did a hatchet job at the behest of the govt in power. their 'reports' are irrelevant if they are not peer reviewed. I know its not the ASI's job to publish reports, then its also not their job to make pronouncements on historical issues too.

because historians don't indulge in this kind of 3rd rate battles on the street, duh! only ideologically mad dogs indulge in this. Pretty sure historians don't even care if a Ram Temple existed in that place. Its likely not an interesting question for them to investigate. Its a purely political fight. So don't get historians mixed up with this sh1t.

yeah lots of assumptions. but mostly fair ones.

did you read what i wrote or did you just type what you had decided prior. Go through the link again.

https://www.firstpost.com/india/babri-demolition-how-hc-verdict-discredited-eminent-historians-547549.html

ASI cannot do excavations where ever they want and this site was closed for so long since the time of Rajiv Gandhi and sealed after the demolition of the masjid.

The ASI excavated based on court order and gave there evidence to the court and their professional findings. the historians that were writing oped didn't/couldn't challenge it in court under oath for they would have been exposed.

How can ASI do a hatchet job when the govt of the day were all supposedly secular (the state and center had non-BJP govt in 2012).

There are videos of KK Mohammad from ASI with pictures excavated from the site and his explanation that shows why they came to the conclusion that there was a temple there.

Go through these events that transpired in court over some years

The Hindu side was always maintaining that there was a temple there including the purported descendants of the people who had fought wars with invaders.

1. The muslim side initially egged and supported by the historians maintained that masjid was built on an empty plot,

2. then said that excavated site had remains of Jain temple and not Hindu temple and then

3. argued that maybe it was Hindu temple but they didn't demolish it and build a masjid, to

4. building masjid over the remains of a destroyed temple but destruction was not at the invaders hands.

The official historians who said to the muslim side that they have historical evidence of no temple on that site went to court and weakened the case of muslims under oath. that is captured in the court remarks