Talk:Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)

Saraswati valley

@Cpt.a.haddock: "Saraswati valley" and "Drishadvati valley" are the terms used by Suraj Bhan. Irfan Habib replaced them with the present day names. But they are the same rivers. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for adding a source for it. Considering the later statement against conflating Vedic and Indus cultures, it is important to get these things right. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on the Ayodhya dispute

@Kautilya3: The section on the Ayodhya dispute currently suffers from a lack of balance. Bhan's opinion as an archaeologist (for example, in the Frontline interview) appears to have been largely ignored. There are also a few other issues that I've noticed:

• The use of scare quotes around independent historians, etc.
• "chosen by BMAC", when Bhan's court deposition contradicts this (prior to 1991)
• Phrases such as "Despite the claims to independence"
• Terms such as "Pro-Masjid historians" while possibly true in their arguments, can be misconstrued
• The entire last paragraph on Bhan's cross-examination appears to be a cherry-picked extract from the referenced court document which itself contains selected extracts from his testimony. This can, IMO, be simplified and summed up better.

—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will think about it. My source, Meenakshi Jain, is a Hindu revivalist, so can't be sure of everything she says. However there hasn't been a rejoinder from the other side. So it is hard to get a balanced picture in this situation. The big picture is that the pro-Masjid historians ("pro-Babri historians" in the source) presented themselves in public as independent and impartial, but they were found to be highly opinionated in the court. Their expert opinion didn't stand up to scrutiny under cross-examination. This fact is important and needs to be presented. My understanding is that BLP doesn't apply any more. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP does not apply. Since it is about a person the section under discussion can be entirely nuked too, unless that is what the person is known in his life for... which seems to be the case here. For balance both side are presented. IMHO, it is not encyclopaedic in tone. I have fair confidence in the capacity of Kautilya3 to summarize it in a better way removing cliche phrases. Nevertheless I do not exactly concur with all the objections of Captain, it is not that skewed. I am a little occupied, apology for a quick response, not able to do more at the moment. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As you've already noticed, I've done some overhauling to this section. I've added some more of Bhan's observations (lime mortar etc.) and his allegations of lack of professionalism on the part of the ASI and addressed them in a paragraph on the court's verdict. FYI, I excised the line on "apparent" attempts to discredit the ASI as it seemed too opinionated. Unless you have any objections to these additions, I guess I'm done for now :) Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Captain! Unfortunately, this has made the already long section even longer. So I will want to scale it back a bit. I don't think the comments on the ASI or the dating of Ramayana (which ASI didn't do) belong here. If we keep them, I will need to add counterpoints, e.g., Chakrabarti, Dilip K. (2003). "Archaeology under the Judiciary: Ayodhya 2003". Antiquity. 77 (297): 579–580. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00092644.. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As long as the counterpoints are tied to Bhan's comments, it's fine IMO. But yes, it's getting long :) FWIW, I noted his accusation on the dating of the Ramayana (from the FL article) to tie in with the sentence in the earlier section on his archaeological work where we've mentioned that Bhan came out "strongly" against attempts (by Lal et al.) to link Vedic culture to IVC culture. This is, of course, Habib's opinion. As for the comments on the ASI (his former employers), I'm simply quoting the AHC which itself provided a suitable rejoinder to his allegations in the verdict (which I've noted in the final sentence of the section). To me, both these allegations of his hint at some of the motivation behind his stand. All that said, I'm happy for you to remove them if you feel that they are unencyclopaedic or biased. If you do remove his allegations against the ASI, please also remove or tone down the corresponding bits in the coda as well. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The ASI didn't say anything about the date of Ramayana. His reasoning is quite crazy: ASI got the NBPW samples dated by only one lab. Ergo, they wanted to push back the date of Ramayana. In the light of what Dilip Chakrabarti says, I think we have to assume that all the complaints against the ASI were overblown. We need to temper them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to note that Bhan accused the ASI of attempting to push back the date of the Ramayana. It is relevant to note that he alleged unprofessionalism and bias, and questioned the ASI's motivation and methodologies. His accusations and allegations needn't necessarily be true. And I think it's also relevant to note that the High Court told him off. It is relevant to note that the High Court effectively questioned Bhan's own expertise and professionalism and that of his colleagues on the expert witness panel and praised the ASI instead. Their testimonies significantly affected the 2010 verdict. If DK Chakrabarti specifically addresses Bhan, then that too is relevant. If not, then it doesn't warrant inclusion in this article. Regardless of its direct relevance, it will be useful to link to his paper in the External Links/Further Reading section. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, in my assessment he speculated that the ASI was attempting to push back the date of the Ramayana. All these problems are arising because we have violated the edict on WP:THIRDPARTY. Bhan has been turned into a source from being a subject. His views should be mentioned only to the extent of providing context for any criticisms that might follow. But I think there is more than that now. I would like to ask Vanamonde93 and AmritasyaPutra to weigh in and express their opinion. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Independent historians

The passage from Meenakshi Jain says "Representatives of the two organizations met on 1st December 1990 in the presence of Union Minister of State... The four BMAC historians--R.S. Sharma, D.N. Jha, Suraj Bhan and Athar Ali--insisted they be treated as independent historians, which the VHP refused to agree to." (p. 167) So, they appeared for one side but claimed to be independent. Actually they often called themselves "impartial," a term Bhan also used in the Court testimony. I don't know what you mean by his deposition contradicts this. In my view, once they decided to support one side they became disputants. They shouldn't be continuing to claim independence, including in the Frontline interview. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I was referring to this quote from the judgement: "Article(s) written by me, R.A. Sharma, D.N.Jha and Atahar Ali and other evidences were produced in the 13-05-1991 meeting by Babri Masjid Committee on behalf of Babri Masjid. Further stated, our report had not possibly been prepared on behalf of Babri Masjid Committee. Rather our opinion was quoted in their arguments." I might be wrong as I am unacquainted with the exact sequence of events.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The sequence of the events was that (a) on the 1st December the two sides met. (b) On 10 January 1991, they exchanged evidence. (c) On the 24th January, the two sets of experts met. The plan was apparently to conclude these discussions by 6 February. However, the four historians asked for 6 weeks time to examine the evidence. The VHP rejected the demand. Thereafter, the BMAC historians didn't show up for the meetings. That ended that brief period of entente.

The BMAC seems to have continued with its 6 week time frame in mind. So they kept pressuring the historians. When they eventually produced the response, they labelled it the "Historians' Report to the Nation," once again continuing their pretence of independence. (I am sure that in their own minds they saw they dispute as the "Nation vs Hindutva" and they thought they were representing the "nation." But the so-called nation was already fissured.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking

We are obviously not supposed to cherry pick from a court judgement that runs into several thousand pages. The selection here was done by Meenakshi Jain, and I picked the highlights from there. The main point seems to be that Suraj Bhan did not have the qualifications to support the conclusions that he made. His opinion wasn't professional, but rather political. If you agree, please feel free to rewrite it better. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I do agree to an extent. I simply want to see his actual opinions and conclusions also included and a focus more on Bhan than the team of authors or the entire expert witness panel. While I initially wanted to only tone down the last paragraph, I believe it might be best to gather all the bits critical of Bhan's role into one section perhaps dealing with the 2010 verdict. I've consequently started tweaking other paragraphs too. I'll pick this up again on Monday. Thanks. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Frontline interview

I am not sure this is the right place to describe his statements in the Frontline interview. Bhan had his chance to present his views in Court, which listened to both the sides and came to a judgement. We can't present one side of the story here. On the other hand, I am currently working on a "Judicial process" section to go in the Ayodhya dispute article. And there is also an Archaeology of Ayodhya page. Some information could go there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we actually have his entire testimony? The 2010 PDF only contains selected excerpts questioning his qualifications.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the Court documents on the web site. They do have the statements from some of the defendant witnesses, in a subsidiary judgement about the complaints regarding ASI. But, for the main suit, we only have the judgement. I can try and dig through the Meenakshi Jain book to see if there is any more detail about what he said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a search through the Court judgement and found the various paragraphs that deal with Suraj Bhan. I list them here. (Most of them are covered in the Meenakshi Jain book as well).

Volume 15

• para 3608-3612: Historians' Report to the Nation covered
• para 3612-3614: Qualifications and lack thereof
• para 3615-3617: sincerity

Volume 16

• para 3719: corroborates with the ASI report in some ways.
• para 3720: "not taken into confidence" - confusing
• para 3800: Thakran testifies for his integrity.
• para 3825: affidavit supporting complaint against ASI report and cross-examination (fairly detailed).
• para 3826-3829: Court's assessment of the testimony.

Volume 17

• para 3891: pillar bases
• para 3915: more on pillar bases
• para 3921: "made a general statement against the conclusion of ASI"

Volume 18

• para 3962: on the question of bones
• para 3972: on glazed ware
• para 3982: on the question of a Qanati mosque underneath

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for all the digging :) This is very useful. I've taken the liberty of grouping them by volume as well as I sometimes have trouble locating stuff. It's disappointing that his complete testimonies are not available online.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and used the FL interview as a source. It was being used already (by way of Noorani). —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

I think we need to outline and order events chronologically:

1. 1990/1991: Initial meetings with the VHP
2. 1991: Historians Report. I want to note that the Historians Report explicitly states that the four authors were not able to gain access to BB Lal's report ("through no lack of trying").
3. 1992: "Ram Janmabhumi Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries" released (by whom?)
4. 1992: The four authors write about the "PWD-like excavations".
5. 1992: Babri Masjid is demolished.
6. 2000: Bhan appears as an expert witness (para 3612).
7. 2002: Appears again in response to SP Gupte's book.
8. 2003: Allahabad High Court orders the excavation
9. 2003: The Habib + Bhan press conference before the ASI proceeds with the excavation.
10. 2003: ASI proceeds with the excavation and finds an underground structure in 2003
11. ????: Bhan writes in the People's Democracy about the pillars.
12. 2003: The Frontline interview just after the ASI discovery. Bhan states categorically that it could not have been a temple and was probably a Sultanate-period mosque.
13. 2006: Bhan's last appearance in response to an ASI report (which one? 2003?) where he again states that it is a mosque
14. 2010: The court judgement is delivered where his expertise and attitude were called into question, etc., and is panned at reaching a conclusion without even reading Lal's report.

Does this cover everything? How about the bit about Bhan stating that DN Jha did not sign the 1991 report (although there appear to be plenty of news stories where he claims authorship)? Are 2000, 2002, and 2006 the only times Bhan appeared in court? Also, I've seen mention of his appearance in the Lucknow bench as well. Could there be some docs on their site? (I'm not sure which section to search within.)

While I'm at it, here are a few other pertinent People's Democracy articles: 1, 2, 3, 4.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you are really digging into this. Impressive! I have added the sources and dates for the articles from the Noorani collection, which might clarify things for you. As for the two `verification needed' tags you added, it is true that Suraj Bhan was the only from the gang of four that appeared in Court. But I think they had 8 witnesses in all. So, I don't attach too much significance to this tidbit. (However, he was the only archaeologist with field experience, and he wasn't a specialist in the medieval period. So, even though the pro-Masjid camp dominated the public media, they really appear weak inside, which hurt them in the Court.) As to whether Suraj Bhan deposed about B. B. Lal's discovery in the Court, I don't recollect anything about it. But, again, this won't be all that important because the ASI excavation would have trumped the B.B. Lal's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the dates. Looks like some more shuffling is in order. BTW, the Historians Report in the AHC judgement is described as an excerpt. Is this correct? Do either of Jain or Noorani contain an intact version of the report?

The second VN tag in the article questions a sentence that attributes a statement to Bhan when it was being attributed to the "Gang of Four" earlier. IIRC, I changed this attribution since there was no mention of Lal's pillars in the Historians Report.

Yes, the attack on B. B. Lal was in the "Gang of Four" report, not Bhan's articles. Bhan did attack S. P. Gupta in his own writings, which is to be expected because Gupta is a known RSS man. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:BB Lal's discovery, I'm just curious to know if/why they weren't given access to the excavation notes. Their contention (in particular DN Jha's) was that Lal had never mentioned anything about pillars supporting a temple until c.1989, some 14 years after his excavation, etc., etc.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that People's Democracy isn't a mainstream newspaper and, so, not a reliable source. Even Tulika Books is borderline. We can cite Suraj Bhan's own writings, but we shouldn't go too far off from that. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Rather than a newspaper, the CPI(M)'s own term—organ—befits the publication. As for Tulika Books, I generally pay more attention to the author and the writing than the publisher. Besides, Meenakshi Jain's publisher is named Aryan Books :)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the "Aryan" in their name has anything to do with the present controversies. They mostly publish cultural stuff, and have some affinity to Hindu traditionalism. But they are not political. As for Tulika Books, they have clear connections to the Left. I was surprised to see how many of the articles in Noorani's collection are taken from People's Democracy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Historians' Report to the Nation is indeed reproduced in the Noorani book. I haven't read it in detail. Their case mostly had to do with historical issues. The VHP has rejected them as being irrelevant a "matter of faith" cannot be countered by them. It turns out that they were right, legally speaking. Freedom of religion allows people to believe dumb things if they want to. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the updates! If you could perhaps perform a cursory comparison (perhaps of length and mentions of BB Lal) of the two reports (AHC excerpt vs. Noorani reproduction), that will be great. I only see a single mention of Lal in the AHC version which has what appear to be five sections: # Introduction, # No basis in Hindu scriptures, # Evidence in recorded History, # Source of Trouble, and # Conclusion.

P.S. Re:Aryan Books, I was (mostly) joking. Its founder appears to be a man named Arya :)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the section III of the Report deals with the B.B. Lal excavation results. (As I said it was probably omitted from the Court judgement because it was overtaken by the ASI excavation. So this was stale news.) As for the mystery as to why they couldn't get hold of the excavation notes, they say that they wrote to "Government of India" five times, but there was no response. So my guess is that the notes were with ASI and ASI didn't release them. It is also my guess that the project was suspended by the ASI due to directives from the top, probably from Indira Gandhi, who would have found the evidence politically inconvenient. So, the ASI wouldn't release them unless there were again directives from the top. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I take it then that section III (Evidence in recorded history?) is based on Lal's preliminary report. Cheers.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the preliminary report had nothing about pillar bases. (Lal's project was to investigate the historicity of the Ramayana in the first millennium BC. It had nothing to do with the temple-mosque dispute. The pillar bases were an accidental find, whose significance came into focus only in the late 80s.) The section III would have been based on whatever the VHP submitted. It might have been the Manthan extract of the 60-page paper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B. B. Lal

The B. B. Lal stuff is shrouded in mystery. It would be best avoid it. You can find some background here [1]. A published source is: Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126. ISBN 1134604971.

My understanding is that ASI was funding B. B. Lal's project. He says they suddenly withdrew all facilities and hence the reports never got finished. We don't know if the primary material was with Lal or with the ASI. If the Babri Masjid people needed it, they could have always gotten a court order for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In the paper I cited, B.B.Lal says that he submitted a 60-page paper on his excavations to an ICHR conference in 1988. (p. 119) But the paper wasn't published, probably because he mentioned Ayodhya pillar bases. He says the RSS magazine Manthan got hold of the paper and published the stuff about pillar bases. Then the Leftists started attacking him for publishing stuff in Manthan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kautilya3. Some of this is confirmed here including Lal's claim that he submitted a "preliminary report" before the project was suspended for 10–12 years. I don't intend to go into this for this article beyond mentioning that the Historians Report notes that they couldn't gain access to Lal's notes and that the fact that Bhan (et al.,) arrived at a conclusion without looking at the notes reflected poorly on his testimony.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The preliminary report was published fine and it has been cited by everybody. But there was no mention of Ayodhya pillar bases there. The first time the pillar bases were mentioned in print was in the Manthan article. That is why there was a big hue and cry over it. Shereen Ratnagar has said that the historians were "blindsided." It was an unfortunate controversy. I don't know why it had to happen. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ASI report

The ASI report revealed two important finds: a circular brick shrine, which was interpreted as a Shiva temple, and a `massive structure' 50m by 30m (larger than the Babri Masjid, I presume), for which there were apparently 50 pillar bases. Most of the dispute is about the `massive structure', which was held to be an Islamic period mosque by Suraj Bhan and other pro-Masjid experts. The interpretation of the circular shrine as Shiva temple was also contested but Bhan wasn't too particular about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Obs. on Bhan by J. Agarwal

The damning observations start from p. 3614. But, why was he asked all these questions at the first place? Can we read the detailed notes, anywhere rather than some cherrypicked comments? Nobody would have self-incriminated themselves so badly and he did not live long enough to post a rebut.

I cannot think of a single academic (even Witzel, Jamieson et al) who can claim of having studied Vedas wholly. What is even Valmiki Ramayana? I can neither think of any reason why Bhan needed to know when Indus valley was discovered or whether Lanka could have been in Madhya Pradesh. How is this humanely possible that Bhan can study (of his own) on so many things? What is the relevance of Rajatarangini to the subject? The comparative study of epics is an entire field in itself - people spend their lifetime in such pursuits, and still need to trust other scholars blindly in many areas. Why do we expect a field-archaeologist to be knowledgeable of numismatics?

I do not intend to claim that Bhan or his brethren on steroids were up to much good. But, such gotcha questions show a fundamental inability to understand how history is practiced and taught at a professional level or reimagine the discipline beyond the rote-learning days of middle school. Like a few months back, when R. Thapar was in conversation with a private audience and a certain professor (aligned to RSS) curtly demanded that she provide the specific date of some event concerning Somnath and meaning of some (relevant) inscription, since she had written a "famed" book. Or a few decades back, when Ludo Rocher was heckled by RSS on rather-similar grounds and branded as a fake scholar of Puranas. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking for a reason grounded in policy - WP:PRIMARY. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I know. My original version was this. Then it got modified. They preferred the High Court to Meenakshi Jain. What can I say?

I think the basic problem was that he had no expertise in the medieval period. But the problem is also that he was on the BMAC team and didn't study/examine the VHP evidence all that well. The other people were even worse. In the judgement, they only gave answers to the questions he might have been posed. We don't know the questions, but we can guess, I suppose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My problems lie at a fundamental level. Bhan might be an expert or fraud or an idiot or anything else - I am not bothered.

Your version states, Bhan admitted having inadequate knowledge of Vedas [...] and having no knowledge of [...] numismatics. How would adequate knowledge of these fields have affected the conclusion? Find me a single scholar who claims to be an expert in Vedas, Puranas, epigraphy of medieval India, and numismatics (of ?).

Bhan never sought to prove the development of Saketa/Ayodhya as a pilgrimage town using some original argument either. If I recall, one of his lines had cited prof. Hans Bakker. Which is absolutely fine - if the court had some beef, it should have resolved it with Bakker. That a field archaeologist should have knowledge of Puranic corpus makes no sense.

In the case of Kashmir, Gandhara, etc., we have certain people who are experts in numismatics. Others are expert in sculptures. Yet others have their expertise in other areas. When the first group cites the second/third in support of some argument (say settling debates of chronology), they cannot really understand all the detailed arguments. Any standard scholarship has hundreds of citations - it does not mean that the author has gone through each of them in its entirety, understood their methodologies, vetted the facts, and found them to be beyond doubt. If such is the case, we will take a few decades to write a few hundred pages.

The only relevant parts are not a specialist in architecture, sculpture etc. He had never studied the construction of mosques built on top of temples. Even this would have been irrelevant, had he stuck to critiquing excavation methodologies and other archeological aspects but Bhan chose to comment on carvings on the pillars. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Bhan comments to Frontline:

These levels of Period VII are also associated with medieval (Islamic) glazed ware and glazed tiles, which came to be produced on a large scale only with the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. Besides, a niche in the `massive' burnt brick wall had an arch, so typical of the Sultanate period.

These are standard stuff known by every alternate archaeologist - I think the lines are actually slight variations of a quote from some book. You don't need to have any kind of expertise in medieval history to have the authority to spout these things. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have removed a line for misrepresentation. It can go in but will need a rephrasing. Quoting the passage:

Dr Gupta has assumed that the brick pillars found in the trenches excavated outside the compound wall of the Babri Masiid in the south and dated to the eleventh century, belonged to a Hindu temple, on the ground that these served as bases of the black-stone pillars [re-used in the Babri Masjid] carved with figures of semi-divine beings related to the ‘Hindu’ pantheon. The conjecture that the stone pillars of the Babri Masjid originally formed an integral part of the brick pillar structure excavated in the trenches is absolutely unfounded because no stone pillar, broken or unbroken, was found stratigraphically associated with the brick pillars [supposed to belong to a Hindu temple] in the trench. Nor was there found any evidence of Hindu ritual objects or sculptures stratigraphically associated with the brick pillared structure supposed to be a "Hindu temple" by Dr Gupta. Besides, the carvings on the stone pillars re-used in the Babri Masjid or found elsewhere, do not specifically relate to Rama, Vaisltnava or Saiva temples. Such figures are found carved on Buddhist architecture as well.

He claims that such patterns are not unique to Hindu temples but also found in Buddhist architecture; hence, these observations might not be a basis to id the structure as a Hindu temple. Quite different from our line which impress upon an average reader that Bhan had held it to be parts of a Buddhist structure. Also tellingly, Bhan's entire focus remains on archeology, where laid his prim. expertise. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Bhan's Letter to the editor of the Hindustan Times dated 18 March 1991 about his discussion with B. B. Lal (an archaeologist whom he held in high esteem) and arrival at a common ground is quite interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Boy, you are on steroids! Responding to your comment from 20:05.

His job was to scrutinise what the ASI found during the excavation and interpreting it. Since he dismissed ASI's findings, obviously the lawyers would ask what expertise he had for assessing it. They might have found vedic altars for example and coins. If he says he has no expertise at all on those matters, obviously his testimony won't be valued.

Secondly, it seems that BMAC has fielded him as a historian, the only one of the four authors of the Historians Report to the Nation to have testified. Since BMAC heavily relied on this report, he would have also been questioned on its contents. I don't find anything about Saketa on the main page. Where did you find references to it? In any case, if the BMAC's team says in the court that Saketa is different from Ayodhya or whatever, they would be questioned about it, and it won't be enough to say Bakker said so. (I believe Bakker though. But I am not testifying in the court.) VHP would obviously produce XYZ references and ask you how you explain them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

They might have found Vedic altars for example and coins. - Vedic altar is a pioneer claim and if true, this would have attracted immense media attention. They found a coin of Chandragupta II. Whether he could have identified them or not, is irrelevant to the dispute, at hand. Maybe, VHP was into some kind of grand-narrative like Chandragupta II commissioned the temple or some insane stuff like that?

I noted about Saketa since you chose to mention Bhan's lack of knowledge about Puranas. Sk. P. and Vh. P. comes into play only in establishing the religious history of the city - something, Bhan was never engaging in. I think your explanation might be a reason.

Now, courts might believe that a scholar, when citing other scholars, must be able to explain their conclusions. That is, wield mastery over thousands of primary sources. However such stuff makes zero sense to academic historians (this point has been actually raised by scholars who have opposed courts moderating histories) and hence, the comments of the Court stay out.

Unless some other scholar (not Jain) has made an issue of them. Or unless it can be shown that they affect the reliability of Bhan's particular critiques - like, the part about architecture esp. of temples-reused-as-mosques. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't understand paragraph 3616. So I removed the stuff about Vedas and Puranas. More stuff may need to go. I will think about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You were correct. They were borrowing from Baker's arguments to dispute the religious history of Ayodhya (see page 3608-3611 of vol. 15). This is classic R. S. Sharma but Bhan got to face the heat, being the only one in the Court. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)