{"id":52615,"date":"2005-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005"},"modified":"2018-04-02T07:06:39","modified_gmt":"2018-04-02T01:36:39","slug":"unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005<\/div>\n
1\n                                                                   4001\n^^,0,l0vkbZ0 us lhfer le; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj\ngk sj ht + s a V y rFkk ofVZ d y nk su k s a fof\/k;k s a l s mR[kuu dk;Z\ni w. kZ fd;k] tk s ,d iz ' k al uh; dk;Z gS ] fdUrq ftruh de\nvof\/k e s a ;g fjik sV Z iz d kf'kr dh xbZ gS ] og iz ' k al uh;\nugh a gS A esjs fopkj ls fjiksVZ dh izLrqfr ds fy, ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks vkSj\nle; fn;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ftl Lrj dk mR[kuu dk;Z ,\n0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fookfnr LFky ij fd;k x;k Fkk] mldh fjiksVZ izLrqr\ndjus ds fy, ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks de ls de N% ekg dk le; vkSj fn;k\ntkuk pkfg, FkkA de le; esa fjiksVZ izLrqr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k bl\nfjiksVZ esa vusd fMfLdziSalh gSaA^^ \u00bcist 290&291\u00bd\n\"Under the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the ASI by\nusing both the horizontal and vertical methods\ncompleted excavation work in a limited time, which is\nan appreciable work; but a short span of time in which\nthis report has been published is not appreciable. In my\nopinion, the ASI ought to have been given more time for\nsubmission of report. Considering the level of excavation\nwork which had been undertaken on the disputed site by the\nASI, it should have been given at least six months' more\ntime for submission of report. On account of submission of\nreport in less time, this report suffers from many\ndiscrepancies.\" (E.T.C)\n^^;g dguk lgh gS fd Q+kbuy LV\u00aasVhxzkQ+h rHkh lEHko gS] tc ml V\u00aasap\nesa vafre Lrj rd mR[kuu iw.kZ dj fy;k tk;sA Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj esa\nQ+kbuy LV\u00aasVhxzkQ+h dk fy[kk tkuk lEHko ugha gksrk gSA izfrfnu ds\nmR[kuu esa tks lkefxz;ka feyrh gSa] mlh dk mYys[k mlesa fd;k tkrk\ngSA iz'uxr mR[kuu ds ckjs esa Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj esa izfrfnu izkIr gksus\nokyh oLrqvksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA eSaus Ms&Vq&Ms jftLVj dks viuh\neq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa mR[kuu ls lacaf\/kr viuk er O;Dr djus\nds fy, ,d vk\/kkj cuk;k Fkk] bldk dkj.k ;g gS fd bl nLrkost+ ds\nek\/;e ls gesa Ms&Vq&Ms ds mR[kuu ls izkIr lkefxz;ksa dk fooj.k fey\n                                                                        4002\n        ldrk Fkk vkSj ;g tkudkjh ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ }kjk izkIr ugha FkhA^^\n                                                              \u00bcist 291&292\u00bd\n        \"It is true to say that final stratigraphy is possible only\n        when excavation is carried out upto the last level at the\n        concerned trench. It is not possible to write about final\n        stratigraphy in Day-to-Day register. Whatsoever materials\n        are discovered at each day's excavation are mentioned\n        therein. As far as the excavation in question is concerned,\n        materials discovered therefrom on each day have been\n        mentioned in the Day-to-Day register. I used the Day-to-\n        Day register as a basis to express my opinion on the\n        excavation, in the affidavit filed at Examination-in-Chief;\n        its reason is that I could through this document get details\n        about the materials discovered at Day-to-Day excavations\n        and this information was not forthcoming from the ASI\n        report.\" (E.T.C)\n        ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd mR[kuu ds nkSjku vFkok mlds ckn tc eSaus\n        fookfnr LFky dk foft+V fd;k Fkk] rc eS au s ,0,l0vkbZ 0 }kjk dh\n        xbZ LV\u00aa sV hxz k Q +h ;k mR[kuu d s ckj s e s a dk sb Z vkifRr ugh a\n        mBkbZ FkhA^^ \u00bcist 295\u00bd\n        \"It is true to say that when I, during or subsequent to the\n        excavation, visited the disputed site, I raised no objection\n        about the stratigraphy or excavation carried out by the\n        ASI.\" (E.T.C)\n3838.         The     statement      extracted     above      shows      self\ncontradiction and lack of clarity on the part of PW-24.\n3839.         PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections\nfiled on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report. It is for this\nreason that she was examined first before re-examination of PW\n16 and 24. The affidavit of PW 29 is dated 28.9.2005 and her\n                                                             4003\n\ncross examination was conducted from 29.9.2005 to 19.1.2006.\nPW 24 was examined second time when he was produced in\nrespect to ASI report by filing his affidavit dated 5.12.2005 and\nthe cross examination conducted from 5.12.2005 to 4.1.2006. So\nfar as PW 16 is concerned, on third occasion his affidavit is\ndated 20.2.2006 and cross examination held from 20.3.2006 to\n28.7.2006. It is for this reason probably that the periodization\/\nchronology vis-a-vis its co-relation with various finds and\nstructures etc. found by ASI have been assailed in para 8 (from\npara 8.1 to 8.6) of the objections of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4).\nHowever, in her affidavit dated 28.9.2005, PW 29 has changed\nher stand and in para 4 and she says:\n     \"4. That the ASI Report has problems with stratigraphy\n           and chronology, which may be summarised as\n           under:-\n     (A)   That as many as 15 pieces of terracotta figurines of\n           later periods were reported from earlier levels, an\n           impossible situation if deposits were actually\n           stratified. In fact, deposits from Gupta period\n           onwards are not stratified and the material is all\n           mixed up. This is a point that is not debated by the\n           ASI and has been repeated several times through the\n           Report.\n     (B)   That there are clearly problems with the stratigraphy\n           which is indicated by other inaccuracies. If one\n           calculates the total depth of deposits in different\n           periods from a single trench such as G7, it is clear\n           that there are gaps. Specifically, in G7, there is 1\n           metre deposit for Period 1(NBP), 1.6 metre for\n                                                         4004\n\n      Period II (Sunga), 1.5 metre for Period III (Kushan),\n      2 metre for Period IV (Gupta), 0.9 metre for Period V\n      (Post Gupta), 0.75 metre for Period VI (Early\n      Medieval), 0.6 metre for Period VII (Medieval) and\n      0.25 metre for Period VIII and Period IX has not\n      been indicated (as derived from Chapter III). This\n      totals up to 8.60 metres of cultural deposits.\n      According to the ASI, the total cultural deposit is\n      10.80 metre, which means that almost 2.20 metre is\n      not accounted for. Not only this, Appendix IV, at the\n      end of the book, mentions total depth dug for Trench\n      G7 as 13.45 metre. Even if the ASI points out that the\n      lower layers in G7 belong to a pit and we accept\n      their depth for natural as 10.80 metre, it still means\n      that there is a massive pit of about 2.65 metre depth,\n      which is a trifle difficult to imagine. There could have\n      been a fill as there is in Trench J3, but not a pit of\n      such dimensions.\n(C)   That the ASI also mentions a continuous cultural\n      occupation of the site. However, if we examine Plate\n      5 of the Final Report, a layer with no cultural\n      material (termed in archaeology as a sterile layer)\n      can be clearly seen, for example, below layer 4. The\n      ASI has marked out this layer but has not numbered\n      it. Sterile layers indicate periods when there was no\n      habitation or occupation. These layers are ascribed\n      to the Early Medieval\/Sultatnate period (Period VI)\n      in the tentative periodization of the site. There is\n      then a possibility that there was no Early Medieval\n                                                         4005\n\n      occupation and there was a gap between the Gupta\n      and the Medieval periods. This had been noted as\n      early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from\n      the Department of Ancient Indian History and\n      Culture, of BHU, Varanasi, which had noted a\n      desertion of the site between the Early Historic and\n      Medieval periods. (By neglecting to indicate the\n      sterile layers and their implications, the ASI is trying\n      to project a continuous occupation of the site from\n      the Early Historic to the Medieval periods. Neither\n      the   stratigraphy   nor    the   artefacts,   however,\n      substantiate such a claim. There is a certain bias\n      here, which again goes against the norms of\n      archaeological objectivity, to force a certain\n      interpretation on the material, that from the 10th\n      century AD onwards the area was occupied by\n      Hindu religious structures.)\n(D)   That in the same context, the layering of fill deposits\n      in J3, J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to\n      show continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It\n      was only when complaints were made that these fill\n      deposits    were     acknowledged      but     eventual\n      registrations of artefacts from these deposits in the\n      final Report were left uncorrected.\n(E)   That in archaeology, structures can be dated if there\n      are special construction techniques or material,\n      known specifically to have been used in a particular\n      period, such as lime-surkhi from the end of the 12th\n      century AD. Structures can also be dated on the basis\n                                                         4006\n\n      of associated artefactual material coming from\n      stratified contexts in association with the structures.\n      But when the material is all mixed up from the\n      Gupta period onwards, it is impossible to neatly\n      slot structural remains into periods of post-Gupta,\n      Early Medieval or Medieval levels.\n(F)   That in this attempt to force a particular\n      interpretation on the material that cannot be\n      substantiated, there is bound to be confusion and\n      discrepancies. Confusion is clearly indicated by the\n      manner in which floors are numbered at various\n      places in the text. The same floor is given different\n      numbers, some floors appear and disappear, their\n      extent keeps changing and so forth.) The numbering\n      of floors in association with so called \"pillar bases\",\n      mentioned in the Table on pages 56-67 of the Final\n      Report does not match with those in Fig. 8,9,10,11,12\n      and 13. On page 41, it is mentioned that the earliest\n      floor extended in the eastern area up to the H series\n      of trenches in sub-period VIIA. In sub-period VIIB,\n      the next floor extended up to trenches J4-J5-J6. On\n      page 42, it is indicated that in sub-period VIIC, the\n      floor associated with the \"pillar bases\" is the most\n      extensive on the mound. In Fig. 23A, however, Floor\n      4 (the earliest floor) is shown as extending all over\n      the mound while Floor 3 and Floor 2 are more\n      restricted, providing a completely contradictory\n      picture.\n(G)   That the tentative periodization and schematic cross-\n                                                                4007\n\n              section of the mound that has been provided between\n              page 37 and 38 of the Final Report does not provide\n              a layer-wise description of all the trenches. For\n              example, no information on layers has been provided\n              for important trenches like E8, F8, F9, G8, G9 and\n              G1. Even for trenches that have been mentioned in\n              the diagrams, we have no indication of the layers\n              below Floor 4 in important trenches like F3 and\n              F4\/F5. (There should have been a concordance of the\n              layers of trenches from the north and south of the\n              site.)\n        (H)   That in some cases strata were marked in almost\n              complete darkness within trenches such as G8. A\n              study of stratigraphy within a trench requires careful\n              examination of the sections to discern differences in\n              colour and texture of soil. Obviously plenty of light\n              is required for such a study. Even though there were\n              arrangements for artificial light, very often this was\n              not used as in the case of Trench G8 and yet strata\n              were marked and antiquities registered as from\n              particular layers.\"\n3840.         PW 29, this time has taken stand which substantially\nconforms to that of PW 24. In cross examination, she said :\n        \"I agree with N.B.P.W., Mughal and late post Mughal\n        periods but with the rest of the periods I do not agree.\n        According to my information N.B.P.W. should be dated\n        from 600 B.C. to 100 B.C. whereas Shunga period is\n        second century B.C. which would overlap the N.B.P.W.\n        N.B.P.W. denotes Northern Black Polished Ware. N.B.P.W.\n                                                         4008\n\nis well known pottery of Northern India. From my point of\nview archaeological periods should not be distinguished\non the basis of dynasties Kushan period is dated from Ist\nto 3rd century A.D.\" (Page 71)\n\"I have mentioned in para 4-A of my affidavit that deposits\nfrom Gupta period onwards are not stratified. In this\nregard I have to say that all the materials of earlier and\nlater periods, were mixed up. If the material is mixed up it\ndoes not give a correct picture of the stratification.\" (Page\n74)\n\" I do not agree with the periodisation of the disputed site\nat Ayodhya as shown by ASI in Chart, at page No. 37-A of\nthe ASI report, Volume-I\" (Page 45)\n\"In para 3 A of my affidavit I have mentioned about\nterminology ad periodization. The defects in terminology\nand periodization show confusion in the report. Due to the\ndefect of terminology and periodization, the report of\nASI is also biased.\" (Page 70)\n\"Terminology and periodization play a significant role\nbut they are not most important. The terminology and\nperiodization can be changed. I would also have\nproblems with archaeologically identifying periods\naccording to dynasties. I do not know about universal\nperiodization.\" (Page 70)\n\"Learned counsel drew the attention of witness towards\nA.S.I. Report Vol. 1, (Text) at page no. 37-A. The witness\nstated that in last column of page period has been\nmentioned but I am not in agreement with this\nperiodization.\" (Page 71)\n                                                            4009\n\n\"... I think that the stratigraphy shown in this plate, is\ncorrect. The layers are distinct in texture.\" (Page 111)\n\"Starting period of Muslim rule in India is from 1206 A.D.\ni.e. of Qutubuddin Aibak. I don't know whether this period\nis known as Illawari Turk. According to renowned\nhistorians, the period before 1206 A.D. is known as\nEarly Medieval period. Since I have not read the book by\nB.S. Smith, therefore I cannot say whether he refers to the\nperiod from Harsha till 1200 A.D. as Rajput Period. I have\nnot heard about Anoop Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. I don't\nknow whether the most authentic version of Prithviraj Raso\nwritten by Chandbardai is maintained in this library. ... I\nwould say Rigveda can be dated from 1500 B.C. Alexander\ninvaded India in 327-325 B.C. Mauryan dynasty was\nestablished in 321 B.C. The Mauryas were succeeded by\nSunga dynasty. Sunga dynasty is dated from 2nd century\nB.C. to 1st century B.C. Archaeologically, the periods\ncannot be categorized on the basis of dynasties.\" (Page\n115-116)\n\"I will not agree with the statement even in para 1 to 5 just\nbecause the period VI and VII have been changed in\nnomenclature. In my view A.S.I.'s period V, and period\nVI and period VII should be considered as Early\nMedieval.\" (Page 129)\n\"Stratigraphy is a term used in Archaeology. Stratigraphy\nis the study of layers as they are formed over time. ... The\nArchaeology periods can be fixed on the basis of centuries.\nCenturies can be put into various periods for the purposes\nof study. Harappan period is dated from 2600 B.C. To 1900\n                                                         4010\n\nB.C. from 600 B.C. various Mahajanpad period was\nfollowed by the Nandas and the beginning of Mauryan\nperiod. During 600 B.C. to 300 B.C. the two dynasties\nruled while the Mauryan dynasty continued beyond 300\nB.C. also.\" (Page 144)\n\"It is correct to say that for the purpose of periodization,\nthe method of century-wise study is better and preferable\nto that of dynasty-wise. The period 800 AD to 1200 AD\nfalls within the Early Medieval period, which started much\nearlier to 800 AD. ... Early Medieval period lasted from\n600 AD to 1200 AD. I know the periods in terms of pre-\nGupta, Gupta and post-Gupta periods. According to me,\nGupta period begins from fourth century AD and continued\nup to sixth century AD and prior to that, was the pre-Gupta\nperiod up to the time immemorial. Pre-Gupta period would\ndate back to 600 BC and post-Gupta is from 600 BC to\n1200BC.\" (Page 150)\n\"Medieval period would be post 1200 A.D. According to\narchaeology periodisation is on the basis of stratigraphy.\nQues- Will it not be correct to say that there are three well\nestablished norms of periodisationm that ism no. 1 layer,\nwise 2. century wise 3. Dynasty wise. ?\nANS- It is not correct to say that 'periodisation' in\narchaeology can be done on the basis of 'dynasties'.\nI do not agree that periodisation can be done century-\nwise. Century-wise periodisation is covered by stratigraphy\nor layer wise study. The numbering of the layers is done\nfrom top to bottom. Where as periodisation is ascertained\nfrom bottom to top.\" (Page 182-183)\n                                                          4011\n\n\"A.S.I. has mentioned about periodisation in its report. It is\ncorrect to say that A.S.I. has adopted all the three methods\nof periodisation mentioned above in its report. It is wrong\nto suggest that A.S.I. has mentioned in its periodisation by\nlayers, century and dynasties. According to me some\nperiods were identified on the basis of century wise and\none was identified on the basis of archaeological\nculture. I think A.S.I. has identified nine periods in its\nreport. According to me century has been mentioned in\nall the above nine periods. Dynasty wise report is not\nmentioned in all the above mentioned nine periods. A.S.I.\nhas given details of dynasties of four periods. The\ndynasties mentioned by the A.S.I. are Shungas. Kushans,\nGuptas, Mughal. A.S.I. has not mentioned any dynasty\nother than the Mughal for the medieval period... I don't\nagree with the identification of the period 'post Gupta\nRajput level. According to me the post Gupta Rajput part\nof the period should be called as early medieval period\nwhich should extend upto 1200 A.D. According to me\npost' Gupta Rajput period will be period from 7th century\nto 1200 A.D. ... The term post 'Gupta Rajput period' is\nused in archaeology, not in history. I have not heard about\nthe term Medieval-sultanate period in archaeology. I do not\nagree that the period of 12th century is called as medieval\nsultanate period in archaeology. Medieval period is\nconsidered from 1200 A.D. Till the colonial period that is\n13th century till 18th century.\" (Page 183-185)\n\"I have heard about periodization on the basis of\ndynasty. It is prevalent and used in Archaeology.\n                                                        4012\n\nProbably dynasty wise periodization commenced in the\n1940's. It is correct to say that Medieval is a phase in\nhistory.\" (Page 186)\n\"I do not correlate medieval period with Islam because\nIslam reached the sum continent much earlier. Islam\nreached Sindh in 8th century AD. Islam would have reached\nprobably in Kerala through traders in 8th or 9th century AD.\nI am of the opinion that in archaeology century wise\nperiodization is possible particularly for the earlier\nperiods. I think it will be more or less correct to say that\ncentury wise periodization is correct method of\nperiodization in archaeology.\" (Page 187)\n\"I have not done detail study of the periodization given\nin appendix 1 on the bases of carbonating. As such I am\nunable to express my opinion about information given in\nappendix 1. As regards sample no. 9, which from trench\nG7 (layer 20) is dated 1680 - 1320 BC. This layer\naccording to ASI was a pit and so these early dates have\nlittle meaning.\" (Page 188)\n\" Periodization was done on the bases of layers, centuries\nand dynasties. ... I will not agree with periodization.\n...According to me in history the dynasty wise, century wise\nperiodization for period is correct. In my opinion\nperiodization in history and archaeology is different. In my\nopinion in archaeology the periods referred above as\nperiod 1 to IV is the Early Historic period. . . .I will not\nagree with the sun division on the basis of dynasty that has\nbeen provided by ASI.\" (Page 189-190)\n\"According to me the terms for identification for periods in\n                                                               4013\n\n        history and archaeology are different but not altogether\n        different.   . . .   It is more or less correct to say that\n        periodization on the basis of centuries is correct.\" (Page\n        193)\n3841.          A few thing, which we may say immediately to\nshow apparent false allegations are that para 4(B) of the\ncomplaint said that according to ASI, the total cultural deposit is\n10.80 metre but Appendix IV, at the end of the book, mention\ntotal depth dug for trench G7 as 13.45. The complainant\nprobably has not seen the report properly which says that the\nnatural soil was found at 10.80 metre but the ASI people dug the\ntrench further to find out and ensure the presence of natural soil\nand this fact they have also mentioned in the report. Similarly,\nPW-29 on the one hand stated that she agree with N.B.P.W.,\nMughal and late post Mughal periods, but do not agree for rest\nof the period (Page 71) while PW-24 has expressed his\nagreement with all other periods except 5, 6 and 7. Similarly, on\npage 70, PW-29 says that terminology and periodization are not\nmost important while PW-24 has expressed a different view on\npage 186 and says stratigraphy is the backbone of any\nexcavation. The statement of PW-29 on page 186 is\ncontradictory to what she has said on page 182-183.\n3842.          PW 30 (Dr. R.C.Thakran), though assailed ASI\nreport on the ground of lack of integrity and manipulated\nnomenclature etc. but its main stress is not that of wrong\ninterpretation but she says that ASI has interchangeably used\nperiods VI and VII according to convenience so as to co-relate\nthe Finds, structural or otherwise, with a period which may give\nit a desired result. The part of objection with respect to\n                                                                         4014\n\nperiodization of PW 30, we have already noted above in para\n535 from page 598 to 602. In the cross examination, however,\nhe has said :\n      ^^iqjkrkfRod mR[kuu vkSj mR[kfur lkexzh ds leqfpr fo'ys\"k.k ds fy,\n      V\u00aasap dh LV~sVhxzkQh dk fuf'pr rkSj ij cgqr egRo gSA\n      iz0& Lrj& foU;kl vFkkZr~ fofHkUu Lrjksa ds fu\/kkZj.k \u00bcLV~sVhfQds'ku vkQ+\n      ys;lZ\u00bd dk D;k vk\/kkj gksrk gS\\\n      m0&iqjkrRo esa fdlh Hkh Lrj \u00bcys;j\u00bd dk fu\/kkZj.k djus ds fy, ml Lrj\n      fo'ks\"k esa ik;h tkus okyh lkexzh dk Lo:i o ijr dh cukoV e ftl\n      rjg dh feV~Vh lfEefyr gksrh gS] ;g Lrj&fu\/kkZj.k djus esa eq[;\n      vk\/kkj dk dke djrs gSaA\n             tc Hkh dHkh iqjkrRo esa [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku ys;j dh igpku dh\n      tkrh gS] rc ;g Hkh tkuuk vko';d gksrk gS fd ml ys;j dh feV~Vh\n      dh lajpuk D;k gS] mldk jax D;k gS] mldh dBksjrk dSlh gS] mlesa\n      ekuo&fufeZr lkexzh gS ;k ugha] bu lHkh ckrksa dk fo'ks\"k \/;ku j[kk\n      tkrk gSA gkykafd] mijksDr vk\/kkj cgqr egRoiw.kZ gSa] ysfdu blds\n      ckotwn Hkh Lor% irksZa \u00bcys;jlZ\u00bd ls ;g Li\"V gksrk gS fd izkphu dky ds\n      vo'ks\"kksa okyh ;g ys;lZ fHkUu fHkUu gSaA budh igpku djus ds fy,\n      iqjkrRoosRrk dks gh iqjkrRo fu;eksa ds vuqlkj bu ys;lZ dh\n      vyx&vyx igpku djuh t:jh gksrh gsA ys;lZ dh eksVkbZ\n      vyx&vyx gks ldrh gS] eksVkbZ vyx gksus ds fy, fofHkUu dkjd gks\n      ldrs gSaA^^ \u00bcist 63&64\u00bd\n      \"Question:- What is the basis of stratification of layers ?\n      Answer:- In stratification of any layer, the form of the\n      material discovered in that particular layer and the type of\n      soil inherent in the formation of its coats, work as main\n      bases in archaeology.\n             In archaeology, whenever identification of a layer is\n      carried out in course of digging, it is also necessary to\n      know what the soil structure of that layer is, what its\n      colour is, how hard it is and whether man made materials\n                                                                   4015\n\nare in it or not. All these facts are specially taken into\naccount. Despite the afore-said bases being very important,\nit is not clear from layers themselves that these layers\ncomprised of remains of the ancient time are different. For\ntheir identification, it is necessary for an archaeologist to\nseparately identify them in accordance with rules of\narchaeology. The width of layers may be different which\nmay be due to several factors.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^Vs\u00aaUp ds [kksns tkus ij LV\u00aasVhxzkQ+h dh ys;lZ dh ekfdZxa \u00bcuEcfjax\u00bd \u00c5ij\nls uhps dh vksj dh tkrh gS tcfd mR[kuu ls izkIr fofHkUu lkaLd`frd\ndkyksa dh ekfdZax uhps ls \u00c5ij dh rjQ+ dh tkrh gSA vxj ys;j la0 2\nij ys;j la0 3 LFkkfir gS rks ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd ^^ys;j 2 jsfLVax vku\nys;j Fkh*A \u00bcist 66\u00bd\n\"On trenches being dug up, stratigraphical layers are\nmarked from top to bottom; whereas several cultural\nperiods discovered as a result of excavation are marked\nfrom bottom to top. If layer no. 3 is placed on layer no. 2, it\nwill taken to mean 'layer-2 resting on layer-3.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^'kaqx ds ckn dUuo o dq\"kk.k dky vkrs gSa vkSj dq\"kk.k dky ds ckn eksVs\nrkSj ij xqIrk dky vkrk gSA xqIrdky dk var 600 bZLoh esa vkdj [kRe\ngks tkrk gSA xqIrdky ds ckn lkekU; rkSj ij vyhZ fefMoy ihfj;M dh\nbfrgkl esa 'kq:vkr ekuh tkrh gSA vyhZ fefMoy ihfj;M 600 ,\n0Mh0 l s 'kq : gk sr k gS vkS j fnYyh lYrur d s LFkkfir gk su s\nrd ;gh dky pyrk gS A fnYyh lYrur dh LFkkiuk 1206\nbZ L oh e s a gq b Z blhfy, 600 ,0Mh0 l s y sd j 1206 ,0Mh0 dk s\nvyhZ fefMoy ihfj;M d s uke l s tkuk tkrk gS A 600 ,0Mh0\nls 1200 ,0Mh0 ds chp esa fnYyh ij vusd oa'kksa ds jkT; le;\u2264\nij jgsA eq[; rkSj ij xgM+oky] pkSgku] xwtj izfrgkj] pkyqD; vkfn ds\njkT; fnYyh o fnYyh ds vkl ikl esa jgsA fQj dgk fd pkyqD; dk\n{ks= fnYyh ds vkl&ikl ugha Fkk] og mRrjh egkjk\"V~ esa gksrk FkkA ;g\nBhd gS fd mijksDr pkjks oa'kt vius dks jktiwr dgrs FksA ;g Bhd\n                                                                    4016\ngS fd dk sb Z bfrgkldkj ;fn fdlh fo'k s\" k {k s= dk s vyhZ\nfefMoy dky d s jkti wr dky l s l ac k sf \/kr djuk pkg s] rk s\ndj ldrk gS ] ijUrq bfrgkl esa o`gn :i esa bl dky dks vyhZ\nfefMoy dky ds uke ls gh tkuk tkrk gSA** \u00bcist 111&112\u00bd\n\"The Shunga period is followed by Kannav and Kushana\nperiods and the Kushana period is, roughly speaking,\nfollowed by the Gupta period. The Gupta period comes to\nan end in 600 AD. Generally, the history of early\nmedieval period is considered to have started after the\nGupta period and this very period continues up to the\nemergence of Delhi Sultanate. The Delhi Sultanate\ncame to be established in 1206 AD and hence the period\nspanning between 600 AD to 1206 AD is known as early\nmedieval period. Between 600 AD to 1200 AD Delhi was\nunder the reign of several dynasties from time to time.\nMainly,       Gahadwals,          Chauhans,         Gujar-Pratihars,\nChalukyas, etc. had their reigns in Delhi and its adjoining\nareas. (Further Stated ) The territory of Chalukya was not\nin and around Delhi; it was in northern Maharashtra. It is\ntrue that those belonging to the afore-said four dynasties\ncalled themselves Rajputas. It is true that if any historian\nwants to name a particular period as the Rajput period\nunder early medieval period, he can do so but this period,\nunder the broader division in history, is known only as\nearly medieval period.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^Mk;usfLVd ihfj;M esa 'kaqx] dq\"kk.k] xqIrk rFkk iksLV xqIrk ihfj;M vkrk\ngSA ik sL V xq I rk ihfj;M e s a gh jkti wr ihfj;M dk s lfEefyr\ndj fy;k tkrk gS A bld s ckn dk dky lYrur dky dgk\ntkrk gS A lYrur dky ds ckn eqxy dky vkrk gSA eqxy dky ds\nckn mRrj eqxy dky vkrk gSA mRrj eqxy dky ds ckn vk\/kqfud\n                                                                   4017\nHkkjr dky] ftls fczfV'k dky Hkh dgk tkrk gS] vkrk gSA\n       eqxy Mk;usLVh lu~ 1526 bZ0 ls ysdj 1707 bZ0 rd eq[; rkSj\nij ekuh tkrh gSa eqxyoa'k dk izkjEHk ckcj us fd;kA** \u00bcist 192\u00bd\n\"The dynastic periods include Shunga, Kushana, Gupta\nand post Gupta periods. The Rajput period is included in\nthe post Gupta period itself. Its subsequent period is\ncalled Sultanate period. This Sultanate period is followed\nby the Mughal period. The Mughal period is followed by\nlater Mughal period. The later Mughal period is followed\nby modern Indian period, which is also called the British\nperiod.\n       The Mughal dynasty is mainly dated from 1526 to\n1707. Babur ushered in the Mughal dynasty.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^fefMoy dky vius esa foLr`r dky gS tks lu~ 600 ,0Mh0 ls 'kq:\ngksdj lu~ 1707 rd pyrk gS vkSj bl iwjs dky ds vUrxZr dbZ mi\ndky gSa] tSls lu~ 600 l s 1200 rd vyhZ fefMoy dgykrk gS\nvkSj lu~ 1206 ls 1526 rd lYrur dky dgk tkrk gS o lu~ 1526 ls\n1707 rd eqxy dky dgykrk gSA** \u00bcist 113\u00bd\n\"The medieval period in itself is a broad period which\nbegins from 600 AD and continues up to 1707 and the\nwhole of this period has many sub-periods, for example-\nthe period between 600 to 1200 AD is called Early\nMedieval period; the period between 1206 to 1526 is\ncalled Sultanate period and the period between 1526 to\n1707 is called the Mughal period.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^Hkkjrh; iq j krRo bfrgkl e s a eq f Lye ihfj;M 'kCn dk\niz ; k sx ugh a gq v k gS ] y sf du fcz f V'k bfrgkldkjk s a u s Hkkjrh;\nbfrgkl d s e\/; dky dk s eq f Lye dky lkfcr dju s dh\ndk sf 'k'k dh gS A    - - - - - - -t sE l fey u s bl dky dk s\neq f Lye dky dk uke fn;k gS A t sE l fey u s lYrur dky\n                                                                  4018\no eq x ydky dk s eq f Lye dky d s v an j j[kk gS vFkkZr~ eqfLye\ndky ds vanj midky ds vUrxZr mls ekuk gSA** \u00bcist 113&114\u00bd\n\"The words 'Muslim period' are not used in Indian\narchaeology and history but British historians have tried\nto establish the Medieval period of Indian history as the\nMuslim period . . . . . .. James Mill has named this\nperiod the Muslim period. James Mill has placed the\nSultanate period and the Mughal period under the\nMuslim period, that is to say, he has taken them to be sub-\nperiods of the Muslim period.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^11oha 'krkCnh esa xgM+oky 'kkldksa dk jkT; dUukSt ij FkkA**\u00bcist 113\u00bd\n\"In the 11th century, Kannauj was under the reign of\nGahadwal rulers.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^Hkkjrh; bfrgkl esa fdlh ihjh;M dsk ^^bLykfed ihfj;M** ugha dgk\ntkrk gSA eS au s viuh eq [ ; ijh{kk d s 'kiFk i= e s a ,d txg\nij ^^bLykfed ihfj;M** 'kCn dk iz ; k sx fd;k gS ] esjk blls\nrkRi;Z ;g gS fd bl dky esa XysTM VkbYl] XysTM ikWVjh dk efLtn esa\niz;ksx fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd bfrgkl esa\nihfj;Mkbts'ku ds ukedj.k dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA eSaus vius 'kiFk&i=\nesa ^^bLykfed ihfj;M** 'kCn dk iz;ksx bfrgkl rFkk iqjkrRo ds lUnHkZ esa\nugha fd;k gS] cfYd dqN [kkl rF;] ftudh ppkZ \u00c5ij dh xbZ gS] ds\nlEcU\/k esa fd;k gSA eSaus bl 'kCn dk iz;ksx bLykfed izpyuksa ds fy,\nfd;k gSA --- eS au s viuk 'kiFk&i= ,d iq j krRoo sR rk d s #i e s a\niz L rq r fd;k gS A ** \u00bcist 228&229\u00bd\n\"No period of Indian history, is called 'Islamic period'. I\nhave used the term 'Islamic period' at one place in the\naffidavit of my examination-in-chief, by which I mean\nthat glazed tiles, glazed pottery were used in mosques in\nthis period. It is not correct to say that nomenclature of\nperiodisation has no importance in history. The term\n                                                                  4019\n\n'Islamic period' has not been used by me in my affidavit\nwith reference to history and archaeology, and instead has\nbeen used for certain particular facts, which have been\ndiscussed above. I have used this term for                   Islamic\npractices.    ...I      have     filed    my     affidavit    as    an\narchaeologist.\" (E.T.C)\n^^bfrgkl esa rFkkdfFkr bLykfed 'kkldksa ds jkT; dk dky lu~ 1206\nbZ0 ls 'kq# gksdj 18oha 'krkCnh ds e\/; rd ekuk tkrk gSA ;gkWa ij\nrFkkdfFkr ls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd e\/;dky d s bl Hkkx dk s\nbLykfed ihfj;M d s uke l s Hkh le>r s gS aA cgq r l s\nbfrgkldkjk s a u s bl ihfj;M dk s bLykfed ihfj;M dgk gS A\neSa fdlh ,sls izfl) bfrgkldkj dk uke vFkok mudh iqLrd dk uke\nugha crk ik\u00c5Waxk] ftUgksaus vFkok ftudh iqLrd esa ^^bLykfed ihfj;M**\n'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k gksA --- bfrgkl esa Mk;usLVh ds vk\/kkj ij dky\nfu\/kkZfjr fd;s tkus dks eSa Bhd ugha ekurk gwWa] ijUrq bfrgkldkjksa us\nMk;usLVh ds vk\/kkj ij dky&fu\/kkZj.k fd;k gSA** \u00bcist 229\u00bd\n\"In history, the period of the alleged Islamic rulers is taken\nfrom 1206 AD to mid of 18th century. By 'alleged', I mean\nthat this    portion of the medieval period is taken as\n'Islamic period'. Many historians have termed this\nperiod as 'Islamic period'. I will not be able to name any\nfamous historian or his book, where the term 'Islamic\nperiod' has been used. ... I do not approve determination of\nperiods in history, on basis of dynasty but historians have\ndetermined periods on basis of dynasties.\" (E.T.C)\n(Note: The statement on page 229 is contrary to what the\nwitness has said on page 228)\n^^iz0&D;k bfrgkl esa fdlh fo'ks\"k leqnk; ;k dE;qfuVh vFkok fdlh\nfo'ks\"k oxZ ;k fdlh fo'ks\"k \/keZ ds vk\/kkj ij dkydze dk fu\/kkZj.k fd;k\ntkrk gS\\\n                                                                 4020\nm0&cgqr ls bfrgkldkj bu vk\/kkjksa ij bfrgkl dk foHkktu o\nukedj.k djrs gSa] ysfdu bfrgkl ds oSKkfud n`f\"Vdks.k ls bls mfpr\nugha ekuk tkrk gSA \u00bcist 231\u00bd\n\"Question:- Is period determined in history on basis of any\nparticular community, class or religion?\nAnswer:- Many historians divide and name history on these\nbases, but from scientific view of history, it cannot be\nconsidered proper.\" (ETC)\niz0&vkids mijksDr mRrj ls D;k eS ;g le>wWa fd vki }kjk iz;qDr\n^^bLykfed ihfj;M** 'kCn dk iz;ksx mfpr ugha gS\\\nm0& ;g dguk lgh ugha gS] D;ksafd eSaus bl lUnHkZ esa bl dky ds\nfodkl&dze ds fo'ks\"k izpyuksa dh rjQ b'kkjk djrs gq, ,slk fy[kk gSA**\n\u00bcist 231\u00bd\nQuestion:- Should I infer from your above reply that the\nuse of term 'Islamic period' by you, is not proper?\nAnswer:-      It is not correct to say so, because in this\nreference I have mentioned so by referring to the particular\npractices of development-chain of this period.\"(E.T.C)\n^^mR[kuu esa ys;lZ dh uEcfjax \u00c5ij ls uhps dh vksj gksrh gS rFkk\nihfj;M dk fQ+Dls'ku uhps ls \u00c5ij dh vksj gksrk gSA** \u00bcist 345\u00bd\n\"At excavation, layers are numbered from the top to the\nbottom and fixation of periods is done from the bottom to\nthe top.\" (E.T.C.)\n^^,0,l0vkbZ 0 u s tk s ihfj;MMkbt + s' ku y s; lZ d s vuq l kj\nfd;k gS ] og lgh gS ] ijUrq ukedj.k ds fglkc ls lgh ugha gS vkSj\nu gh oa'kkoyh ds vk\/kkj ij fd;k x;k ukedj.k mfpr gSA\nihfj;Mkbt+s'ku dh MsfVax dh eq[; rkSj ij nks fof\/k;kWa gSa&\n       1- lkisf{kd fof\/k\n       2- oSKkfud fof\/k\n       fjysfVo ihfj;MkbZts'ku ,d rks LV~sVhxzkQh ds eqrkfcd vkSj nwljh\nigys dh laLd`fr dh lkexzh rqyukRed fo'ys\"k.k ds vk\/kkj ijA\n                                                                     4021\n,ClksY;wV o lkbafVfQd fof\/k;kWa ,d gh gSaA bl fof\/k dks dzksuksfefV~d Hkh\ndgrs gSaA dkcZu MsfVax esFkM o FkeksY;wfefulsal esFksM] MsM~ksdzksuksykWth\nMsfVax esFkM vkfn gSaA ;g dguk ges'kk ds fy, lgh ugha gksxk fd\n,ClksY;wV MsfVax ;k oSKkfud fof\/k ls fd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku ,dne\nBhd gksxkA ;g dguk Hkh lgh ugha gS fd lkbafVfQd fof\/k dk\nihfj;Mkbt+s'ku izk;% lgh gh gksxkA Lrjhdj.k }kjk fd;k x;k\nihfj;Mkbts'ku Hkh 'kr izfr'kr fu.kkZ;d ugha gksrkA nksuksa fof\/k;ksa }kjk\nfd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku rFkk nksuksa fof\/k;ksa }kjk rqyukRed fo'ys\"k.k\ndjhc&djhc lgh ekuk tk ldrk gS] ijUrq ,ClksY;wVyh duDywftc\nughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkfdZ;ksykth esa lkbafVfQd fof\/k }kjk\nfd;k x;k ihfj;MkbZt+s'ku duDywft+o gh gksxkA D;ksafd bu fof\/k;ksa ds }\nkjk tks frfFkdj.k fd;k tkrk gS og mR[kuu esa mR[kfur fd, x,\nlSEiy dk iz;ksx'kkyk esa fd, x, fo'ys\"k.k ij vk\/kkfjr gSa vkSj lSEiy\nysrs oDr mfpr lko\/kkfu;kWa cjruk] lSEiYl dh lgh iSafdax djuk]\nlSEiYl dh lgh ekfdZax djuk vkSj lSEiYl dk ,dne izkd`frd 'kfDr;ksa\nls izHkkfor gksuk vko';d gSA** \u00bcist 351&352\u00bd\n\"The periodization which ASI has done on the basis of\nlayers, is correct, but the same, when based on\nnomenclature, is not correct, nor is it proper to name them\n(i.e. periods) on the basis of genealogies. There are mainly\ntwo methods of dating through periodization -\n       1. Relative method\n       2. Scientific method\n       Relative periodization may be based on stratigraphy\nand on the comparative analysis of the materials of the\nearlier culture. Absolute and scientific methods are one and\nthe same .This method is also called chronometric. There\nare methods known as carbon-dating method, thermo-\nluminescence method, dedo -chronology dating method,\netc. It will not always be correct to say that periodization\ncarried out through absolute dating or scientific method\n                                                                 4022\n\nwill be entirely correct. It is also not correct to say that\nscientific method of periodization will often be correct .\nThe periodization carried out through stratification is also\nnot    cent      percent   conclusive     .   Periodization      and\ncomparative analysis through both the methods, may be\nconsidered to be almost correct . But they are not\nabsolutely conclusive . It is wrong to say that in\narchaeology the periodization carried out through\nscientific method will certainly be conclusive , because the\ndating done through these methods is based on analysis\ndone in laboratories ,of samples excavated in course of\nexcavations . And while taking samples, proper care should\nbe exercised, samples should be properly packed and they\nshould be properly marked. And it is natural for samples to\nget absolutely influenced by natural forces.\" (E.T.C.)\n^*,0,l0vkbZ0 us LV~sVhxzkQh ds pSIVj esa dkcZu MsfVax ds vk\/kkj ij ftl\nMsafVax dk mYys[k fd;k gS] mls eSa lgh ugha ekurk] D;ksafd ,0,l0vkbZ0\nds }kjk tks ihfj;Mkbts'ku fd;k x;k gS] og gh vuqfpr gSA --- ,\n0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk lsUpqjht ds vk\/kkj ij dh xbZ dky x.kuk dh fof\/k dks\neSa lgh ekurk gwWaA\niz'u& D;k vkidks bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh\nfjiksVZ eas fofHkUu ys;lZ dh dkyx.kuk tks 'krkCnh esa fd;k gS] mlesa\ndkcZu MsafVax ds fjtYV dks vk\/kkj cuk;k gS\\\nmRrj& laHkor% ;g lgh gS] ijUrq esjk er gS fd dsoy ek= dkcZu\nMsafVax }kjk izkIr dh xbZ MsafVax ds vk\/kkj ij dky foHkktu dks lgh\nugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA** \u00bcist 354\u00bd\n\"I do not take to be correct the dating, done through\ncarbon dating method, about which A.S.I. has mentioned\nin a chapter on stratigraphy, because the periodization\nitself carried out by ASI is improper. ... I take to be correct\n                                                                4023\n\n        the method of century-based reckoning done by ASI.\n        Question:- Do you have the knowledge that the dating of\n        several layers which ASI has in its report done in terms of\n        centuries, is based on the result of Carbon-dating method\n        applied to them ?\n        Answer:- It is perhaps correct but my opinion is that the\n        division of time done on the basis only of Carbon-dating\n        cannot be treated to be correct.\"(E.T.C.)\n        (Note: The statement of witness is contrary to what PW 24\n        has said as also this very witness has stated on page 351\n        and 352)\n3843.         PW 31 did not make any comment with respect to\nstratification but PW 32 has virtually towed the line as that of\nPW 24 and 29 in her affidavit. She has said in para 6 of her\naffidavit dated 27.3.2006 about stratigraphy as under:\n        \"That one of the most important concepts in archaeology is\n        stratigraphy. \"The law of superposition states that the book\n        at the bottom of the stack was put there before, and is\n        therefore older, than the one placed at the top. Sediments\n        generally obey this principle as well as the archaeological\n        materials they contain ... The essence of stratigraphic\n        analysis is determining discrete, superimposed layers of\n        features and then examining their contents.\" It was so\n        stated by Clive Gamble in his book entitled as\n        \"Archaeology: The Basics\", published by Routledge\n        (London & New York) 2001. A true copy of the relevant\n        extract of the aforesaid book is enclosed herewith as\n        ANNEXURE No. 1. An examination of the stratigraphy as\n        indicated by the sections of various trenches at the site of\n                                                          4024\n\nAyodhya revealed the following three important features:\n(i)    That only the archaeological deposits of Periods I,\n       II and III are stratified and hence found in a\n       primary context, that is in their original place of use\n       or discard.\n(ii)   That the deposits from Period IV till Period IX are\n       not stratified and the material found is in a\n       secondary     context.     In    order    words     the\n       archaeological deposits that have been described of\n       Periods IV to IX mostly comprise of fill deposits\n       brought   from elsewhere        for the   purpose    of\n       construction in the Medieval Period. Hence this is\n       not their original place of use or discard. The\n       deposits from the Gupta Period onwards are not\n       stratified is substantiated by the fact that as may as\n       15 pieces of terracotta figurines of later periods were\n       reported from earlier levels, an impossible situation\n       if deposits were actually stratified. The ASI was\n       Stratifying the layers incorrectly was even pointed\n       out through a complaint filed on 26.06.2003\n       regarding Trench G8. In Trench G8, under the top\n       floor are the brick courses of a wall foundation.\n       Under these brick courses is a fill deposit. Neither\n       the foundation nor the fill deposit can be ascribed a\n       layer. It appears that this stratification was done on\n       the basis of the calcrete and brick filling that lies to\n       the east. However, this method of stratification is\n       completely wrong. The calcrete and brick filling\n       visible in trench G8 belongs to a single construction\n                                                         4025\n\n     phase and cannot be ascribed separate layers.\n     Moreover, the area that was excavated on 25th June\n     lies to the west of the clacrete and brick filling. Thus,\n     if stratification of the filling is wrong, stratifying a\n     structure in relation to it is also incorrect. The whole\n     principle   behind    stratification   is   to   identify\n     chronologically distinct phases. Thus, a brick wall of\n     six courses of brick can not be ascribed six different\n     layers. Similarly, six rows of calcrete alternating with\n     brick, sandwiched with thick mortar, cannot be\n     ascribed six different layers, the reason in both cases\n     being a single construction phase.\n(iii) That there is a possibility that there was no Early\n     Medieval occupation and there was a gap between\n     the Gupta (Period IV) and the Medieval Periods. If\n     we examine Plate 5 of the Final Report, a layer with\n     no cultural material (termed in archaeology as a\n     sterile layer) can be clearly seen, for example, below\n     layer 4. The ASI has marked out this layer but has\n     not numbered it. Sterile layers indicate periods when\n     there was no habitation or occupation. These layers\n     are ascribed to the Early Medieval\/ Sultanate Period\n     (Period VI) in the tentative periodization of the site.\n     A gap in occupation of the site between the Early\n     Historic and Medieval Periods had been noted as\n     early as 1969-70 by a team of archaeologists from\n     the Department of Ancient Indian History and\n     Culture, at BHU, Varanasi, and later in 1976-77 by\n     Professor, B.B. Lal and his team from the A.S.I. The\n                                                                  4026\n\n              ASI is trying to falsely project a continuous\n              occupation of the site from the Early Historic to the\n              Medieval Periods. Neither the stratigraphy nor the\n              artefacts, however, substantiate such a claim. There\n              is a certain bias here, which again goes against the\n              norms of archaeological objectivity, to force a\n              certain interpretation on the material, that from the\n              10th century AD onwards the area was occupied by\n              Hindu religious structures.\n              In the same context, the layering of fill deposits in J3,\n        J4, J5, J6, K6, K7, L7, L8, J7, J8 was done to show\n        continuous occupation in stratified contexts. It was only\n        when complaints were made that these fill deposits were\n        acknowledged but eventual registrations of artefacts from\n        these deposits in the final Report were left uncorrected.\"\n3844.         In her cross examination, however, she (PW-32)\nsays:\n        \"There is no period known as early medieval Saltanate\n        period. I have not heard any period which is called as\n        'Early Mughal period'. I came across the 'Early Medieval\n        Rajput Period' in the ASI report filed in this case. Process\n        of periodization is based on certain features found in polity,\n        society and economy. Stratification is based on discerning\n        layers in sections that have formed due to either geological\n        or human activities.\"(Page 31)\n        \"I mean to say that ASI people have flouted the principles\n        and methods of stratification, such as the fill deposit has to\n        be reported as a fill deposit and a pit has to be reported as\n        a pit but in the excavation in question, the ASI was wrongly\n                                                         4027\n\nstratifying a pit and in the report they themselves have\ngone on record saying that pits in J-3 and also in K-7\nand K-8 were wrongly identified as layers and they\nthemselves admitted that pits were stratified and they\nhave stated so in the report.\" (Page 93)\n\"Marking of different layer is done on the basis of soil\ncolour, soil texture, compactness of the soil and cultural\nmaterial.\" (Page 110)\n\"It is correct that several layers put together comprise one\ncultural period. Contemporary, layer means it is in relation\nto some other layers, e.g. Layer 14 in J-3 could be\ncontemporary with layer 18 in trench G-7, both belonging\nto NBPW period. Similarity of number is not necessary\nbecause it may vary from trench to trench.\" (Page 111)\n\"Method of association in archaeology means associated\ncultural material in a layer. In a layer, so many different\narticles may be found, such as bangles, potteries, bones\netc.\" (Page 112)\n\"I have learnt from the report of Prof. A.K. Narain that the\nentire Ayodhya is one site and stratification can be similar.\nIn archaeology entire Ayodhya would be referred to as one\nsite.\" (Page 130)\n\"'Stratigraphy'     means a study of layers of different\nchronological periods indicating what comes earlier is at\nthe bottom and what follows will be above it and so the\nsequences gets built up 'Early historic period' is a term\nused by historians to describe the period between sixth\ncentury B.C. and sixth century A.D. and 'medieval' is used\nby the historians for the period between 12th and 18th\n                                                                 4028\n\n        centuries. The period between sixth century A.D. to 12th\n        century A.D. is called 'early medieval period'. The\n        medieval period has been further sub-divided into two\n        periods, namely 'Sultanate period' and 'Mughal period'.\n        There is no period like pre-Sultanate period.\" (Page 23)\n        \"This chronological order was created by James Mill who\n        wrote the book 'History of India in 1830. 'Filling' means\n        that for the purpose of construction activities, a ground has\n        to be levelled and while doing so, some earth is brought\n        from outside to fill up the uneven ground. \"(Page 23)\n        \"...the whole issue of periodization in history and\n        archeology is contested and debates are there.\"(Page 36)\n        \"Early medieval-6\/7th century up to 12th Century A.D.\n        Medieval-Generally 12th to 18th Century A.D.\n        late medieval-Generally 18th century or late Mughal\n        period.\" (Page 107)\n        \"As far as I know Century wise periodization is\n        recognised under archaeology because certain diagnostic\n        material do establish chronology in terms of centuries.\n        Dynasty-wise periodization is a subject of historians\n        although sometimes Archaeologists do follow it. It is true\n        that in excavation on the disputed site the ASI has adopted\n        all the three methods for the purpose of periodization.\"\n        (Page 125-126)\n        \"Volunteers that she does not agree with the periodization\n        given by the ASI.\" (Page 126)\n3845.         PW 32 in general appreciated function of ASI:\n        \"It is true that each trench was being supervised by an\n        archaeologist. It is also correct to say that excavation was\n                                                                 4029\n\n        being conducted as per norms of grid system of excavation-\n        which is one of the accepted system of excavation. It is\n        correct to say that the excavation work was going on in\n        presence of the parties and their nominees; and two\n        judicial officers under the orders of the court were also\n        supervising the excavation. So long I was there, the\n        presence of the parties, their nominees and supervision\n        of the judicial officers continued. Generally, for\n        antiquities, it was three dimensional recording but for other\n        finds, just a depth was recorded. Photography and Video\n        recording of trenches and also of antiquities were also\n        being done.\" (Page 121)\n        \"It is true that at the site in dispute, excavations were made\n        horizontally as well as vertically.\" (Page 123)\n        \"It is correct to say that the ASI excavated up to the\n        required depth.\" (Page 125)\n        \"It is correct to say that for getting result in compliance of\n        court orders excavation by horizontal and vertical methods\n        were necessary which has been done by ASI. In this case\n        only vertical excavation was not sufficient.\" (Page 147)\n3846.         From the statement of the six expert witnesses\nproduced on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-4), we find that all of them\nare not unanimous in saying that the entire stratigraphy or\nperiodization made by ASI is bad or incorrect or suffers such\nmaterial illegality or irregularity that the same deserves to be\nrejected, which would ultimately may result in rejection of the\nentire report itself. Their statements are also contradictory,\nvague, confused and based on more of conjectures.\n3847.         PW 16 on the one hand says that he has no objection\n                                                              4030\n\nto the categorization of period 1 to 5 (page 455), tried to dispute\nthe ascertainment of period 6-7 (page 454), then on page 456\nmade some unclear statement by observing that period 7 should\ncome after period six as Sultanate period. What appears to us is\nthat in the ASI report the period 6 has been termed as \"Medieval\nSultanate\" and period 7 as Sultanate but PW 16 wanted that\nperiod 6 should not be termed as \"Sultanate\" at all since it\nstarted in 13th century. He, however, suggested that in another\nmanner period 6 ought to have started with 13th century if it is\nrelated with \"Sultanate period\".\n3848.       PW 24 on the contrary stated that after the first four\nperiods there appears to be total dissolution for a long time and\nthis has disturbed the continuity of the period. The 4th period\n(Gupta period) ended in 6th century and thereafter there is a gap\nof about 700 years since the further layer of natural deposition\nwith the evidence of habitation appears to be related to 13th\ncentury hence total periodization instead of 9 ought to have been\n5. He says that 5th, 6th and 7th period has been determined\narbitrarily. The gap of 7th century to 12th century he has tried to\njustify on the ground of flood on account whereof the people\nabandoned the place for along time. However, on page 156 he\nhimself admits that there is no evidence of any disastrous flood\nwitnessed at Ayodhya between 600 AD to 1200 AD and further\nthat there are evidence revealing that efforts were made to\nprevent such devastating floods. This shows that there had to be\nhabitation otherwise who took steps for preservation of\ndisastrous flood and why, if there was no habitation and the\nplace stood abandoned. His statement on his own is ex facie\ncontradictory, reflects on a total confusion to his part. Then he\n                                                              4031\n\ntried to justify his conclusion by stating on page 170 that all the\nfinds were not discovered from the levels as claimed by ASI and\nthat is why it could not have determined the period correctly.\nPW 16 has not disputed that the finds discovered by ASI were\nactually found by them. Then PW 29 says that except NBPW\nMughal and late post Mughal period she disagree for the rest of\nthe periods (page 71). She pointed out that the ASI had made\nsome change in the nomenclature inasmuch as in the Chapter of\nstratigraphy, period six has been termed as Medieval Sultanate\nbut in the subsequent chapter of result they have termed period 7\nas medieval Sultanate and period 6 has been termed as early\nmedieval period.\n3849.       PW 30 on his own evolved a different theory by\nsuggesting that periodization made on the basis of carbon dating\nis not correct though the process of cabon dating has been\nappreciated by PW 16 and 24 both. PW 24 on page 170 has\njustified layer 5 and 6 as that belonging to early Medieval\nSultanate period but then on page 271 disagree with centurywise\nperiodization made by ASI.\n3850.       Two more witnesses namely, Prof. Shereen F.\nRatnagar, PW 27 and Dr. Sitaram Roy PW-28 were also\nexamined by the plaintiffs (Suit-4). Both of them claimed to be\nExpert (Archaeologist). Both were examined before ASI\nproceedings. PW 27 basically sought to contradict Dr. B.B. Lal's\nobservation about Ayodhya based on his excavation thereat\nmade in 1976-77 and supported the book Exhibit 63 (Suit-4),\n(\"Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition\") written by Prof. D.\nMandal criticising Dr. B.B. Lal's report with respect to Ayodhya.\n3851.       Exhibit 14 (Suit-5) (Register 20, pages 125-127)\n                                                            4032\n\ncontains two pages number 52 and 53 of Indian Archeology\n1976-77- A Review. At Sl. No. 75, it talks of excavation at\nAyodhya, District Faizabad conducted by Dr. B.B. Lal and Sri\nK.V. Soundra Rajan. It reads as under:\n     \"75. Excavation At Ayodhya, District Faizabad.- In\n     continuation of last year's work which was taken up under\n     the project called 'Archaeology of the Ramayana Sites',\n     excavation as resumed under Professor B.B. Lal of the\n     Indian Institute of Advanced Study' Simla and Sri K.V.\n     Soundra Rajan of the Survey, assisted by Sarvashri B.\n     Narasimhaiah, Rambabu, M. S. Mani, R.K. Sehgal, J, C.\n     De and A.K. Mishra of the Survey and Surya Kant\n     Srivastava and R.N. Kaw of the Institute. The work was\n     concentrated on two important sectors in the ancient part\n     of the city, namely Ram Janma Bhumi mound and the open\n     area to the west of Hanuman Garhi, besides a few trenches\n     at Sita-ki-Rasoi.\n           The excavation revealed a fairly compact and\n     working sequence for the antiquity of the place from its\n     first settlement over the natural soil. This began with the\n     use of the well-known Northern Black Polished Ware, in all\n     its shades. At the lowest levels, alongside the Northern\n     Back Polished Ware, were also found a few sherds of grey\n     ware, painted with fugitive bands in black pigment along\n     the rim or obliquely on the exterior. This is taken, on a\n     consideration of the position of this ware at Sarvasti,\n     Piprahwa, Kausambi, etc., as the very late and degenerate\n     phase of the well-known Painted Grey Ware found at\n     Hastinapura, Mathura, Ahichchhatra, etc. On the basis of\n                                                                 4033\n\n        the date available from other sites like Mathura, Sravsati,\n        Kausambi, etc., it would seem reasonable to ascribe the\n        first occupation of the Janma Bhumi area to circa seventh\n        century B.C.\"\n3852.         The statement of PW 27, may not be relevant for the\npurpose of testing ASI report. But even otherwise we find that\nher deposition and opinion does not inspire confidence and it is\nshort of the \"expert's opinion\" which may be termed \"relevant\"\nunder Section 45 of the Evidence Act. She admits of having\nnever visited the disputed site till she appeared as witness in\nthese cases. She had written \"introduction\" to Prof. Mandal's\nbook (Exhibit 63). From her cross-examination it is evident that\nshe had no experience of field excavation.\n              \"It is correct that in India I have not done any\n        digging and excavation on my own.\" (page 52)\n3853.         She admits of writing things giving hypothetical\nsketches with respect to the disputed site:\n              \"It is also correct that at pages 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and\n        14 some sketches are given in my Introduction. Those\n        sketches are purely by way of Introduction to the book as\n        they are hypothetical. It is correct that from pages 16 to 69\n        is the book itself.\" (page 53)\n3854.         Merely on the basis of a photograph entire book and\narticle etc. has been written. About her own work PW 27 says:\n              \"It is substantially correct that I wrote my critique on\n        the basis of the said sole photograph.\" (page 63)\n3855.         Her lack of knowledge about disputed site is evident\nfrom page 67:\n              \"I am not absolutely certain of the area and extent of\n                                                                4034\n\n        the disputed site at Ayodhya. I do not know in which part of\n        Ayodhya the disputed site is located.\"\n3856.         Though she came to support the book written by Dr.\nMandal criticising Dr. B.B.Lal's report but when specifically\nasked whether she agree with the report of Dr. B.B. Lal relating\nto Ayodhya on page 75 she says:\n              \"I cannot say in terms of whether I agree or disagree\n        with them.\"\n3857.         She (PW-27) also admitted that there is a possibility\nof some structure of the earlier period at the disputed site. On\npage 84 she said:\n              \"It is correct to say that I do not rule out the\n        possibility of any other structure of any other early period\n        at the disputed site.\"\n3858.         Similarly, PW 28, Dr. Sitaram Roy, a retired\nDirector, Archaeology from the State of Bihar was also\nexamined in 2002, i.e., before the excavation proceedings\ncommenced. He tried to make a statement that according to his\nstudies and as a student of Archaeology he can say that neither\nRam Janam Bhumi temple nor any other kind of temple ever\nexisted at any point of time, therefore, the question of\nconstruction of mosque after demolition of temple does not\narise. He also tried to dispute stone inscription found in\nDecember, 1992 that the script therein is not of 12th century as is\nbeing claimed by other side. Archaeological evidence he can say\nthat Lord Rama was not being worshipped at Ayodhya in 12th\ncentury and in 12th-13th century no temple of Lord Rama existed\nat Ayodhya. On the one hand he appeared as Expert\n(Archaeologist) and on the other hand he has tried to make\n                                                                     4035\n\nvarious statements on History and other subjects.\n            ^^eS a ,d bfrgkldkj d s :i e s a vFkoZosn dks bfrgkl dk\n     izekf.kd xzUFk ugha ekurk gwWaA** \u00bcist 13\u00bd\n            \"As a historian, I do not recognise Atharvaved as an\n     authoritative book.\" (E.T.C.)\n            ^^v;k s\/ ;k d s ftru s Hkh orZ e ku e af nj gS a e af nj d s\n     vo'k s\" k gS a mue s a vkt l s rhu lkS o\"kk sZ d s i wo Z dk ,d Hkh\n     mnkgj.k ugh a feyrk gS A QS t kckn e s a djen.Mk vfHky s[ k\n     l s eS a ifjfpr g wW aA laHkor% ;g xqIr ihfj;M dk gS bl le; ;kn\n     ugha gSA djen.Mk vfHky s[ k e s a e af nj dk ftdz gS A ** \u00bcist 19\u00bd\n            \"The temples which are existing at present at\n     Ayodhya are the remains of the temples, out of them no\n     instance of any temple dating back to three hundred\n     years from today is found. I am aware of the\n     Karamdanda inscription of Faizabad. Probably, it relates\n     to Gupta period, presently, I do not remember. There is\n     reference of a temple in               Karamdanda inscription.\"\n     (E.T.C.)\n            \"lkroh a 'krkCnh d s vQl< + d s e af nj dh nhokj ij\n     p wu s l s cuk;h       x;h     jke] y{e.k] lhrk] guq e ku dh\n     vkd` f r;kW a Fkh a tks vc ugha gSaA ;g vkd` f r;kW a nloh a] x;kjgoh\n     'krkCnh dh ugh a] cfYd lkroh a 'krkCnh dh Fkh aA\n            iq j krRoo sR rk bl e af nj dk s lkroh a 'krkCnh dk ekur s\n     gS a D;ksafd blesa ml dky dk vfHkys[k feyk gS ftldk uke gS jktk\n     vkfnR;lsu dk vQlh Fkh] ijUrq esjs\n        ikl tks lk\/ku Fks mls dkjxj u gksus dh n'kk esa eSa iw.kZ QksVksxzkQ ns[k\n        ugha ik;k FkkA** \u00bcist 24\u00bd\n               \"I have not seen full photograph, stampage of the\n        inscription or its decipherment. At the time of writing my\n        article, I felt need to see the inscription or its full\n        photograph, but for wants of means I could not see the full\n        photograph. \" (E.T.C.)\n3859.          He tried to dispute the very factam of place of birth\nof Lord Rama in Ayodhya. This statement now goes against the\nstand of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) in view of the statement made\nunder Order 10 Rule 4 in April 2009. This witness has no\nexperience of field Archaeology as is evident from page 66. The\ncredibility of the said witness, based on his archaeological\nconduct is tried to be dislodged by the defendants, in the\nfollowing manner:\n               ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd tc esjh vkfdZ;ksykftdy losZ vkQ\n        bafM;k esa ukSdjh gqbZ rks izks0 vkj0,l0'kekZ ml lsysD'ku cksMZ esa lnL;\n        FksA ;g dguk fcYdqy xyr gS fd tc eSa fcgkj ljdkj esa ,DlIyksjs'ku\n        ,aM ,DlDos'ku esa vkQhlj ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk rks dqN ewfrZ;k xk;c\n        gks x;h FkhaA eSaus Jh \/kj oklqnso lksguh dk uke lquk gS og fcgkj ds\n        yksdk;qDr FksA esjs dk;Zdky esa ewfrZ;k xk;c ugha gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk\n        fcYdqy xyr gS fd ^^rFkkdfFkr ewfrZ;ksa ds pksjh ** ds ckn dksbZ lpZ\n        ikVhZ cuh Fkh vkSj bl lEcU\/k esa eSa Li\"V djuk pkgwaxk fd\n        ,aVhDohVh ,.M vkVZ V~StlZ ,DV ds rgr dksbZ Hkh izkbZosV bafMfotwvy\n        vius ikl iqjk vo'ks\"kksa dks fucU\/ku djkdj j[k ldrk gSA blh ds\n                                                                    4037\nvUrZr Mk0 vkj0ch0lksguh ds iq= Jhfuokl jko] vkbZ0,0,l0] ds uke ls\ndqN iqjk vo'ks\"k fucfU\/kr djkus ds fy, vkosnu i= nsdj Mk0 lksguh]\nyksdk;qDr ls lsokfuo`Rr gksrs gh mu iqjk vo'ks\"kksa ds lkFk iwuk pys x;sA\nogha iqjkvo'ks\"k Mk0 lksguh us fcgkj ljdkj dks vius uke esa nh?kkZ\n[kksyus dh 'krZ ij l'krZ _.k ij fcgkj ljdkj dks lkSai fn;kA ;g\nckr xyr gS fd esjh isa'ku ls 20 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh gks x;hA ;g\nBhd gS fd e sj h i s a' ku l s fcgkj ljdkj u s 5 iz f r'kr\ndVkS r h dh ckr dgh Fkh ij U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls og vkns'k\nfujLr gks x;kA vkt eSa iwjh isa'ku ik jgk gwWaA e sj h i s a' ku dh\nmijk sD r dVkS r h dk vkn s' k bl vk\/kkj ij gq v k Fkk fd eS au s\nlk sg uh lkgc dk s , sU Vhdq V h y s tku s l s jk sd k ugh aA ** \u00bcist 83\u00bd\n       \"It is wrong to say that when I got job in\nArchaeological Survey of India, Prof. R.S. Sharma was a\nmember in that Selection Board. It is totally wrong to say\nthat while I was posted as Exploration and Excavation\nofficer in Bihar Government, some idols had been stolen\naway. I have heard the name of Sri Dhar Vasudev Sohani.\nHe was Lokayukt in Bihar Government. The idols were not\ntaken away during my period. It is wholly incorrect to say\nthat any search party was constituted after the 'alleged\ntheft of idols' and in this connection, I would like to make it\nclear that under the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, any\nprivate individual can keep with him any archaeological\nremains after getting it registered. Under this very Act, Dr.\nR.B. Sohini soon after his superannuation from the post of\nLokayukt and after submitting an application for\nregistration of certain archaeological remains in the name\nof his son Sri Niwas Rao I.A.S., went to Pune with the\naforesaid archaeological remains. Dr. Sohini handed over\nthe said archaeological remains to the Bihar Government\n                                                                 4038\n\n        on the condition to allot a gallery in his name on\n        conditional loan it is incorrect that the 20 % of my pension\n        was deducted. It is correct that the Bihar Government\n        had said for deduction of 5% from my pension but by\n        the order of the Court tht order was cancelled. Today I am\n        drawing full pension. The order for the aforesaid\n        deduction from my pension was passed on the ground\n        that I had not prevented Sohini Saheb from carrying\n        away the antiquity.\" (E.T.C.)\n3860.         However for our purposes, we do not find the above\nfacts relevant in any manner.\n3861.         PW-28 has admitted that Dr. R.S. Sharma has been\nhis teacher and when he was selected for the post of Director\nArchaeology        and   Museum,     Bihar    by     Public   Service\nCommission Dr. R.S. Sharma was the Expert Member in the\nselection board. He also admitted his acquaintance with Dr.\nSharma since 1953 when he was in Post-Graduation (page 83).\nHis Article (Paper No. 199 C 2) was published in 1996 in a book\nwhere Prof. K.M. Shreemali of Delhi University was Editor.\n3862.         Supporting stratificaton\/periodization made by ASI,\nSri M.M.Pandey submitted that:\n        I.    Archaeology provides scientific factual data for\n        reconstructing   ancient    historical     material   culture,\n        understanding Archaeology for the past is a multi\n        disciplinary scientific subject and requires a team of\n        workers for effective results. Excavation of ancient sites is\n        one of the major works of Archaeologists. As it is a\n        scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its\n        working.\n                                                         4039\n\nII.     All Archaeological excavations are revealing and\nalso at the same time destructive; revealing in the sense\nthey yield unknown data like structures, antiquities etc,\ndestructive that as one digs layer after layer, the upper\nlayer have to be removed to go deeper and deeper to know\nmore.\nIII.    The area proposed to be excavated is divided into\nsquares rising grid system and all available latest\nrecording by documentation system, i.e., photography,\nvideo-recording etc. is done before starting excavation at\ndesired and appropriate stages so that discovery of all\nstructural remains and important finds to maintain a\nproper record for all future purposes.\nIV.     In archaeological context, layers (strata) are\noccupational and deposits caused by human and natural\nactivities are generally distinguishable by their colour and\ntexture as one digs.\nV.      Layers (strata) are important as they establish the\nrelation between the structures and antiquities that help in\nestablishing chronology provided the layer remained\nundisturbed.\nVI.     The thickness of a layer (stratum) also indicates the\ntime span of activities and occupation..\nVII. In some places long walls may pass through several\ntrenches but these are easily seen through the layers, the\nbaulk and are retain.\nVIII. Archeological excavations and its methods have been\nreferred in various books. According to the views referred\nto by Mr. Brain M. Faigan in his book styled as \"In the\n                                                        4040\n\nbeginning an introduction Archeology\" as well as\naccording to the famous archeologist who is considered to\nbe father of Archeology Sir Mortimer Wheeler in his book\n\"Archeology from the earth\" have settled certain norms of\nexcavation. According to them archaeological excavation\nwork is a scientific investigation which is be conducted on\nsound research methodology.\nIX.   Here laboratory work also includes the process of\nwriting report.\nX.    Detailed records and accurate measurement are the\nfoundations       of   a   sound,   scientific   excavation.\nDocumentation (recording) throughout the excavation\nincludes site diary, antiquity register and daybook. This\nday book records all events which have meticulously\nmaintained in this case also. Moreover the day-today\nregister has been duly signed by their advocates and expert\nnominees present on the spot in presence of Judge\nObservers.\nXI.   The antiquity Register is maintained to contain a\nspecial number of each small find, numbered with its level,\ntrench number, depth below surface and additional\ninformation relating to the layer in which the object was\nfound. This procedure provides a permanent record of\nsignificant artifacts which must be described individually\nin the final report and whose preservation is important.\nLists of 'bag of finds' found during excavation are also\nrecorded in this register; each bag, especially of common\nartifacts like pottery, animal bones, and stone implements\nreceives a serial number which is recorded in a list in the\n                                                         4041\n\nback of the small-finds register.\nXII. Recording of Site Plan, structures and stratigraphic\nsections are equally important. Accurate plans provide a\nrecord of measurement and grid set up before excavation to\nprovide a metrical framework for trenching. A system of\nredial coordinate measurements is used to record the\nposition of horizontal features, with the radial lines\nforming an accurate network of reference points.\nXIII. Three dimensional recording of major features and\nimportant artifacts is also a vital part of the excavation\nprocess. Many huts, pits or burial groups are important\nmerely because of their association with other features or\nartifacts. Such information can be recovered only by 3-\ndimentional measurements, i.e. by recording the feature's\nhorizontal and vertical coordinates with reference to the\nsite grid.\nXIV. In      Archeology    period   of   construction    and\nstratigraphy is most important. Stratigrahpy is itself a\nscientific basis of periodization. It is based on Geological\nlaw of superimposition. Position of layers and their\nrelation with structures is the basis for the same. Layers\n(strata) have to be worked out on the basis of texture,\nbehaviour, colour, etc. It has to be seen whether the deposit\nis normal or flood deposit, layer (stratum) is disturbed or\nundisturbed, relationship of layer with structures, its\ncontemporary deposit etc. For determination of age of the\nlayer carbon dating is considered to be most scientific\nmethod. Periodization is done on the basis of finds that\nincludes pottery, epigraphic materials, artifacts etc.\n                                                           4042\n\ncomplied with C-14 dating.\nXV.     A perusal of chapter 3 of the report makes it clear\nthat ASI has adopted all the three methods of periodization\nand has based its report on sound archeological norms. It\nis well settled that periodization is done mainly in either of\nthe     three    ways:   -   (1)   Century   wise   (timeframe\nperiodization) (2) Dynasty wise periodization (3) Layer\n(stratum) wise (Stratigraphically). The dating are of two\ntypes i.e. absolute dating and relative dating. The carbon\ndating is considered to be absolute dating being\nperiodization by scientific investigation. Relative dating is\nbase on stratigraphical observation. There may be\nvariation in nomenclature of the periodization amongst the\nscholars but there may be no point of controversy in\ncentury wise periodization. However the report mentions\nabout all the three methods in its reports as is evident from\nthe report at pages 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 & 44 (volume 1).\nXVI. To begin with, i.e. historically the year 1192 A.D., i.e.\n12th century, is the end of the Hindu rule in Delhi when\nPrithviraj Chauhan was defeated by Muhammad Ghori in\nthe 2nd battle of Tarain and Ghori appointed Qutabuddin\nAibak as his nominee to look after the territory of Delhi\nwhich he did although formally he proclaimed himself to be\nthe ruler (Sultan) only in 1206, after the death of his\nmaster. Thus, for all practical purposes, in Delhi the\nSultanate started during the closing years of the 12th\ncentury A.D.\nXVII.           Another world fame renowned scholar of\nIndian History professor A.L. Basham used the term\n                                                         4043\n\n\"Medieval Hindu India for Chapter 6, pp. 51-59 in his book\n\"Cultural History of India\", Oxford, 1975\".\nXVIII.       On the basis of well established datable\nartifacts, cermacised and C-14 dates, the ASI report has\nfollowed the cultural sequence of Ayodhya as under:-\n     NBPW= Northern Black Polished Ware\n     RW= Red Ware\n     BSW= Black Slipped Ware\n     GW= Grey Ware\n     Late & Post Period IX Glazed Ware + RW+BSW\n     (p.109)\n     Mughal\n     Mughal (p.41) Period VIII Glazed Ware + RW+BSW\n     (p.109)\n     Medieval Period VII (1200-1600 A.D.) '' \" (p.109)\n     Medieval (p.40) Period VI (1000-1200 A.D.)-\n     RW+BSW+GW (p.104)\n     Sultanate\n     Post-Gupta(p.40)       Period   V    (700-1000    A.D.)-\n     RW+NBPW+GW (p.98)\n     Rajput\n     Level\n     Gupta Period IV (400-600 A.D.)-RW+BSW+NBPW\n     Earlier material of pd. III is in pd. IV (p.40)\n     Kushan(p.39) Period III (100-300 A.D.) - RW\n               -Triratna Sample (p.85)\n               -Spouted wide open mouth of Makar (p.85) &\n     Plate 69\/71\n     Sunga         Period       II       (300-100      B.C.)-\n                                                          4044\n\n      NBPW+RW+BSW+GW (p.39)\n      NBPW      Levels     Period    I       (600-300   B.C.)-\n      NBPW+BSW+GW+RW (p.38)\n      It is pertinent to mention here that\n      The pottery sequence of pd. VII, VIII & IX are the\n      same. (p.108)\nXIX. A perusal of the report submitted by ASI shows that\nthe excavations were conducted by the ASI in a most\nstandardized settled norms of excavations, Recording and\nwriting of the reports were strictly followed. The\nexcavations were conducted in vertical and horizontal\nmanners by way of grid system of layout for excavation.\nThree dimensional recording were done and principal of\nstratigraphy was strictly followed. The Archaeological\nexcavation being a scientific investigation was conducted\non spot in accordance with settled norms. The trench\nsupervisor's note book, diary, daily register antiquity\nregisters were maintained regularly in presence of the\nparties. Three dimensional records were done and\nprinciples of stratigraphy were strictly followed.\nXX. The objection of the plaintiffs that in view of the\nevidence drawn from the despositional history of the site\nthere was no habitation at this site after Gupta Period for a\nlong time. It was reoccupied after a long desertion in 13th\ncentury A.D.\nXXI. In this connection it may be submitted that the source\nof this 'evidence drawn' can only be a figment of malicious\nmind. The Report mentions on page 271 para one:\n      \"Another noteworthy feature is that it was only duing\n                                                           4045\n\n        and after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto\n        Period IX (late and post Mughal level) that the\n        regular habitational deposits disappear in the\n        concerned levels\".\nXXII. In the same para it further mentions:\n              \"The area below the disputed site thus,\n        remained a place for public use for a long time till\n        the Period VIII (Mughal level) when the disputed\n        structure was built\".\nXXIII.        From where and on what basis 'a long\ndesertion' is established and how the site is shown as\n'reoccupied in 13th century A.D.' is neither clear not\njustified.\nXXIV.         The objection of the plaintiffs that essential\nrequirement in an excavation report is a chapter that\ndescribes, one after the other, the main strata or levels\nfound in the excavation, their nature (soil texture, colour,\netc.) and contents. But there is no such section, level alone\na chapter, in the Ayodhya report.\nXXV.          Periodization has been done on the basis of\nfinds of a particular layer or set of layers that is on the\nbasis of contents of the layers.\nXXVI.         The Chapter III covers all the salient points\nrequired for defining and study of layers and their\nrespective periods.\nXXVII.        It is again the 'ostrich attitude' of the objector\nwho wishfully do not want to acknowledge the existence of\nall these features in the Chapter IIII \"Stratigraphy and\nChronology\" from pp. 37-47 in the Report.\n                                                            4046\n\nXXVIII.     The objection of the plaintiffs that descriptions\ngiven in the report are not always matched by the sections.\nThe reverse is also true. The report does not states the\nperiod to which layer 6 of J3, layers 4-6 in ZE1-ZF1 And\nlayers 3-6 in e7 belong.\nXXIX.       In this connection it may be submitted that on\npage 46 of Report in 5th line form top it is mentioned that\nthe material marked those from layer 1 to 6 \"belongs to a\npit and the layers are superficial\". So far as the period of\nthe pit is concerned the data unearthed from the excavation\nis too scanty to determine, as the successive digging of pits\nfor later construction in the same spot has obliterated the\nearliest pit line that could have dated the pit.\nXXX.        In any excavation report it is neither required\nnor possible to include each and every layer of every\ntrench excavated while describing the stratigraphy of the\nsite. However, in general walls 16 and 17 have been\ndefined along with their associated layers to definite\nperiods.\nXXI.        The objection of the plaintiffs that the\nnumbering of the floors and other details are not according\nto the stratigraphy and the report is full of confusion.\nXXXII.      In this connection it may be submitted that\nconfusion does not exist in the report rather it has been\ncreated out of lack of understanding of the subject and\nbecause facts are seen in isolation of one another and not\nin the right perspective. Archaeological evidences at any\ngiven site are found in different trenches and then they are\nput to gather to reach a meaningful conclusion. It is like\n                                                          4047\n\ncompleting a jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, any description of it\nshould be seen and read in the same way.\nXXXIII.     There is no single trench which has produced\nall the floors and layers. Evidence of different trenches has\nbeen shown in the Schematic Cross Section.\nXXXIV.      The objection of the plaintiffs that the text fails\nto mention which particular layers in these (Tr. G2, G7, J5-\nJ6 and E8-F8) and other trenches pertain to Period VII.\nXXXV.       In this connection is may be submitted that\nsince the layers of this period are not regular depositional\nlayers rather are the filling material brought from out side\nto level the area as a preparatory to lay the successive\nfloors, these floors have been described to belong to this\nperiod. The layers of fill, which are sandwiched between\nthese floors, naturally become contemporary layers and\ntherefore, have been defined as belonging to this period.\nThe excerpt from page 42 of the Report is incomplete and\nshould be read with the remaining part of the same\nparagraph which reads as:\nXXXVI.      As some places due to differential coverage\narea of the floor itself while at some other places due to\ndestruction or decadence one of these was found missing.\nDuring excavation in different trenches they were named\naccording to their occurrence from one onwards. The\nrelative levels can be seen in the cross-sections of the\nmound and in the schematic cross section of the mound\".\nXXXVII.     The confusion disappears as it never existed\nrather is a concocted one. The division of five areas of\neastern, northern, western, southern and raised platform\n                                                          4048\n\nare treated in Chapter II \"Cuttings\" which defines the\nlimits of each area. Therefore, there is no need to \"count\"\nany trench in any area, rather it should be verified from the\nrelevant chapter.\nXXXVIII.    In G2, a narrow strip (about 1 m wide) was\nexcavated and in that small area with some top layer\ndisturbances all the floors top floors (upto Fl.4) were\nfound, since the dividing line for different periods is floors\nall the layers in between shall belong to the respective\nperiod, so the layer 3 and 4 also belong to the Period VII.\nXXXIX.      The objection of the plaintiffs that nowhere is\nthere any section showing floors numbered \"4\" or \"5\" and\nno section shows a sequence of floors numbered \"1\" and\n\"5\".\nXL.         Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal, who was examined\nas PW 24 by the plaintiff as an archaeologist of pre-history,\nhas been re-examined after submission of excavation report\nby the Archaeological Survey of India by the plaintiff Sunni\nCentral Waqf Board to support the objections filed by them.\nIt is pertinent to mention that Prof. Dhaneswar Mandal,\nwho has written a book styled as \"Archaeology after\nDemolition\", had never visited the disputed site before\nwriting the book. During excavation the disputed site was\nvisited by him twice as stated by him in his examination in\nchief from 10.06.2003 to 15.06.2003 and from 27.09.2003\nto 29.09.2003. The entire evidence given by Prof. Mandal\nmakes it clear that the book was written by him on the basis\nof news published in newspapers, magazines, booklets,\nparticularly paper 118\/C. This fact has been admitted by\n                                                           4049\n\nhim. Regarding excavations also he has very clearly stated\nthat his observations are based on his own observations\nwithout any measurement or actual verification of the site.\nProf. Mandal admits that he has no knowledge about the\ndisputed site nor ever attempted to see the artifacts,\ninscriptions, etc., found at the time of leveling or\nexcavation of the disputed site. Prof. Mandal in his\nstatement has admitted that the process of excavation, i.e.,\ngrid system excavation was perfectly correct which is\ninternationally accepted mode of excavation. He further\nadmits the circular sign found during the excavation to be\nof Gupta period i.e. 4th-6th century AD which is\nundisputedly a non-Islamic construction of pre-Islamic era.\nXLI.        Dr R.C. Thakran was examined as PW 30 by\nSCWB in support of their objections against report of ASI,\nwho, according to him, has not carried any excavation,\nrather during his masters degree course had attended some\nexcavation at the sites of Mirzapur Karan ka Quila. The\nwitness, in para 1 of his affidavit, has stated that he is\ninvolved in archaeological research since 1976 and had not\nexcavated any site. The witness has given various details of\nthe report in his examination in chief and annexed various\ndocuments but has failed to establish the same, rather the\ncross examination proved his statement to be false and\nbaseless. The witness was in full agreement with the\nmethod of excavation, its marking, recording and listing.\nThe    witness   stated    that   comparative     study     of\narchaeological finds was not possible on his part at the site\nand the witness could know about the alleged defects only\n                                                        4050\n\nafter submission of the report. Regarding periodisation, the\nwitness stated that periodisation from period 7th to 10th\ncentury A.D., as mentioned in page 40 period 5 in report of\nASI is correct but the witness expressed his disagreement\nwith the nomenclature only. According to the witness early\nmedieval period started from 600 AD and continues up to\n1200 AD. But at page 112 the witness admits that early\nmedieval period may be termed as Rajput period. Further,\ncontracting his own admission at page 113, the witness\nstates that the medieval period starts from 600 AD and\ncontinues up to 1707 AD although further clarifies that\nperiod from 600 AD to 1200 AD is called early medieval\nperiod where as period from 1206 AD to 1526 AD is called\nSultanate period and period from 1526 AD to 1707 AD is\nsaid to be Mughal period. Admitting existence of pillar\nbases at the disputed site, the witness states at page 116:\n\"Maein us report mein likhi ish baat se sahmat hoon ki\npillar bases patthar ke pedestal par tikey huwey\nthei....Maeine Ayodhya ki khudai ke dauran sabhi pillar\nbases ko dekha thaa. Usmein pedestal stones kahin par\nnahin haein, kewal Mata Sita ki Rasoi ki taraf kuchh\npillar bases ke upar patthar paye gaye haein jo pedestal\nse bhinna haein.\" Regarding manufacturing of pillar\nbases the witnes stated: \"Jabtak maein khudai sthal par\nraha aisa nahin hai ki ASI walon nein pillar base\nbanaye hon, Baad mein agar unhone kuchh kiya ho to\nmujhe is baat ka gyan nahin hai.Yadi sabhi trenches\nmein lagatar videography ho rahi hon to pillar base\nbanana sambhav nahin hai. \" Regarding use of Chuna\n                                                          4051\n\nand Surkhi, the witness admitted the same being used in\n7th-8th century and also in Gahadwal period. The witness\nsupporting the third stand taken by SCWB regarding\nexistence of old mosque\/Idgah underneath the disputed\nstructure stated at page 69: \"Khudai ke dauran diwar ko\ndekhne se tatha ASI ke report dekhne se mujhe aisa laga ki\nBabri masjid ya uske poorva ke masjid\/idgah banne mein\njo material punah prayog mein laya gaya wah kahin aas\npaas se laakar istemal kiya gaya hai. The witness admitted\nexistence of Kapot padi door jamb, lotus motif at the\ndisputed site and has also stated that he has not seen any\nsuch thing in any mosque. The witness who is an atheist\nstated that: \"Maein Ishwar ya devi devta mein astha nahin\nrakhta hoon.\" The witness admitted that he has no\nknowledge nor had ever studied about differences of masjid\nand idgah. At Page 187 the witnerss states: \"Masjid wa\nidgah ke antar ke barey mein maine avashya suna hai,\nparantu iske barey maein maine adhyayan nahin kiya. Yah\nkahna sahi hai ki masjid wa idgah ke sambandh mein\nmainey sa-sapath apna bayaan mukhya pariksha ka prastut\nkiya hai ish vidha mein maein vishesh gyan nahin rakhta\nhoon.... Keval neemv ki diwar ko dekhkar uparokt donon\nantar bata pana mere liye sambhav nahin.\" The witness\nadmitted existence of taakh or niches in temples. The\nwitness at page 191 states: \"Mandiron ki khudai ki reports\nmein animal bones paye jane ke barey mein maine padha\nhai.\" The witness admits importance of Kalash and floral\nmotifs for temples and stated that it is used in temples only.\nThe witness admits circular structure and wall belonging to\n                                                         4052\n\nGupta period. A perusal of the cross examination of the\nwitness at page 356 to 360 makes it clear that the witness\nhas no idea of the walls and has not identified the same in\nspite of filing detailed affidavit and going through the\nsame. The entire cross examination of the witness makes it\nclear that the witness has no idea of excavation and has\ntried to support the objection of SCWB merely on the basis\nof some bookish knowledge as well as under some\nextraordinary circumstance.\nXLII.        At page 251, the witness (PW 31) admitted that\nthe ASI had adopted all the three methods of periodisation\nand the carbon dating was a scientific mode which was\nconsidered to be absolute dating method. But according to\nthe witness the Sultanate period was confined to 10th and\n11th     centuries   only.   The   only   objection   against\nperiodisation, according to the witness, was as stated by\nhim at page 252: \"I do not have any objection regarding\nperiodisation of ASI in which they did not mention early\nSultanate period from 10th to 11th century. In my opinion\none of the objections regarding periodisation is the mention\nof early medieval Sultanate period, The periodisation\nshould not be made on the basis of dynasty-wise.\"\nRegarding periodisation, the witness stated that he was in\nfull agreement with the periodisation done by ASI but he\nwas not agreeable to the periodisation of period 6 which is\nshown as medieval Sultanate period.\nXLIII.       The witness (PW-32) has categorically stated\nabout her presence on the spot during excavation although\nso many things have been stated in her affidavit filed by\n                                                                4053\n\n        way of examination in chief. But the cross examination of\n        the witness proves that, although the witness is not a field\n        archaeologist, the excavations were conducted by A.S.I. as\n        per settled norms. Describing fill deposits, the witness\n        confirmed in her cross examination at page 24 that no\n        stratification is possible in fill deposit.\n3863.         From the above, it is evident that the entire\nchronology\/stratification of ASI has not been condemned\/\nobjected\/criticized by Experts of Plaintiffs (Suit-4) but basically\nit is confined to 5, 6 and 7 period. PW 16 on page 54 stated that\nthe determination of period 6 and 7 is contrary to the facts on\nthe basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been antedated. On\npage 455 it says that he has no objection to the determination of\nperiods 1 to 5. PW 24 does not dispute periods 1 to 4 but then\nhas made comments against the periods 5, 6 and 7, as\ndetermined by ASI but then on page 170 in cross examination\nstated that layer 5 and 6 have rightly been shown belonging to\nearly medieval Saltnat period and then on page 271 says that he\ndoes not agree with the century-wise periodization made by ASI\nand tried to explain the same on page 273-274, and, concluded\nthat except period 5, 6 and 7 he agree with rest of the\ndetermination made by ASI. PW 29 on page 71 while agreeing\nwith N.B.P.W. Mughal and late post Mughal expressed for her\ndisagreement with the rest of the periods. PW 30 without raising\nany serious objection with respect to periodization has said that\nthe periods 6 and 7 have been mentioned in report by ASI\ninterchangeably creating confusion. PW 31 remained silent with\nrespect to stratification but PW 32, who is co-author of the\nobjection filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) against ASI report,\n                                                             4054\n\nclaims that period 6 to 9 are not based on the deposits but the\nmaterial found therein is a secondary context and therefore, the\ndetermination of the said period is not correct. These witnesses\nhave given their different version in support of their opinion or\nunderstanding which are not in general harmony with each other\nand therefore, it cannot be said that all the witnesses have\nprovided similar or common reasons against that part of\nstratification\/chronology of the ASI which they have challenged.\nOn the contrary, most of them admits that determination of\nstratigraphy\/chronology can be done in one or more method\nwhich are well recognized and they are three (1) Dynasty wise,\n(2) Century wise and (3) Layer wise, and the ASI has followed\nall the three system (PW 16 page 454, PW 24 page 269, PW 29\npage 144, 150, 183, PW 30 page 351\/352,)\n3864.       Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, OPW 18 has supported\nASI report in its entirety. He retired in 1992 from the post of\nSuperintending Archeologist from ASI. Having done M.Sc. in\nPhysical Anthropology in 1958 from University of Sagar and\nPost Graduate Diploma in Archaeology in 1968 from Institute of\nArchaeology, Government of India, he served ASI Department\nfor about 33 years and had the experience of exploration,\nexcavation of archeological sites. Some of the excavation work\nhe has undertaken has been detailed in para 5 and 6 of his\naffidavit. He has clearly averred that the three ways of\nperiodization is well established in the field of Archaeology and\nthe ASI has adopted all the three methods. Regarding 6 and 7\nperiod determined by ASI, he has explained that suggestion by\nsome of the witnesses that the medieval period in India must be\nco-related with Islam only is not correct and is not a universally\n                                                             4055\n\nexcepted proposition. He has referred to the opinion of Ram\nSharan Sharma, a Historian, recorded in his book \"Perspectives\nin Social and Economic History of Early India\" published in\n1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New\nDelhi, where on page 228 Chapter XVI the author says \"\n           \"An important problem in the general history of India\n     is that of transition from the ancient to the mediaeval.\n     Certain dates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997, and\n     1206 have been suggested as landmarks in political history.\n     But since politics was the preoccupation of a small section\n     of society in early times, it has to be shown whether any of\n     the above-mentioned dates or whether any other date or\n     point of time is equally significant in the history of land\n     system, crafts and commerce, polity, society, language, art,\n     religion, etc. There has taken place a lot of discussion\n     whether Harsavardhana's death in AD 647 marks the end\n     of one and the beginning of another era in Indian history.\n     The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of\n     Harsavardhana set in the process of decline in Indian\n     history has been ably refuted by a number of scholars, and\n     especially by H.C. Ray. But for those who wish to\n     investigate patterns of social and economic life, the real\n     point to look for is not the presages of decline and\n     prosperity but the nature of change in the existing way of\n     life. If the change is of a fundamental nature, it should be\n     regarded as heralding the advent of a new period. If it is a\n     minor change it would not necessitate any new\n     characterization of the period. Even the question of decline\n     and prosperity has to be examined in relation to the process\n                                                         4056\n\nof change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how\nfar the decline of the existing system of life shows\nsymptoms of the rise of a new pattern of life. None of these\npoints has been taken into account by V. Smith when he\nsays that the death of Harsavardhana in AD 647 begins a\nperiod of decline nor by those who try to refute his theory.\n      On the grounds of dynastic and political history H.C.\nRay suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of\ndemarcation between the two periods in the history of\nnorthern India. In his opinion: 'these may be called the\nancient and the mediaeval periods; but it would be perhaps\nmore reasonable to call them simply the Hindu period and\nthe period of the Turks and Afghans.' A similar approach\nhas been adopted by some other scholars. In the fifth\nvolume of the History and Culture of the Indian People it is\nsaid at one place that ancient India came to an end in AD\n997, and again, at another, that in Indian history the\nmediaeval factor was introduced in the thirteenth century.\nBoth views are based on the assumption that the Muslim\nconquest ushered in mediaevalism in India. Does it mean\nthat without the Muslim conquest there would have been no\nmediaevalism in India? Does it imply that the countries of\nEurope which escaped this conquest had no mediaeval\nperiod in their history? In Europe it is difficult to think of\nmediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature of\nwhich have to be examined in the case of India. In our\nopinion the beginnings of a feudal way of life can be sought\nin the age of the Guptas and Harsa, which marks a period\nof transition in the history.\"\n                                                               4057\n\n3865.        He has also referred to the opinion of another\nlearned Historian A.L.Basham's book \"A Cultural History of\nIndia\" (first published in 1975) Oxford University Press\n(Eighth Indian Impression in 1992) contained in Chapter VI,\ntitled as \"Medieval Hindu India\". While giving details of various\nHindu kings ruling different parts of the country, even after\nMuslim invasion, Dr.Basham has observed that it is not that the\nentire Indian Continent got influenced by Muslims from 7, 8 or\n9 century but from time to time different parts were ruled by\ndifferent Hindu kings of great vitality.\n3866.        We have copy of the entire book of A.L. Basham,\ni.e., \"A Cultural History of India\" (first published in 1975) and\n10th impression 2006 by Oxford University Press, New Delhi\n(Book No. 112). Sri Basham in Chapter VI which runs from\npage 51 to 59 has noticed that the Gupta Empire disappeared by\nthe middle of 6th century. In the second half of 6th century, a city\non Upper Ganga, before its confluence with Jamuna,\nKanyakubja (later known as Kanauj), rose to prominence as the\ncapital of the Maukhari kings. The city of Sthanvisvara, now\nThanesar, in the watershed between the Ganga and the Indus,\nbecame the capital of a rising family of rulers descended from a\ncertain Pushyabhuti. Gujarat and Malwa were in the power of\nthe Maitraka Dynasty, founded by the general of the Guptas. In\nthe Deccan the Chalukya Dynasty was gaining in strength, while\nin Tamilnadu the Dynasty of the Pallawas was also enlarging its\nboundaries. This is the pattern of Indian politics until the\nMuslim invasion. It further says:\n             \"The political history of India between the end of the\n        Gupta Empire and the coming of the Muslims can be traced\n                                                               4058\n\n        in some detail from thousands of inscriptions which contain\n        the genealogies and brief accounts of the reigns of kings,\n        and in the panegyrics which form the preambles to records\n        of land-grants, mostly to religious bodies-temples,\n        monasteries, or groups of learned brahmans.\"\n3867.        In 7th century (606-47 AD) Harshavardhana gained\ncontrol of Kanyakubja (Kannauj). After heirless demise, his\nempire also died with him. The subsequent period by Sri A.L.\nBasham is described as under:\n             \"The succeeding period is very obscure and badly\n        documented, but it marks the culmination of a process\n        which had begun with the invasion of the Hunas in the last\n        years of the Gupta Empire. The sixth and seventh centuries\n        saw the rise of many new dynasties, small and great, in the\n        northern part of the sub-continent. Few of these ruling\n        families are to be found mentioned in sources from periods\n        before the Guptas, and many of their genealogies begin\n        with names which do not seem Sanskritic. These people\n        appear to have been new-comers. Some of them may have\n        been related to the Hunas. A new people, who began to\n        make their presence felt towards the end of the sixth\n        century, the Gurjaras, gave their name to the present\n        Gujarat and founded several important ruling dynasties.\n        Since place-names containing a similar element can be\n        found as far to the north-west as Pakistan and Afghanistan,\n        it is commonly suggested that the Gurjaras entered India\n        in the wake of the Hunas. Their name has been linked with\n        that of the ancient people of the south Russian steppes\n        called Khazars, and with the Georgians (Gruz) of the\n                                                       4059\n\nCaucasus. Other obscure tribes of Central Asians may also\nhave followed the Hunas, and wilder peoples from outlying\nareas may have profited from the unsettled conditions to\ngain political control of important regions. In any case,\nnew ruling houses arose in the post-Gupta period and\nmany of their names survive to the present day as those of\nthe Rajput clans.\n      Towards the end of the eighth century three of the\nrecently arisen dynasties contended for Kanyakubja, by\nnow the acknowledged metropolis of northern India. These\nwere the Palas of Bihar and Bengal, the Rashtrakutas of\nthe Deccan, and the Gurjara-Pratiharas, who controlled\nparts of Malwa and Rajasthan. The great city was for a\ntime occupied by the Palas, whose Buddhist king\nDharmapala drove up the Ganga valley and exacted tribute\nfrom many kings of the area. The Rashtrakuta Govinda III,\nwhose policy of raiding the north, continued by his\nsuccessors, was to have many repercussions, drove\nDharmapala out, but was forced to return to his base\nowing to trouble at home. The vacuum was filled, very\nearly in the ninth century, by Nagabhata II of the Gurjara-\nPratiharas.\n      For about a hundred years the Gurjara-Pratiharas of\nKanyakubja restored a little of the glory of the earlier\nempires. Under their greatest kings, Mihira Bhoja (c. 836-\n90) and Mahendrapala (c. 890-910), they received tribute\nfrom rulers from Gujarat to the borders of Bengal, and\nMuslim travellers were much impressed by the\npeacefulness and prosperity of their quasi-feudal\n                                                          4060\n\nempire. But their old enemies, the fierce Rashtrakutas from\nthe Deccan, were constantly worrying them, and in about\n916 Kanyakubja was again temporarily occupied by Indra\nIII of the Rashtrakutas, whose lightning raids provided a\nforetaste of the similar attacks of the Marathas 800 years\nlater.\n         Indra III soon returned to the south; but his effects\nwere longer-lasting than those of previous Rashtrakuta\nraiders. Though the Pratiharas returned to their capital,\nthey were humiliated and weakened, and their vassals\nceased to respect them. Within a generation or two the\ngreater vassals had thrown aside their allegiance, and were\nfighting with their former masters and among themselves.\nIt was in these circumstances that Mahmud or Ghazni, in\nthe early years of the eleventh century, carried out his\nseventeen raids on India; but though the Turkish raiders\nransacked and destroyed palaces and temples, and\nreturned to their headquarters in Afghanistan with\nimmense caravans of riches and slaves, India resumed\nher traditional political ways as if nothing had\nhappened.\n         The Turks overwhelmed the Sahi kingdom, which had\ncontrolled a large area of the north-west, from Kabul to\nLahore. The rulers of this realm had also been Turks, but\nTurks who had adopted Hindu traditions, and who offered\nno serious threat to their neighbours to the east. The\nGhaznavids also conquered the Muslim kingdoms of Sind,\noccupied by the Arabs early in the eighth century, whose\nchiefs had long ceased to trouble the hindu kingdoms on\n                                                        4061\n\ntheir frontiers. Thus the hindu states of the Gangetic\nbasin and Rajasthan now had on their borders a young\naggressive kingdom with new methods of warfare and\nwith a religious ideology which might be expected to\nencourage aggression.\n      The most remarkable feature of the situation was\nthat, as far as surviving records show, nobody whatever in\nhindu India recognised the menace of the Turks. The\nGhaznavids made a few further raids, but these were far\nless impressive than those of Mahmud. The Turks were\nsoon torn by internal strife and, though they continued to\nhold the Panjab, it must have seemed to the hindu\npoliticians of the time that, like that Arabs before them,\nthey would be contained indefinitely. Having no real\nhistorical tradition, the Indian memory, of earlier\nconquerors coming from the north-west-Greeks, Sakas,\nKushanas, and Hunas-was so vague that it was quite\nineffectual as a warning to the rulers of the time.\n      In the involved situation arising from Mahmud's\nraids, five larger kingdoms shared most of northern\nIndia between them, the Chahamanas (Chauhans) of\nRajasthan, the Gahadavalas (Gahrwals) of Kanyakubja\n(Kanauj) and Varanasi (Banaras), the Chaulukyas or\nSolankis of Gujarat, the Paramaras (Parmars) of\nMalwa, and the Chandellas (Chandels) of Bundelkhand,\nto the south of the Ganga. These dynasties bore names\nwhich are among the best-known of the thirty-six Rajput\nclans. Their kings had already acquired something of the\ntraditional Rajput character-gallant, extremely sensitive to\n                                                        4062\n\npoints of honour, glorifying war, but war of a gentlemanly\nkind, intensely devoted to tradition, and quite incapable of\nserious co-operation one with another. The Palas, who\ngoverned Bihar and Bengal, had been quite untouched by\nMahmud's invasions. Early in the twelfth century they were\nreplaced by the Sena Dynasty, which reversed the Palas'\ntraditional support of Buddhism and encouraged hindu\northodoxy. They seem to have played little or no part in the\npolitics of the western part of India, where the five major\nkingdoms and numerous lesser tributary realms fought\nhonourable among the themselves, basing their strategy\nand tactics on principles inherited from epics.\n      In 1173 Ghazni was captured by Ghiyas-ud-din,\nwhose headquarters were Ghur in Afghanistan. From\nhis new capital Ghiyas-ud-din turned his attention to\nIndia. His brother, Muhammad bin Sam, occupied the\nPanjab and deposed the last ruler of the line of Mahmud.\nThen in 1191 Muammad bin Sam attacked Prithviraja, king\nof the Chahamanas, the hindu ruler on his eastern frontier.\nPrithviraja, fighting on his own ground with a larger army,\ndefeated Muhammad at Tarain, and he retreated. In the\nfollowing year, 1192, Muhammad came again with stronger\nforces, and on the same field of Tarain Prithviraja lost the\nday, and the Ganga valley was open to the invaders. Before\nthe century was over Turkish control was established along\nthe whole length of the sacred river.\n      It is easy to suggest reasons why the Hindus were\nunable to resist the Turks, and many such suggestions have\nbeen put forward. In dealing with the question it must be\n                                                                 4063\n\n        remembered that the invasion of the Turks was only one of\n        numerous attacks through the north-western passes which\n        took place in historical times. The Aryans, by a process not\n        fully known to us, gained control of the Panjab from the\n        decadent Harappans. The Achaemenians of Iran occupied\n        part at least of the Indus valley; Alexander's troops reached\n        the Beas, but were compelled to retreat; in the second\n        century B.C. the Greeks from Bactria occupied the Panjab;\n        they were followed in the next century by the Sakas or\n        Scythians; in the first century A.D. came the Kushanas, and\n        in the fifth the Hunas. Mahmud's raids in the early eleventh\n        century were precursors of the even stronger Turkish\n        attacks of Muhammad bin Sam, which led to the protracted\n        domination of most of India by Muslim rulers.\n              These were not by any means the last attacks from the\n        north-west, however. Soon after the Turkish occupation,\n        Mongol hordes swept into India and occupied much of the\n        territory west of the Indus. In 1398 Timur, the great Mongol\n        conqueror, sacked Delhi and raged through western India,\n        causing tremendous carnage and destruction. In 1526\n        Babur the Mughal defeated the Afghan rulers of Delhi and\n        occupied the country. In 1555 his son, Humayun,\n        reconquered it from his base in Afghanistan. During the\n        eighteenth century Persians and Afghans raided India in\n        turn, both sacking Delhi before returning to their\n        homelands.\"\n3868.         The above clearly shows that in the period of\nMahmood Gaznavi raids and thereafter, the northern India was\nshared by five larger kingdoms namely, Chauhans (Rajasthan),\n                                                                              4064\n\nGahadavalas (Kannauj and Banaras), Chalukyas or Solanki\n(Gujarat), Parmaras (Malva) and Chandellas (Bundelkhand).\nThe said dynasties have been titled by learned author as one of\n\"the best known of 36 Rajput clans\". The Palas, who governed\nBihar and Bengal remain untouched by Mahmud Gazanavi's\ninvasion but early in the 12th century they were replaced by Sena\ndynasty which reversed the Palas traditional support of\nBuddhism and encourage Hindu orthodox religion. The\nChauhans rule came to end with the defeat of Prithvi Ram\nChauhan in 1192 AD by Mohammad Ghuri at Tarain leaving the\nGanges valley open to invaders\/foreigners. In 1206 AD\nGaharwals (King Jai Chand) was also defeated by Ghuri.\n3869.          The details of Maukhary, Pushyabhuti, Pratihar,\nGaharwal etc. rulers has also been given in \"Ayodhya Ka Itihas\nEvam Puratatva\" (supra) (Book No. 141), Chapter-7, pages 81\nto 105 which is a minute and detailed study on the subject and\nexcept of some observations made therein based on 1992\ninscriptions found at Ayodhya which for the time being we can\nexclude, the rest of the contents of the said chapter as such have\nnot been shown inaccurate or incorrect, hence may be referred\nhereunder:\n        ^^ekS [ kjh] iq \" ;Hk wf r] ijorhZ xq I r] iz f rgkj ,o a xgM +o kyk s a dk\n                                           ;q x\n        xqIr lkezkT; ds iru ds ckn ls v;ks\/;k dk jktuhfrd egRo mruk\n        vf\/kd ugha jg x;k FkkA lRrk dk xq#Ro dsUnz v;ks\/;k ls gVdj\n        dUukSt vFkok dkU;dqCt igqWap x;kA xqIr lkezkT; ds iru ds dky esa\n        lkeUrksa dk egRo mlh vuqikr esa c<+rk x;k ftl vuqikr esa v;ks\/;k ds\n        xqIr lezkVksa dh dsUnzh; lRrk esa fc[kjko vkus yxk FkkA ikapoh 'krkCnh\n        ds vafre pj.k rd rks xqIr lezkV~ fdlh izdkj lkezkT; dh ,drk cuk,\n        j[k lds Fks rFkk NBh 'krkCnh ds izFke pj.k esa dsUnzh; lRrk ds fy,\n                                                                        4065\ngksus okys la?k"kksZa ds dkj.k xqIr lkezkT; ds vUrxZr vusd v\/khuLFk\njktoa'k vfLrRo esa vk x,A bZlk dh NBh&lkroha 'krkfCn;ksa esa ftu\njktoa'kksa dk mn; gqvk vkSj mUgksaus mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfrd\nxfrfof\/k;ksa ij izHkko Mkyk muesa rhu jktoa'k eq[; :i ls mYys[kuh;\ngSa& \u00bc1\u00bd dUukSt ds ekS[kjh] \u00bc2\u00bd Fkkus'oj ds iq";Hkwfr rFkk \u00bc3\u00bd ekyok ds\nijorhZ xqIr] ftUgksaus ckn esa ex\/k ij 'kklu fd;kA buds ckn\nizfrgkjksa ,oa xgM+okyksa dk ;qx vkrk gS ftle s a xgM +o kyk s a u s\nv;k s\/ ;k e s a fo'k s" k #fp yhA\ndUukS t d s ekS [ kjh\ndUukS t d s ekS [ kfj;k s a e s a lcl s igyk jktk gfjoekZ gq v kA\nbZ'kkuoekZ ds gjgk vfHkys[k esa ekSf[kfj;ksa dh oa'kkoyh gfjoekZ ls izkjEHk\ngksrh gSA mlds iwoZt laHkor% fcgkj ls ;gka vk, gksaxs] D;ksafd fcgkj ds\nx;k ftys ds cjkcj vkSj ukxktqZuh igkfM+;ksa ls ekS[kjh jktkvksa ds rhu\nvfHkys[k izkIr gq, gSaA bu vfHkys[kksa esa rhu jktkvksa ds uke feyrs\ngSa&;KoekZ] 'kknwZyoekZ rFkk vuUroekZA vuUroekZ dks dksbZ mikf\/k ugha nh\nxbZ gS fdUrq mlds firk 'kknwZyoekZ dks lkeUr pw.kkef.k dgk x;k gSA\n'kknwZyoekZ ds firk ;KoekZ dks Hkh u`i ek= dgk x;k gSA bl izdkj NBh\n'krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa ;s lkeUr ekS[kjh ujs'k x;k ds {ks= esa 'kklu dj\njgs FksA blesa dksbZ lUnsg ugha gS fd x;k ds ;s rhuksa ekS[kjh jktk xqIr\nlezkVksa ds v\/khuLFk lkeUr Fks] fdUrq budk dUukSt ds ekSf[kfj;ksa ls D;k\nlEcU\/k    Fkk]   bl     fo"k;   ij     dqN    dguk      laHko   ugha     gSA\nvf\/kd&ls&vf\/kd ;gh laHkkouk dh tk ldrh gS fd xqIr lezkVksa ds\nfunsZ'k ij fcgkj ds ekSf[kfj;ksa ds oa'k esa mRiUu gfjoekZ dks dkU;dqCt\nvFkok dUukSt esa lkeUr ds :i esa fu;qfDr feyh gksA gjgk ds vfHkys[k\nesa gfjoekZ dks ek= jktk dgk x;k gS rFkk mls vkfn ujs'k ekuk x;k\ngSA ysfdu bl vfHkys[k ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd ekS[kfj;ksa us viuk\n'kklu dgka ls 'kq: fd;k Fkk vFkok mudh jkt\/kkuh dgka ij FkhA jk\/kk\nxksfoUn clkd dk ;g er gS fd izkjEHk esa ekS[kfj;ksa us v;ks\/;k ls 'kklu\nfd;k Fkk rFkk ckn esa vofUroekZ ds dky esa mUgksaus viuh jkt\/kkuh\ndUukSt dks cuk;kA ekS[kfj;ksa dh jkt\/kkuh dUukSt esa Fkh] bldh lwpuk\ngesa g"kZpfjr ls izkIr gksrh gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd ekS[kjh jkuh\njkt;Jh] tks g"kZo\/kZu dh cgu Fkh] ekyojkt ds }kjk dUukSt esa gh cUnh\n                                                                        4066\ncuk yh xbZ FkhA blds vfrfjDr phuh lzksrksa esa Hkh bl ckr ds ladsr\nfeyrs gSa fd dUukSt ekS[kfj;ksa dh jkt\/kkuh Fkh vkSj jkT;Jh dks eqDr\ndjkus ds ckn g"kZ ls dUukSt dk 'kklu laHkkyus dk vkxzg fd;k x;k\nFkkA ekS [ kfj;k s a d s vfHky s[ k tkS u iq j \u00bci wo hZ mRrj iz n s' k\u00bd rFkk\ngjgk \u00bcftyk ckjkc ad h] i wo hZ mRrj iz n s' k\u00bd l s iz k Ir gq , gS aA\nblds vfrfjDr fcgkj esa ukyUnk] ls 'koZoekZ dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj\nrFkk e\/; izns'k esa vlhjx<+ ls blh jktk dh ,d rkacs dh eqgj izkIr gqbZ\ngSA xksj[kiqj ftys ds lksgukx uked LFkku ls vofUroekZ dh ,d eqgj\nizkIr gqbZ gS rFkk blh jktk dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj ukyUnk ls Hkh izkIr\ngqbZ gSA dUukSt ls gh vofUroekZ dh ,d feV~Vh dh eqgj izkIr gqbZ gSA\nukyUnk ls gh feV~Vh dh ,d vU; eqgj izkIr gqbZ gS ftl ij vofUroekZ\nds iq= ^jktkf\/kjkt Jh lq - -^ uke mfYyf[kr gSA [kf.Mr gks tkus ds\ndkj.k jktk dk iwjk uke ugha i<+k tk ldk gSA blds vfrfjDr dbZ\nekS [ kjh jktkvk s a d s flDd s Hkh vfgPN=k] v;k s\/ ;k vkS j\nfHkVkS j k \u00bc v;k s\/ ;k d s fudV] ftyk QS t kckn\u00bd l s iz k Ir gq b Z\ngS aA bu iz e k.kk s a l s ;g Li"V Kkr gk sr k gS fd xq I r jkto a' k\nd s ckn v;k s\/ ;k rFkk mld s ckn dk s' ky iz n s' k ekS [ kjh\n'kklukUrxZ r vk x;k FkkA\n       ekS[kfj;ksa us viuh jkt\/kkuh v;ks\/;k esa D;ksa ugha cukbZ gksxh] bl\nlaca\/k esa dsoy vuqeku gh izLrqr fd, tk ldrs gSaA igyh laHkkouk ;g\ngS fd xqIr lezkVksa us izkjafHkd ekS[kjh lkeUrksa dks dUukSt esa LFkkfir gksus\ndk funsZ'k fn;k gks vkSj ijEijkxr :i esa tc ekS[kjh vf\/kd 'kfDr'kkyh\ngks x, vkSj xqIr lkezkT; dk vUr gks x;k rks Hkh mUgksaus yxHkx mUgha\ndkj.kksa ls viuh jkt\/kkuh v;ks\/;k esa cukus dk fopkj u fd;k gks ftuds\ndkj.k iq";fe= 'kaqx us ekS;Z jktoa'k dk vUr gks tkus ds ckn viuh\njkt\/kkuh ikVfyiq= esa ugha cukbZA\n       gfjoekZ ds ckn mldk iq= vkfnR;oekZ ekS[kjh oa'k dk jktk gqvkA\nmldk fookg g"kZxqIrk ls gqvk FkkA uke lkE; ds vk\/kkj ij ;g ekuk\ntkrk gS fd g"kZxqIrk ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k ds nwljs 'kkld g"kZxqIr dh\ncgu FkhA g"kZxqIr dk le; 505&515 bZ0 ds chp ekuk tkrk gSA bl\nizdkj vkfnR;oekZ dk Hkh ;gh le; ekuuk pkfg,A vkfnR;oekZ dk iq=\nbZ'ojoekZ gqvk ftldh iRuh dk uke mixqIrk crk;k x;k gSA ch0ih0\n                                                                      4067\nflUgk us ;g er O;Dr fd;k gS fd mixq I rk v;k s\/ ;k d s xq I r\nlez k V fo".kq x q I r dh cgu jgh gk sx hA ;g fo".kq x q I r jkto a' k\ndk vfUre 'kkld ekuk tkrk gS vkS j bldk le; 543&550\nbZ 0 rd crk;k x;k gS A ysfdu fdj.k dqekj Fkify;ky dk ;g\nekuuk gS fd bZ'ojoekZ dh iRuh mixqIrk nsoh laHkor% ijorhZ xqIr\njktoa'k dh jktdqekjh FkhA bZ ' ojoekZ d s tkS u iq j vfHky s[ k l s ;g\nKkr gk sr k gS fd mlu s vkU\/kz d s jktkvk s a dk s Hkh ijkftr\nfd;k Fkk rFkk \/kkjk l s vku s oky s fdlh vkdz e .k dk s foQy\ndj fn;k FkkA laHkor% \/kkjk ls vkus okyk ;g vkdze.k gw.kjkt\nfefgjdqy ds }kjk fd;k x;k vkdze.k Fkk vkSj bZ'ojoekZ us xqIr lezkV\nds lkeUr ds :i esa bl ;q) esa Hkkx fy;k gks rks dksbZ vk'p;Z ughaA\nysfdu ,slk yxrk gS fd bl le; rd ekS[kjh xqIr jktoa'k }kjk 'kkflr\nizns'kksa esa lcls 'kfDr'kkyh lkeUr ds :i esa LFkkfir gks jgs FksA\n       mRrj Hkkjr e s a ekS [ kfj;k s a dh 'kfDr dk i w. kZ mn; Jh\nbZ ' kkuoekZ d s le; e s a gk sr k gS A bZ'kkuoekZ ds gM+gk ik"kk.k\nvfHkys[k \u00bc'yksd 13\u00bd esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd mlus vkU\/kzifr dks thrdj]\n'kwfydksa dh lsuk dks ijkLr djds rFkk xkSM+ksa dk lEcU\/k i`Foh ls NqM+kdj\nmUgsa leqnkJ;h gksus ds fy, ck\/; djds] flagklu dks vf\/kd`r fd;k FkkA\nbl izdkj ,slk yxrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ us ;g fot;sa vius ;qojkt dky\nesa izkIr dh Fkha vkSj blh dkj.k mlds firk ds dky esa fy[kok, x,\ntkSuiqj vfHkys[k esa foU\/; vkSj vkU\/kz ds jktkvksa dks ijkLr djus dh tks\nckr dgh xbZ gS mlesa bZ'kkuoekZ dk Hkh lg;ksx FkkA tgka rd xkSM+ksa dks\nijkLr djus dh ckr gS mlds lEcU\/k esa fo}kuksa dh ;g jk; gS fd\nekS[kfj;ksa us ;g vfHk;ku v;ks\/;k ds xqIr lezkVksa dh v\/khurk esa pyk;k\ngksxkA vkfnR;lsu ds vQlk<+ vfHkys[k esa ;g mYys[k vk;k gS fd\nthforxqIr us] og Hkh xqIrksa dk lkeUr jgk gksxk] dnyh o`{kksa dh\n'kk[kkvksa ls vko`Rr leqnz rVksa ij jgus okys 'k=qvksa dks ijkLr fd;k FkkA\nflUgk us rks ;gka rd dgk gS fd ;g xqIr 'kkld fo".kqxqIr pUnzkfnR;\njgk gksxkA\n       bZ'kkuoekZ ds ckn mldk iq= 'koZoekZ 'kkld gqvkA ysfdu gM+gk\nvfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ dk ,d vkSj iq= lw;ZoekZ\ngqvkA fdUrq lw;ZoekZ us 'kklu fd;k Fkk vFkok ugha] ;g iz'u fooknkLin\n                                                                      4068\ngS D;ksafd bZ'kkuoekZ ds iq= 'koZoekZ vkSj mlds mRrjkf\/kdkfj;ksa us lw;ZoekZ\ndk mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA y sf du] e\/; iz n s' k                  l s iz k Ir\negkf'koxq I r ckyktq Z u d s eYgkj rkez i =kfHky s[ k l s ;g Kkr\ngk sr k gS fd ekS [ kjh jkto a' k dk l w; Z o ekZ ex\/k dk jktk\nFkkA bl izdkj ;g Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ us vius\nthoudky esa gh ex\/k dks vius v\/khu dj fy;k Fkk vkSj laHkor%\nbZ'kkuoekZ ds ckn mlds iq= lw;ZoekZ us dqN le; rd 'kklu\nfd;kA ;|fi fljiqj ls izkIr ,d vfHkys[k esa lw;ZoekZ dks dsoy u`i dgk\nx;k gS ysfdu blls bl rF; ij dksbZ vUrj ugha iM+rk fd ;g lw;ZoekZ\nekS[kjh ujs'k bZ'kkuoekZ dk iq= FkkA\n       ekS [ kjh vfHky s[ kk s a e s a d so y gM +g k vfHky s[ k ,dek=\n, sl k y s[ k gS ftl ij frfFk nh gq b Z gS vkS j og fodz e l ao r~\n611 gS tk s bZ L oh lu~ 554 e s a iM +r k gS A ;g vfHkys[k ;|fi\nbZ'kkuoekZ ds iq= lw;ZoekZ }kjk fy[kok;k x;k Fkk fQj Hkh ml le;\nekS[kjh flagklu ij bZ'kkuoekZ gh vklhu FkkA bZ'kkuoekZ dk mRrjkf\/kdkjh\nmldk ,d vU; iq= 'koZoekZ gqvk ftldks eqgjksa ij ^ije ekgs'oj\negkjktkf\/kjkt* dgk x;k gSA 'koZ o ekZ dk 'kklu ex\/k l s y sd j\ne\/; iz n s' k e s a vlhjx< + rFkk cq U n sy [k.M rd QS y k FkkA\nif'pe e s a mldk 'kklu dk ax M +k rd foLr` r FkkA dqN yksaxks\nus ;g fopkj O;Dr fd;k gS fd pwafd dUukSt vkSj dkaxM+k ds chp\niq";Hkwfr oa'k dk Hkh 'kklu iM+rk gS blfy, dkaxMk esa ekS[kfj;ksa dk\n'kklu laHko ugha gSA fdUrq bl ckr dks eku ysuk pkfg, fd laHkor%\nml le; rd iq";Hkwfr oa'k viuh lkeUr voLFkk esa gh Fkk tcfd\nekS[kjh oa'k ds ujs'k ^egkjktkf\/kjkt*] ^ijes'oj* vkfn mikf\/k;ksa ls\nfoHkwf"kr fd;s tkrs FksA Hkk st n so d s ckjkg rkez i =kfHky s[ k e s a bl s\n^ije s' oj 'koZ o eZ n so * dgk x;k gS vkS j ;g crk;k x;k gS\nfd ^ije s' oj 'koZ o eZ n so * u s dky at j e aM y d s mnq E cj fo"k;\ne s a dq N Hk wf enku fd;k FkkA ijorhZ xqIr 'kkld thforxqIr f}rh;\nds nsoo.kkZdZ vfHkys[k esa ^ijes'oj Jh'koZoekZ* rFkk ^ijes'oj Jh\nvofUroekZ* rFkk ,d vU; ^egkjktkf\/kjkt ijes'oj* dk mYys[k feyrk\ngSA bl iz d kj ;g Li"V gS fd ekS [ kjh o a' k viu s le; e s a\nmRrj Hkkjr dk lcl s 'kfDr'kkyh jkto a' k Fkk vkS j mudk\n                                                                     4069\niz H kko {k s= Hkh yxHkx i wj s mRrj Hkkjr e s a foLr` r FkkA\n       bl dky&[k.M ds bfrgkl dks fy[kus okys fo}kuksa us ijorhZ\nxqIr jktoa'k vkSj iq";Hkwfr jktoa'k dks ekS[kfj;ksa ds leku gh egRo ns\nj[kk gSA Q~yhV us lcls igys vkfnR;lsu ds vQlk<+ vfHkys[k dk\nlaiknu fd;k Fkk vkSj mUgksaus bl vfHkys[k esa izkIr ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k\nds 'kkldksa dks ekS[kfj;ksa dk izfr}anh jktoa'k crk;kA mlds ckn ftrus\nHkh bfrgkldkjksa us ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k ds fo"k; esa fy;k gS mu lHkh us\nbl er dks egRo fn;k gSA ysfdu] okLrfodrk ;g gS fd v;k s\/ ;k d s\nxq I r lez k Vk s a d s jkto a' k d s iru d s ckn dUukS t d s ekS [ kjh\njkto a' k u s yxHkx ogh fLFkfr iz k Ir dj yh Fkh tk s xq I r\nlez k Vk s a dh FkhA NBh 'krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa ijorhZ xqIr vkSj iq";Hkwfr\njktoa'kksa dh fLFkfr NksVs&eksVs lkeUrksa tSlh gh FkhA v;ks\/;k ds bfrgkl\nds lEcU\/k esa fopkj djrs le; ;g ckr izeq[k :i ls dgh tk ldrh gS\nfd ekS[kjh jktoa'k ds x`goekZ ds jkT;dky rd dks'ky muds\n'kklukUrxZr cuk jgkA dqN fo}kuksa us ijorhZ xqIr 'kkldksa dks ex\/k ls\nmn~Hkwr gqvk ekuk gS ftlls ;g \/kkj.kk curh gS fd laHkor% dks'ky Hkh\nfdlh le; ijorhZ xqIrksa ds vUrxZr jgk gksxkA fdUrq ;gka ;g crk nsuk\nvko';d gS fd NBh 'krkCnh bZ0 esa ijorhZ xqIr jktoa'k jktLFkku ds\nekyo tuin dh LFkkuh; vkSj lkekU; 'kfDr FkhA vkfnR;lsu dk\nvQlk<+ vfHkys[k lkroha 'krkCnh esa fy[kok;k x;k Fkk ftl le; og\nex\/k dk ,d egRoiw.kZ 'kkld cu x;k FkkA mlus bl vfHkys[k esa vius\niwoZtksa dk fooj.k fn;k gS ftlesa vius iwoZ ds lkr jktkvksa dk mYys[k\nfd;k gSA vkfnR;lsu dk vQlkk x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHkys[k esa\nvkfnR;lsu vius iwoZtksa dks lk\/kkj.k ^u`i* vFkok ^Jh* vkfn uke ls gh\nvfHkfgr djrk gS ftlls muds lkekU; LFkkuh; 'kkld gksus dh ckr\nekuh tkuh pkfg,A dqN LFkkuksa ij mlds iwoZtksa ds ekS[kjh jktoa'k ds\nlkFk izfr}af}rk vkSj izfrLi\/kkZ dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA vQlkko fn;k gS fd dqekjxqIr us bZ'kkuoekZ ij izkIr fot; dh izlUurk esa\nnsorkvksa ds izfr d`rKrk Kkiu ds :i esa vkRenkg fd;k FkkA fdUrq bl\nizdkj ds fopkj gkL;kLin gSa D;ksafd fdlh Hkh fot; ds mijkar fot;h\njktk Lo;a dk vkRenkg ugha djrkA ,slk yxrk gS fd dqekjxqIr bl\n;q) esa ijkftr gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k mls vkRegR;k djuh iM+hA\nblds ckn ds 'yksdksa esa dqekjxqIr ds iq= nkeksnjxqIr ds fo\"k; esa dgk\nx;k gS fd og ekS[kfj;ksa ds ;q) esa gw.kksa dh xtlsuk dks fo?kfVr djrs\ngq, ewfNZr gks x;k Fkk \u00bcekjk x;k Fkk\u00bd rFkk mldh uhan LoxZ esa tkdj\nlqjo\/kqvksa ds dj&Li'kZ ls [kqyhA bl 'yksd dk vFkZ Q~yhV us bl izdkj\nfd;k gS ^;q) esa \u00bcdqpydj ekj Mkyus ds mn~ns'; ls\u00bd gw.kksa dh lsukvksa\ndks m[kkM+ Qsad nsus okys ekS[kjh ds vkxs cydrk gS fd ;g ;q)\nHkh ekS[kfj;ksa vkSj ijorhZ xqIrksa ds chp gqvk FkkA ysfdu okLro esa ,slk\nyxrk gS fd bZ'kkuoekZ ls ;q) esa dqekjxqIr ds ijkftr gksus ds ckn\nnkeksnjxqIr dks ekS[kfj;ksa dh v\/khurk Lohdkj djuh iM+h Fkh vkSj\nbZ'kkuoekZ vFkok mlds mRrjkf\/kdkjh ds lkFk gw.kksa ds ;q) esa nkeksnjxqIr\n,d lkeUr ds :i esa yM+rs gq, ekjk x;k FkkA blesa xtlsuk dk tks\nmYys[k vk;k gS og gw.kksa dh xtlsuk dk yxrk gS] vkSj ;q) gw.kksa vkSj\nekS[kfj;ksa ds chp yM+k x;k FkkA bldk ladsr gesa tkSuiqj ds bZ'ojoekZ\nds ik\"kk.k ys[k esa feyrk gS ftlesa ^\/kkjkekxZfofuxZrkfXudf.kdk* dk\nmYys[k vk;k gSA ;g laHkor% gw.k vkdze.k dk gh mYys[k gSA\n       ekS [ kjh jkto a' k dk 'kklu bl {k s= ij de&l s& de\nvofUroekZ vkS j mld s iq = x` g oekZ d s le; rd pykA\nbfrgkldkjk s a dk , sl k vuq e ku gS fd g\"kZ o \/kZ u u s x` g oekZ\ndh gR;k d s ckn dUukS t dk 'kklu Lo; a l aH kky fy;k Fkk\nvkS j bl iz d kj dUukS t d s ekS [ kfj;k s a dk o a' k lekIr gk s\n                                                                     4071\nx;k FkkA g~osulkax us Hkh ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd 'k=qvksa dk neu\ndjus ds ckn dUukSt ds eaf=;ksa us g\"kZ ls dUukSt dk 'kklu laHkkyus dk\nvuqjks\/k fd;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr g\"kZ dh fot;ksa vkSj dke:e ds\n'kkld HkkLdjoekZ ds lkFk g\"kZ ds nkSR; lEcU\/k dh ckr dks \/;ku esa\nj[krs gq, ;g Lohdkj djuk iM + s x k fd dq N le; d s fy,\nv;k s\/ ;k rFkk dk s' ky {k s= Hkh] g\"kZ d s lkez k T; dk v ax cu\nx;k FkkA ;g Hkh laHko gS fd g\"kZ us dUukSt dks dsoy viuh\nxfrfof\/k;ksa dk dsUnz ek= cuk;k gksA ysfdu] ekS[kjh jktoa'k dk fouk'k\ngks x;k Fkk ;g Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ukyUnk ls izkIr ,d eqgj\nesa vofUroekZ ds iq= ds uke dk mYys[k gqvk gS ftlds uke dk dsoy\nizFke v{kj ^lq* iko fn;k gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd bl eqgj esa\nvofUroekZ ds iq= x`goekZ dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA cgqr laHko gS fd\nx`goekZ ds ckn vofUroekZ ds nwljs iq= ^lq* us jkT; fd;k gksA\nvk;ZeqtqJhewydYi esa ^x`g* ds ckn ^lqoz* ds 'kkld gksus dh ckr dgh\nxbZ gSA ^lq* ds ckn ekS[kjh jktoa'k dk bfrgkl iqufuZfeZr djuk dfBu\ndk;Z gSA dqN fo}kuksa us iw.kZoekZ dks ekS[kjh jktk ekuk gS rFkk g~osulkax\nHkh mls v'kksdjkt dk vafre mRrjkf\/kdkjh ekurk gSA iw.kZoekZ ;k rks\nex\/k dk Lora= 'kkld Fkk vFkok ekS[kjh oa'k dk dksbZ mRrjkf\/kdkjh FkkA\n630 bZ 0 e s a ukyUnk dh ;k=k dju s oky s g~ o su lk ax u s\ni w. kZ o ekZ dk s i wo Z d ky dk jktk crk;k gS A dqN fo}kuksa us ;g Hkh\nlq>ko fn;k gS fd iw.kZoekZ g\"kZ }kjk fu;qDr ex\/k dk 'kkld Fkk vkSj\nmldh e`R;q ds mijkar gh ek\/koxqIr g\"kZ }kjk ex\/k dk 'kkld fu;qDr\nfd;k x;kA blh ek\/koxqIr dk iq= vkfnR;lsu Fkk ftlus vQlkko fn;k gS fd HkksxoekZ us dUukSt ij vf\/kdkj\ndj fy;k Fkk rFkk blh dkj.k vkfnR;lsu us mlls viuh iq=h dk fookg\ndj fn;kA mUgksaus ;gka rd dgk gS fd HkksxoekZ vkfnR;lsu dk lkeUr\njgk gksxkA fdUrq ;s nksuksa ckrsa dkYifud yxrh gSaA\n       blh lUnHkZ esa dUukSt ds ;'kksoekZ dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk\nldrk gS ftldk o.kZu okDifrjkt ds izkd`r dkO; xkSM+ogkSa esa fd;k\nx;k gSA ;'kksoekZ dk ,d ik\"kk.k vfHkys[k ukyUnk ls izkIr gqvk gSA ;g\nvfHkys[k okLro esa ;FkksoekZ ds ,d ea=h] ekykn ds }kjk fy[kok;k x;k\nFkk ftlesa jktk ds ckjs esa dqN fo'ks\"k ugha dgk x;k gS] flok; blds fd\nog mnkj vkSj lnk'k; jktk FkkA rFkk vusd ;q)ksa dk fotsrk FkkA blds\nvfrfjDr ;'kksoekZ uke okys dqN flDds Hkh izkIr gq, gSa tks blh jktk ds\ncrk, x, gSaA fdUrq bl lEcU\/k esa fo}kuksa us 'kadk O;Dr dh gS]\nD;ksafd ;s flDds d'ehj vkSj iatkc ls izkIr gq, gSa vkSj b.Mks&lhfFk;u\nizdkj ds gSa ftudks nqyZHkd izrkikfnR; f}rh; \u00bc700bZ0\u00bd rFkk t;kihM+\nfou;kfnR; \u00bc772 bZ0\u00bd ds chp j[kk x;k gSA ysfdu bl dky esa d'ehj esa\nbl uke dk dksbZ vU; jktk u gksus ds dkj.k ;s flDds dUukSt\nds ;'kksoekZ ds ekus tk ldrs gSaA\n       ;'kk so ekZ dk s bl dkO; e s a pUnz o a' k e s a mRiUu jktk\ncrk;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh                 dgk x;k gS fd mldh\njkt\/kkuh dUukS t e s a Fkh ftld s dkj.k fo}kuk s a u s ;g\nLohdkj fd;k fd ;g ;'kk so ekZ ekS [ kjh o a' k dk gk s ldrk\ngS A y sf du ekS [ kjh o a' k pUnz o a' kh; ugh a FkkA blds vfrfjDr\noeZu uke Hkh dsoy ekS[kjh jktoa'k esa izpfyr jgk gks] ;g ckr Hkh ugha\ngSA v;ks\/;k ds bfrgkl dh n`f\"V ls ;g ckr mYys[kuh; gS fd ;'kksoekZ\nus gfj'pUnz dh uxjh \u00bcgfjvan uvfj,s\u00bd esa ,d gh fnu e s a ,d e af nj\ndk fuekZ . k djok;k FkkA ;gk a gfj'pUnz uxjh l s v;k s\/ ;k\ndk rkRi;Z gS A laHkor% dUukSt ds ;'kksoekZ us viuh fnfXot; ds\nnkSjku ;g dk;Z fd;k FkkA okdifrjkt d s bl xz aF k dk le;\n735 bZ 0 ekuk tkrk gS A\n                                                                   4073\n       bZlk dh lkroha 'krkCnh esa v;ks\/;k ds bfrgkl ds lEcU\/k esa dksbZ\nvU; lkfgfR;d vFkok vfHkysf[kd lk{; miyC\/k ugha gSA NBh 'krkCnh\nds vUr esa vFkok lkroha 'krkCnh ds izkjfEHkd o\"kksZa esa] ,d ,slh ?kVuk\n?kV xbZ ftlds dkj.k ekS[kfj;ksa ds iz'kklu ij dqN le; ds fy, xzg.k\nyx x;kA ekS[kjh lezkV x`goekZ dk fookg iq\";Hkwfr oa'k ds jktk\nizHkkdjo\/kZu dh iq=h jkT;Jh ls gqvk FkkA ekyok ds jktk nsoxqIr vkSj\nxkSM+ ds jktk 'k'kkad us ekS[kjh oa'k dh jkt\/kkuh dUukSt ij vkdze.k\ndjds x`goekZ dks ekj fn;k rFkk mldh jkuh jkT;Jh dks ogha ds\ndkjkxkj esa Mky fn;kA ck.k ds g\"kZpfjr ls ;g tkudkjh feyrh gS fd\nbldh lwpuk feyus ij Fkkus'oj ls jkT;o\/kZu ,d lsuk ysdj ekS[kjh oa'k\nds 'k=qvksa ls yM+us ds fy, fudyk ysfdu og Lo;a 'k=qvksa ds\nfo'okl?kkr ds dkj.k ekjk x;kA bldh lwpuk feyus ij g\"kZ us 'k=qvksa\ndks ijkLr djus dk fu'p; fd;kA blh chp esa jkT;Jh dkjkxkj ls\nfudydj foU\/; ds taxyksa esa pyh xbZ FkhA g\"kZ ls mldh HksaV ogha ij\ngksrh gSA g\"kZpfjr dh dgkuh ;gha ij lekIr gks tkrh gSA ysfdu\nphuh ;k=h g~ o su lk ax u s bld s vkx s Hkh fooj.k fn;k gS\nD;k s af d og yxHkx 636 l s 640 bZ 0 d s chp g\"kZ d s lkFk\nmldh jkt\/kkuh dUukS t e s a jgk FkkA blds lkFk og ;g Hkh\nlwpuk nsrk gS fd dUukSt ds eaf=;ksa us ;g fuosnu fd;k Fkk fd og\ndUukSt dk jkT;Hkkj laHkky ysA g\"kZ d s 'kklu dk iz k jEHk 606\nbZ 0 e s a ekuk tkrk gS vkS j bld s yxHkx rhl o\"kk sZ a d s ckn\ng~ o su lk ax u s mld s njckj e s a igq ap rk gS A bl iz d kj ;g\nle; g\"kZ d s 'kkludky dk lokZ f \/kd egRoi w. kZ vkS j oS H ko\ndk ;q x FkkA , sl h fLFkfr e s a ;fn g~ o su lk ax g\"kZ dh fot;k s a\nl s rFkk mld s iz H kko l s iz H kkfor gk sd j ml s dUukS t dk\n'kkld ekurk gS rk s bl s vLokHkkfod ugh a dgk tk ldrkA\nysfdu ge ;g Hkh ugha eku ldrs fd ekS[kjh oa'k lekIr gks x;k Fkk\nvkSj mlds \/oa'kko'ks\"k ij g\"kZ us viuk lkezkT; fuekZ.k fd;k FkkA g\"kZ ds\nckn iq\";Hkwfr oa'k dk D;k gqvk blds fo\"k; esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha\nfeyrhA ysfdu fofHkUu lzksrksa ls ge ;g tkurs gSa fd ekS[kjh jktoa'k\nlkroha vkSj vkBoha 'krkfCn;ksa esa Hkh thfor jgkA bl vk\/kkj ij ;g dgk\ntk ldrk gS fd lkroha 'krkCnh ds iwokZ)Z esa g\"kZ dk mn; ,d\n                                                                      4074\nvkdfLed ?kVuk Fkh vkSj mlds ckn iqu% mRrj Hkkjr dh jktuhfr viuh\nLokHkkfod fLFkfr esa vk xbZA ,slk yxrk gS fd g\"kZ us ekyok ds ijorhZ\nxqIr jktoa'k ds ek\/koxqIr dks ex\/k esa LFkkfir fd;k Fkk vkSj bl izdkj\nekS[kfj;ksa dks ex\/k ij ls viuk vf\/kdkj NksM+uk iM+k gksxkA blds\nckotwn dks'ky dk {ks= ekS[kfj;ksa ds gh 'kklukUrxZr jgkA bls ekuus esa\ndksbZ dfBukbZ ugha gksuh pkfg,A\ng\"kZ ,o a ijorhZ xq I rk s a dk dky\nlkroha 'krkCnh ds iwokZ)Z esa dksly {ks= esa Hkh g\"kZo\/kZu dk 'kklu Fkk\nbldh iq f \"V QS t kckn d s fudV fHkVkS j k l s iz k Ir ,d fuf\/k\nl s gk sr h gS A bl fuf\/k e s a 248 pk an h d s flDd s g\"kZ o \/kZ u d s\neku s tkr s gS a ftu ij ^^Jh'kynRr** \u00bcJh'khykfnR;\u00bd y s[ k\nmRdh.kZ gS A vkj0 cuZ u s bUg s a g\"kZ dk flDdk ekuk gS A MkW0\nn so g wf r Hkh bl s Lohdkj djrh gS aA\n       phuh ;k=h g~osulkax Hkh blh le; Hkkjr vk;k Fkk vkSj mlus bu\n{ks=ksa dh foLr`r ;k=k dh Fkh rFkk vius fooj.k ,d iqLrd ds :i esa\nfy[ks FksA ik'pkR; fo}kuk s a u s rFkk mud s vuq d j.k ij vu sd\nHkkjrh; bfrgkldkjk s a u s Hkh] g~ o su lk ax d s fooj.kk s a dk s\nlUn sg krhr < ax l s Lohdkj fd;k gS A ysfdu] g~osulkax ds lHkh\nfooj.k iw.kZ:i ls fo'oluh; ugha gSA lcls cM+h ckr rks ;g gS fd\nmlus vius fooj.kksa esa b\/kj&m\/kj ls lquh&lqukbZ ckrksa dks vR;f\/kd\nLFkku fn;k gSA ftlesa ,sfrgkfld rF;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vkuq"kkafxd\ndgkfu;ka] fo'ks"k :i ls ckS) \/keZ ls lEcfU\/kr] vf\/kd egRo ds lkFk\nmn~\/k`r dh xbZ gSA nwljh ckr ;g gS fd mldk n`f"Vdks.k ckS\/k \/keZ\nds ,d vuq;k;h HkDr dh Hkkafr Fkk ftlus izeq[k :i ls dsoy ckS) \/keZ\nls lEcfU\/kr LFkkuksa] Lekjdksa rFkk vo'ks"kksa dk fooj.k fn;k gSA vU; \/keksZ\nls lEcfU\/kr fooj.k cgqr la{ksi esa vkSj pyrk\u00c5 <ax ls fn, x, gSaA\nrhljh ckr ;g gS fd mld s }kjk fn; s x, HkkS x k sf yd\nfooj.k cgq r vf\/kd fo'oluh; ugh a gS aA rFkk n wf j;k s a d s\nfooj.k Hkh dHkh&dHkh vfo'oluh; yxr s gS A g~ o su lk ax u s\ndk s' ky l s lEcfU\/kr nk s LFkkuk s a dk fooj.k viu s ;k=k\no` r kUr e s a fn;k gS A igyk LFkku vk s& ;q & rk s dk gS ftl s]\nfooj.k dk s l ad fyr dju s okyk s a u s] v;k s\/ ;k ekuk gS rFkk\n                                                                    4075\nlHkh bfrgkldkjk s a u s bl fooj.k dk s v;k s\/ ;k dk gh fooj.k\nLohkdj fd;k gS A dUukSt ls uonsodqy \u00bcu&iks&fr&iks&dq&yks\u00bd dh\nnwjh ,d lkS yh crkrs gq, ogka ls nf{k.k&iwoZ dh fn'kk esa N% lkS yh\npydj xaxk ikj djus ds ckn og vks&;q&rks igqWaprk gSA mldk tks\n;k=k ekxZ gS mlds vuqlkj vks&;q&rks ls rhu lkS yh iwoZ tkus ds ckn\nxaxk ds mRrj esa og g;eq[k \u00bcvkS&f;&eq&f[k\u00bd igqWaprk gS vkSj ogka ls\nlkr lkS yh xaxk ds nf{k.k tkdj iz;kx \u00bciks&yks&,&fd;k\u00bd igqWaprk gSA\niz;kx ls ikap lkS yh pydj og dkS'kkEch igqWaprk gS rFkk dkS'kkEch ls\nlkr lkS yh mRrj pydj og dliqj \u00bcf'k&fd;k&f'k&vks&yks\u00bd igqWaprk gS\nvkSj ogka ls 170 vFkok 180 yh mRrj fn'kk esa fo'kk[k \u00bcfi&lks&fd;k\u00bd\ndh fLFkfr crkrk gSA bl fi&lk s& fd;k dk s dfu a? ke }kjk\nv;k s\/ ;k l s lerq f yr fd;k x;k gS D;k s af d v;k s\/ ;k dk ,d\nuke fo'kk[k Hkh FkkA\n       vc g~ o su lk ax d s v;k s\/ ;k \u00bcvk s& ;q & rk s\u00bd rFkk fo'kk[k\n\u00bcfi&lk s& fd;k\u00bd dh igpku d s lEcU\/k e s a Hkz e mRiUu gk su k\nLokHkkfod gS D;k s af d v;k s\/ ;k \u00bc\\\u00bd l s og fo'kk[k igq W ap u s d s\nfy, ftl V s< + s & e s wW lh\nl s iz k Ir gk su s oky s ,d vfHky s[ k e s a jkT;iky d s iq =\nf=yk sp uiky dk s ^ijeHkV~ V kjd egkjktkf\/kjkt ije s' oj*\ndgk x;k gS A ysfdu f=ykspuiky dk fdruk jktuhfrd egRo\nFkk] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrkA 1019 bZ0 esa egewn ds vkdze.k esa\nf=ykspuiky us Hkh dkQh ohjrk fn[kk;h fdUrq og ijkftr gks x;kA\nf=ykspuiky ds ckn ;'k%iky uked ,d vU; izfrgkj 'kkld dk uke\nfeyrk gS ftls ^egkjktkf\/kjkt ;'k%iky* dgk x;k gS ysfdu ;g ugha\ndgk tk ldrk fd bl ;'kiky dk f=ykspuiky ls D;k laca\/k FkkA bl\niz d kj dUukS t d s xq t Z u &iz f rgkjk s a dk bZ l k dh X;kjgoh a\n'krkCnh d s i wo kZ ) Z e s a iru gk s x;k vkS j mudk LFkku\nxgM +o kyk s a u s y s fy;kA\n       izfrgkj dky esa tgka rd v;ks\/;k vkSj dks'ky ds bfrgkl dk\niz'u gS] ;g fu'p;iwoZd ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;g {ks= izfrgkj\njktkvksa ds lh\/ks iz'kklu ds vUrxZr Fkk vFkok muds fdlh lkeUr }kjk\niz'kkflr gks jgk FkkA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh fu'p; ds lkFk ugha dgk\ntk ldrk fd lEiw.kZ dks'ky izns'k ,d gh lkeUr vFkok vf\/kdkjh }kjk\niz'kkflr gksrk Fkk vFkok bl {ks= esa dbZ NksVs&eksVs lkeUr 'kklu dj jgs\nFksA HkkSxksfyd fudVrk dh n`f\"V ls ;g Lohdkj djus esa ladksp ugha\ngksuk pkfg, fd dks'ky lh\/ks xqtj&izfrgkj 'kkldksa ds vUrxZr FkkA\nxgM +o ky dky\n                                                                  4078\nv;k s\/ ;k d s bfrgkl dh n` f \"V l s xgM +o ky ;q x vR;f\/kd\negRoi w. kZ gS A ;|fi bl le; Hkh v;k s\/ ;k d s lEcU\/k e s a\nvf\/kd vkfHky sf [kd vFkok lkfgfR;d lk{; miyC\/k ugh a gS a\nfQj Hkh vu sd LFkyk s a ij , sl s mYy s[ k feyr s gS a ftul s\nv;k s\/ ;k d s bfrgkl ij Fkk sM +k cgq r iz d k'k iM +r k gS A\nxgM+oky 'kkld Lo;a dks dk'kh vkSj mRrj dksly vkfn rhFkksZa dk ikyu\ndjus okyk dgrs gSa vkSj mudk ;g dFku bl n`f\"V ls vkSj egRoiw.kZ gks\ntkrk gS fd bl ;qx esa if'pe ls eqfLye vkdze.k ckj&ckj gks jgs FksA\nvHkh gky gh esa 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks v;ks\/;k esa jke&tUeHkwfe LFky\nfLFkr <kaps dks fxjkrs le; mldh nhokyksa ds vUnj fpus x, iRFkj ds\nQyd ij mRdh.kZ chp iafDr;ksa dk ,d xgM+oky dkyhu vfHkys[k izkIr\ngqvk gSA blesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd if'pe ls vkus okyh Hkhfr \u00bcvkdze.kksa\u00bd\ndks izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k rFkk v;ks\/;k esa fo".kqgfj dk ,d fo'kky eafnj\ncuok;k x;kA bl izdkj v;ks\/;k xgM+oky jktoa'k ds 'kkludky esa\nmuds }kjk gh vkjf{kr jghA\n;'kk sf oxz g\nxgM+oky vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj] bl oa'k ds izFke iq#"k dk uke ;'kksfoxzg\nFkk tks pUnznso dk firkeg FkkA mlds fo"k; esa dgk x;k gS fd mlus\ni`Foh dks thrdj mls viuh n.Miz.kf;uh cuk;kA izk;% ;g ekuk tkrk\ngS fd ;'kk sf oxz g u s X;kjgoh a 'krkCnh bZ - d s e\/; e s a 'kklu\nfd;k FkkA fdlh vU; izek.k ds vHkko esa ;gh Hkh ekuk x;k gS fd\nmlu s yxHkx 25 o"kZ 'kklu fd;k gk sx kA\neghpUnz\n;'kksfoxzg dk iq= eghpUnz dk firk FkkA bldk o.kZu Hkh xgM+oky\nvfHkys[kksa esa lk\/kkj.k yd ugha feyrh fd fnYyh ij xgM+okyksa us 'kklu LFkkfir fd;k\ngks vkSj rksejksa dks vinLFk fd;k gksA fQj Hkh] pUnzkorh vfHkys[k esa\nmfYyf[kr bUnzLFkkuh;d dks ;fn fnYyh ekuk tk, rks ;gh Lohdkj\ndjuk iM+sxk fd pUnznso rqdksZa ds vkdze.k ds fo#) vfHk;ku djrs gq,\nfnYyh rd igqWapk gksxk vkSj mldh j{kk dh gksxhA\npUnznso us fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl foLr`r Hkw&Hkkx ij 'kklu izkjEHk\nfd;k] blds fo\"k; esa dqN ladsr egkjktiq= xksfoUnpUnz ds clkgh\nrkezi=kfHkys[k ls izkIr gksrk gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd Hkkst dh e`R;q\nds i'pkr~ rFkk d.kZ dh dhfrZ ds vo'ks\"k ds u\"V gksus ij tc i`Foh\ndfBukbZ esa iM+ xbZ Fkh rks pUnznso us mldh j{kk dhA pUnzkorh vfHkys[k\nesa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mlus vius mnkj izrki ls leLr iztksinzoksa\ndks 'kkUr djds xkf\/kiqj vkf\/kjkT; dks vftZr fd;k rFkk 'k=qvksa dks\nfo\/oLr dj fn;kA\n       olkgh nkui= y s[ k e s a mfYyf[kr Hkk st dh igpku\nHkk st ijekj l s dh xbZ gS ftlu s 1000 l s 1050 bZ 0 rd\n'kklu fd;k Fkk] rFkk d.kZ dh igpku dYpq f j 'kkld\ny{ehd.kZ l s dh xbZ gS ftlu s ;q ) e s a dbZ ckj ijkftr\ngk su s d s ckn viuk fl ag klu 1073 bZ 0 d s i wo Z viu s\n                                                                         4080\niq = ;'k%d.kZ d s fy, Nk sM + fn;k FkkA y{ehd.kZ dh ijkt;ksa ds\nckn vUrosZnh esa dksbZ 'kfDr'kkyh izfrjks\/k u jg tkus ds dkj.k rFkk\nif'pr ls eqlyekuksa ds fujarj gksus okys vkdze.kksa ds dkj.k iztktuksa esa\nHk; O;kIr gks x;k FkkA bldks 'kkUr djus dk Js; pUnznso dks izkIr\ngqvkA eq l yeku bfrgkldkjk s a d s mYy s[ kk s a l s ;g Kkr gk sr k\ngS fd ledkyhu xtuh d s lq Y rku bcz k fge u s \u00bc1059&99\nbZ 0 rd\u00bd Hkkjr ij dbZ ckj vkdz e .k fd, Fk sA gchcq f Ll;j\nuked      bfrgkl       y s[ kd   dk    ;g     dguk      gS    fd        ^mlu s\nfgUnq L rku ij dbZ ckj vkdz e .k fd;k vkS j gj ckj fot;h\ngk sd j xtuh ykS V kA* , sl s e s a le; e s a pUnz n so u s rq # \"d\nvkdz e .kk s a l s bu n so rhFkk sZ a dh lq j {kk dju s d s fy, rFkk\niz t k e s a O;kIr minz o k s a dk s 'kkUr dju s d s fy, 'kklu viu s\ngkFk e s a y s fy;kA\n       pUnznso ds 'kkludky ds pkj vfHkys[k miyC\/k gSa tks fodzeh\nlaor~ 1048] 1050] 1054 esa frF;kafdr gSaA pUnznso dks okjk.klh ls fnYyh\nrd ds {ks= dk Lokeh cuus ds fy, dbZ ;q) djus iM+s gksaxsA xgM+oky\nvfHkys[kksa esa 'k=q dks u\"V djus okyk \u00bcdzkUrf}\"kUe.My%\u00bd rFkk m}r\n;ks)kvksa ds }kjk QSyk, x, vU\/kdkj dks u\"V djus okyk\n\u00bcfo\/oLrks)r\/khj;ks\/kfrfej%\u00bd dgk x;k gSA pUnz k orh d s fodz e l ao r~\n1150 \u00bc1093 bZ 0 \u00bd oky s y s[ k e s a ml s ujifr] xtifr]\nfxfjifr rFkk f='k ad q i fr dk s thru s dk J s; fn;k x;k gS A\nbuds fo\"k; esa fu'p;iwoZd dqN fo'ks\"k ugha dgk tk ldrkA laHkor% ;g\ndYpqfj jktkvksa dh mikf\/k;ka Fkha vFkok ;s lkeUrksa ds dqN fo'ks\"k oxZ FksA\n       pUnznso dh lcls egRoiw.kZ miyfC\/k dkU;dqCt vFkok egksn; ij\nvf\/kdkj djuk jgk gSA dUukSt ekS[kjh dky ls gh vUrosZnh ij 'kklu\ndjus okys 'kfDr'kkyh lezkVksa dh jkt\/kkuh jgh gSA g\"kZ vkSj izfrgkj\nlezkV Hkh dUukSt ls 'kklu dj jgs FksA blh dkj.k izk;% lHkh\nvkf\/kdkfjd xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa dkU;dqCt dh fot; dks nks ckj\nlanfHkZr fd;k tkrk jgk gSA \u00bc^Jhen~xkf\/kiqjkf\/kjkT; leanksfoZdzes.k vftZr*\nrFkk   ^futHkqtksikftZr    Jh    dU;dqCtkf\/kiR;a\u00bdA     pUnznso     ds     ikS=\nxksfoUnpUnz }kjk vius firk enuiky ds 'kkludky esa egkjktiq=\nds :i esa fy[ok, x, clkgh vfHkys[k esa pUnznso ds fo\"k; esa ;g dgk\n                                                                   4081\nx;k gS fd mlu s dkU;dq C t dk s viuh jkt\/kkuh cuk;k\n\u00bcdkU;dqCtsnzktk jkt\/kkuhefuafnrke\u00bdA izk;% fo}kuksa us bl fo\"k; ij\nfopkj djus esa vf\/kd le; O;rhr fd;k gS fd xgM+okyksa dh jkt\/kkuh\ndUukSt esa Fkh vFkok okjk.klh es] vkSj bl izdkj dh laHkkouk,a O;Dr dh\ngSa fd igys dUukSt dks jkt\/kkuh cuk;k x;k vkSj ckn esa mls okjk.klh\nokil ys vk;k x;k D;ksafd fodze laor 1101 ds clkgh vfHkys[k esa\npUnznso ds }kjk dkU;dqCt dks jkt\/kkuh cukus dk mYys[k vkrk gS\ntcfd fodze laor 1162 ds dekSyh vfHkys[k esa bldk dksbZ mYys[k ugha\nfeyrk A ;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd ;s nk su k s a gh vfHky s[ k pUnz n so\ndh e` R ;k si jk ar mld s iq + = enuiky d s 'kkludky e s a\negkjktiq = xk sf oUnpUnz }kjk fy[kok, x, Fk sA ;g ,d\ngkL;kLin vuqeku ek+= gSA okzLro esa xgM+okyksa dh eq[; jkt\/kkuh\nokjk.klh gh jgh gksxh rFkk dkU;dqCt mudh f}rh; jkt\/kkuh ekuh tk\nldrh gS vkSj mldk dkj.k dkU;dqCt dks ijEijkxr jkt\/kkuh ds :i\nesa izkIr izfr\"Bk dks crk;k tk ldrk gSA ,slk yxrk gS fd dkU;dqCt esa\nml le; xkf\/kiqjkf\/kifr xksiky dk oa'kt lkeUr ds :i esa 'kklu dj\njgk Fkk vkSj le;\u2264 ij xgM+oky ujs'k dkU;dqCt esa Hkh jgrs jgs\ngksaxsA\n          dq N fo}kuk s a u s pUnz n so dh igpku ml pkW n jk; l s\ndju s      dh   dk sf 'k'k   dh   gS   ftld s   fo\"k;    e sa   eq f Lye\nbfrgkldkjk s a dk ;g dguk gS fd og xtuh d s 'kkldk s a dk\ngfLriky FkkA Mh0 lh0 xkaxqyh us bl ckr dk loZizFke mYys[k fd;k\ngS vkSj ;g dgus dh dksf'k'k dh gS fd pUnznso ewqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa\ndk gfLriky Fkk vkSj mudk djn jktk FkkA ;|fi ;g fl)kUr lansg ls\nijs ugha gS rFkk bldk [k.Mu Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gS fWQj Hkh] gS U l\nc sd j u s vHkh gky e s a gh bldh iq u :fDr dh gS A , sl k\nyxrk gS fd mUgk s a u s jk se k fu;k sx h }kjk fyf[kr xgM +o ky\njkto a' k d s bfrgkl dk s n s[ kk gh ugh aA\n          xkaxqyh us bl ?kVuk dks vius rdZ dk vk\/kkj cuk;k gS ftlds\nvuqlkj xkf\/kiqjkf\/kifr xksiky ds 'kkludky esa ,d ckj iqu% eqlyeku\nlsuk us vUrosZnh ij vkdze.k fd;k FkkA gchcqfLl;j ds vuqlkj bl\nvkdze.k dk usr~Ro bczkfge us Lo;a fd;k FkkA ysfdu lyeku ds vuqlkj\n                                                                    4082\nmldk iq= egewn bl lsuk dk usr`Ro dj jgk FkkA t;iky ds\nohjrkiwoZd izfrjks\/k ds ckotwn ijkt; ds ckn pkjks fn'kkvksa ls jktk\nyksx vehj ds fy, migkj ysdj vkus yxsA migkjksa esa brus vf\/kd gkFkh\nfeys fd lqYrku dks dkU;dqCt esa ,d gfLr'kkyk LFkkfir djuh iM+h\nvkSj pkWanjk; uked ,d O;fDr dks mldk gfLriky fu;qDr fd;k\nx;kA ;gka ij bl pkWanjk; dh igpku xgM+oky ujs'k pUnznso ls dh xbZ\nvkSj xkaxqyh }kjk ;g lq>ko fn;k x;k fd\n       ^^HkkX; dks pedkus ds fy, pUnznso us eqlyekuksa dk\n       lkFk Lohdkj fd;kA izkjEHk esa mlus egewn ds v\/khu\n       dUukSt esa gfLriky ds :i esa lsok djuk Lohdkj\n       fd;kA ysfdu eqfLye lsuk ds izLFkku ds rqjUr ckn\n       mlus cyiwoZd dUukSt ij vf\/kdkj dj fy;k vkSj ns'k\n       dk 'kkld cu x;k - - - - A pUnznso us dUukSt dh\n       jkT;lRrk egewn ds leFkZu ls bl 'krZ ij izkIr dh Fkh\n       fd og xtuh ds lqYrku dks okf\"kZd dj nsxkA ckjgoha\n       'krkCnh esa eqlyekuksa us xgM+oky izns'kksa ij ckj&ckj\n       vkdze.k fd,A Li\"Vr% ;s geys pUnznso ds oa'ktks dks\n       lqYrku dks cjkcj dj nsus dks ck\/; djus ds fy, fd,\n       tkrs FksA**\njksek fu;ksxh us Mk0lh0 xkaxqyh }kjk pUnznso xgM+oky dh igpku\npkWanjk; ls fd, tkus dh vkykspuk dh gS D;ksafd ;g dbZ izdkj ls\niwoZvo\/kkj.kkvksa ij vk\/kkfjr gSA lcls igyh ckr ;g gS fd gfLriky\npkWanjk; ds \u00c5ij fdlh izdkj ds dj dk fu\/kkZj.k fd;k x;k Fkk] bl\nckr dh lwpuk nhoku&,&lyeku gchcqfLl;j vFkok tehmRrokjh[k esa\nugha nh xbZ gSA nwljh ckr ;g gS fd xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa lanfHkZr\n^rq:\"d n.M* uked dj dh izd`fr ds fo\"k; esa dksbZ Li\"V tkudkjh ugha\ngS ysfdu ;gka ;g eku fy;k x;k gS fd xgM+oky jktk viuh iztk ls\n^rq:\"d n.M* blfy, olwy djrs Fks fd xtuh ds 'kkldksa dks dj ns\nldsaA rhljh ckr ;g gS fd xgM+okyksa ds jkT; {ks= eas rqdksZ ds fujarj\nvkdze.k muls dj olwyus ds fy, gksrs Fks bldk Hkh dksbZ eqfLye vFkok\nHkkjrh; izek.k ugha feyrkA ml dky esa eqfLye vkdze.k izk;% lHkh fgUnw\njktkvksa ij gksrs Fks vkSj mUgsa dsoy xgM+okyksa ij gq, vkdze.k ds lanHkZ\n                                                                        4083\nesa ugha ns[kk tkuk pkfg,A nhoku&,&lyeku e s a eq l yekuk s a d s\nxgM +o ky {k s= ij gk su s oky s vkdz e .k dk foLrkj l s mYy s[ k\nfd;k x;k gS y sf du mle s a ;g dgh a ugh a dgk x;k fd ;g\nvkdz e .k pkW an jk; d s o a' ktk s a l s dj ol wy u s d s fy, fd;k\nx;k FkkA okLrfodrk rks ;g gS fd nhoku esa pkWnjk; dks dUukSt dh\ngfLr'kkyk dks gfLriky fu;qDr djus ds mYys[k ds ckn mlds thou ds\nfo\"k; esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u ;g dgk\nx;k gS fd mlus dUukSt ij tcjnLrh dCtk dj fy;k Fkk vFkok dj\nolwyus ds fy, xtuh dh lsuk,a pkWanjk; ij vkdze.k djrh FkhaA bu\ndkj.kksa ls pkWanjk; dh igpku pUnznso ls ugha dh tk ldrhA ;gk a ;g\nLej.kh; gS fd pUnz n so d s firk vkS j firkeg nk su k s a gh\n^u` i * dg s x, gS a rFkk iz k ;% lHkh fo}ku Lohdkj djr s gS a\nfd okjk.klh rFkk v;k s\/ ;k d s {k s= e s pUnz n so d s firk vkS j\nfirkeg nk su k s a gh ^u` i * dg s x, gS a rFkk iz k ;% lHkh fo}ku\nLohdkj djr s gS fd okjk.klh rFkk v;k s\/ ;k d s {k s= e s a\npUnz n so d s i wo Ztk s a dk igy s l s jktuhfrd vfLrRo jgk\ngk sx kA bl izdkj pUnznso dh igpku pkWanjk; ls ugha dh tk ldrh\nftlus eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa ls gfLriky dh ukSdjh Lohdkj dh\nFkhA ;g pkWanjk; dksbZ lkekU; O;fDr jgk gksxkA nwljh vksj pUnznso\nizkjEHk ls gh eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa ds vkdze.kksa dk mRrj nsus ds fy,\nbfrgkl esa tkuk tkrk gSA\n       fodz e l ao r 1150 d s vkf'ou onh 15 jfookj]\nrnuq l kj 23 vDV wc j 1093 dh frfFk e s a v af dr pUnz n so d s\npUnz k orh rkez i =kfHky s[ k e s a v;k s\/ ;k dk dq N mYy s[ k feyrk\ngS A pUnz n so u s v;k s\/ ;k e s a fo\".kq g fj d s e af nj e s a vu sd lk su s\nd s vy ad j.k djok, rFkk dk'kh e s a vkfnd s' ko dh iz f rek\niz f r\"Bkfir djkbZ A blds vfrfjDr mRrj dksly fLFkr v;ks\/;k esa\nmlus ladYiiwoZd \u00bcd`rfu'pS\u00bd Hkwfenku fn;kA ;g dk;Z vkf'ou ekl dh\nvekoL;k dks fd;k x;k Fkk tks jfookj gksus ds lkFk&lkFk lw;Zxzg.k dk\nHkh volj FkkA mYys[kuh; gS fd blds nwljs fnu ls 'kkjnh; uojk= dk\nizkjEHk gksrk gSA bl volj ij pUnznso us lj;w ?k?kZjk unh ds rV ij\nfLFkr LoxZ}kjk uked rhFkZ ij Luku fd;k \u00bclj;w?k?kZjk?ke\"kZ.ks\n                                                                            4084\nLoXxZ}kjukfEu rhFksZ LukRok\u00bdA rnksijkUr lw;Z dh mikluk dh\n\u00bcm\".kjksfp\"keqiLFkk;\u00bd]   fQj     mlus     Hkxoku     f'ko dh       vpZuk     dh\n\u00bcvks\"k\/khifr'kdy'ks[kja leH;P;Z\u00bd] fQj rhu yksdksa ds Lokeh j{kd oklqnso\ndh iwtk djds \u00bcHkxorfL=Hkqou=krqOokZlqnsoL; iwtka fo\/kk;\u00bd gou djus ds\ni'pkr~ \u00bcizpqjik;lsu gfo\"kk gfoHkqZta gqRok\u00bd] mlus firjksa dk fi.Mnku\nfd;k \u00bcfir`fi.M;Kf=OoZR;Z\u00bdA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnznso us nku\nnsus ds iwoZ \u00c5ij mfYyf[kr tks \/kkfeZd fo\/kku fd, oSls gh \/kkfeZd\nfof\/k&fo\/ku mlds oa'ktksa xksfoUnpUnz vkfn ds vfHkys[kksa esa Hkh fd, tkus\ndk mYys[k feyrk gSA bl dkj.k ;g le>uk mfpr ugha gksxk fd\nv;ks\/;k esa nku nsrs le; pUnznso us dksbZ fo'ks\"k izfdz;k viukbZ FkhA**\n        pUnz n so d s mijk sD r rkez i = l s ;g Kkr gk sr k gS fd\nde&l s& de LoxZ } kj uke dk rhFkZ xgM +o ky ;q x e s a Hkh\nvfLrRo e s a FkkA bll s ;g Hkh Kkr gk sr k gS fd lj; w ml\nle; Hkh lj; w ?k?kZ j k uke l s iz p fyr FkhA fnus'k pUnz ljdkj\ndk ;g er leFkZuh; ugha gS fd v;ks\/;k LoxZ}kj rhFkZ lj;w vkSj ?kk?kjk\nds laxe ij fLFkr FkkA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd lj;w&?kk?kjk uke ml\nunh dk gS ftlds fdukjs v;ks\/;k uxj clk gqvk gSA lj;w dks lj;w&?\nk?kZjk uke D;ksa feyk blds fo\"k; esa ge igys v\/;k; esa fopkj dj pqds\ngSaA\n        bl vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr ugha gksrk fd pUnznso \u00bcpUnzkfnR;nso\u00bd us\nf'ko vkSj oklqnso dh iwtk fdu efUnjksa esa atkdj dh FkhA y sf du bl\nvfHky s[ k d s vkBo s a 'yk sd e s a ;g mYy s[ k fd;k x;k gS fd\npUnz n so u s ef.k;k s a l s tM + s gq , lk su s d s vkHk w\" k.k v;k s\/ ;k e s a\nfo\".kq g fj d s e af nj e s a p< +k , rFkk dk'kh e s a vkfnd s' ko dh\niz f rek dk s Hkh Lo.kZ j Ruk s a d s vkHk w" k.k s a l s foHk wf "kr fd;kA\nbl iz d kj pUnz n so d s le; e s a v;k s\/ ;k e s a fo".kq g fj d s\ne af nj d s vfLrRo e s a gk su s dk fu'p; gk sr k gS A ckn e s a\nxkfoUnpUnz d s dky e s a mld s iq u fuZ e kZ . k dk mYy s[ k 1992\ne s a iz k Ir v;k s\/ ;k vfHky s[ k e s a feyrk gS ftll s ;g Li"V\ngk sr k gS fd fo".kq g fj dk e af nj tUeLFkku efUnj gh FkkA\nenuiky n so\npUnznso ds i'pkr~ mldk iq= enuiky flagklu:<+ gqvkA pUnznso ds\n                                                                 4085\n'kkludky dk vfUre           vfHky s[ k   1156    fodz e   l ao r~   e sa\nfrF;k af dr gS \u00bc1100 bZ0\u00bd vkSj enuiky ds 'kklu dky dk igyk\nvfHkys[k 1161 laor~ \u00bc1103 bZ0\u00bd esa frF;kafdr gSA bl dkj.k ;g ekuk\ntkrk gS fd enuiky 1100 vkSj 1103 bZ0 ds chp esa fdlh le;\n'kkluk:<+ gqvk FkkA ysfdu lcls mYys[kuh; ckr ;g gS fd 1103 bZ0\nesa tkjh fd;k x;k clkgh dk rkezi=kfHkys[k enuiky ds iq= xksfoUnpUnz\nds }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mlh izdkj laor~ 1154 \u00bc1097 bZ0\u00bd esa tkjh\nfd;k x;k caxky ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh dk rkezr=kfHkys[k enuiky ds }\nkjk vius firk ds thoudky esa fy[kok;k x;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa\nenuiky dks leLr jktdh; mikf\/k;ksa ls mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS\n\u00bcJhpUnznsoiknkuq\/;kr ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf\/kjktijes'oj ijeekgs'oj\nJheUenuiky nso\u00bdA blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd enuiky dk jkT;kfHk"ksd\npUnznso ds thoudky esa gh 1097 bZ0 ds igys gh gks pqdk FkkA ;|\nfi ;g nku pUnznso us gh fd;k Fkk fdUrq bldk izdk'ku enuiky us\nviuh eqnzk ls djok;k Fkk vkSj fucfU\/kr djok;k FkkA ,slk yxrk gS fd\npUnznso dkQh o`) gks pqdk Fkk vkSj bl dkj.k vius thoudky esa gh\nmlus vius iq= dks jkT;kfHkf"kDr djok fn;k FkkA pUnznso bl vfHkys[k\nds de&ls&de nks o"kZ ds ckn rd Hkh thfor jgkA bldk izek.k mlds\npUnzkorh rkezi=kfHkys[k ls izkIr gksrk gS tks fodze laor~ 1156 \u00bc1100\nbZ0\u00bd esa frF;kafdr gSA\n       enuikynso ds 'kkludky ls dqy N% vfHkys[k izdk'k esa vk, gSa\nftlesa caxky ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh dk \u00c5ij mfYyf[kr rkezi=kfHkys[k]\nmlus vius firk ds thoudky esa izpfyr djok;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr\nmldk fodze laor~ 1164 esa izdkf'kr cM+sjk rkezi=kfHkys[k ek= ,slk\nvfHkys[k gS tks mlds }kjk vdsys uke ij tkjh djok;k x;k FkkA blds\nvfrfjDr rhu vU; rkezi=kfHkys[k enuiky ds 'kkludky esa izpkfjr\nfd, x, vkSj ;s rhuksa gh jktiq= xksfoUnpUnz   ds }kjk fy[kok, x, FksA\nclkgh ds rkezi=kfHkys[k esa mls jktiq= rks dgk gh x;k gS lkFkh gh\njktkvksa dk fryd Hkh dgk x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fodze laor~ 1066\nesa frF;kafdr jkbu rkezi=kfHkys[k esa Hkh mls egkjktiq= dgk x;k gSA\nenuiky ds dky dk NBk nkui= fodze laor 1164 dk crk;k tkrk gS\nftlesa egkjkuh i`FohJhdk ds nku dk mYys[k gSA bls ^Vsjh,.M dEiuh*\n                                                                     4086\ndk vfHkys[k dgk x;k gS ysfdu vc ;g miyC\/k ugha gSA Jh csatky us\ntuZy vkQ+ jkW;y ,f'k;kfVd lkslkbVh \u00bc1866\u00bd esa bldk ftdz djrs\ngq, ;g fy[kk gS fd bldh Hkk"kk fodze laor~ 1162 ds dekSyh nkui=\nls feyrh&tqyrh gS vkSj laHkor% bls Hkh xksfoUnpUnz us izpfyr djok;k\ngksxkA\n         izkjEHk esa dsoy os gh pkj rkezi=kfHkys[k miyC\/k Fks ftudks\negkjktiq= xksfoUnpUnz us mRdh.kZ djok;k FkkA blds dkj.k fo}kuksa\nesa ;g \/kkj.kk cyorh gqbZ fd laHkor% enuiky us 'kklu gh ugha fd;k\nFkkA vkSj bl dkj.k ;g vuqeku yxk;k x;k fd og chekj ;k v'kDr\nFkkA vr% 'kklu&lw= jktiq= xksfoUnpUnz dks laHkkyuk iM+k rFkk clkgh\nnkui= esa mfYyf[kr iqjksfgr tkxqd] egRrd ckYgu rFkk izfrgkj xkSre\nds leFkZu ls nkui= fuxZr fd, tkus yxs FksA vkSj laHkor% 'kklu izcU\/k\nds fy, ;qojkt] jkuh jkYgknsoh rFkk iqjksfgr izfrgkj vkSj egRrd\ndh ,d lfefr cuokbZ xbZ FkhA y sf du cM sj k dk rkez i =kfHky s[ k\n1926 e s a iz k Ir gq v k rFkk 1941 e s a iz d kf'kr gq v k ftll s ;g\nfuf'pr       eku s   tku s   yxk     fd     ijeHkV~ V kjd]      ije s' oj]\nijekekg s' oj Jheku~ enuikyn so u s okLro e s a 'kklu fd;k\nFkkA ysfdu vk'p;Z dh ckr ;g gS fd fdlh dk \/;ku caxky\n,f'k;kfVd lkslkBVh ds ml rkezi=kfHkys[k dh vksj ugha x;k ftlesa\nenuiky dks mu leLr jktdh; mikf\/k;ksa ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS\nftldk mYys[k ge igys dj vk, gSA bl izdkj ;g fu'p;iwoZd dgk\ntk ldrk gS fd enuiky us Hkh dkQh yEcs le; rd 'kklu fd;k\ngksxk vkSj vius firk ds thoudky esa gh mldk jkT;kfHk"ksd djk fn;k\nx;k gksxkA mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnznso ds dkQh yEcs le; rd thfor\njgk gksus ds dkj.k mldk iq= enuiky izkSko dk fojks\/k djrh gSa fd ;g eYgh fodze laor~ 1176\nesa tkjh fd, x, nkui= dk enu jgk gksxkA muds vuqlkj] eYgh dks\nfgUn dk 'kkld dgk x;k gS rFkk dkU;dqCt dks fgUn dh jkt\/kkuh\ncrk;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k ijkftr jktk Lo;a xgM+oky 'kkld jgk\ngksxkA bl dkj.k ijkftr jktk Lo;a xgM+oky 'kkld jgk gksxkA bl\nizdkj os ;g ifj.kke fudkyrh gSa fd fodze laor~ 1161&62 esa xtuh ds\nlqYrku elwn r`rh; dh lsuk dk uwr`Ro djrs gq, gkftc rq?kkrxhu\ndkU;dqCt rd p<+ vk;k vkSj ;fn dfo lyeku ij fo'okl fd;k tk,\nrks mlus xgM+oky jktk enuiky dks cUnh cuk fy;k rFkk izR;iZ.k jkf'k\nikus ds ckn NksM+kA\n       ;gka ij jksek fu;ksxh ds mijksDr fl)kUr esa dbZ dfe;ka gSa tks\ngekjk \/;ku vkd`"V djrh gSaA clkgh ds nkui=kfHkys[k esa pUnznso ds\nfo"k; esa tks ;g dgk x;k gS fd mlus dkU;dqCt dks viuh jkt\/kkuh\ncuk;k og fdlh nwljs lanHkZ esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A okLro\nesa leLr xgM+oky ys[kksa esa pUnznso dk o.kZu djrs le; ;g mYys[k\nfeyrk gS fd mlus vius ckgqfodze ls dkU;dqCt dk jkT; izkIr fd;kA\nclkgh nkui= ys[k esa blh ckr dk mYys[k Bhd mlh LFkku ij ;g\ndgdj fd;k x;k gS fd mlus dkU;dqCt dks viuh jkt\/kkuh\ncuk;kA ;g ,d lkekU; mYys[k fofHkUu izdkj dh 'kCn&jpuk esa u,\n'yksd ds :i esa clkgh nkui= esa vkrk gSA blds vk\/kkj ij vuqeku\n                                                                  4089\nyxkuk fd dekSyh vfHkys[k esa jkt\/kkuh 'kCn ugha vkrk blfy,\ndkU;dqCt jkt\/kkuh ds :i esa xgM+okyksa ls fNu x;k Fkk] iafDr;ksa ds\nchp esa i<+us dk iz;kl dgk tk,xkA okLro esa dekSyh nkui= ys[k ds\nckn ds fdlh Hkh xgM+oky vfHkys[k esa dkU;dqCt ds jkt\/kkuh gksus dk\nmYys[k ugha vkrk] rks D;k bldk ;g vFkZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd ckn\nesa fQj dHkh dUukSt xgM+okyksa dh jkt\/kkuh ugha cu ldk\\\n        nwljh ckr eYgh dh igpku enuiky ls djus ls lEcfU\/kr gSA\nfdlh Hkh Hkk"kk&'kkL=h; n`f"Vdks.k ls enu dk viHkazs'k eYgh ugha cuk;k\ntk ldrkA ;fn eYgh ds lehi dksbZ uke vkrk gS rks og pUnznso ds\nfirk eghpUnz dk uke gks ldrk gS ftldk nwljk :i egh;y ;k\neghry vkfn ys[kksa esa izkIr gksrk gSA ----\nxk sf oUnpUnz\n;|fi xksfoUnpUnz us vius firk ds thoudky esa gh 'kklu&lw= laHkky\nfy;k Fkk rFkk mldks Hkh ,d ;qojkt ds :i esa egRoiw.kZ vf\/kdkj izkIr\nFks ysfdu og vius firk dh Hkkafr vius firk ds thoudky esa jktin\nij vfHkf"kDr ugha gqvk FkkA mldk firkeg pUnznso yEch vk;q rd\nthfor jgkA bl dkj.k mldk firk dkQh izkSxM+ksa esa O;Lr jgs fQj Hkh] Hkkjr\nHkwfe ij ykgkSj esa dsUnz LFkkfir djds ;s vkUrfjd Hkkxksa ij ckj&ckj\nvkdze.k djrs jgsA bu vkdze.kksa dh izd`fr eq[; :i ls Mkdqvksa dh\nHkkafr ywV&ikV ds fy, vkdze.k djuk vkSj okil pys tkus rd gh\nlhfer jghA o s vkdz k Ur {k s= k s a ij dHkh 'kklu LFkkfir ugh a\ndj ld sA Hkkjrh; jktoa'k Hkh bls [ksy ds :i esa ysrs jgsA xksfoUnpUnz\nds ;kSojkt dky esa fy[kok, x, 1109 bZ0 ds jkgu nkui=kfHkys[k\nesa ;g Li\"V :i ls dgk x;k gS fd ^eqgwjlej.kdzhM+k* esa gkj tkus ds\ndkj.k vehj dks oSj R;kx nsuk iM+kA \u00bcgEehj 'kCn vjch 'kCn vehj dk\nHkkjrh; :i gS\u00bdA ysfdu bl mYys[k esa j.kdzhM+k 'kCn \/;ku nsus ;ksX; gS\nftlds vk\/kkj ij ;g vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd Hkkjrh; bls ;q)\ndk [ksy gh ekurs Fks D;ksafd eqfLye vkdzkUrk vpkud izdV gksrs vkSj\nturk dks ywVrs&ikVrs rFkk xqyke cukus ds fy, cUnh djrs vkSj jktk\ndh lsuk ls lkeuk gksus ij FkksM+k&cgqr ;q) djds Hkkx [kM+s gksrsA ysfdu\n                                                                   4093\nbl mYys[k esa nks 'kCn lcls egRoiw.kZ gSa os gSa & ^eq g wj * vkS j\n^vle*A eqgwj dk vFkZ gksrk gS ckj&ckj rFkk vle dk vFkZ gksrk gS\nvleku 'kfDrA eq f Lye vkdz k Urk y wV &ikV d s bjkn s l s Fkk sM +h\nlh Hkh l su k ,d= dj iku s d s ckn bl iz d kj dh y wV ikV\nd s fy, fudy iM +r s Fk s vkS j tedj ;q ) k s a e s a lkeuk ugh a\ndjr s Fk sA tgk a dgh a ij mudk lQyrk fey tkrh ogk a\nmud s njckjh        bfrgkldkj      fot;?kk s\" k   d s lkFk       mudh\nlQyrk dk mYy s[ k djr s rFkk lkFk gh o s bu rhu ckrk s a\ndk Hkh mYy s[ k djuk ugh a Hk wy r s & 1- fdru s fgUnq v k s a dk s\nekjk vkS j xq y ke cuk;k] 2- fdru s \u00c5WVk s a ij \/ku&nkS y r\nykndj okil y s x,] rFkk 3- fdru s fgUn w n so e af njk s a\ndk s \/oLr fd;k \u00bcrFkk volj feyu s ij mud s \u00c5ij efLtnk s a\ndk fuekZ . k djk;k\u00bdA bl vfHkys[k esa gEehj }kjk 'k=qrk NksM+ nsus\ndk tks ladsr fd;k x;k gS og ;gh crkrk gS fd xgM+oky lsuk }kjk\nijkftr gksus ds ckn dqN o\"kksZ rd eqfLye vkdzkUrk bl vksj iqu% vkus\ndk lkgl ugh dj ldsA\n       xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu tks ikWp ;kfeuh 'kkld gq, muds uke\nvkSj   'kkludky     bl    izdkj   gS&1-elwn   \u00bcr`rh;\u00bd   bCu      bczkghe\n\u00bcy01099&1115bZ0\u00bd]    2-   'khjtkn\u00bc1115&16bZ0\u00bd]    3-    vlZyku      'kkg\n\u00bc1116&18bZ0\u00bd] 4- cgjke 'kkg \u00bc1118&52bZ0\u00bd] vkSj 5- [kqljc 'kkg\n\u00bc1152&60bZ0\u00bdA ;s lqYrku xn~nh ds fy, ijLij ;q)jr jgrs FksA buesa\nlcls vf\/kd fouk'kdkjh la?k\"kZ vlZyku 'kkg vkSj cgjke 'kkg ds chp esa\ngqvk ftlesa [kqjklku ds lqYrku latj us ekSds dk ykHk mBkdj cgjke\ndk lkFk fn;k vkSj vlZyku dks Hkkxdj Hkkjrh; {ks= es 'kj.k ysuh iM+hA\ncgjke lqYrku latj ds laj{k.k esa xtuh dk lqYrku cukA ckn esa\nvlZyku us cgjke dks ijkftr dj fn;kA fdUrq [kqjklku ds lqYrku ds\n}kjk cgjke dh lgk;rk fd, tkus ds ckn ,d ;q) esa vlZyku ekjk\nx;kA cgjke 'kkg us 1118 ls 1152 bZ0 rd ds vius yEcs 'kkludky esa\nHkkjr ij dbZ vkdze.k fd, ,slk eqlyeku bfrgkldkjksa dk dguk gSA\nysfdu jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g dguk loZFkk mfpr gS fd ^bu\nlq Y rkuk s }kjk Hkkjr ij fd, tku s oky s vkdz e .kk s a dk dk sb Z\nHkh foLr` r fooj.k eq f Lye bfrgkldkjk s a u s ugh a fn;k gS A ^\n                                                                      4094\ntcfd xksfoUnpUnz ds egklkfU\/kfoxzfgd us d`R;dYir: dh jktiz'kfLr\nesa xksfoUnpUnz ds ckjs esa ;g fy[kk gS fd mlus vleku ;q) esa gEehj\nohj    dks    ekj    Mkyk      \u00bcvle&lej&lEiy&yEiV            'kkS;ZHkktke~\n&vof\/kjof\/k&;q)s    ;su     gEehj   ohj\u00bdA   yEeh\/kj    xksfoUnpUnz     ds\negklkfU\/kfoxzfgd Fks vkSj bl dkj.k mUgksus xksfoUnpUnz ds fo\"k; esa ;g\ntks lwpuk nh gS fd mUgksaus vle ;q) esa vehj dk o\/k dj fn;k Fkk]\nxyr ugh gks ldrkA ysfdu bl ;q) esa ekjs x, vehj dk D;k uke Fkk\nvkSj ;g ;q) fdl le; gqvk Fkk bldk fu'p; djuk cgqr dfBu gS]\nD;ksafd eq f Lye bfrgkldkj viuh ijkt;k s a dh dgkfu;k s a dk s\niz k ;% vun s[ kh dj x, gS aA jkgu nkui= esa Hkh] tSlk ge ns[k vk,\ngS] ,d vehj ds }kjk 'k=qrk R;kx fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA ,slk yxrk\ngS fd ;s nksuksa mYys[k nks vyx&vyx le; esa gqbZ ?kVukvksa ls lacfU\/kr\ngSaA jkgu nkui=kfHkys[k ml le; fy[kok;k x;k Fkk tc\nxksfoUnpUnz ,d ;qojkt vFkok egkjktiq= FksA ysfdu y{eh\/kj }kjk\nfd;k x;k mYys[k xksfoUnpUnz ds egkjktf\/kjkt cu tkus ds ckn dh ?\nkVuk dgk tk ldrk gS ftlesa vkdze.kdkjh usrk ekjk x;k FkkA bl\nckr dh laHkkouk rks ugha yxrh fd ;g dksbZ ;kfeuh lqYrku jgk gksxk]\nysfdu ;g Hkkjr esa xtuh ds lqYrku dk dksbZ izfrfuf\/k fuf'pr :i ls\njgk gksxkA jkgu nkui= vkSj d`R;dYir: nksuksa esa gh ,d ckr\nleku :i ls ns[kus dks feyrh gSA ,d esa ^vle j.k dzhM+k^ vkSj nwljs\nesa ^vle lej^ dk mYys[k feyrk gS vkSj bu nksuksa dh 'kCnks dk ,d gh\nvFkZ gS fd bu ;q)ksa esa nksuksa lsukvksa ds cy leku ugha FksA ,slk yxrk\ngS fd xksfoUnpUnz dh fo'kky lsuk ds lkeus ,d ckj rks vkdzkUrk dks\nHkkx tkuk iM+k vkSj nwljh ckj ds ;q) esa og ekjk x;kA\n----\n<\/pre>\n
xk sf oUnpUnz d s lkeUr ,o a ledkyhu
\ndqekjnsoh ds lkjukFk vfHkys[k esa ;g mYys[k gS fd mlus okjk.klh dh
\nj{kk ds fy, dk;Z fd;kA y{eh\/kj d s d` R ;dYir: e s a Hkh ;g
\nmYy s[ k gS fd og ‘k=q v k s a l s dk’kh dh j{kk d s fy,
\nyM +k A ;s nksuksa gh mYys[k ;g ladsr djrs gS fd dk’kh ij Hkh rq:”d
\nvkdze.kdkfj;ksa dk \/kkok gqvk Fkk ftuls dk’kh dh j{kk ds fy,
\nxksfoUnpUnz dks yM+uk iM+kA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g fopkj gS dh
\n                                                                   4095<\/span>
\nxksfoUnpUnz ds ‘kkludky esa xgM+oky jkT; dk if’peh lhekUr dkQh
\nlqjf{kr jgk gksxk D;ksafd fnYyh esa rksej mlds v\/khu jkT; dj jgs FksA
\ncnk;wW esa jk”V\u00aadqV Fks rFkk dkU;dqCt esa xkf\/kiqjkf\/kfr xksiky ds oa’kt
\njkT; dj jgs FksA laHkor% xgM+oky ‘kkld dh ;g lqfopkfjr uhfr jgh
\ngks fd if’peh lhekUr dks bu ‘kkldksa ds v\/khu NksM+ fn;k tk, ftlls
\nos rq:”dksa ls igys fuiV ysaA ysfdu] Hkkjrh; lkeUrokn ds vuqlkj ,d
\ncM+s jktk ds v\/khu vusd NksVs&cMs lkeUr gqvk djrs Fks tks LFkkuh;
\niz’kklu viuh :fp ds vuqlkj pykrs Fks vkSj muds nSufUnu dk;ksZ esa
\nvf\/kjktk dk dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha gksrk FkkA ;s lHkh lkeUr viuh&viuh
\nlsuk ds lkFk vf\/kjkt dh lsuk dk fuekZ.k djrs FksA vko’;drk iM+us
\nij ,d lkFk ,d+ gksrs FksA bl dkj.k ;g dguk mfpr ugha gS fd
\nif’pe esa xksfoUnpUnz us bu rhuksa jktoa’kksa dks tku& cw>dj blfy,
\nNksM+ fn;k Fkk fd os rq:”d vkdze.kksa dk igys lkeuk djsaxsA okLro esa
\nlEiw.kZ xgM+oky lkezkT; {ks= esa lSdM+ks NksVs&eksVs jktoa’k ‘kklu djrs
\njgs gksaxs ftuesa ls dsoy dqN ds fo”k; esa gh gesa vfHkys[kksa vFkok vU;
\nlzksrksa ls lwpuk fey ikrh gSA bu lkeUrksa ds ckoktwn lkezkT; dh LFkk;h
\nlsuk lhekUrksa ij fu;qDr jgrh gksxhA ysfdu blds ckotwn rq:”d
\nvkdze.kdkjh fdlh izdkj dk’kh vFkok v;ks\/;k vFkok eFkqjk rd vkdze.k
\ndjus esa lQy gks tkrs gksaxs ftudks mYys[k dHkh&dHkh Hkkjrh; lzksrksa ls
\ngesa Kkr gksrk gSA
\n       xksfoUnpUnz dk lkezkT; iwoZ esa iVuk vkSj eqaxsj rd foLr`r Fkk
\nvkSj bl n`f”V ls dHkh&dHkh mldk la?k”kZ xkSM+ ds iky jktkvksa ls Hkh
\ngqvk FkkA iVuk d s fudV ek su sj uked LFkku l s iz k Ir fo0l a0
\n1183 \u00bc1124 bZ 0 \u00bd y s[ k l s ;g Kkr gk sr k gS fd bl le;\n<\/p>\n
rd     fcgkj         e sa   de&l s& de   iVuk     dk     {k s=   mld s
\n‘kklukUrxZ r vk x;k FkkA bld s vfrfjDr mRrj iz n s’ k e s
\nfLFkr ykj l s iz k Ir fo0l a0 1202 \u00bc1146 bZ 0 \u00bd d s ,d
\nvfHky s[ k l s ;g Kkr gk sr k gS fd bl o”kZ mlu s eq X nfxjh
\n\u00bceq ax sj ] fcgkj\u00bd l s bl y s[ k dk iz d k’ku fd;k FkkA ;g
\nmYys[kuh; gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds firk enuiky ds ‘kkludky esa ;g
\n{ks= caxky ds iky jktk jkeiky ds v\/khu FkkA ysfdu fdlh le;
\nxksfoUnpUnz us bl {ks= ij viuk vf\/kdkj dj fy;k FkkA nf{k.k esa mlus
\n                                                                     4096<\/span>
\nf=iqjh ds gSg; dYpqfj jktk dks gjkdj mldk {ks= vius jkT; esa feyk
\nfy;k FkkA dYpqfj jktk ;’k%d.kZ dks mlds firkeg pUnznso us ijkLr
\nfd;k FkkA fo0la0 1177 \u00bc1120 bZ0\u00bd ds caxky ,f’k;kfVd lkslkbVh ds
\nnkui= ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us dYpqfj jktk ;’k%d.kZ
\nds }kjk vius xq: f’kokpk;Z HkV~Vkjd dks fn, x, nku dks okil ysdj
\nBDdqj of’k”B uke czkEg.k dks ns fn;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa igyh ckj
\nxksfoUnpUnz us lqizfl) dYpqfj ekS[kjh] iq”;Hkwfr] ijorhZ xqIr] izfrgkj ,oa
\nxgM+okyksa dk ;qx mikf\/k ^v’oifr] xtifr] ujifr] jkt=;kf\/kifr^
\ndks \/kkj.k dj fy;k ftldk vFkZ ;g ekuk tkrk gS fd mlus dYpqfj
\njktoa’k ij viuh fot; dks js[kkafdr djus ds fy, bl mikf\/k dks
\n\/kkj.k fd;k Fkk] ftls mlds oa’kt vUr rd \/kkj.k djrs jgsA blds
\nvfrfjDr xksfoUnpUnz us dYpqfj;ksa }kjk izpfyr y{ehizdkj ds flDdksa
\ndks Hkh viuk;k tks mldh dYpqfj;ksa ij fot; dk ,d izek.k ekuk
\ntkrk gSA
\n       xksfoUnpUnz us nf{k.k fn’kk esa n’kk.kZ vFkok iwohZ ekyok ij Hkh
\nfot; izkIr dh FkhA bldk mYys[k u;pUnz jfpr jEHkkeatjh ukVd esa
\ngqvk gSA bl ukVd ds vuqlkj ftl fnu xksfoUnpUnz us n’kk.kZ ij
\nfot; izkIr dh mlh fnu mlds ikS= t;pUnz dk tUe gqvk Fkk vkSj
\nblh dkj.k mldk uke t;pUnz j[kk x;kA ml le; n’kk.kZ ij ijekj
\noa’k ds ‘kkld jkT; dj jgs Fks rFkk ujoeZu vkSj ;’kksoeZu xksfoUnpUnz
\nds ledkyhu FksA ysfdu xksfoUnpUnz }kjk ekyok fot; dh iqf”V fdlh
\nvU; lzksr ls ugh gks ikbZ gSA
\n       xksfoUnpUnz dk pansy ledkyhu enuoekZ \u00bc1129&93bZ0\u00bd Fkk vkSj
\nblds ‘kkludky esa pUnsy ‘kfDr dk fo’ks”k fodkl gqvkA enuoekZ ds
\ne\u00c5 vfHkys[k ls Kkr gksrk gS fd dk’kh ds jktk lkSgknzZ ds lkFk viuk
\nle; fcrkrs Fks \u00bcdkay lkSgknzZ;o`R;k xxe;fr lrra =kLr% dkf’kjkt%\u00bdA
\n       nf{k.k Hkkjr ls Hkh xksfoUnpUnz ds jktfu;d lacU\/k jgs gksaXks
\nblds vkfHkysf[kd izek.k xaxSdks.Mpksyiqje~ ls izkIr gksrs gSA dqyksRrqxa
\nizFke \u00bc1070&1120bZ0\u00bd ds bdrkyhlos jkT;o”kZ esa mRdh.kZ ys[k ds uhps
\nxgM+oky jktoa’k dh oa’kkoyh ;’kksfoxzg ls pUnznso rd xgM+oky ‘kSyh
\ndh fyfi esa mRdh.kZ gSA ;|fi ;g ys[k vpkud :d vkrk gS fQj Hkh
\ndqyksRrqxa pksy ds mDr vfHkys[k ds vk\/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd
\n                                                                    4097<\/span>
\nbls enuiky vFkok xksfoUnpUnz ds ‘kkludky esa mRdh.kZ fd;k x;k
\ngksxkA nf{k.k Hkkjr ds ckS) fHk{kq JkoLrh \u00bclgsr&egsr\u00bd esa mifLFkr Fks
\nbldh lwpuk xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1176 ds lgsr&egsr vfHkys[k ls
\nizkIr gksrh gSA buesa ,d fHk{kq pksy ns’k dk Fkk] nwljk fHk{kq vksM\u00aa ns’k
\n\u00bcmM+hlk\u00bd dk Fkk ftUgsa nku fn;k x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr pkyqD; jktk
\nfl)jkt t;flag ds ,d jktnwr ds dk’kh ds jktk t;pUnz ds njckj esa
\ntkus dk mYys[k es:rqax ds izcU\/k fpUrkef.k esa feyrk gSA blh izdkj
\njktrjafx.kh ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu d’ehj ds
\njktk t;flag ls mlds vPNs laca\/k FksA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g dguk gS fd
\n^;|fi xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu ds ledkyhu
\njktkvksa ds lkFk jktuf;d laca\/kks dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha feyrk fQj Hkh
\nledkyhu jktoa’kks ds vfHkys[kksa rFkk vU; lkfgfR;d lzksrksa ls izk;% lHkh
\negRoiw.kZ iM+kslh jktkvksa ds lkFk fe=rk ds lEcU\/kksa ds mYys[k feyrs gSA
\nbl ckr esa dksbZ lansg ugh gS fd mRrj Hkkjr esa jktuhfr ds {ks= esa bl
\nrhljs xgM+oky jktk dks vR;ar mPp vknj.kh; LFkku izkIr FkkA
\n       xgM+oky ‘kkld xksfoUnpUnz dks ijEijkuqlkj vusd lkeUr Hkh
\nizkIr gq, FksA blds vfrfjDr mlus dqN vkSj {ks=ksa dks thrdj ogka ds
\n‘kkldksa dks viuk lkeUr cuus ds fy, foo’k fd;kA ;|fi fnYyh ds
\nrksej xgM+okyksa dh v\/khurk ds fo”k; esa vius vfHkys[kksa esa dksbZ ladsr
\nugha nsrs fQj Hkh ,slk yxrk gS fd os xgM+okyksa dh N=Nk;k esa yxHkx
\nLora= :i ls ‘kklu dj jgs FksA xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu rksej jktk
\nlaHkor% eghiky nso FkkA blds vfrfjDr cnk;wW esa ‘kklu dj jgs
\njk”V\u00aadwV jktoa’k esa xksfoUnpUnz ds ledkyhu ‘kkld laHkor% ds iq= vkSj
\nikS= jgsa gksaxsA jksek fu;ksxh us ;g lEHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd
\nxkf\/kiqjkf\/kifr xksiky dk jktoa’k laHkor% cnk;wW ds jk”V\u00aadwV xksiky ds
\njktoa’k ls fHkUUk jgk gksxkA bl xkf\/kiqjkf\/kifr xksiky dk oa’kjkt
\nenuiky xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu Fkk ftlds ea=h fo|k\/kj us fo0la0
\n1176 \u00bc1119 bZ0\u00bd dk lgsr&egsr nkui= tkjh fd;k FkkA
\n       fodze laor 1191 \u00bc1134bZ0\u00bd ds dekSyh nkui= ls ,d vU;
\nlkeUr J`axj oa’kh; oRljkt dk vfHkys[k feyrk gSA bl vfHkys[k esa
\npUnznso ls ysdj xksfoUnpUnz rd xgM+oky oa’kkoyh nh xbZ gSA blds
\nckn J`axj oa’k ds jktkvksa dh oa’kkoyh Hkh nh gqbZ gSA blesa nkudrkZ
\n                                                                 4098<\/span>
\noRljkt dks egkjktiq= dgk x;k gS rFkk mlds firk dk uke yksg.knso
\ncrk;k x;k gSA yksg.knso ds firk dk uke vYg.k rFkk mlds firk dk
\nuke Jhdeyiky crk;k x;k gSA Jhdeyiky J`axjksVk uked LFkku ls
\nvk, Fks vr% bl oa’k dk uke J`axj oa’k iM+kA
\n       blds vfrfjDr ckjgoh ‘krkCnh ds ukxjh fyfi esa fy[ks x,
\ndl;k \u00bcdq’khuxj] m0iz0\u00bd ls izkIr ,d [kf.Mr vfHkys[k ls Hkh ,d vU;
\ndYpqfj jktoa’k dk mYys[k feyrk gS tks xgM+okyksa ds lkekUr jgs gksaxsA
\nblesa vfUre jktkvksa] f’kojkt izFke \u00bcHkwnk dk ifr\u00bd] y{e.kjkt r`rh;
\nrFkk Hkher esa ls dksbZ Hkh xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu lkeUr jgk gksxkA
\n       dqN xgM+oky vfHkys[kksa esa ^ljokj^ ‘kCn vk;k gS tks lj;wikj dk
\nizd`r :i dgk tk ldrk gSA ykj ls izkIr \u00bcist 98&100\u00bdeksusj vfHkys[k
\nds vfrfjDr xksfoUnpUnz us fo0la0 (1146 bZ0) ds eqXnfxfj (eqaxsj) ls ,d
\nvU; vfHkys[k tkjh fd;k FkkA bl vfHkys[k esa lj;wikj xksfolkyd ds
\nvUrxZr ikuny iryk esa nq\/ksyh xzke ds nku dk mYys[k gSA lj;wikj
\ndk mYys[k xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1171 ds ikfy vfHkys[k esa Hkh gqvk gS
\nftlesa ikfy vkSj muoy xzkeksa ds uke vkrs gSA
\n       ,d vU; vfHkys[k ls blh {ks= ls ,d vU; jktk dhfrZiky nso
\nds fo”k; esa tkudkjh feyrh gSA y[ku\u00c5 laxzgky; esa laxzghr fo0la0
\n1167 (1111bZ0) ds rkezi=kfHkys[k ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ijeHkV~Vkjd
\negkjktkf\/kjkt ijes’oj ijekgs’oj Jh dhfrZikynso us ,d nku fn;k Fkk
\ntks ijeHkV~Vkjd egkjktkf\/kjkt] ijees’oj ijekgs’oj Jh fodzeikynso
\nds iknkuq\/;kr Fks rFkk ftUgksus mRrj leqnz vFkok flU\/kq dk LokfeRo
\nvius ckgqcy ls izkIr fd;k FkkA ;g ys[k fodze laor 1167 ds QkYxqu
\nekl ds ‘kqDy i{k f}rh;k] fnu ‘kfuokj] dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk tks 11
\nQjojh 1111 bZ0 esa iM+rk gSA ftu xzkeksa dk nku fd;k x;k mudks njn
\nx.Mdh ns’k esa fLFkr crk;k x;k gSA ;|fi bl {ks= dh igpku ugh gks
\nikbZ fQj Hkh dhygkuZ dk ;g lq>ko gS fd ;g {ks= fcgkj esa cgus okyh
\nx.Mdh unh     dh ?kkVh esa jgk gksxkA jksek fu;ksxh dk ;g fopkj gS
\nfd ;g {ks= xksj[kiqj ftys ds iwoksZRrj esa iM+uk pkfg, tks bl le;
\nnsofj;k ftys dk mRRjh Hkkx gSA jksek fu;ksxh us fLeFk }kjk dydRrk ds
\nbf.M;u E;wft;e esa of.kZr ^dhfrZ^ ys[k okys dqN flDdksa dks
\ndhfrZikynso dk flDdk ekuk gSA mUgksus ;g Hkh lq>ko fn;k gS fd njn
\n                                                                4099<\/span>
\nx.Mdh ns’k ?kk?kjk vkSj cM+h x.Md ds chp dk {ks= jgk gksxk vkSj
\nfrfFk dh n`f”V ls dhfrZiky enuiky vFkok xksfoUnpUnz dk ledkyhu
\njgk gksxkA bUgksus ;g Hkh laHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ikfy
\nrkezi=kfHkys[k esa tks ^ukSjkT; xt^ dk mYys[k feyrk gS blls ;g
\nvuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us dhfrZiky ds mRrj leqnz
\nvFkok lkSE; flU\/kq jkT; dks fodze laor~ 1167 (1111 bZ0) rFkk fo0la0
\n1171 (1114 bZ0) ds chp esa ;qojkt vFkok jktk ds :i esa thr fy;k
\nFkkA\n<\/p>\n
       —-;gka ;g ckr Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds fo0la0 1182
\nds dekSyh rkezi=kfHkys[k esa Hkh ,d vYg.k dk uke vkrk gS ftlds iq=
\ndhB.k us bl rkeziV~V ys[k dh jpuk dh FkhA bl rkezi= esa vYg.k dks
\n^JhokLrO; dqyksn~Hkwr dk;LFk^ dgk x;k gSA
\n       JhokLrO;&dq y k sn ~ H k wr &dk;LFkk sY g.k&l wu qukA
\n       fyf[krLrkEcz (ez) iV~Vks\u00b7;a dhB.ksu u`ikK;sfr AA15AA
\nbl izdkj vYg.k ds nks iq=ksa dk mYys[k feyrk gS vkSj ;g nksuks gh
\nlkfgR;dkj FksA Hkrhtk u;pUnz tks lkdsr e.My dk vf\/kifr Fkk vkSj
\nftlus jEHkkeUtjh ukVd dh jpuk dh FkhA ,d iq= dhB.k ;k ^d`”.k^
\nFkk ftls d`”.kpUnz Hkh bl vk\/kkj ij dgk tk ldrk gS fd mlds nks
\nvU; Hkkb;ks ds uke ds vUr esa pUnz ‘kCn vkrk gS vkSj dhB.k dks
\nd`”.kpUnz dk viHkza’k eku ldrs gSaA bl dhB.k dks xksfoUnpUnz ds
\n‘kklu dky esa izpkfjr dekSyh nkui= dh jpuk dk Js; izkIr gSA
\nvYg.k dk nwljk vkSj NksVk (dfu;ku) iq= vk;q”kpUnz Fkk ftlus v;ks\/;k
\ndh iz’kfLr dh jpuk dh Fkh vkSj bl iz’kfLr ;s ;g Hkh ladsr feyk gS
\nfd og bl le; Lo;a v;ks\/;k dk jktk FkkA v;k s\/ ;k e s a
\niz p fyr ,d ijEijk ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrh gS fd bl {k s=
\nij JhokLro o a’ k u s jkT; fd;k FkkA\n<\/p>\n
       – – jk se k fu;k sx h dk ;g ekuuk gS fd xgM +o ky jkT;
\ndk vf\/kdk a’ k Hkkx ;Fkk] dkU;dq C t] cnk;W w] tkS u iq j ] pq u kj]
\njk sg rklx<] okjk.klh rFkk l aH kor% v;k s\/ ;k Hkh eq f Lye
\njktuhfrd iz H kko {k s= l s ckgj Fk sA
\n       xk sf oUnpUnz d s flDd s cgq r cM +h ek=k e s a yxHkx
\nlEi w. kZ mRrj Hkkjr l s iz k Ir gq , gS aA mld s d so y lk su s d s
\n                                                                         4100<\/span>
\nflDdk s a dh l a[ ;k yxHkx ,d gtkj crkbZ tkrh gS A pkWnh
\nvkSj rkWcs ds flDdksa dh la[;k vis{kkd`r de gSA mlds flDds fcgkj
\nvkSj mRrj izns’k ls ysdj fnYyh rd ds {ks= ls feys gSaA cgjkbp ftys
\nds ukuikjk ls 800 lksus ds flDds feys FksA blds vfrfjDr bykgkckn]
\ncukjl] mUuko ftys esa ijesnk] fcgkj esa pkSlk vkSj >cqvk rFkk eqaxsj ds
\nikl lwjtx<+] jkWph] ukyUnk vkSj jktfxfj ls Hkh feys gSaA fnYyh ds ikl
\nls Hkh xksfUnpUnz ds flDds izkIr gq, gSaA xk sf oUnpUnz d s flDd s nk s
\niz d kj d s gS a] iz F ke iz d kj e s a y{eh dh vkd` f r oky s flDd s
\nvkr s gS a vkS j n wl j s iz d kj e s a v'okjk sg h iz d kj d s flDd s
\nvkr s gS A bu ij ^JhenxksfoUnpUnz nso%^ ys[k rhu iafDr;ks aesa feyrs gSA
\nysfdu vf\/kdka'k flDdksa esa nso 'kCn ugha feyrkA xksfoUnpUnz ds lksus ds
\nflDds 3-88 xzk0 ds gSaA ;|fi dqN flDds 0-4 xzke ds Hkh feys gSA
\n       xksfoUnpUnz ds ifjokj ds fo"k; esa Hkh gedks vfHkys[kksa vFkok
\nvU; lzksrksa ls tkudkjh feyrh gSA xksfoUnpUnz dh ekrk dk uke jkYgk
\nnsoh FkkA xksfoUnpUnz dh pkj jkfu;ksa ds ukeksa ds mYys[k feyrs gSA buesa
\ndqekjnsoh ds }kjk fy[kokbZ xbZ ,d iz'kfLr lkjukFk ls izkIr gqbZ gSA
\ndqekjnsoh frfB ds fpDdksj jktoa'k ds jktk nsojf{kr dh iq=h FkhA
\nnsojf{kr xkSM+ ds iky jktk dk lkeUr FkkA dqekjnsoh us lkjukFk esa ckS)
\nfHk{kqvksa dks nku fn;k FkkA xksfoUnpUnz ds dekSyh nkui= ys[k ls mldh
\n,d vU; iV~V egknsoh u;udsfy dk uke feyrk gSA blds vfrfjDr
\nckxje\u00c5 nkui=ksa ls ,d vU; iV~V egknsoh xkslYynsoh dk uke feyrk
\ngSA ,d pkSFkh jkuh clUrnsoh ds uke dk mYys[k usiky ds njckj
\niqLrdky; esa laxzfgr v"VlkgfL=dk izKkikjferk uked ik.Mqfyfi ls
\nKkr gksrk gSA
\n       xksfoUnpUnz ds nks iq=ksa ds uke Hkh gesa vfHkys[kksa ls izkIr gksrs gSA
\nfo0la0 1190 (1140 bZ0) ds mucjh nkui=kfHkys[k esa ;qojkt
\nvkLQksVpUnz dk mYys[k feyrk gSA blds vfrfjDr nks vU; vfHkys[kksa esa
\negkjktiq= jkT;iky nso dk Hkh mYys[k feyrk gSA ysfdu xksfoUnpUnz
\nds i'pkr~ mldk iq= fot;pUnz 'kkld gqvkA bl dkj.k ;g dgk tk
\nldrk gS fd vkLQksVpUnz vkSj jkT;iky nso dh e`R;q xksfoUnpUnz ds
\nthoudky esa gh gks xbZ FkhA
\nfot;pUnz
\n                                                                4101<\/span>
\nizk;% ,slk le>k tkrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz ds ckn ls gh xgM+oky ‘kfDr
\ndk iru izkjEHk gks tkrk gSA xksfoUnpUnz us jktlRRkk dk mi;ksx dkQh
\nle; rd fd;kA mld s ‘kkludky dk vfUre vfHky s[ k
\nfo0l a0 9299 (1154 bZ 0 ) dk gS A ,slk yxrk gS fd blds ‘kh?kz
\nckn gh xksfoUnpUnz dk nsgkUr gks x;k vkSj mldk iq= fot;pUnz
\n‘kkluk:<+ gqvkA xgM+oky jktoa'k esa ;g ijEijk jgh gS fd vius firk
\nds thoudky esa gh ;qojkt Hkh nkui= tkjh djrs FksA pUnznso ds
\nthoudky esa gh enuiky dk jkT;kfHk"ksd dj fn;k x;k Fkk] bldk
\nmYys[k ge dj vk, gSA enuiky ds 'kkludky esa xksfoUn us egkjkt
\nds iq= ds :i esa nkui= tkjh fd,A blh izdkj xksfoUnpUnz ds
\n'kkludky esa mlds nks iq=ksa us 'kklui= tkjh fd,A ;qojkt
\nvkLQksVpUnz us HknSuh dk nkui=kfHkys[k fo0la0 1190 esa tkjh fd;k FkkA
\nmlds ckn egkjktiq= jkT;ikynso us muoy nkui=kfHkys[k fo0la0
\n1201 esa tkjh fd;k FkkA ,slk yxrk gS fd ;qojkt vkLQksVpUnznso dk
\nnsgkUr fo0la0 1190 ds ckn fdlh le; gks x;kA lEHkor% egkjktiq=
\njkT;ikynso Hkh vius firk ds thoudky esa gh fnoaxr gks x;k FkkA
\nxgM+oky jktoa'k esa lEHkor% dsoy fot;pUnz gh ,d ek= ,slk 'kkld
\ngS ftldks vius firk ds thoudky esa nkui=kfHkys[k tkjh djus dk
\nvolj ugh izkIr gks ldk FkkA
\n       fot;pUnz d s 'kkludky d s dq y N% nkui=kfHky s[ k
\niz k Ir gk sr s gS aA mldk igyk nkui= fo0la0 1216 (1161 bZ 0 ) esa
\ntkjh fd;k x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr mlus fo0la0 1221 (1165 bZ 0 )
\nrFkk fo0la0 1223 (1166 bZ 0 ) esa Hkh Lora= :i ls nkui= tkjh fd,
\nFksA fo0la0 1224 esa fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa egkjktiq= t;pUnz us
\ngfjiqjk dk nkui= tkjh fd;k FkkA blds ckn fo0la0 1225 (1170 bZ0)
\nesa ^;kSojkT;kfHkf"kDr egkjktiq= Jht;pUnznso^ us ukxyh nkui= tkjh
\nfd;kA bu ikWp nkui=ksa ds vfrfjDr fot;pUnz ds 'kkludky esa fodze
\nlaor 1225 (1169 bZ0) esa tkSuiqj ls fdlh ^HkV~Vkjd HkfoHkw"k.k^ us ,d
\nLrEHk vfHkys[k nks iafDr;ksa esa fy[kok;k FkkA
\n       MkW0 jksek fu;ksxh us ftl le; xgM+oky jktoa'k dk bfrgkl
\nuked iqLrd dk iz.k;u fd;k Fkk rc rd fo0la0 1217 ds df.Muh
\n                                                               4102<\/span>
\nnkui= dk izdk’ku ugh gks ldk Fkk vSj 1221 rFkk 1223 ds nkui= Hkh
\nml le; rd izdk’k esa ugh vk lds Fks ftlds dkj.k mUgksaus ;g
\nvuqeku yxk;k Fkk fd 1154 bZ0 esa xksfoUnpUnz ds vfUre nkui= ds
\ni’pkr 1168 bZ0 rd fot;pUnz ds ‘kkludky dk dksbZ vU; nkui=
\nys[k ugha feyrkA ;g rsjg o”kksZa dk vUrjky bl jktoa’k ds fy,
\nvlk\/kkj.k lk yxrk gSA tcfd blds igys rd vusd nkui= tkjh
\nfd, tk pqds FksA blds fy, mUgksaus vkUrfjd dyg dks ftEesnkj ekuk
\nFkk rFkk ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd ‘kk;n ;qojkt vkLQksVpUnz vkSj
\negkjktiq= jkT;iky nso ds lkFk mRrjkf\/kdkj dk la?k”kZ gks ldrk gSA
\nblds vfrfjDr ,d nwljh laHkkouk eqlyekuh vkdze.kksa ds dkj.k fnYyh
\ndk gkFk ls fudy tkuk Hkh gks ldrk gSA
\n      vfHkys[kksa esa fot;pUnz dks ijEijkxr :i ls iz’kaflr fd;k x;k
\ngSA blds lkFk gh ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd lalkj dks nfyr djus okys
\ngEehj ds ukfj;ksa dh vkW[kksa ls fudyus okyh ty\/kkjk ls mlus
\ni`Fohyksd ds rki dks \/kks Mkyk Fkk ^^Hkqou & nyu & gsyk & gE;Z &
\ngeohj & ukjh & u;u &tyn&\/kkSr&Hkwyksdrki%^^A ;gka ij mfYyf[kr
\ngEehj dk rkRi;Z fot;pUnz ds nks ledkyhu ;kfeuh lqYrkuksa ls gks
\nldrk gS& 1- [kql: ‘kkg] ftlus 1150&60 bZ0 ds chp ‘kklu fd;k
\nvkSj 2- [kql: ekfyd] ftlus 1160&86 ds chp ‘kklu fd;k FkkA blesa
\nigys ;kfeuh lqYrku dh laHkkouk vf\/kd dh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd mldk
\n‘kkludky vQxkfuLrku ds \/kqt+ dchys ds yksxksa ds vkdze.k ds dkj.k
\nfopfyr jgk vkSj mls Hkkxdj Hkkjr esa ykgkSj esa viuk dsUnz cukuk
\niM+kA vehj vkSj fot;pUnz ds chp ;g la?k”kZ 1161 bZ0 ds iwoZ gqvk
\ngksxkA D;ksafd mlds ckn ds lHkh vfHkys[kkas esa fot;pUnz ds fy, bldk
\nmYys[k feyrk gSA ;g Hkh laHko gS fd fot;pUnz us rq:”dksa ij ;g
\nfot; vius firk ds ‘kkludky esa izkIr dh gksA
\n      i` F ohjktjklk s a e s a pUnojnk;h u s fot;pUnz }kjk dh
\nxbZ dbZ fot;k s a dk mYy s[ k fd;k gS ftld s fo”k; e s a
\nbfrgkldkjk s a dk s l an g s gS A bld s vuq l kj] fot;pUnz u s
\ndVd \u00bcmM +h lk\u00bd d s lk se o a’ kh jktk eq d q U nn so dk s ijkftr
\nfd;k Fkk rFkk ml s bl ckr d s fy, ck\/; fd;k Fkk fd og
\nviuh iq += h dk fookg mld s iq = t;pUnz l s dj n sA
\n                                                                4103<\/span>
\nt;pUnz dh blh iRuh l s l a; k sf xrk vFkok l a; q D rk dk tUe
\ngq v k Fkk ftld s ckn e s a i` F ohjkt pkS g ku l s fookg gq v kA
\nysfdu bfrgkldkjksa dk ;g fo’okl gS fd nf{k.k dks’ky ds lkseoa’kh
\njktkvksa dks xaxks us xksfoUnpUnz ds ‘kkludky ds izkjEHk esa gh ijkLr
\ndjds mudk jkT; gM+i fy;k Fkk rFkk eqdqUnnso uke ds fdlh jktk dk
\nuke mM+hlk ds bfrgkl esa ugha feyrkA blds mRrj esa ;g dgk tk
\nldrk gS fd eqdqUnnso lkseoa’kh jktkvksa dk dksbZ vYiKkr mRrjkf\/kdkjh
\njgk gksxk D;kasfd ;fn mlds vfLrRo ls gh badkj dj fn;k tk,xk rks
\ni`Fohjkt vkSj la;ksfxrk dh dFkk dk vk\/kkj gh lekIr gks tk,xk tks
\ni`Fohjktjklksa dk eq[; fo”k; gSA jklksa esa gh ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd
\nfot;pUnz us fnYyh ds rksej jktk vuaxiky dks gjk;k FkkA blds
\nvfrfjDr iV~ V uiq j d s Hkk sy kHkhe dk s Hkh mlu s gjk;k FkkA
\nbl Hkk sy kHkhe dh igpku vufgyikVd d s pkyq D ; uj s’ k
\nHkhen so f}rh; l s dh tk ldrh gS ftlds ‘kklu dk izkjEHk
\n1173 bZ0 ls gksrk gSA blds iwoZ mlds firk pkyqD; dqekjiky us 1114
\nbZ0 ls 1173 bZ0 rd ‘kklu fd;k FkkA bl izdkj bfrgkldkjksa dk ;g
\nekuuk gS fd Hkhenso f}rh; ds ‘kkluk:<+ gksus ds rhu o"kZ iwoZ gh
\nfot;pUnz dk 'kkludky lekIr gks x;k FkkA ysfdu bl lEcU\/k esa ;g
\ndgk tk ldrk gS fd Hkhenso f}rh; ls fot;pUnz dk la?k"kZ ml le;
\ngqvk gks ldrk gS tc Hkhenso ;qojkt FkkA mldk firk pkyqD;
\ndqekjiky yxHkx 59 o"kksZ rd 'kklu djrk jgk vkSj cgqr laHko gS fd
\nmlds 'kkludky ds vfUre fnuksa esa mldk iq= gh 'kklu dk;Z ns[krk
\njgk gksA
\n       jksek fu;ksxh us ;g Hkh laHkkouk O;Dr dh gS fd caxky ds lsu
\njktkvksa us Hkh xgM+oky izns'k ij fot; izkIr dh Fkh D;ksafd y{e.klsu
\nds ek\/kkbZ uxj vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd tc og dqekj Fkk rHkh
\nmlus xkSM+ ij vf\/kdkj dj fy;k] ;q) esa dk'khjkt dks thrdj
\n\u00bc;su&vklkS&dk'khjkt lej&Hkqofoftrk\u00bd rFkk dfyax dh ukfj;ksa ds lkFk
\ndzhM+k dhA
\n       blds vfrfjDr fo'o:ilsu rFkk lw;Zlsu ds vfHkys[kksa ls ;g
\nKkr gksrk gS fd ;k rks y{e.klsu us vFkok fo'o:ilsu us iz;kx vkSj
\ndk'khiqjh ij fot; izkIr djds fot; LrEHk [kM+s fd, Fks \u00bc{ks=
\n                                                                   4104<\/span>
\nfo’os’ojL;—–f=os.;k—–\/kuksPpSj;K&;wiS% lg lej t;&LrEHk&ekykU;
\n\/kkf;\u00bdA ysfdu ,slk yxrk gS fd ;s mfDr;ka ijEijkxr iz’kalkRed ckrsa
\ngh Fkha D;ksafd fot;pUnz ds ‘kkludky esa mldh jkt\/kkuh okjk.klh rFkk
\njkT; ds g`n;LFky esa fLFkr iz;kx ij xkSM+ lsuk,a fot; izkIr dj ldh
\ngksa] ;g lHkao ugha yxrkA ;g vo’; dgk tk ldrk gS fd rhFkZ;k=h ds
\n:i esa bu jktkvksa us okjk.klh vkSj iz;kx esa ;K djds ;K&;wi [kM+s
\nfd, gksaA
\n       jksek fu;ksxh us izcU\/k fpUrkef.k dh ,d ?kVuk dk mYys[k fd;k
\ngS rFkk mldks xgM+oky {ks= ij lsu vkSj rq:”d vkdze.kksa ds lkFk tksM+k
\ngSA bl ?kVuk ds vuqlkj pkSyqD; dqekjiky ds ‘kkludky \u00bc1114&73
\nbZ0\u00bd esa okjk.klh ds ,d dfo fo’os’oj iV~Vu x, rFkk mUgksaus tSukpk;Z
\ngsepUnz }kjk cqykbZ xbZ ,d lkfgfR;d laxks”Bh esa Hkkx fy;kA ckn esa
\npkSyqD; jktk dqekj iky us muls vius jkT; esa gh Bgj tkus dk
\nvuqjks\/k fd;kA fdUrq fo’os’oj us fouezrkiwoZd mRrj nsrs gq, ;g dgk
\nfd mudk eu izHkkl rhFkZ tkus dks O;kdqy gS D;ksafd ^d.kZ dsoy
\nukeek= dks dgkfu;ksa esa ‘ks”k jg x, gSA okjk.klh uxj esa yksx ugha jg
\nx, gSa rFkk gfj ds {ks= esa gEehj ds ?kksM+s izlUurkiwoZd fgufguk jgs
\ngSaA^ ;gka ij mijksDr m)j.k esa dgha Hkh lsu jktk ds vkdze.k dk ladsr
\nugha feyrkA pkSyqD; dqekjiky dk ‘kkludky 1114 bZ0 esa izkjEHk gqvk
\nFkk vkSj ;gh og o”kZ gS tc xksfoUnpUnz us xgM+oky ujs’k ds :i esa
\nviuk izFke vfHkys[k tkjh fd;k FkkA bl dkj.k fo’os’oj ds }kjk \u00c5ij
\nfn;k x;k o.kZu xksfoUnpUnz ds ‘kkludky ij Hkh ykxw fd;k tk ldrk
\ngSA cukjl ds lkFk&lkFk ^gfj ds {ks=^ esa gEehj ds ?kksM+ksa dh fgufgukgV
\ndk vFkZ v;ks\/;k ij eqfLye vkdze.k ls lEcfU\/kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA
\ngky gh esa v;ks\/;k ls izkIr ik”kk.k Qyd vfHkys[k dh ppkZ ge dj vk,
\ngSa rFkk ,slk yxrk gS fd dfo fo’os’oj dk ;g mYys[k v;ks\/;k ds ml
\nvfHkys[k esa of.kZr ?kVuk ls lEcfU\/kr gS tks fd xksfoUnpUnz ds
\n‘kkludky esa gqbZ gksxhA
\n       blh laUnHkZ esa fo0la0 1223 \u00bc5 flrEcj 1166 bZ0\u00bd dks fcgkj ds
\n‘kkgkckn ftys ds lqugj xzke ls izkIr ,d tkyh rkezi=kkfHkys[k dk
\nmYys[k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A okLro esa ;g nkui= egkjktk fot;pUnz us
\nfof\/kiwoZd nku djus ds ckn fy[kok;k Fkk rFkk bldk ys[kd
\n                                                                     4105<\/span>
\negkv{kiVfyd BDdqj Jh Jhifr gSa ftUgksaus xksfoUnpUnz ds ‘kkludky esa
\ndbZ vfHkys[kksa dks fy[kk FkkA bl vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj] Lo.kZgy xzke ds
\nczkgE.kksa dks Hkwfe xbZ FkhA ;g Lo.kZgy vFkok lksugy xzke orZeku esa
\nlqugj xzke dgk tkrk gSA bldk egRo bl n`f”V ls gS fd izrki \/koy
\nds rkjkp.Mh f’kykys[k esa bldks ^dqrkez i=^ dgk x;k gS ftldks
\nxkf\/kuxj ds jktk ds ,d nkl \u00bcvf\/kdkjh\u00bd] ftldk uke nsm Fkk] tks
\nLo.kZ g y d s cz k gE.kk s a u s ?k wl \u00bcmRdk sp \u00bd n sd j fy[kok fy;k
\nFkkA izrki \/koy us 16 viz S y 1169 bZ 0 dks ;g ‘kklui= tkjh
\nfd;k fd bl xzke ds czkgE.kksa dks lqbZ dh uksd cjkcj Hkwfe Hkh u nh
\ntk, rFkk ;g vkns’k egkuk;d izrki \/koy ds oa’k ds iq=&ikS=ksa dks Hkh
\ncrk fn;k tk, fd bu yEiV czkgE.kksa ds mij rfud Hkh fo’okl ugha
\nfd;k tkuk pkfg,A rkjkp.Mh ds bl f’kykys[k ls dbZ jkspd ckrsa
\nizdk’k esa vkrh gSaA igyh ckr rks ;g gS fd egkuk;d izrki \/koy vius
\ndks lkeUr dgrk gSA blds vfrfjDr Lo;a dks tkfiykf\/kifr egkuk;d
\nJhizrki\/koy Hkh crkrk gSA bl izdkj ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd izrki
\n\/koy fot;pUnz dk ,d lkeUr jgk gksxkA ysfdu blds ckotwn mlds
\nizns’k esa dkU;dqCt ds jktk fot;pUnz us ,d xzke dh dqN Hkwfe nku esa
\nnh ftlds fo”k; esa izrki \/koy us ;g vkn s’ k tkjh fd;k fd ;g
\nnkui= n sm uked jktdeZ p kjh dk s ?k wl n sd j fy[kok;k
\nx;k Fkk vkS j mu cz k gE.kk s a dk s ftUg s a Hk wf e nku e s a feyh Fkh
\nmll s c sn [ky dj fn;k x;kA ;gka ij lkeUr vkSj vf\/kjkt ds
\nvf\/kdkjksa ds laca\/k esa jkspd rF; izkIr gksrs gSa vkSj ;g Kkr gksrk gS ;fn
\nv\/keZiwoZd mRdksp ;k ?kwl nsdj dksbZ nku vf\/kjkt ls djok fy;k tk,
\nrks v\/khuLFk lkeUr jktk mldks ekuus ls bUdkj Hkh dj ldrk FkkA
\nfot;pUnz dk lqugj nkui= ys[k blh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA
\n       fot; pUnz dk vfUre nkui= ek?k lqnh 15] fo0 la0 1225 es
\ntkjh fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlds iq= t;pUnz dk izFke nkui= vk”kk<+
\nlqnh 6] 1226 dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA bl iz d kj ;g vuq e ku
\nyxk;k tk ldrk gS fd ek?k 1225 d s ckn rFkk v"kk< +
\n1226 d s i wo Z fdlh le; fot;pUnz dk n sg kUr gq v kA
\nt;pUnz
\nt;pUnz dk izFke nkui=kfHkys[k 21 twu 1170 bZ0 dks tkjh fd;k x;k
\n                                                                  4106<\/span>
\nFkk vkSj mlds ckn mlu s yxHkx 24 o”kk sZ rd ‘kklu fd;kA
\n, sl h ekU;rk gS fd eq b Ttq n ~ n hu eq g Een xk sj h d s lkFk 1194
\nbZ 0 e s pUnoj d s ;q ) e s a og ekjk x;k FkkA bl chp esa mlds
\n‘kkludky ds yxHkx 24 vfHkys[k izdk’k es vk, gSaA buesa dqN vfHkys[k
\ndqN lkekU; ukxfjdksa }kjk Hkh tkjh fd, x, gSaA vius firkeg vkSj
\nfirk dh Hkakfr t;pUnz ds le; esa Hkh xgM+oky jkT; viuh ‘kfDr dh
\npje lhek ij FkkA mldk ledkyhu pUnsy jktk ijekfnZ Fkk rFkk
\nif’pe esa pkSgku jktk i`Fohjkt Hkh mldk ledkyhu FkkA pkSgkuksa vkSj
\npUnsyksa esa ijLij dbZ ;q} gq, ftuesa t;pUnz dh lgkuqHkwfr pUnsyksa ds
\nlkFk jghA t;pUnz ds ‘kkludky esa gh i`Fohjkt vkSj t;pUnz dh iq=h
\nla;ksfxrk dh ?kVuk dh tkudkjh lkfgfR;d lzksrksa ls feyrh gSA ysfdu
\nblds lEcU\/k esa dksbZ vkfHkysf[kd izek.k ugh feyrkA t;pUnz ds
\n‘kkludky esa Hkh mldk jkT; {ks= izk;% ogh cuk jgk tks mlds firk ds
\n‘kludky esa FkkA
\n       Hkkjrh; lkfgfR;d lzksr t;pUnz dks vius le; dk lcls cM+k
\njktk fl) djrs gSa rFkk eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa ds dFku Hkh blh ckr dh
\niqf”V djrs gSa fd ^og Hkkjr dk lcls cM+k jktk Fkk rFkk lcls cM+s {ks=
\ndk Lokeh FkkA^ mlds ikl cgqr cM+h lsuk FkhA t;pUnz xgM +o ky
\njkto a’ k e s a ,dek= , sl k jktk gS tk s Hkkjrh; lkfgR; e s a
\ntkuk tkrk gS A mlds ‘kkludky dh dksbZ cM+h egRoiw.kZ ?kVuk
\nvfHkys[kksa ls ugh Kkr gksrh y sf du Hkkjrh; lkfgR; bl ckr dh
\nl wp uk n sr s gS a fd mldk eq l yekuk s a l s dbZ ckj l a? k”kZ gq v k
\nFkkA
\n       fo|kifr     d s xz U Fk   iq : “kijh{kk   rFkk    u;pUnz     ds
\njEHkkeTtjh ukVd ,o a i` F ohjktjklk s a l s ;g Kkr gk sr k gS
\nfd eq b Ttq } hu \u00bcf’kgkcq n ~ n hu\u00bd xk sj h l s t;pUnz d s dbZ ckj
\nl a? k”kZ gq , rFkk t;pUnz u s ml s ijkLr djd s Hkkxu s ij
\nfoo’k dj fn;kA n wl jh vk sj lHkh eq f Lye bfrgkldkj
\nx;klq n ~ n hu d s HkkbZ eq b Z T tq n ~ n hu eq g Een xk sj h d s lkFk
\ni` F ohjke d s d so y nk s ;q ) k s a rFkk t;pUnz d s d so y ,d ;q )
\ndk mYy s[ k djr s gS A x;klqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh 1163 bZ0 esa xksj dk
\nlqYrku gqvk vkSj mlus vius HkkbZ f’kgkcqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh dks xtuh
\n                                                                     4107<\/span>
\ndk jkT;iky fu;qDr fd;k ftlus Hkkjr ij vusd vkdze.k fd,] ysfdu
\nckj&ckj ijkLr gksuk iM+kA eqgEen ds izkjfEHkd vfHk;ku Msjk bLekbZy
\n[kku ds if’pe esa fLFkr xksey njsZ ls gksrs Fks D;ksafd ;g ekxZ NksVk vkSj
\nvf\/kd lqjf{kr FkkA ifj.kkeLo:i eqYrku vkSj mN mlds v\/khu gks x,A
\nckn esa flU\/k Hkh \/kjk’kk;h gqvk ysfdu tc mlus e:Hkwfe ikj djds
\nxqtjkr ij vkdze.k djus dk iz;kl fd;k rks mls eqWag dh [kkuh iM+hA
\n1178 bZ 0 e s a s eq g Een xk sj h e:Hk wf e ikj djd s vkc w rd
\nigq W p x;k Fkk y sf du ble s a mldh l su k u”V gk s xbZ vkS j
\ncph [kq p h&l su k dk s pkyq D ; jktk eq y jkt f}rh; u s u”V
\ndj fn;kA eq g Een xk sj h viu s Fkk sM + s l s flikfg;k s a d s lkFk
\ndfBukbZ i wo Z d tku cpk ldkA mld s ckn mlu s n wl jk
\njkLrk viuk;kA mlu s 1178 bZ 0 e s a i s’ kkoj vkS j 1185 e s a
\nL;kydk sV y s fy;kA vxy s o”kZ ykgkS j ij Hkh mldk dCtk
\ngk s x;kA bld s ckn og pkS g ku jktk i` F ohjkt r` r h; ij
\np< + nkS M +k rFkk mll s dbZ ckj ijkftr gq v kA v ar e s a 1192
\nbZ 0 e s a rjkbZ u d s ;q ) e s a i` F ohjkt ijkftr gq v k vkS j ekjk
\nx;kA mld s ,d l su kifr dq r q c q n ~ n hu , sc d u s 1192 e s a
\ngkWlh dk s thr fy;k rFkk e sj B vkS j cjku \u00bccq y Un'kgj\u00bd bu
\nnk s LFkkuk s a l s mlu s i wo Z e s a viu s vkdz e .kk s a dk l ap kyu
\nfd;kA fQj ckn e s a mlu s pkS g ku jktk dk s fnYyh l s
\nHkxkdj 1193 e s a viuh jkt\/kkuh cuk fy;kA Nk sV s& ek sV s
\nvkdz e .kk s a e s a mlu s dk sy \u00bcvyhx< +\u00bd rd viuk iz H kko QS y k
\nfy;kA
\npUnoj dk ;q )\n<\/p>\n
        —-\n<\/p>\n
        mijksDr dkj.kksa ls ;fn jklks] iq:”kijh{kk vkSj jaHkk&eatjh ukVd
\nvkfn ;g fooj.k nssrs gSa fd xksjh ds lqYrku dks dbZ ckj ijkt; dk
\neq[k ns[kuk iM+k rks blesa lR; dk dqN va’k vo’; gh gSA ysfdu
\neqlyeku bfrgkldkj xgM+oky lsuk ds lkFk ,d NksVh >M+i rFkk
\npUnoj ds eSnku esa ,d cMs+ ;q) dk fooj.k ek= nsrs gSaA glu futkeh
\nds rktmyekFkhj ds vuqlkj fnYyh] vtesj vkSj dksy dks ijkftr djus
\nds ckn lqYrku us viuk \/;ku xgM+okyksa dh vksj yxk;kA dqrqcqn~nhu ds
\n                                                                  4108<\/span>
\nusr`Ro esa 50]000 dh lsuk ds lkFk mlus nhu \u00bc\/keZ\u00bd ds nq’euksa dh lsuk
\ndk lkeuk fd;k vkSj mls gjk;kA ,slk dgk tkrk gS fd ;g >M+i
\nxgM+oky lsuk ds lhekUr izns’k dh lqj{kk esa yxh VqdM+h ds lkFk gqbZ
\ngksxh u fd mldh eq[; lsuk lsA dkfeymRrokjh[k esa Hkh bCu vFkhj
\nus dqrqcqn~nhu ds bl p<+kbZ dk mYys[k fd;k gS ftlesa mlus vusd dks
\nekj Mkyk Fkk rFkk cfUn;ksa vkSj ywV ds lkFk ?kj okfil vk x;k FkkA
\ntc t;pUnz dks bldh lwpuk nh xbZ rks mlus viuh lsuk dks ,d=
\ndjds eqlyekuksa ds {ks= esa izos'k fd;kA xgM+okyksa vkSj eqfLye lsuk ds
\nchp pUnoj ds eSnku esa ;q) gqvkA blesa t;pUnz Loa; gkFkh ij p<+dj
\n;q) dk lapkyu dj jgk FkkA fQfj'rk d s vuq l kj dq r q c q n ~ n hu }
\nkjk pyk, x, ,d rhj l s t;pUn ekjk x;kA bld s ckn
\nHk; ad j ekjdkV gq b Z vkS j rhu lkS gkFkh ftUnk idM + fy,
\nx,A vLuh d s fdy s dk s y wV fy;k x;k] tgk a ij xgM +o ky
\njktkvk s a u s viu s lk su s& pkW an h rFkk jRuk s a d s Hk.Mkj tek
\ndj j[k s Fk sA cukjl] tk s fgUn n s' k dk d sU nz ekuk tkrk
\nFkk] Hkh y wV fy;k x;k vkS j ogkW ij yxHkx ,d gtkj
\nefUnj fxjk fn, x, vkS j mudh uh ao d s mij efLtn s a mBk
\nnh xbZ A eq f Lye bfrgkldkjk s a u s ;g l wp uk nh gS fd fgUn
\nd s jktk vkS j lkeUr vehj d s iz f r viuh v\/khurk trku s
\nd s fy, vkx s vk,A ns'k dk izcU\/k ,d fo'oLr O;fDr dks lkSaik x;k
\ntks yksxksa dks U;k; ns lds vkSj ewfrZiwtdksa dks nck ldsA ysfdu eqfLye
\nbfrgkldkjksa us bl O;fDr dk uke ugha crk;k gSA ckn esa dqrqcqn~nhu
\nfnYyh dk jkT;iky fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj fnYyh esa mlus viuh
\njkt\/kkuh cuk yhA
\n       xgM+oky jktoa'k ds bfrgkl dks fy[kus okys izk;% lHkh
\nbfrgkldjksa dk ;g er gS fd pUnoj ds bl ;q) ds ckn xgM+oky
\nlkezkT; \/oLr gks x;k vkSj eqfLye vkdze.kdkfj;ksa ds ekxZ dh lcls
\ncM+h ck\/kk nwj gks x;hA ysfdu bl izdkj ds fdlh vfHker dks lgh ugh
\nekuk tk ldrk D;ksfd pUnoj d s ;q ) d s ik ap &N% lky ckn
\nHkh t;pUnz dk iq = gfj'pUnz i wj h jktdh; mikf\/k;k s a d s
\nlkFk 'kklu dj jgk FkkA tkS u iq j d s eNyh'kgj rglhy e s a
\nf?klok ijxuk d s dk sV ok uked xz k e l s ,d rkez i =kfHky s[ k
\n                                                               4109<\/span>
\niz k Ir gq v k gS ftl ij jfookj ikS ” k lq n h 15 fo0 l a0 1253
\n\u00bc6 tuojh 1197 bZ 0 \u00bd dh frfFk iM +h gq b Z gS A blds vuqlkj
\n^ije HkV~Vkjd egkjktkf\/kjkt ijes’oj] ijeekgs’oj v’oifr xtifr
\nujifr jkt=;kf\/kifr fofo\/k fo\/kk fopkj okpLifr Jh gfj’pUnz nso^ }kjk
\niegf; xzke nku fn;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA bl iegf; xzke dh igpku
\nvfHkys[k ds izkfIr LFky ds lehi fLFkr iksgk uked xzke ls dh xbZ gSA
\nbl dkj.k ;g Lohdkj djus esa dfBukbZ ugh gksuh pkfg;s fd pUnoj
\n;q) ds ikap &N% o”kZ ckn Hkh t;pUnz dk iq= gfj’pUnz vius oa’k dh
\nlEiw.kZ jktdh; mikf\/k;ksa ds lkFk ‘kklu dj jgk FkkA
\n      ;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd pUnoj d s ;q ) d s le;\n<\/p>\n
gfj’pUnz dh vk;q yxHkx 19 o”kZ jgh gk sx h D;k s af d
\ngfj’pUnz dk tUe 1175 bZ 0 e s a gq v k FkkA t;pUnz d s
\ncM s + l j nkui=kfHky s[ k e s a] tk s jfookj Hkknz cnh 8 fo0 l a0
\n1232 \u00bc10 vxLr] 1175\u00bd e s a fy[kok;k x;k Fkk] gfj’pUnz d s
\ntkrdeZ dk mYy s[ k gS rFkk t;pUnz d s fo0 l a0 1232 d s
\nvkf’ou lq n h 14] fnu lk se okj \u00bc29 flrEcj] 1175\u00bd d s
\npUnoj vfHky s[ k e s a egkjkt iq = gfj’pUnz n so d s tkrk sR lo
\ndk mYy s[ k gS A bl izdkj eNyh’kgj ds nkui= dks fy[kokus ds
\nle; gfj’pUnz dh vk;q 22&23 o”kZ jgh gksxhA dqN bfrgkldkjks dk ;g
\nfopkj gS fd bl ;qod jktk us eqfLye vkdze.kksa dks dSls >syk gksxk bl
\nij fopkj djuk dfBu dke gSA mUgksaus ;g lq>k;k gS fd lEHkor%
\neqbTtqn~nhu eqgEen xksjh dh jktuhfrd nwjnf’kZrk ds dkj.k gfj’pUnz
\ndks ,d lkeUr jktk ds :i esa ‘kklu djus dh vuqefr ns nh xbZ FkhA
\nvkj0 ,l0 f=ikBh dk ;g fopkj gS fd bl la?k”kZiw.kZ dky esa ckyd
\njktk }kjk viuh LorU=rk dh ,d NksVh lhek dks Hkh cpk, j[k ikuk
\nvfo’luh; yxrk gSA ysfdu gfj’pUnz ds }kjk lHkh mikf\/k;ksa dks \/kkj.k
\ndjrs gq, eNyh’kgj ds nkui= dks tkjh djuk ;g iznf’kZr djrk gS fd
\npUnoj ds ;q) ds rqjUr ckn xgM+oky lkezkT; \/oLr ugh gks x;k
\nFkk] ;|fi mldh izfr”Bk dks \/kDdk yxk FkkA xgM+oky lkezkT; ds
\nvusd lkeUrksa ds ys[k Hkh bl ckr dh iqf”V djrs gS fd os bl le; Hkh
\nxgM+oky vkf\/kiR; dks gh Lohdkj djrs Fks u fd eqfLye vkf\/kiR; dks A
\nmnkgj.k ds fy,] jk.kd fot;d.kZ dk ,d vfHkys[k fetkZiqj ftys ds
\n                                                                  4110<\/span>
\ncsy[kjk xzke ls izkIr gqvk gS tks fo0 la0 1253 ds oS’kk[k lqnh 11 \u00bc29
\nvizSy] 1197 bZ0\u00bd dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA blesa jk.kd Jhfot;d.kZ ds
\njkt esa ,d O;fDr }kjk ,d LrEHk dh LFkkiuk dk mYys[k gSA blesa
\ngfj’pUnz dk uke ugh gSA fQj Hkh] ^dkU;dqCt fot;jkT;^ dk mYys[k
\nfd;k     x;k      gS    \u00bcijeHkV~Vkjd&bR;kfn          jktkoyh\u00bd-   –    –\n<\/p>\n
-v’oifr&xtufr&ujifr&jktf=;kf\/kifr&fofo\/k&fo\/kk fopkj&okpLifr
\n& Jher~&dkU;dqCt fot;jkT;A
\n       blh izdkj e\/; izns’k esa ukxksn ftys esa mn~ny nsoh }kjk
\nfy[kok;k x;k ,d [kf.Mr vfHkys[k izkIr gqvk gS ftl ij 1237 bZ 0
\ndh frfFk iM +h gq b Z gS A bl vfHkys[k dks egklkeUr jkt cjgnso dh
\niq=h mn~nnsoh] tks dkU;dqCt esa iSnk gqbZ Fkh rFkk tks Jh egeUnnso dh
\niV~VjkKh Fkh] us fy[kok;k FkkA ble s a foU\/; s’ oj f’ko d s e af nj d s
\nfuekZ . k dk mYy s[ k gS A egeUnnso xgM+oky jktoa’k ds Jh
\nvkMDdeYye         dk     lkeUr       Fkk    \u00bcJhen~       xgM+oky&dqy&
\nfodlu&lglzka’kq&Jh vk \u00bcMDd\u00bd eYy&lkekUr&’kj.k& vkxr&otz&
\niatj&Jheu~& egeUnnso& iV~VjkKk& Jhmn~nynsO;\u00bdA ,slk yxrk gS fd
\nxksfoUnpUnznso us ftl le; foU\/; {ks= esa dYpqfj jktk dks gjk;k Fkk
\nmlh le; xgM+oky oa’k ds fdlh jktdqekj dks ogka dk ‘kkld fu;qDr
\nfd;k Fkk ftldk oa’kt vkMDdey Fkk A ;|fi bl vfHkys[k esa
\ndkU;dqCt ds xgM+oky jktoa’k dk mYys[k ugh gS fQj Hkh ;g
\nmYys[kuh; gS fd ml {ks= esa eqfLye vkdze.kksa dk dskbZ izHkko gqvk ugh
\nyxrkA blds vfrfjDr jksgrklx<+ \u00bcfcgkj\u00bd ls fodze laor~ 1297 \u00bc1223
\nbZ0\u00bd dk ,d vfHkys[k [kSjoky jktoa'k ds izrki \/koy f}rh; dk izkIr
\ngqvk gS ftlesa mlus ;ouksa dks [ksy&[ksy esa gjkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA
\n\u00bctou&nyu&ekulyS%\u00bdA \/koy jktoa'k Hkh xgM+oky ds v\/khu FkkA
\n       vr% xgM+oky jktoa'k dk lkezkT; pUnoj ds ;q) ds ckn ,dne
\n\/kjk'kk;h gks x;k] bfrgkldkjksa dh ;g vo\/kkj.kk lgh ugh yxrh A
\neqfYte bfrgkldkjks ds fooj.kksa dks ns[kus ls ;|fi ;g t:j lwfpr
\ngksrk gS fd 1193 bZ0 ds pUnoj ds ;q) esa cukjl dks thr fy;k x;k
\nFkk vkSj mlds ,d gtkj efUnj \/kjk'kk;h dj fn, x;s FksA ysfdu ,slk
\nyxrk gS fd cukjl dh ;g ywV dsoy vLFkk;h gh fl) gqbZ vkSj
\nxgM+okyksa us ml ij iqu% dCtk dj fy;k FkkA rcdkr&,&ukljh ds
\n                                                                    4111<\/span>
\nvuqlkj bYrqrfe’k dh izkjfEHkd fot;ks esa cukjl dks Hkh ‘kkfey fd;k
\nx;k gSA bl izdkj ;fn ;g ekusa fd gfj’pUnz us 1193 ds ;q) ds ckn
\niqu% viuh jkt\/kkuh dk’kh ij dCtk dj fy;k Fkk rks vuqfpr ugha
\ngksxkA eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa }kjk lEiw.kZ xgM+oky lkezkT; ij vf\/kdkj
\ndj ysus okyh ckr fdruh [kks[kyh gS ;g muds mYys[kksa ds fo’ys”k.k ls
\nHkh fl) fd;k tk ldk gSA 1193 ds pUnkoj ds ;q) ds ckn dUukSt
\nthrk ugha tk ldk Fkk] dsoy fQfj’rk gh ml o”kZ ds ;q) ds ckn ;g
\ndgrs gq, fd lqYrku us caxky dh lhek rdkjk fot; fd;k x;k rFkk bl volj ij u,
\nflDds    pyok,       x,A     blds     vfrfjDr      rktmyekFkhj       rFkk
\ndkfeymRrokjh[k tSls ledkyhu bfrgklksa esa Hkh 1193 bZ0 esa eqfLye
\nlsuk }kjk foftr uxjksa esa dUukSt dk mYys[k ugha feyrkA
\nrcdkr&,&ukljh esa dUukSt ds lkFk&lkFk cnk;wW vkSj v;ks\/;k dks Hkh
\nbYrqrfe’k ds }kjk thrs tkus dk mYys[k feyrk gSA bl izdkj if’peh
\nmRrj izns’k esa cnk;wW] e\/; mRrj izns’k esa dUukSt rFkk iwohZ mRrj izns’k
\nesa dk’kh vkSj v;ks\/;k esa bYrqrfe’k }kjk fot; fd, tkus ds mYys[kksa ds
\ndkj.k ;g ekuuk iM+sxk fd bYrqrfe’k ds ‘kkludky rd ;s {ks=
\nxgM+oky ‘kkldksa dh lRrk Lohdkj djrs jgsA ;|fi ,d&vk\/k Lfkkuksa ij
\ndgha&dgha eqfLye lsukifr;ksa dks tkxhj fn, tkus ds mYys[k feyrs gSaA
\nmnkgj.k ds fy, eqgEen bCu cf[r;kj dks 1196 bZ0 esa xaxk deZuk’kk ds
\nchp esa Hkxoku vkSj fHkmyh dh tkxhjsa fn, tkus dk mYys[k feyrk gSA
\nysfdu bl izdkj tkxhjksa dks cuk, j[k ikuk cM+k dfBu dke gksrk jgk
\ngksxk D;ksafd pkjksa vksj fgUnw jktk vkSj lkeUr ‘kklu dj jgs Fks tks
\neqfLye lRrk dks pqukSrh nsrs jgrs FksA \/khjs&\/khjs fnYyh ds lqYrkuksa dh
\nlRrk vUrosZnh ds vkUrfjd {ks=ksa esa Hkh Lohdkj dh tkus yxh gksxh
\nysfdu xgM+oky jktoa’k ds vafre \u00bc\\\u00bd ‘kkld gfj’pUnz us dc rd
\n‘kklu fd;k vkSj mlds ckn bl jktoa’k dk D;k gqvk blds fo”k; esa
\nfdlh Hkh lzksr ls dksbZ tkudkjh ugha feyrhA^^ (Pages 81-105)
\n                                                                           4112<\/span><\/p>\n
3870.          The Sultanate and Mughal period is said to
\ncommence not in the entire part of India but initially at Sindh
\nand thereafter gradually it increase to other parts. As such,
\ntherefore, it may not be said that with the advent of Sultanate
\nperiod the territory of Oudh was ruled by Muslims. On this
\naspect also in Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evem Puratatva (supra) at
\nChapter-8, pages 109-113 some details have been given and the
\nsame may be referred as under:\n<\/p>\n
               ^^bLyke dh LFkkiuk ds ckn gh vkBoha ‘krkCnh ds izkjEHk esa vjcksa
\n        us HkkjrHkwfe ij lcls igys flU\/k ij vkdze.k fd;k ysfdu ogka mUgsa
\n        dksbZ cgqr cM+h lQyrk izkIr ugha gks ldh FkhA ogka ij dsoy ,dk\/k
\n        {ks=ksa ij gh mudk jkT; dk;e gks ldk tgkWa os yxHkx vKkr :i ls
\n        rhu ‘krkfCn;ksa rd viuk vfLrRo cuk, j[k ldsA bl chp e s a
\n        bLyke u s ; wj k si l s y sd j phu rd d s fo’kky Hk w& Hkkx dk s
\n        thr fy;k Fkk fdUrq Hkkjr e s a flU\/kq d s vkx s o s viuk
\n        foLrkj ugh a dj ld s Fk sA flU\/kq unh dh ?kkVh esa Hkh bl chp esa
\n        mudk vfLrRo MkWaokMksy gh jgkA ‘kfDr’kkyh vCcklh [kyhQk ftl
\n        HkkjrHkwfe dks ugha thr lds mUgsa vQxkfuLrku esa LFkkfir gksus okys
\n        NksVs&eksVs rq#”d jktoa’kksa us ‘krkfCn;ksa rd ckjEckj fd, tkus okys
\n        iz;klksa ds ckn izkIr fd;kA uoha ‘krkCnh esa vyeewu ds ,d lsukifr
\n        rkfgj dks [kqjklku dk iz’kkld fu;qDr fd;k x;k rFkk cxnkn ds iwoZ
\n        dk iwjk {ks= mlds ‘kklu esa ns fn;k x;kA ‘kh?kz gh rkfgj vkSj mlds
\n        oa’ktksa us LorU=rk izkIr dj yh vkSj Hkkjr dh lhekvksa rd viuk
\n        foLrkj fd;kA uoha ‘krkCnh ds pkSFks pj.k esa v;wc bCu u;r vylQj
\n        ds usr`Ro esa ,d u, jktoa’k dk mn; gqvk ftlus rkfgj ds oa’ktksa ds
\n        LFkku ij vius dks LFkkfir fd;k rFkk dkcqy] tkcqy vkSj flU\/k rd ds
\n        izns’kksa dks thrkA nloha ‘krkCnh ds vfUre n’kd esa ‘kfDr’kkyh lkekuh
\n        lkezkT; dks nks rq#”d jktoa’kksa us vkil esa ckaV fy;kA lkekuh lkezkT;<\/p>\n
        ds nf{k.k dk Hkkx ;kehuh jktoa’k ds yksxksa us izkIr fd;k] ftUgsa
\n        vk\/kqfud bfrgkl ds ys[kd xtuoh dgrs gSaA
\n        lyrur dky
\n                                                                    4113<\/span>
\n;kehuh jktoa’k ds yksx vius dks Qkjl ds lezkVksa dk oa’kt crkrs gSaA
\nblh oa’k esa lqcqDrhxhu uked O;fDr dk tue gqvk Fkk ftlus xtuh esa
\n;kehuh jktoa’k dh uhao Mkyh FkhA ysfdu izkjEHk esa tc og dsoy ckjg
\no”kZ dk ,d ckyd Fkk] iM+ksl ds ,d dchys }kjk cUnh cuk fy;k x;kA
\nHkkX; ds Qsj ls og dbZ ckj csps tkus ds ckn [kqjklku ds lkekuh
\n‘kkld ds ,d vf\/kdkjh vyIrxhu ds }kjk [kjhn fy;k x;kA 977 bZ0
\nesa lqcqDrxhu us vius ‘klu dh LFkkiuk dh vkSj ‘kh?kz gh mlus cLr]
\nnkoj] dqlnkj] rq[kkfjLrku rFkk ?kwj dks vius jkT; esa feyk fy;kA
\nmlds ckn Hkkjr esa mlus ‘kkgh jktoa’k ds lkFk ;q) fd;k rFkk mlds
\ndqN {ks=ksa dks vius jkT; esa feyk;kA lq c q D rxhu dh e` R ;q 997 bZ 0
\ne s a 58 o”kZ dh vk;q e s a cY[k d s lhekUr ij gq b Z A mld s ckn
\nmldk iq = ege wn xtuh d s fl ag klu ij 998 bZ 0 e s a cS B kA
\nml le; mldh vk;q ek= 27 o”kZ dh FkhA 1000 bZ0 esa mlus Hkkjr ij
\nigyk vkdze.k fd;kA mlds ckn mlus izk;% izR;sd o”kZ Hkkjr ij
\nvkdze.k fd,A Hkkjrh; bfrgkl esa og egewn xtuoh ds uke ls izfl)
\ngSA mlds vkdze.kksa dh izd`fr eq[; :i ls ywVus rFkk ijkftr jktkvksa
\nls \/ku olwyus dh FkhA
\n       eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa us egewn xtuoh ds vkdze.kksa ds tks fooj.k
\nfn, gSa os vfrjaftr ekywe gksrs gSa vkSj muesa dsoy mldh lQyrkvksa ds
\nfooj.k gh feyrs gSaA bu fooj.kksa dks fdUgha vU; lzksrksa ls lefFkZr ugha
\nfd;k tk ldrk ysfdu izk;% bUgsa lgh eku fy;k tkrk gSA vkxs tks
\nfooj.k fn;k tk jgk gS og iwjh rjg eqfLye bfrgkldkjksa ds fooj.kksa ds
\nvk\/kkj ij gh gSA xaxk&;equk dh ?kkVh esa mldk vkdze.k 1018 bZ0 esa
\ngqvk FkkA mlus 2 fnlEcj] 1018 dks ;equk unh dks ikj fd;k rFkk jkLrs
\nesa dqN igkM+h fdyksa dks thrrs gq, cju] orZeku cqyUn’kgj] igqWapkA ml
\nle; ogka dk jktk gjnRr Fkk ftlus egewn dk eqdkcyk fd;k ysfdu
\nijkLr gqvkA mls lqYrku dks nl yk[k fnjge vkSj rhl gkFkh nsdj
\nlaf\/k djuh iM+hA mlds ckn egewn us egkcu esa ;kno jktk dqypUnz
\ndks ijkLr fd;kA rRi’pkr~ eFkq j k mld s dk si dk Hkktu cukA
\neFkq j k uxj bl le; iRFkj d s iz k dkj l s f?kjk gq v k FkkA
\nftle s a vu sd fo’kky efUnj Fk sA ble s a lcl s cM +k efUnj
\nuxj d s d sU nz e s a FkkA l aH kor% ;g d` ” .k&tUeHk wf e dk
\n                                                                        4114<\/span>
\ne af Unj FkkA bldh fo’kkyrk ls egewn vR;f\/kd izHkkfor gqvkA mldk
\nvuqeku Fkk fd ;g efUnj de&ls&de nl djksM+ yky nhukjksa ls
\ncuok;k x;k gksxk rFkk vR;f\/kd dq’ky f’kfYi;ksa us Hkh bldks cukus esa
\nde&ls&de nks lkS o”kZ dk le; yxk;k gksxkA bu efUnjksa dh vusd
\newfrZ;ksa esa ikap ewfr;kWa ‘kq) lksus dh cukbZ xbZ Fkha ftudh vkWa[kksa es ,d
\nyk[k nhukj ds jRu tM+s FksA bu lHkh e wf rZ ; k s a e s 68]300 fe”dy
\nHkkj dk lk su k FkkA pkW an h dh e wf rZ ; k s a dh l a[ ;k 200
\nFkhA ;g uxj fnYyh d s jktk d s v\/khu Fkk y sf du] fcuk
\nfdlh l a? k”kZ d s ege wn u s eFkq j k ij vf\/kdkj dj fy;k rFkk
\nlk su s vkS j pkW an h dh lHkh e wf rZ ; k s a dk s vf\/kdkj e s a y su s d s
\nckn mlu s lHkh efUnjk s a dk s tykdj jk[k dj n su s dk
\nvkn s’ k      dj      fn;kA     bu      e wf rZ ; k s a   dk s   tku&c w> dj
\nVq d M + s & Vq d M + s dj fn;k x;kA uxj e s a chl fnuk s a rd
\ny wV ekj gk sr h jgh rFkk vf\/kdk a’ k Hkou tykdj jk[k dj
\nfn, x,A
\n           eFkqjk dks ywVus ds ckn egewn xtuoh us dUukSt dh vksj iz;k.k
\nfd;kA ;|fi ekxZ esa mls izfrjks\/k dk lkeuk djuk iM+k] fQj Hkh og
\ndUukS t igq W ap x;kA ;g uxj lkr nq x k sZ a l s ;q D r Fkk ftle s a
\nnl gtkj efUnj Fk sA egewn ds vkxeu dh lwpuk ikdj izfrgkj
\noa’k dk jktk jkT;iky xaxk ds nwljh vksj ckjh uked LFkku es pyk
\nx;kA bl izdkj dUukS t dk s ege wn u s i wj h rjg y wV kA dUukS t
\nd s vfHk;ku e s a ege wn dk s nk s djk sM + fnjge] frjiu gtkj
\ncUnh rFkk rhu lkS ipkl gkFkh gkFk yx s A
\n           egewn dUukSt ls vkxs ugha csyuk iM+k
\ngksxkA egewn us 1025 bZ0 ds tuojh eghus ds e\/; esa lkseukFk ij
\nvkdze.k fd;k vkSj mls ywVkA lkseukFk ds efUnj ds f’kofyax dks mlus
\nrksM+dj [kf.Mr dj fn;k rFkk nks djksM+ fnjge dk \/ku Hkh ywVkA efUnj
\ndks Hkh \/oLr dj fn;k x;k rFkk f’kofyax ds VqdM+ksa dks xtuh ys tk;k
\nx;k tgka ij mu VqdM+ksa dks tkeh efLtn esa }kj dh lhf<+;ksa esa yxk
\nfn;k x;kA bl tkeh efLtn dk fuekZ.k 1019 bZ0 esa dUukSt dks ywVus
\n                                                                       4115<\/span>
\nds ckn djk;k x;k FkkA lkseukFk ds bl ;q) esa lS;~;n lkykj elwn Hkh
\n‘kkfey FkkA ml le; mldh vk;q 12 o”kZ dh FkhA – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
       vCnqjZgeku fp’rh ds vuqlkj elwn egewn xtuoh dh cgu ekSyk
\ndk iq= FkkA blds firk dk uke lqYrku lkykj lkgw Fkk tks vius le;
\ndk izfl) bZjkuh ;ks)k FkkA lkseukFk ij vkdze.k ds le; elwn Hkh
\negewn xtuoh ds lkFk Fkk vkSj ml le; mldh vk;q dsoy 12 o”kZ
\nFkhA lkseukFk dh ywV ds ikWap o”kksZa ds ckn elwn us bLyke ds uke
\nij ,d lsuk ,d= dh vkSj vius firk lkykj ‘kg dh lsuk ds lkFk
\nfgUnqLrku dks Qrg djus ds bjkns ls flU\/kq unh dks ikj fd;kA elwn us
\nigys eqYrku ds ‘kkgh jktk vuaxiky dks ijkftr fd;kA blds ckn
\nmlus fnYyh ds jktk efgiky ds fo#) ekspkZ fy;kA fnYyh ds ckn
\nelwn us esjB ij pdj fe=rk dj yhA – – v;ks\/;k ds fe;ka jtc
\nlkykj lSQqn~nhu us cgjkbp] vehj glu vjc us egwuk rFkk efyd
\nQty us cukjl thr fy;kA lqyrk=qlyknhu vkSj ehj cf[r;kj nf{k.k
\ndh vksj dUuwj rd x;sA ysfdu ogka ehj cf[r;kj fgUnw lsuk }kjk ekj
\nMkyk x;kA lkykj elwn us jtc ekl dh 14oha rkjh[k vFkkZr~ jfookj
\n14 twu] 1033 bZ0 ds fnu cgjkbp esa ckykdZ \u00bccky lw;Z\u00bd ds efUnj ij
\nvkdze.k dj fn;kA elwn dk o\/k jktk lqgsy nso ds }kjk gqvkA bl ;q)
\nesa cgqr ls yksxksa dh tkusa xbZ ysfdu 22 o”khZ; lkykj elwn dh e`R;q ds
\nckn ;g vkdze.k fc[kj x;kA fp’rh u s l su kvk s a dh l a[ ;k cgq r
\nc< +k &p< +k dj fy[kh gS A mld s vuq l kj] fgUn w l su k e s a chl
\nyk[k ?kq M +l okj vkS j rhl yk[k iS n y Fk s rFkk nk su k s a vk sj l s
\nyxHkx ikS u djk sM + lS f ud yM + s Fk sA y sf du ; s l a[ ;k, a
\nvR;f\/kd        vfrj af tr        gS aA     vCnq j Z g eku     fp'rh     us
\nehjkr&,&el wn h d s vUr e s a fy[kk gS fd &
\n       lkykj elwn dh e`R;q ds ckn vtesj esa eqtQ~Qj [kku
\n       Hkh ekjk x;kA mlds mRrjkf\/kdkfj;ksa dks fgUnqvksa us
\n       ekj Hkxk;kAtks ewfrZ;ka rksM+h xbZ Fkha] os iqu% LFkkfir gks
\n       xbZA
\nQStkckn xtsfV;j esa Hkh bldk fooj.k fn;k x;k gSA fLeFk us vyhZ
\nfgLV~hZ vko bf.M;k eas fy[kk gS fd &
\n                                                                    4116<\/span>
\n      o”kkZ ds ckn elwn us viuh lsuk dks vtq\/ku \u00bcv;ks\/;k\u00bd ds
\n      fo#) lapkfyr fd;kA ;|fi mu fnuksa og LFkku o
\n      mlds vkl ikl \/kuh vkcknh Fkh fQj Hkh fcuk la?k”kZ ds
\n      mls thr fy;k x;kA elwn vtq\/ku ds ekSle ls dkQh
\n      izlUu Fkk vkSj pwafd ;gka ij f’kdkj vPNs feyrs Fks
\n      blfy, og vxyh o”kkZ rd ;gka #d x;k vkSj mlds
\n      ckn fnYyh x;kA
\nlkykj elwn ds vkdze.k dk dkQh izfrjks\/k gqvk vkSj mldh lsuk ds
\nyksxksa dks txg&txg ekj [kkuh iM+hA y[ku\u00c5 QStkckn ds iqjkus ekxZ
\nij elwn dh rFkkdfFkr dczksa ls bldh lR;rk dk Kku gksrk gSA egewn
\ndh lsuk dk ,d vU; lsukuk;d vgen fu;kYrxhu Hkh Fkk ftls egewn
\nxtuoh us iatkc lwcs dk vf\/kdkjh cuk;k FkkA ,slk dgk tkrk gS fd
\nmlus 1034 bZ0 esa cukjl dks ywVk FkkA gUl csdj dk dguk gS fd ;k
\nrks mlus vFkok mldh lsuk ds fdlh vU; uk;d us bl volj ij
\nv;ks\/;k ij vkdze.k fd;k gks ldrk gSA ysfdu gUl csdj ds bl dFku
\ndks ge dsoy mudh ‘kqHk dYiuk ek= dg ldrs gSa D;ksafd bldk
\ndk sb Z Hkh iz e k.k ugh a feyrk fd fu;kYrxhu dh l su k d s
\nfdlh l su kifr u s v;k s\/ ;k ij vkdz e .k fd;k FkkA blds
\nvfrfjDr yxHkx ,d gh o”kZ iwoZ lkykj elwn v;ks\/;k ds fudV cgjkbp
\nesa ekjk x;k FkkA oSls] vgen fu;kYrxhu ds bl vkdze.k dks Hkh ge
\neqfLye bfrgkldkjksa dh ^xi* gh ekurs gSa D;ksafd rokjh[k&,&lqcqDrxhu
\nesa cSgkdh us ftl rjg ls bl ?kVuk dk o.kZu fd;k gS og cM+k lafnX\/k
\nlk yxrk gS vkSj ,slk ,syrk gS fd fu;kYrxhu dh lsuk ykgkSj ls
\nfudydj vpkud cukjl igqWap xbZ vkSj nksigj rd ywVikV djds
\nuekt ds le; rd okil ykSV xbZA cSgkdh dk fooj.k bl izdkj gS&
\n      mlus \u00bcfu;kYrxhus\u00bd vius ;ks)kvksa vkSj lsuk ds lkFk 1033
\n      bZ0 esa ykgkSj ls fudydj Bkdqjksa ls tcjnLrh [kwc jde
\n      olwyhA ckn esa og xaxk ikj djds mlds ck,a fdukjs ls
\n      uhps dh vksj py iM+kA ;dk;d og cukjl uke ds ‘kgj
\n      esa] tks xax uke ds jktk ds jkT; esa Fkk] vk igqWapkA blds
\n      igys dksbZ Hkh eqfLye lsuk ogka rd ugha igWaqph FkhA uxj
\n      nks Qjlax eqjCcs esa Fkk vkSj mlesa dkQh ikuh FkkA lsuk
\n                                                                         4117<\/span>
\n       ogka losjs ls nksigj dh uekt rd Bgjh D;ksafd T;knk
\n       Bgjus esa [krjk FkkA ctktksa rFkk xaf\/k;ksa vkSj tkSgfj;ksa dh
\n       cktkjsa ywV yh xbZ] ysfdu blls dqN vf\/kd djuk
\n       ukeqefdu FkkA lsuk ds flikgh Hkh blfy, v\/khj gks x,
\n       D;ksafd os vius lkFk ywV dk lksuk] pkWanh] vrj vkSj
\n       tokgjkr ysdj lgh lykerh ykSV tkuk pkgrs FksA
\nbl izdkj fu;kYrxhu }kjk cukjl dh ywV dh ?kVuk fcYdqy
\nfo’oluh; ugha yxrhA
\n       egewn xtuoh ds vUrosZnh \u00bcnksvkck\u00bd esa bu vkdze.kksa ds ckn ;gka
\nij ,d ‘kfDr’kkyh lkezkT; dh LFkkiuk gqbZA xgMoky oa’k ds pUnznso
\nvFkok pUnzkfnR; nso us ftl lkezkT; dh uhao j[kh mlus yxHkx ,d
\n‘krkCnh rd vUrosZnh dh lqj{kk dhA pUnznso vkSj mlds mRrjkf\/kdkfj;ksa
\nds vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xgM+oky oa’k ds lHkh jktkvksa ds
\nrq#”d vkdze.kdkfj;ksa dk lkeuk djds mUgsa ckj&ckj izR;kofrZr djuk
\niM+kA dqekjnsoh ds lkjukFk vfHkys[k ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd nq”V
\nrq#”d&chj ls okj.klh dh j{kk ds fy, Hkxoku fo”.kq dks xksfoUnpUnz ds
\n:i esa vorkj ysuk iM+k ftls fy, f’ko us izkFkZuk dh FkhA xksfoUnpUnz
\nds jkgu rkezi= ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUnpUnz us vle ;q) esa
\ngEehj dks ‘k=qrk R;kxus ds fy, ck\/; dj fn;k FkkA cnk;wWa ds y[kuiky
\nds ,d vfHkys[k ls Hkh ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd mlds iwoZt enuiky us
\ngEehj ds nosunh \u00bcxaxk\u00bd dh ?kkVh esa vkdze.k dks vlaHko cuk fn;k FkkA
\nxksfoUnpUnz ds iq= fot;pUnz dks Hkh gEehj dh xfrfof\/k;ksa dks
\nlQyrkiwoZd jksdus dk Js; fn;k x;k gSA fnYyh&f’kokfyd LrEHk ys[k
\nesa fo’kkynso dks EysPNksa dk uk’k djus dk Js; fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj
\nvUrosZnh esa eqfLye vkdze.kdkjh yxkrkj iz;kl djrs jgs vkSj ;gka ds
\njktoa’kksa us mudk izfrjks\/k Hkh le;\u2264 ij fd;kA bldk mYys[k u
\ndsoy eqfLye bfrgkldkj djrs gSa cfYd Hkkjrh; jktkvksa ds vfHkys[kksa ls
\nHkh budh lwpuk feyrh gSA blds vfrfjDr v;ks\/;k ls vHkh gky gh esa
\nizkIr fd, x, ik”k.k Qyd vfHkys[k ls Hkh ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd xksfoUn
\npUnz ds ‘kkludky esa fdlh izdkj dk vkdze.k v;ks\/;k esa gqvk FkkA
\n1193 bZ0 esa pUnoj ds ;q) esa t;pUnz ds ijkftr gks tkus ds ckn
\neqlyeku lsukvksa us okjk.klh dks u”V fd;k Fkk bldh rks lwpuk feyrh
\n                                                                      4118<\/span>
\ngS] fdUrq v;ks\/;k esa Hkh mudk vkdze.k gqvk Fkk bldh dksbZ lwpuk ugha
\nfeyrhA dqN bfrgkldkj ;g ekurs gSa fd eqgEen xkSjh ds ,d vf\/kdkjh
\ne[knwe’kkg tqjku xksjh us v;ks\/;k ij vkdze.k djds vkfnukFk ds tSu
\neafnj dks rksM+k FkkA ysfdu mlus v;ks\/;k ds fdlh vU; fgUnw eafnj dks
\nHkh u”V fd;k Fkk bldh fuf’pr lwpuk ugha feyrhA xgM+oky lezkV ds
\n;q) esa ijkftr gks tkus ds ckn eqfLye lsuk,a lkjs xgM+oky lkezkT; ij
\nviuk iz’kklu LFkkfir dj ldh gksaxh bl ij Hkh fo’okl djuk dfBu
\ngS D;ksafd vusd txgksa ij LFkkuh; :i ls eqfLye lsukvksa dk izfrjks\/k
\ntkjh jgk vkSj dgha dgha ij cgqr ‘kfDr’kkyh izfrjks\/k fd;k x;k] bldk
\nmYys[k ge ihNs dj vk, gSaA 1226 bZ- esa bYrqrfe’k ds iq= efyd
\nukfl#n~nhu egewn dks vo\/k dk iz’kkld fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj laHkor%
\nml le; fgUnw izfrjks\/k dks ,d \/kDdk yxkA rcdkr&,&ukljh esa ;g
\nmYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd v;ks\/;k esa cjrwg uked ,d O;fDr us chl
\ngtkj eqlyekuksa dks ekSr ds ?kkV mrkj fn;k FkkA ysfdu ulh#n~nhu
\negewn us vo\/k ds bu dkfQjksa dks m[kkM+ QsadkA
\n       vo\/koklh ykyk lhrkjke us vius v;ks\/;k dk bfrgkl esa fy[kk
\ngS fd pUnzoj ds ;q) esa t;pUnz ds ijkftr gksus ds ckn ‘kgkcqn~nhu
\nxksjh us 1194 esa vo\/k ij vkdze.k fd;k vkSj e[knwea’kkg tqjku xksjh
\nv;ks\/;k esa ekjk x;k vkSj ogha mldh lekf\/k cuhA ijUrq cf[r;kj
\nf[kyth us lcls igys vo\/k esa jkT; izcU\/k fd;k vkSj mls lsuk dk ,d
\ndsUnz cuk;kA blesa mldks bruh lQyrk feyh fd vklke rd dk {ks=
\nmlus vius v\/khu dj fy;kA mlus viuh ‘kfDr bruh cdj mldh vk\/khurk Lohdkj djus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA mlds
\niq= fx;klqn~nhu us caxky esa LorU= jkT; LFkkfir dj fy;k fdUrq dqN
\ngh fnuksa esa v;ks\/;k mldh v\/khurk ls fNu xbZ vkSj cgjkbp vkSj
\nekfudiqj ds chp dk izns’k fnYyh dh v\/khu dj fn;k x;kA blls
\nfgUnqvksa esa cM+h izfrfdz;k gqbZ vkSj la?k”kZ esa cgqr ls eqlyeku ekjs x,A
\nfgUnqvksa dk neu djus ds fy, ‘kkgtknk ulh#n~nhu dks fnYyh ls Hkstk
\nx;kA 1236 vkSj 1242 bZ0 esa dze’k% ulh#n~nhu egewn vkSj de#n~nhu
\ndsjku vo\/k ds iz’kkld jgsA
\n       1155 bZ0 esa lqYrku ulh#n~nhu dh eka eyd&,&tgkWa us dqryqx
\n                                                                  4119<\/span>
\n[kku ls fookg dj fy;k FkkA bl dkj.k dqryqx [kku dks vo\/k dk
\ngkfde cuk fn;k x;k rFkk 16 Qjojh 1255 dks mls vo\/k tkus dk
\nvkns’k fn;k x;kA bl chp esa myq?k [kku fnYyh njckj esa ‘kfDr’kkyh
\ngks x;k Fkk rFkk mlus ckn’kkg ls ;g gqDe fudyok fn;k fd efyd
\nrktqn~nhu ekg is’kkuh dks cgjkbp dk gkfde cuk;k tkrk gSA bl ij
\ndqryqx [kku us efyd rktqn~nhu dks cUnh cuk fy;k ysfdu og Hkkx
\nfudyk vkSj cgjkbp igqap x;kA b\/kj fnYyh njckj us iqu% dqryqx [kku
\ndks vo\/k ls cgjkbp LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k ysfdu mlus bl vkns’k dks
\nugha ekukA ckn esa 1256 bZ0 esa fnYyh ls lsuk vkus ij og xk;c gks
\nx;kA mlds LFkku ij vlZyku [kku latj dks vo\/k dk gkfde cuk;k
\nx;k fdUrq 1259 bZ0 esa mlus Hkh fonzksg dj fn;k rFkk fudky fn;k
\nx;kA
\n       blds ckn efyd ,frxhu eqbZ&njkt \u00bcyEcsa ckyksa okyk\u00bd] ftls
\nvehu [kku Hkh dgk tkrk Fkk] dks vo\/k dk gkfde cuk;k x;kA cycu
\nus y[kukSrh ds rq?kzhy ds fonzksg dks nckus ds fy, ,d cM+h lsuk ds lkFk
\nvehu [kku dks Hkstk] ysfdu og gkj x;kA bl ij cycu dh vkKk ls
\nvehu [kku dk flj dkVdj vo\/k \u00bcv;ks\/;k\u00bd ds }kj ij Vkax fn;k x;kA
\nblds FkksM+s gh fnu ckn Qjgr [kku dks vo\/k dk gkfde fu;qDr fd;k
\nx;kA mlus ‘kjkc ds u’ks esa ,d uhp dks ekj MkykA mldh fo\/kok us
\ncycu ls Qfj;kn dhA cycu us Qjgr [kku dks 500 dksM+s yxok, vkSj
\nmls ml fo\/kok dks lkSai fn;kA
\n       lYrur dky e s a vo\/k dk s gh fgUnq L rku le>k tkrk
\nFkkA cycu fnYyh ls vo\/k ds ekxZ dks fu”d.Vd cukus ds fy,
\niz;Ru’khy FkkA og nks ckn fnYyh NksM+dj dfEiy vkSj ifV;kyh esa
\nikap&Ng eghus Bgjk ftlesa yqVsjksa vkSj Mkdqvksa ls fnYyh ls vo\/k dk
\nekxZ lkQ gks tk,A blds fy, dbZ iz;kl Hkh fd, x,A caxky esa rq?kzhy
\nds fonzksg dk neu djus ds fy, tkrs le; og vo\/k esa Bgjk Fkk rFkk
\nogka ij lsuk esa dke vkus okys fofHkUu izdkj ds O;fDr;ksa] ;Fkk&?
\nkqM+lokj] iSny] ik;d] \/kuq\/kZj] dgkj] dSokuh] rhjUnkt] xqyke] ukSdj]
\nO;kikjh] nqdkunkj] vkfn dks nks yk[k dh la[;k esa ,df=r djk;kA
\ny[kukSrh fot; ds ckn cycu us cqxjk [kku dks ogka ij fu;qDr fd;kA
\njkt\/kkuh ykSVus ij mRlo euk;k x;k rFkk rq?kzhy ds leFkZdksa dks ekSr
\n                                                                            4120<\/span>
\n        ds ?kkV mrkjus dk vkns’k fn;kA ;|fi dkth us dqN dks cpk fy;k
\n        fdUrq bfrgkldkj cuhZ fy[krk gS fd rq ? kz h y d s leFkZ d k s a
\n        e s a l s ,d v;k s\/ ;k d s ‘k s[ k Qjhn d s x at &,&’kkdj d s
\n        tekr[kkuk e s a vkfRed ‘kkfUr iku s dh bPNk j[krk FkkA
\n               cycu ds ckn cqxjk [kku dk csVk dSdqckn fnYyh dk lqYrku
\n        cukA m\/kj y[kukSrh esa cqxjk [kku Lora= gks x;k FkkA cki&csVs nksuksa dh
\n        lsuk,a vkeus&lkeus FkhaA ,d ?kk?kjk ds bl fdukjs ij Msjk Mkys Fkk rks
\n        nwljk ?kk?kjk ds ml ikjA dkQh lans’kksa ds vknku&iznku ds ckn
\n        firk&iq= ,d LFkku ij feys rks dSdqckn us vius firk cqxjk [kku ds
\n        pj.kksa ij fxjdj mls vkalqvksa ls fHkxks fn;kA ckn esa nksuksa vius&vius
\n        jkT;ksa esa ykSV x,A
\n               Qjgr [kku d s fudky s tku s d s ckn [kkutgkW a vo\/k
\n        dk gfde cuk;k x;kA mlh d s dky e s a vehj [kq l jk s a nk s
\n        o”kZ   rd      v;k s\/ ;k   e sa   jgk   vkS j   ;gk a   dh   ck sy h   e sa
\n        Qkjlh&fgUnh dk s’ k [kkfydckjh dh jpuk dhA
\n               tc f[kyth o a’ k dh lYrur fnYyh e s a dk;e gq b Z rk s
\n        bl o a’ k d s l aL Fkkid tykyq n ~ n hu dk Hkrhtk vykmn~ n hu
\n        vo\/k dk ‘kkld cuk;k x;kA vykmn~nhu bykgkckn ds fudV
\n        dM+k esa jgrk Fkk tgka mlus \/kks[ks ls vius pkpk dk flj dVokdj \/kM+
\n        dks xaxk dh jsrh esa fQadok fn;k vkSj [kqn lqYrku cu cSBkA
\n               pkSngoha ‘krkCnh esa f[kyth oa’k ds ckn rqxyd oa’k vfLrRo esa
\n        vk;kA rkjh[k&,&fQjkst ‘kkgh esa fy[kk gS fd eqgEen fcu rqxyd us
\n        xaxk ds rV ij ,d uxj clkuk pkgk Fkk ftldk uke mlus LoxZ}kjh
\n        j[kk FkkA lq Y rku fQjk st rq x yd nk s ckj v;k s\/ ;k vk;k FkkA
\n        igyh ckj 1324 bZ 0 e s a vkS j n wl jh ckj 1348 bZ 0 e s aA mld s
\n        le; e s a efyd flxfu vkS j vk;kuq y eq Y d v;k s\/ ;k d s
\n        ‘kkld jg sA
\n               eqgEen rqxyd dk iwoZ uke twuk [kku Fkk vkSj ;g dgk tkrk gS
\n        fd mlh ds uke ij tkSuiqj clk;k x;k FkkA ckn esa tkSuiwj esa ‘kdhZ oa’k
\n        dk jkT; gqvk vkSj v;ks\/;k muds ‘kklu ds vUrxZr vk xbZA^^
\n3871.          We may mention that the description of Salar Masud
\nabout his alleged attack on Ayodhya is incorrect and has been
\n                                                              4121<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted by Sri T.P. Verma in his cross-examination before this
\nCourt also. We have already discussed this aspect while
\nconsidering the issues relating to period of construction of the
\nbuilding. Rest of the historical events particularly the rulers and
\ntheir periods substantially could not be show incorrect by the
\nlearned counsels.\n<\/p>\n
3872.       What actually appears from the above books that the
\ntwilight zone when Hindu rulers came to be dominated by
\nMuslim rulers has been considered by some of the historians as
\nthe commencement of the medieval period which some has
\ntermed as early medieval and some as Sultanate period. With the
\nadvent of Mughal Rulers the term has been called medieval and
\nthat has been treated to be the end of the Sultanate period. It is
\nin this context we find ASI has taken a mid way and termed 6th
\nperiod as Medieval Sultanate, 7th as Medieval and have divided
\nthe same centurywise, i.e., 11th and 12th century as Medieval
\nSultanate, 13th to 16th century to be more precise upto 1526 AD
\nto be medieval and thereafter Mughal. In fact for more clarity
\nthis division has been made. None of the alleged expert witness
\nhas shown the said classification or periodization of ASI wholly
\nunknown to historians or perverse or something which could not
\nhave been said or conceived by a person well conversant in such
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
3873.       It brings us to the concept of periodization of Indian
\nhistory-particularly for Northern India as Ancient, Medieval and
\nModern. By and large, in the present day usage, the Ancient
\nPeriod ends in the 7th century A.D., after the rule of Emperor
\nHarsh. Then starts the Early Medieval Period. It lasts till the end
\nof the 12th century. It is followed by the Medieval Period which
\n                                                                4122<\/span><\/p>\n
starts in the 13th century. In fact, the 11th and 12th centuries form
\nthe ‘transitional stage’, the stage between the Ancient and
\nMedieval i.e. early Medieval period. Earlier, in the history
\nbooks written in the first part of the 20th century, there was no
\nconcept of “Early Medieval”, the “Ancient” ended in the 11th
\ncentury and “Medieval” started in the 12th century. Thus there is
\nabsolutely no need of making sarcastic remarks against the
\nArchaeological Survey of India, as the historians themselves
\nhave not been unanimous on this issue during the last one
\nhundred years. Earlier, even “Hindu”, “Muslim” and “British”
\nwere the designations of the three-fold division of Indian
\nhistory.\n<\/p>\n
3874.       Many scholars have pointed out inadequacy of use
\nof the term “Medieval” in Indian history since this is imposing
\nthe European concept on Indian history, the characteristic
\nfeatures of say British Mediaevalism which was never present
\notherwise in India. It is more systematic and precious to use
\ncenturies, like 11th, 12th, 16th, 20th in the present context instead
\nof Ancient, Medieval and Modern. For this kind of division
\nthere are several Radiocarbon Dates from the site, the list of
\nwhich is given in the Report. Periodization won’t be a cut off
\nfeature like on-off electric current by a switch. It is the flow and
\nmerger of previous culture and power structure of the
\nimmediately following period. Any specific data is only
\nsuggestive of some event of significance which throws light
\nboth on the past and the next.\n<\/p>\n
3875.       Professor R.S. Sharma mentioned in his book
\n“Perspective in Social and Economic History of Early India”
\non page 228-229 an important problem in the general history of
\n                                                               4123<\/span><\/p>\n
India is that of transition from the ancient to medieval, certain
\ndates such as AD 647, 711, 750, 916, 997 and 1206 have been
\nsuggested as landmarks in political history. But since politics
\nwas the preoccupation of a small section of society in early
\ntimes, it has to be shown whether any of the above mentioned
\ndates or whether any other date or point of time is equally
\nsignificant in the history of land system, crafts and commerce
\npolity, society, language, art, religion, etc. There has taken place
\na lot of discussion whether Harsavardhana’s death in AD 647
\nmarks the end of one and the beginning of another era in India
\nhistory. The statement of Vincent Smith that the death of
\nHarsavardhana set in the process of decline of Indian history has
\nbeen ably refuted by a number of scholars, and especially by
\nH.C. Ray. But for those who wish to investigate patterns of
\nsocial and economic life, the real point to look for is not the
\npresages of decline and prosperity but the nature of change in
\nthe existing way of life. If the change is of a fundamental nature,
\nit should be regarded as heralding the advent of new period. If it
\nis a minor change it would not necessitate any new
\ncharacterization of the period, even the question to the process
\nof change involved in it. We have to carefully consider how far
\nthe decline of the existing system of life shows symptoms of the
\nrise of a new pattern of life. None of these points have been
\ntaken into account either by V. Smith when he says that the
\ndeath of Harsavardhana in AD 647 brings a period of decline or
\nby those who try to refute his theory.\n<\/p>\n
3876.       On the grounds of dynastic and political history
\nH.C. Ray suggests that AD 916 should be accepted as the line of
\ndemarcation between the two periods in the history of northern
\n                                                             4124<\/span><\/p>\n
India. In his opinion: “these may be called the ancient and the
\nmedieval periods; but it would be perhaps more reasonable to
\ncall them simply the Hindu period and the period of the Turks
\nand Afghans. A similar approach has been adopted by some
\nother scholars. In the fifth volume of the “History and culture
\nof the Indian People”, it is said at one place that ancient India
\ncame to an end in AD 997, (the period subsequent whereto
\nMahmood Gazni invaded on the northern front) and again at
\nanother, that in Indian history the medieval factor was
\nintroduced in the thirteenth century. Both views are based on the
\nassumption that the Muslim conquest ushered in mediaevalism
\nin India. Does it mean that without the Muslim conquest there
\nwould have been no mediaevalism in India? Does it imply that
\nthe countries of Europe which escaped this conquest had no
\nmediaeval period in their history? In Europe it is difficult to
\nthink of mediaevalism without feudalism, the origins and nature
\nof which have to be examined in the case of India.”
\n3877.      In “The History and Culture of the Indian People”,
\nBhavan’s Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan
\nMumbai (first edition 1957), 5th Edition 2001, Vol. V, “The
\nStruggle for Empire” in the foreword written by Dr. K.M.
\nMunshi it is said that for over 2000 years, i.e., from before the
\ndays of King Janmejaya Parikshita, referred to in the
\nBrahmanas, the culture of the dominant classes, developing in
\nalmost unbroken continuity, had brought large sections of the
\npeople within its fold. It was, however, disturbed on occasions,
\nfor instance by the raids of Alexandar; by the influx of the
\nBactrian Greeks, the Kushanas and the Sakas; by the invasion of
\nthe Hunas; by the Arab incursions in Sindh. But these inroads
\n                                                             4125<\/span><\/p>\n
were only temporary episodes; the vitality of the culture and
\nsocial organisation found it easy to absorb most of the alien
\nelements which were left behind in the country after they were
\nclosed. It was based on the faith that Bharatvarsha, in its ideal
\naspect often referred to as Aryavarta, was the sacred land of
\nDharma, ‘the high road to Heaven and to Salvation’; where ‘men
\nwere nobler than the Gods themselves; where all knowledge,
\nthought and worship were routed in the Vedas, revealed by the
\nGods themselves; where the Dharmasastras prescribes the
\nfundamental canons of personal life and social relations; where
\nChaturvarnya, the divinely-ordained four-fold order of society,
\nembraced all social groups; where, whatever the dialect of the
\npeople, Sanskrit, the language of the Gods, was the supreme
\nmedium of high expression. ‘The Dharmasastras’ and by that is
\nmeant not only the Smritis beginning with the Manu-smriti, but
\nthe Mahabharata and Ramayana have played a very big role in
\nthe life of the country. Manu-smriti as the Dharmasastra of
\ndivine origin, has had an all-pervading influence from the time
\nhistorical memory could reach back to moulding the mind and
\nthe life of men, not only in India but in the India beyond the
\nseas, in Burma, Siam, Annam, Combodia, Jawa and Bali. With
\nthe Mahabharata and the Ramayana, it has provided a
\nbackground of continuity to the social and moral life; modified
\ncustomary laws of tribes and communities in different stages of
\ncivilization; and built up the Collective Unconscious of our
\npeople that subconscious source of integrative vitality which
\nkeeps a people together, leads them to feel and react as one in
\nthe face of certain circumstances, and provides the urge to
\ncollective action of a recurring character. Century after century,
\n                                                              4126<\/span><\/p>\n
the system, first formulated by the Manu-smriti, was accepted
\nthroughout the country, never by force of arms, less by royal
\nfiats than the sanction implied in the belief that ‘God gave it and
\nthe ancestors obeyed it’. It was found so acceptable because it
\nhad a revealing basis of reality: of a frank recognition of the
\ntemperamental inequalities of man; of the predominance of
\nhereditary influences over environments; of the need for a
\nsynthetic framework for widely differing social groups in a vast
\ncountry where culture have been staggered from not only region
\nto region, but often from one group of villages to another. But
\nthen the year AD 1000 was fateful year for Bharatversha. The
\ncrucial age in Indian history began in AD 998 when the Turkish
\nconqueror Mahmood captured Ghazni and thereafter invaded
\nIndia for umpteen times. Generally it is believed that Mahmood
\ninvaded Indian territory for 17 times and his last visit was in AD
\n1027. He drove India on enormous wealth and destroyed much
\nof its man power by repeated expeditions. This extortion of
\neconomic resources and man power told upon the future
\npolitical destiny of India. Particularly the destruction of Shahi
\nKingdoms which barred the gates of India against foreign
\ninvaders dealt with a severe blow to its future independence.
\nThe inclusion of Punjab and Afganistan in the kingdom of
\nGhazni made Islamic conquest of India a comparatively easy
\nprocess. The northern part of India, however, soon recovered. In
\nBihar area, i.e., Magadh, Tirabhukti and Mithila, sometimes
\naround AD 1097 Nanyadev of Karnataka dynasty established his
\nsupremacy while Kannauj was taken by Gaharwala dynasty in
\nthe later part of the 11th century. After 1034 AD till 1068 AD we
\nfind no information about any military campaign by muslims
\n                                                               4127<\/span><\/p>\n
against Hindustan. The cause might be the forceful dominant
\nmilitary power of Parmar Bhoj and Kalchuri Karn who led
\nexpeditions even into the heart of muslim territory of Punjab.
\nBhoj died about 1055 AD and Karn died about 1072 AD
\nwhereafter the military expeditions recommenced. Prince
\nMahmood, the Governor of Punjab plundered Kannauj and
\nKalanjar and invaded Ujjain between 1086 to 1090 AD. 42
\ninscriptions of Govindacharya’s reign bearing dates extended
\nfrom AD 1114 to 1154 proving that his kingdom extended
\natleast up to Banaras, Fatehpur and Kanpur districts on the south
\nKannauj, on the west Gonda and Gorakhpur, on the north
\nDinapur in Patna (Bihar) on the east. The last king in succession
\nwho live peacefully for about 2 decades was Jaichand but was
\ndefeated in the end of 12th century by Muizz-ud-din Muhammad
\nGhuri who came after conquering Delhi and Ajmer by defeating
\nPrithviraj Chahmanas. Ghuri captured the fort of Asni in
\nFatehpur district where the treasure of the king of Banaras was
\ndespoted and then plundered Banaras city also. In 1197 it
\nappears that Harishchandra son of Jai Chandra retained his
\npower over Kannauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur district resting his
\npatron kingdom from the commands of muslims. He was,
\nhowever, killed by Malik Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah the
\neldest son of Iltutmish in AD 1226 and the Kannauj was finally
\nconquered by Iltutmish. It may be added at this stage that
\nMuhammad Ghuri after his death was succeeded by Kutubuddin
\nAibak in 1206 AD who establish the Turkish Sultanate in India
\nat Lahore later transferred to Delhi. It is in this context that the
\nSultanate period is considered to have commenced in the first
\nhalf of 13th century.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             4128<\/span><\/p>\n
3878.       Nothing is brought to our notice which may suggest
\nanything otherwise in the historical background referred to
\nabove. We therefore find no reason whatsoever in the above
\nbackground to hold periodization determined by ASI as
\nmistaken.\n<\/p>\n
3879.       Moreover, we have no doubt in our mind that ASI,
\nas a premier institution of this country, is responsible for the
\npreservation, maintenance and discovery of ancient monuments
\nand sites, as well as archaeological survey and excavation. They
\nare experts of expert. No archaeologist in this country can
\nundertake an archaeological expedition at a historical site of
\nimportance without permission or licence from ASI. The status
\nenjoined t ASI which we have already referred, empowers it to
\ncontrol all these activities. The finds and researches as well as
\nthe determination and conclusion of any archaeologist or other
\nexpert in this field is not normally recognised unless it has been
\nscrutinized by ASI and after approval it is also published in the
\nregular journals of ASI. An individual at some point of time may
\nbe said to have acted with some kind of bias, legal or factual as
\nthe case may be, but to brandish the entire body or a large
\nnumber of its officials who belong to different religions
\nincluding Muslims also, that they have worked with
\npreconceived notions is not only an irresponsible attitude to
\nshow some kind of pre-determined plan and scheme to atleast
\ncreate a clout on a remarkable and excellent work ASI it has,
\notherwise performed. The result of a work, if it is not chewable
\nto one or more, will not make the quality of work impure or
\nsuspicious. The self contradictory statement, inconsistant with
\nother experts made against ASI of same party i.e. Muslim, extra
\n                                                             4129<\/span><\/p>\n
interest, and also the fact that they are virtually hired experts
\nreduces trustworthiness of these experts despite of their
\notherwise competence. The allegations, need much more
\nmaterial to substantiate. In the matter of stratigraphy\/
\nperiodization made by ASI, in the absence of anything to show
\nthat what they have said is improbable, ex facie fake or incorrect
\nor that no person having adequate knowledge in the subject may
\nhave formed such opinion, we have no reason to disbelieve or
\ndiscard it and instead accept version of interested and partisan
\nexpert witnesses who at times have made contradictory
\nstatements as we have already noticed to some extent above.
\nWe, therefore, find no force in the objection with respect to
\nthe stratification\/periodization made by ASI.
\nPillar Bases
\n3880.       The next and the biggest objection is with respect to
\nthe pillar bases. We thus proceed to consider the same. A serious
\nallegations of framing of certain structures in particular, i.e.
\ncertain pillar bases have been levelled by submitting objections
\ndated 21.05.2003 and 07.06.2003 which we have already
\ndiscussed in detail. Normally, it would have been suffice to
\nmention at this stage that had there been any truth, the same
\ncould not have gone unnoticed by such a large number of
\npersons present at the site particularly when two members of
\nHigher Judicial Services were also present there as ‘Observers’
\nhaving been appointed by this Court. We have already noticed
\nthat two expert archaeologist, i.e., PW 16 and 24 who have
\ngiven very long statements before this Court thrice and twice
\nrespectively, both of them visited the site in June 2003 and Dr.
\nMandal also visited again in Sept. 2003. Both of them admitted
\n                                                               4130<\/span><\/p>\n
that in June 2003 they had no idea or information that any
\nstructure was manipulated by the members of Archaeological
\nTeam of ASI. However considering the seriousness and also the
\nfact that in the Court, the stand is slightly different, we would go
\nin further detail of these allegation.\n<\/p>\n
3881.         The ASI in Chapter IV commencing from page 48
\nhas considered various structures it found during the course of
\nexcavation. For the time being we leave other structures and
\nproceed with the pillar bases in respect whereto the reference is
\non page 55 and onwards. It says:\n<\/p>\n
              “From the excavation it could be inferred that there
\n        were seventeen rows of pillar bases from north to south,
\n        each row having five pillar bases. Due to area restriction
\n        and natural barriers, the pillar bases in the central part
\n        occupied by the make-shift structure on the raised platform
\n        could not be located. Out of excavated fifty pillar bases
\n        only twelve were completely exposed, thirty five were
\n        partially exposed and three could be traced in sections
\n        only. A few pillar bases were noticed during earlier
\n        excavation after which a controversy took place about their
\n        association with different layers and their load bearing
\n        capacity. The present excavation has set aside the
\n        controversy by exposing the original the form of the bases
\n        having calcrete and stone blocks arranged and set in a
\n        proper manner over a brick foundation and their
\n        arrangements in rows including their association with the
\n        top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed
\n        structure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The seventeen rows of pillar bases were constructed
\n                                                         4131<\/span><\/p>\n
along the north-south running brick wall (wall 16) on the
\nwest. The distance of the first pillar base in each row from
\nthe wall ranges from 3.60 to 3.86m. Seventeen rows of
\npillar bases could be categorised in three different groups
\non the basis of north-south distance which varies in
\ndifferent groups whereas east-west distance from centre to
\ncentre of each pillar base vary from 2.90 to 3.30m. Six rows
\nof the pillar bases on north and south were at the
\nequidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30m. Central five
\nrows consisting twenty five pillar bases show different
\nequations-two rows on either sides of the central row were
\nplaced approximately at the distance of 5.25m. whereas the
\nother two rows on either side of these three rows were at
\nthe distance of 4.20 – 42.5 m. From this it could be easily
\nconcluded that the central part of the pillared structure was
\nimportant and special treatment was given to it in
\narchitectural planning.\n<\/p>\n
      In the southern area only one decorated sand stone
\nwas found over a pillar base while in the northern area
\nmany of the pillar bases were found topped by a plain sand
\nstone block set over the brick bat foundation having
\ncalcrete blocks over them (Pl. 36). Top parts of stone
\nencasings had a projection in the middle. In the northern
\narea at a few places where the stone blocks were not found
\nsand stone slabs were found over the calcrete blocks of the
\ncrick bat foundation of the pillar bases. The decorated
\noctagonal sand stone block on pillar base32 having floral
\nmotif on four corners in trench F7 in the southern area is
\nthe unique example at the site (Pl. 39) which definitely
\n                                                                 4132<\/span><\/p>\n
        belongs to the twelfth century A.D. as it is similar to those
\n        found in the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at
\n        Sarnath (Pl. 40) which belongs to the early twelfth century
\n        A.D. Seeing its cut or broken surface on one side its use as
\n        the base of a neighbouring pilaster (Pl. 41) attached with
\n        wall 16 in trench E6 cannot be ruled out.”\n<\/p>\n
3882.         Thereafter the details of pillar bases have been
\ntabulated showing a total number of 50 pillar bases in different
\ntrenches the relevant extract whereof is as under:
\nPillar Base Trench No.                 Pillar Base Trench no.\n<\/p>\n
number given                           given    by\nby ASI                                 ASI\n1.                ZH3-ZH2 baulk        2.            ZF2\n3.                ZG2                  4.            ZG2\n5.                ZH2                  6.            ZH2-ZJ2 baulk\n7.                ZF1                  8.            ZG1\n9.                ZH1                  10.           ZF1\n11.               ZG1                  12.           ZG1\n13.               ZH1                  14.           ZH1-H1 baulk\n15.               F1                   16.           F1-G1\n17.               G1                   18.           H1\n19.               H1                   20.           F2-G2 baulk\n21.               G2                   22.           F2\n23.               F2-G2 baulk          24.           G2\n25.               F3                   26.           G5\n27.               H5                   28.           F6\n29.               F6                   30.           G6\n31.               F6-F7 baulk          32.           F6-F7\n33.               G6-G7 baulk          34.           E7-F7 baulk\n35.               F7                   36.           G7\n37.               F8                   38.           F8\n39.               G8                   40.           F8-F9 baulk\n                                                                   4133<\/span>\n\n41.               F8-F9 baulk           42.           G8-G9 baulk\n43.               E9-F9 baulk           44.           F9\n45.               G9                    46.           G9-H9 baulk\n47.               E10-F10 baulk         48.           F10\n49.              G10-H10 baulk      50.        H10\n<\/pre>\n
3883.         The learned experts who have appeared before this
\nCourt rendering their opinion on behalf of muslim parties have
\nsought to challenge this part of the report making serious
\nallegations that most of the pillar bases have been created,
\nactually they did not exist. This attack is led on front by PW 29,
\n32 and DW 6\/1-2. These very Experts (Archaeologists) who
\nhave deposed their statements on behalf of muslim parties
\ncomplaining about the manner in which the ASI have functioned
\nin the above excavation have also said simultaneously
\nsomething otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
3884.         PW 29, Jaya Menon on pages 177-178 and 179-180
\nhas said:\n<\/p>\n
              “Excavation was conducted by a team of members
\n        of the A.S.I. It was supervised by two Judicial Officers
\n        throughout the excavation. Besides these observers,
\n        parties, their counsels nominees and experts were also
\n        present during excavation. Day to day register was
\n        maintained during excavation on day to day basis by ASI
\n        but so far as site note book is concerned I don’t know about
\n        it. Day to day register was signed by parties or their
\n        nominees and Advocates regularly on day to day basis.
\n        Antiquity register was not maintained by ASI on day to day
\n        basis. During my stay at the excavation site I did not sign
\n        on the daily register. Since it was not compulsory to sign
\n        this register therefore I did not sign this register, day to day
\n                                                                         4134<\/span><\/p>\n
        register mentioned the antiquities found in various trenches
\n        on daily basis . . . . . .During my stay at Ayodhya I verified
\n        by inspection of day to day register, the antiquities recorded
\n        on day to day basis in the daily register but did not sign the
\n        register.” (Page 177-178)
\n                “During excavation photography of trenches
\n        along with artefacts was being regularly done. There was
\n        three     dimensional       recording       during      excavation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Videography was regularly done but I do not know that
\n        videography of each and every trench was being dome or
\n        not. I have not seen the C.D. Of video recording prepared
\n        by the ASI. . . . . .I have seen the site note books prepared
\n        by the A.S.I. And submitted in the court. Site note books
\n        were prepared by the A.S.I. trenchwise on the basis of
\n        regular excavation at excavation site. It is correct that
\n        excavation conducted by the A.S.I. Was grid system of
\n        excavation. Vertical and horizontal excavation were some
\n        by A.S.I. At the site. . . . . .It is correct that for the
\n        compliance of the order of the court horizontal excavation
\n        was necessary on the spot. Vertical excavation by itself was
\n        not sufficient because both types of excavation were
\n        necessary. Both types of excavation had been conducted by
\n        the A.S.I. at the spot. A.S.I. has given it’s report along with
\n        some plans and sections.” (Page 179-180)
\n3885.           Similarly PW 30, Dr. R.C. Thakran has said:\n<\/p>\n
                ^^lkekU; rkSj ij Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo foHkkx ds mR[kuu dh Vhe ds
\n        lnL; ftudks mR[kuu ds dk;Z dk lqijfot+u dk Hkkj lkSaik x;k Fkk] o s
\n        uk sV ~l rk s y sr s Fk s] ijUrq ml rjg d s uk sV ~l ugh a fy; s
\n        tkr s Fk s] ftl rjg d s uk sV ~ l dh , sl h ifjfLFkfr;k s a e s a
\n        vko’;drk gk sr h gS A uksV~l ysus ls esjk rkRi;Z [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku tks
\n                                                                      4135<\/span>
\nHkh vo’ks”k izkIr gksrs gSa] pkgs os fdrus gh rqPN ut+j vkrs gksa] lHkh dh
\nmfpr izdkj ls fjdkfMZax gksuh pkfg, vkSj bl fjdkfMZax dk ys[kk&tks[kk
\nV~sap uksV cqd esa gksuk gh pkfg,] rkfd tc Hkh dHkh bldks dUlYV djus
\ndh vko’;drk iM+s] rks fd;k tk ldsA eq > s bl ckr dh tkudkjh
\ngS fd ,0,l0vkbZ 0 }kjk ,d M sy h jftLVj e sU V su fd;k
\ntkrk Fkk] ftle s a ‘kke d s oDr fnu&Hkj d s mR[kuu d s
\nnkS j ku mR[kuu drkZ v k s a d s vuq l kj tk s mYy s[ kuh; vo’k s” k
\ngk sr s Fk s] mudh fjdkfMZ ax dh tkrh FkhA eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk
\nekSds ij ^^lkbZV uksV cqd** esuVsu djrs ugha ns[kk FkkA ;|fi vkerkSj
\nij ^^lkbV uksV cqd** mR[kuu ds nkSjku iz;ksx dh tkrh gSA^^ \u00bcist 54\u00bd
\n       “Generally, members of the excavation team of
\nIndian Archaeology Department who were assigned the job
\nof supervising the excavation work, used to take notes but
\nsuch type of notes were not taken down as are required
\nin such circumstances. By the words ‘taking notes’ I mean
\nthat proper recording should be done of all the remains
\nwhich are discovered in course of the excavation,
\nhowsoever trivial they seem to be, and accounts of this
\nrecording should only be maintained in the note book in
\nregard to the trench so that it may be consulted whenever
\nsuch need be there. I have the information that ASI
\nmaintained a daily register recording in the evening all
\nremains discovered in course of day-long excavation and
\nwhich the excavators take to be worth recording. I did
\nnot see ASI taking site notebooks, though such notebooks
\nare generally used in course of excavation.” (E.T.C.)
\n       ^^mR[kuu ds nkSjku tc eSa mR[kuu LFky ij ekStwn jgk Fkk] rc
\neS au s ;g n s[ kk Fkk fd mR[kuu l s iz k Ir tk s iq j ko’k s” k
\nmR[kfur fd, tkr s Fk s] mudh fjdkfMZ ax rk s gk sr h Fkh] ijUrq
\nlHkh izdkj ds iqjko’ks”kksa dh leqfpr fjdkfMZax ugha gksrh FkhA** \u00bcist 75\u00bd
\n                                                                       4136<\/span><\/p>\n
          “In course of the excavation, when I was present at
\nthe excavation site, I saw that the antiquities obtained
\nfrom the excavation were certainly recorded but a proper
\nrecording of all sorts of antiquities was not done.” (E.T.C.)
\n          ^^iz’u& v;ks\/;k esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku tks iqjko’ks”k izkIr gq, Fks]
\nD;k mudh baMsfDlax \u00bcuEcfjax\u00bd dh xbZ Fkh\\
\nmRrj& gkWa] eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS fd mR[kuu d s nkS j ku tk s
\niq j ko’k s” k   miyC\/k     gk sr s   Fk s   vkS j   ftudk s   mR[kuudrkZ
\negRoi w. kZ ekur s Fk s] mu iq j ko’k s” kk s a dh mR[kuu d s nkS j ku
\nekfdZ ax dh tkrh FkhA
\niz’u& mijksDr iqjko’ks”k ftudh ekfdZax gksuk vkius vHkh crk;k gS]
\nD;k ;g ekfdZax fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr esd f’kQ~V LV~Dpj ds iwjc
\nfLFkr ,d CkM+s pcwrjs ij gksrh Fkh\\
\nmRrj& gkWa] eq>s ;g tkudkjh gS fd mDr LFky ij fnu Hkj dh [kqnkbZ
\nds nkSjku tks iqjko’ks”k \u00bcmR[kuudrkZvksa dh n`f”V ls rFkkdfFkr egRoiw.kZ
\nvo’ks”k\u00bd feyrs Fks] mudh ekfdZax vkSj fyfLVax ogkWa u djds fdlh vU;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
txg ij dh tkrh Fkh vkSj mlds i’pkr~ bl rjg ls fyfLVax dh xbZ
\niqjko’ks”kksa dh tkudkjh mR[kuudk;Z dks izfrfnu lekIr djus ls igys
\nmifLFkr i;Zos{kdksa ;k vU; mifLFkr O;fDr;ksa dks nh tkrh FkhA^^ \u00bcist
\n76\u00bd
\n“Question:- Was the indexing done of the antiquities
\ndiscovered from the Ayodhya excavation ?\n<\/p>\n
Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the antiquities
\nwhich were discovered in course of the excavation and
\nwhich were considered to be important by the
\nexcavators, were marked in course of the excavation.
\nQuestion:- You have just told about the marking of the
\nafore-said antiquities. Was this marking done at a big
\nchabutra located east of a make-shift structure at the
\ndisputed site ?\n<\/p>\n
Answer:- Yes, I have the information that the marking and
\n                                                                     4137<\/span><\/p>\n
listing of the antiquities which were discovered as a result
\nof the day long digging at the said place (and which were
\ncalled important from excavators’ point of view ), used to
\nbe done at any place other than there. After that,
\ninformation regarding the antiquities thus listed, used to be
\ngiven to supervisors or the other present persons before the
\nend of each day’s excavation work.” (E.T.C.)
\n       ^^;g lgh gS fd v;k s\/ ;k dh [kq n kbZ e s a vnkyr d s
\nvkn s’ kk s a d s vuq l kj lHkh i{kdkj ,o a mud s ukfeuh dh
\nmifLFkfr e s a gh dk sb Z etn wj ;k ,0,l0vkbZ 0 Vhe dk dk sb Z
\nlnL; mR[kuu {k s= e s a tk ldrk FkkA [kq n kbZ d s le;
\nvnkyr }kjk fu;q D r i;Z o s{ kd mifLFkr jgr s Fk sA              ——\n<\/p>\n
– -eSaus ,d le; esa rhu] pkj V~sapst ls Hkh T;knk V~sapst esa [kqnkbZ gksrs
\nns[kk FkkA eSaus vkB &nl] ckjg V~sapst es ,d lkFk [kqnkbZ gksrs ns[kk FkkA
\n[kq n kbZ d s le; e sj s lkFk eq f Lye i{k d s ,d] nk s] rhu
\n,DliVZ & ukfeuh jgr s Fk sA ** \u00bcist 118\u00bd
\n        “It is true that in the Ayodhya excavation, under
\nthe orders of the court, any labourer or any member of
\nthe ASI team could go to the excavation site only in the
\npresence of all the parties or their nominees. Court-
\nappointed supervisors used to be present at the time of
\nexcavation. . . . . . . I had at a time seen the digging going
\non in even more than three to four trenches. I had seen the
\ndigging going together in 8-10 or 12 trenches. At the time
\nof excavation, I used to be accompanied with one or two
\nor three experts or nominees from the Muslim side.”
\n(E.T.C.)
\n       ^^[kqnkbZ ds le; i{kdkjksa es eks0 gkf’ke rFkk gkth egcwc [kqnkbZ
\nLFky ij jgrs Fks] buds vfrfjDr ogkWa ds tks LFkkuh; odhy jgrs Fks]
\nmuds uke eq>s ;kn ugha gSa – – – – – ,slk ugha Fkk fd nks ohfM;ks dSejk]
\n                                                                               4138<\/span>
\n        nks fLVy Q+ksVksxzkQ+j rFkk nks M~kQ+~VeSu [kqnkbZ okys gj V~sap ij jgrs FksA
\n        [kqnkbZ ds oDr ‘kke ds le; Msyh jftLVj esa ftrus vkfVZQSDVl feyrs
\n        Fks] mudk bUnzkt bu vkfVZQSDVl dh izkfIr dh V~sap] mldh xgjkbZ rFkk
\n        vkfVZQSV~l ds fooj.k ds lkFk fd;k tkrk FkkA jftLVj e s bUnz k t
\n        U;k;ky; }kjk fu;q D r nk s I;Z o s{ kdk s a dh mifLFkfr e s a gk sr k
\n        FkkA jftLVj e s a bl bUnz k t d s ckn i;Z o s{ kdk s a rFkk
\n        ,DliVZ d s gLrk{kj gk sr s Fk sA eS au s Hkh mDr M sy h jftLVj
\n        ij gLrk{kj fd, Fk sA ** \u00bcist 119\u00bd
\n               “Among the parties Mohammad Hashim and Haji
\n        Mahmood used to be present on the excavation site at the
\n        time of excavation. Besides them, local counsels used to be
\n        there. I do not remember their names. . . . . . . It was not
\n        that two video cameras, two still photographers and two
\n        draftsmen used to be present at every trench of digging. All
\n        the artefacts discovered in course of the excavation, used to
\n        be entered in the daily register in the evening with the
\n        name and depth of trench from where these artefacts were
\n        discovered and with descriptions of artefacts. Entries in
\n        the register use to be done in presence of two court-
\n        appointed supervisors. After the recording of entries in
\n        the register, they used to be signed by supervisors and
\n        experts. I had also signed the said daily register.”
\n        (E.T.C.)
\n3886.          On the question of “Pillar Bases” Para 5 (5.1 to
\n5.16) contains the allegations and alleged irregularities, as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
        5. THE MYTH OF SO CALLED “PILLAR BASES”:-<\/p>\n
        5.1    That the so called pillar bases are one or more
\n        calcrete stones resting upon brickbats, just heaped up,
\n        though A.S.I. claims that mud-mortar was also sometimes
\n                                                         4139<\/span><\/p>\n
used. In many of them the calcrete stones are not found at
\nall. As one can see from the descriptive table on pages 56-
\n67 of the Report not a single one of these supposed “pillar
\nbases” has been found in association with any pillar or
\neven a fragment of it; and it has not been claimed that
\nthere are any marks or indentations or hollows on any of
\nthe calcrete stones to show that any pillar had rested on
\nthem. The A.S.I. Report nowhere attempts to answer the
\nquestions (1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at the
\nbase, and (2) how mud-bounded brickbats could have
\npossibly withstood the weight of roof-supporting pillars
\nwithout themselves falling apart. It also offers not a single
\nexample of any medieval temple where pillars stood on
\nsuch brick-bat bases.\n<\/p>\n
5.2. That the Report’s claim of these so called “pillar
\nbases” being in alignment and their being so shown in
\ninfancy drawings (Figures 23, 23A and 23B), is not borne
\nout by the actual measurements and distances; and there is
\nindeed much doubt whether the plan provided by A.S.I. is
\ndrawn accurately at all, since there are enormous
\ndiscrepancies between Fig. 3A (the main plan) and the
\nTable in Chapter IV on the one hand, and the Report’s
\nAppendix IV, on the other.\n<\/p>\n
5.3. That even those “pillar bases” that lie in the first
\nnorth-south “row” on the west, lie at different distances
\nfrom thick western wall: the distances varying between
\n3.60 and 3.86 m. The east-west distance between any two
\nfeatures (center to center) can vary from 2.9 to 3.3 m
\n(difference of 40 cm) (p. 55) whereas in the north-south
\n                                                           4140<\/span><\/p>\n
direction there is greater variation between each feature
\nand its neighbor: 3-3.3 m in the north and in the south, and
\nabout 5.25 m in the central area. The use of the term
\n“rows”, therefore, is incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
5.4. That the entire manner, in which the A.S.I. has
\nidentified or created the so called ” pillar-bases” is a
\nmatter of serious concern. Complaints were regularly made
\nto the Observers appointed by the High Court that the
\nA.S.I. was ignoring calcrete-topped brickbat heaps where
\nthese were not found in appropriate positions and selected
\nonly such brickbat heaps as were not too far-off from its
\nimaginary grids, and there creating the so called “bases”
\nby clearing the rest of the floor of brick-bats. In this respect
\nreference may be made to the complaints dated 21.5.2003,
\n7.6.2003, 28.6.2003, 26.7.2003 and 2.8.2003 etc.
\n5.5. That the most astonishing thing, that the A.S.I. so
\ncasually brushes aside, relates to the varying levels at
\nwhich the so called “pillar-bases” stand. Even if we go by
\nthe A.S.I.’s own descriptive table (pages 56-67), as many as
\nseven of these so called 50 “bases” are definitely above
\nFloor 2, and one is in level with it. At least six rest on
\nfloor 3, and one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since at
\nleast Floors 1 to 3 are even recognised by the A.S.I. to be
\nfloors of the Mosque, how can so many pillars be said to
\nhave been erected after the Mosque had been built, in order
\nto sustain a so called earlier temple structure! Moreover, as
\nmany as nine so called “pillar bases” are shown as cutting
\nthrough Floor No. 3. So, are we to presume that when the
\nMosque floor was laid out, the so called “pillar bases”\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4141<\/span><\/p>\n
were not floored over? It is thus clear that the said
\nstructures are simply not “pillar bases” at all, but some
\nkind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits, which continued
\nto be laid right from the time of Floor 4 to Floor 1.
\n5.6. That the comparative stratigraphy of these 50 alleged
\nbases also requires comment. The tabulation on p.p. 56 to
\n67 gives us the following data:-\n<\/p>\n
      2 bases (nos. 16, 26) were cut through Floor 4.
\n      25 of them (from the Z- trenches in the north to the
\n      G10 and H10 trenches in the south) rested on Floor\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.
\n      6 of them on Floor 3 (nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 37).
\n      1 ( no. 28) actually is said to rest “at the junction of
\n      Floor 3 and 4”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2 of them cut through Floor 3 (nos. 12, 15).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7 of them project above Floor 2 (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8
\n      and 14).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We thus see that these 50 features belong to different floors
\nand therefore could not all have been functional at the
\nsame time. They lack coherence as architectural features. It
\nis irresponsible, therefore, to repeatedly refer to “rows” of
\nthese features, as has been done in the report.
\n   Some of these features appear to incorporate all sorts of
\nmaterial: pieces of brick, small stones and brick pieces,
\nlong stone slabs, and D-shaped large stones, etc. This also
\nleads to the inference that all these structures could not
\nbelong to any one period.\n<\/p>\n
5.7. That even the table on pages 56-67 of the A.S.I.’s
\nReport may not correctly represent the layers of the pillar
\n                                                         4142<\/span><\/p>\n
bases, since its information on floors does not match that of
\nthe Report’s Appendix IV, which in several trenches does
\nnot attest to Floor No. 4 at all, which the said “pillar-
\nbases”, in many cases, are supposed to have been sealed
\nby, or to have cut through or stand on!
\n5.8. That most of these so called pillar bases of the
\nnorthern side comprise of sqaure sandstone slabs, perhaps
\nresting on calcrete blocks (only one has been excavated
\nthat reveals the calcrete block). The inner dimensions of
\nthese pillar bases range from 48.5×43, 50×50, 47×46,
\n48×56, 49.5×49 and 51×51 cm. These dimensions are
\ncompletely different from those of the pillars that have
\nactually been recovered. The dimensions of the latter range
\nfrom 21×21 to 24×24 cm. Thus, the pillars that could be
\nsaid to have stood on the said northern pillar bases would
\ncertainly not be the black stone pillars, used in the mosque,
\nor any other pillars of the same or similar type.
\n5.9. That the A.S.I.’s assumption is that the floor, with
\nwhich are associated these so called pillar bases in the
\nnorth, is the same as Floor 2 in the south. However, it
\ncannot be definitely said that the floors in E2, F2 or G2
\ncan be easily correlated with E1, F1 or G1 or with ZF1 or
\nZG1.\n<\/p>\n
5.10. That the A.S.I.’s own information on the said pillar
\nbases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.
\nFor example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in
\nChapter IV, 50 ‘pillar bases’ have been described and have
\nbeen illustrated in Fig. 3A. The number and the location of
\nthese ‘pillar bases’, however, do not tally with information
\n                                                         4143<\/span><\/p>\n
given in Appendix IV as illustrated in the following Table:-
\nDiscrepancies on numbers of ‘pillar bases’
\n Trench           Number of ‘pillar Number      of
\n                  bases in Appendix ‘pillar bases’
\n                  IV                in Fig. 3A
\n                                    and
\n                                    Tabulation in
\n                                    Chapter IV
\n E1               Brick      wall\/pillar –\n<\/p>\n
                  base?-1
\n E2               Brick      wall\/pillar –\n<\/p>\n
                  base?-1
\n ZF1              3                      2<\/span>
\n F1               ‘pillar        bases’- 1
\n                  unspecified
\n F2               1                      1<\/span>
\n F3               1                      1<\/span>
\n F4               1                      –\n<\/p>\n
 F6               2                      2<\/span>
\n F7               1                      4<\/span>
\n F8               2                      4<\/span>
\n F9               2                      2<\/span>
\n F10              3                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
 ZG2              'pillar        bases'- 1\n                  unspecified\n ZG1              2                      3<\/span>\n G1               2                      2<\/span>\n G2               3                      4<\/span>\n G5               1                      1<\/span>\n G6               1                      1<\/span>\n G7               2                      2<\/span>\n G8               1                      1<\/span>\n G9               3                      3<\/span>\n G10              2                      1<\/span>\n ZH2              2                      2<\/span>\n                                                          4144<\/span>\n\n ZH1               2                      1<\/span>\n H1                2                      2<\/span>\n H5                2                      1<\/span>\n H10               2                      1<\/span>\n J2                1                      -\n L1                2                      -\n L2                2                      -\n L3                2                      -\n L7                2                      -\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
5.11. That, two ‘pillar bases’ are mentioned in H5, H10,
\nG10 and ZH1 whereas only one in these trenches have been
\nillustrated and described in the text. ‘Pillar bases’ in the L
\nseries of trenches and J2 have not been indicated in the
\nTabulation as illustrated above.\n<\/p>\n
5.12. That on p. 55, distances between ‘pillar bases’ have
\nbeen given, that in the east-west direction, center-to Centre
\ndistance was 2.90-3.30 m. However, the distance between
\n‘pillar bases’ 37 and 38 is 3.80 m. Similarly, these are not
\nalways in alignment as is the case with ‘pillar base’ 30 in
\nTrench G6. ‘Pillar bases’ 37 and 38 in Trench F8 are also
\nnot in alignment with each other.\n<\/p>\n
5.13. That the dubious nature of the ‘pillar bases’ is
\nillustrated by the figures attached with the complaints. The
\ncollection of calcrete and brickbats at a lower level than
\nthe above has been ignored by the A.S.I. even though it
\nresembles their so called ‘pillar bases’. At times, walls were
\ncut to make ‘pillar bases’ as in Trench F6. The confusion
\nbetween walls and ‘pillar bases’ is apparent in Trenches E1
\nand E2. The same is the case with ‘pillar base’ 27 in Trench
\n                                                          4145<\/span><\/p>\n
H5. This is nothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.
\n5.14. That more serious problem has been created by
\ngiving Figs. 23A and 23B, showing the ‘pillar bases’
\nhypohetically. An incorrect impression is being created, by
\nshowing some ‘pillar bases’ where no structure was
\nexposed at all and where no excavation was also done.
\n5.15. That there is an additional problem with the “pillar
\nbase” interpretation. Load carrying pillar bases require to
\nrest on hard and resistant surfaces, on floor slabs or
\nrammed floors of say 30 to 40 cm height, or else to be set
\ninto or enclosed in pits that are packed tight with filled
\nmaterial. The various sections in the report indicate that
\nthis is not the case (see, e.g., Figures 8,9,10 where the
\nfeatures appear to have only been set without packing into
\nthe ground, and interrupt the continuity of Floor 2, which
\nis only a few centimeters thick, and lies over a stratum not
\nsaid to be homogeneous earth filling, or of rammed earth.
\nThus the very use of the words “rows” and “bases” is
\nincorrect and misleading. These features could in some
\ncases represent a pile of unused bricks, broken or entire. In
\nother cases, they may have been used to fill hollows or to
\nraise the level of the mound. In yet other cases they could
\nhave been used to shore up a heavy wall or else to function
\nas an apron for a building.\n<\/p>\n
5.16. That the A.S.I. should have surely looked about for
\nother explanations of these heaps of brickbats, before
\njumping to its so called “pillar base” theory. There was
\nanother clear and elegant explanation. When the surkhi-
\nlime mortar bonded Floor No. 4 was being laid out over
\n                                                                  4146<\/span><\/p>\n
        the mound, sometime during the Sultanate period, its
\n        builders much have had to level the mound properly. The
\n        hollows and depressions then had to be filled by brickbats
\n        topped by calcrete stones (the latter often joined with lime
\n        mortar) to fill them and enable the floor to be laid. When
\n        in time Floor 4 went out of repair, its holes had similarly to
\n        be filled up in order to lay out Floor 3. And so again when
\n        Floor 3 decayed, similar deposits of brickbats had to be
\n        made to fill the holes in order to lay out Floor 2 (or, indeed,
\n        just to have a level surface). This explains why the so
\n        called “pillar bases” appear to “cut through” both Floors 3
\n        an 4, at some places, while at others they “cut through”
\n        Floor 3 or Floor 4 only. They are mere deposits to fill up
\n        holes in the floors. Since such repairs were at times needed
\n        at various spots all over the floors, these brickbat deposits
\n        are widely dispersed. Had not the A.S.I. been so struck by
\n        the necessity of finding pillars and “pillar bases” to please
\n        its masters, which had to be in some alignment, it could
\n        have found scattered over the ground not just fifty but
\n        perhaps over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats.
\n3887.         As we have already noticed, these objections were
\nprepared by PWs-29 and 32 as they themselves have admitted in
\nthe affidavit filed by them supporting their stand taken in the
\nobjections. There are some difference in their statement. PW-29
\n(Jaya Menon) in her affidavit in para 13 says as under:\n<\/p>\n
        A.    That the ASI’s own information on so called pillar
\n        bases is highly confusing and marked with discrepancies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        For example, in the tabulation of so called pillar bases in
\n        Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 so called ‘pillar bases’
\n                                                          4147<\/span><\/p>\n
have been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.
\nthe number and the location of said ‘pillar bases’, however,
\ndo not tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The
\ndetails have been provided in the Objections filed by the
\nSunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP dated October 8th 2003.
\nB.    That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so
\ncalled pillar bases in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (page 17
\nof Appendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no
\nmention of pillar bases in L1 (pages 76-85), L3 (pages 67-\n<\/p>\n
75) and L7 (pages 54-66). Nor are there any pillar bases
\nmentioned in Site Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site
\nNote Books No. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between
\nvarious trenches in the L series.\n<\/p>\n
C.    That a study of the Site Note Books brings out
\ndiscrepancies from the information provided in the Final
\nReport. site Note Books Nos. 37 and 21 for Trench G7
\nmake no mention of recovering any pillar bases. however,
\nthe listing of so called pillar bases in the Final Report from
\npages 56-67 has records of so called pillar bases in Trench
\nG7 (pillar base No. 26; pages 64-65) and in the G6\/G7
\nbaulk (pillar base No. 33; page 64). Appendix IV of the
\nFinal Report on page 10 mentions so called two disturbed
\npillar bases for Trench G7. It needs to be emphasized that
\nthe Site Note Books are the result of hte trench supervisor’s
\nobservations and impressions. Interpretations may also
\nform a part of Site Note Books. But, here, we find that
\ntrench supervisors make no mention of anything remotely
\nlike a pillar base but these suddenly appear in the Final
\nReport.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          4148<\/span><\/p>\n
D.    That the so called pillar bases are not in alignment
\nwith each other as should be expected in a pillared hall. At
\nthe same time, anything that has been found out of line with
\ntheir imagined alignment has been discarded as evidence.
\nA complaint was also filed which noted that structure was
\nexposed in the eastern part of J2\/J3 baulk after excavating
\na platform. Since it did not fall in line with the ASI’s pillar
\nbase in Trench J1 it was not considered as base. But in
\nphysical appearance, made of calcrete and brickbats, this
\nstructure resembles many of the ASI’s so called pillar
\nbases. It is clear that this structure indicates nothing but
\nthe manner in which the platform was constructed. This
\nshows the bias with which the ASI was working and their
\nselective use of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
E.    That is is clear that at times, walls were cut to make
\nso called ‘pillar bases’ as in Trench F6 and thus there is in
\nAppendix IV, a confusion between walls and so called
\n‘pillar bases’ in Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case
\nwith the so called ‘pillar base’ in Trench H5. This is
\nnothing but the southern part of Wall 18B.\n<\/p>\n
F.    That a more serious problem is showing the so called
\n‘pillar bases’ hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B. An
\nincorrect impression is being created, by showing some so
\ncalled ‘pillar bases’ where they do not exist.
\nG.    That the ASI’s assumption that the floor, with which
\nare associated these pillar bases in the north, is the same
\nas Floor 2 in the south, is baseless as there has been no
\nconcordance of trenches in the north and south.
\nH.    That according to the Report (page 54), Structure 4
\n                                                         4149<\/span><\/p>\n
(the ‘massive structure’) “has survived through its nearly 50
\nmetre long wall (wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed so
\ncalled pillar bases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the
\nfloor of the last phase of Structure 4.” However, several
\nsections provided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46)
\nclearly show that the floor to which they were supposed to
\nbe attached sealed these so called ‘pillar bases’. In Fig. 6,
\nthe ‘pillar bases’ has cut through Floor 3 (the floor
\nassociated with sub-period VIIB) and should have been
\nattached to Floor 2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly
\nshows Floor 2 intact over alleged ‘pillar base’ 31 which
\nmeans the supposed sandstone block with orthostats and
\npillar could not have projected over Floor 2. This was the
\ncase also with so called ‘pillar bases’ in Trenches F2, G2
\nand G5.\n<\/p>\n
I.    That these so called “pillar bases” are too flimsy to
\nhave supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of
\nbrickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that
\nwould be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.
\nDiameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not
\nplaced in courses as should be the case, but are random, in
\nmany cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats
\nvaries from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not
\nlie only under the stone but also over the stone as in
\nTrenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure
\nunstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over
\nthem. If these really were rounded bases, originally they
\nwould have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks
\ninstead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4150<\/span><\/p>\n
J.    That if these really were pillar bases, they should
\nhave had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.
\nIn contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic
\nsite of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,
\nmade of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the
\ncentre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,
\nconstructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in
\nthe case of Ayodhya. Three Photographs of these pillar
\nbases of Sanghol were filed as Annexures Nos. 2, 3, and 4
\nalongwith the Additional objection of Sunni Waqf Board
\ndated 3-2-2004.\n<\/p>\n
K.    That the northern area is the only area of the site
\nwhere pillar bases have been found. These appear to have
\nbeen part of a separate much later period structure. In an
\narea of about 10 x 10 metre, these were embedded in Floor
\n1 and hence were contemporary with Floor 1. These pillar
\nbases comprise of square sandstone slabs, of which only
\none has been excavated with a calcrete block. The inner
\ndimensions of these pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x
\n50, 47 x 46, 48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These
\ndimensions are completely different from those of the black
\nstone pillars that have actually been recovered with
\ndimensions ranging from 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. Thus, the
\npillars that would have stood on the said northern side
\npillar bases were certainly not the black stone pillars.
\nThese northern side pillar bases are the ones numbered 1-
\n8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.\n<\/p>\n
L.    That barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and 14, the ASI
\nhas created so called ‘pillar bases’ in the rest of the site.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4151<\/span><\/p>\n
Their creation has been actually observed during
\nexcavation and complained about. The deponent has
\npersonally witnessed the creation of so called ” pillar
\nbases” in Trenches ZF1, F3, F6, G5 and F2\/G2.
\nM.     (i)   That observations were made of the creation of
\nso called pillar bases in Trench ZF1 from 29th April to 30th
\nApril 2003. Floor 1 was exposed at 40 cm bsl, Floor 2 at
\n57 cm bsl and Floor 3 at 80 cm bsl, all floors being lime-
\nsurkhi floors. Floor 1 was reached on April 29th 2003 and
\nwas cut through on 30th April 2003, exposing a complete
\nbrickbat layer. But during excavation, when a stone was
\nobserved as protruding out of the brickbats, the brickbats
\nin the area near the stone were left in a squarish shape
\nwhile the rest of the brickbats were removed and thrown
\naway. On April 30th 2003 when Floor 2 was cut through,
\nthe same king of brickbat layer was exposed beneath it.
\nThis brickbat layer can be easily observed by studying the
\nsouth-facing section in Trench ZF1. A complaint was
\nlodged about the creation of this so called “pillar base”.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   That the creation of a so called pillar base was
\nobserved in Trench G5 from 24th – 30th of May 2003. Under
\nthe Babri Masjid floor various alignments of brickbats
\nwere excavated. By the 28th of May 2003, brickbats in the
\nnorth-western area were concentrated on because there
\nwere traces of mortar on these. The mortar was probably
\nremnants from Floor1. By the 30th of May 2003, brickbats
\nwere left in a somewhat circular shape because a few small
\nstone chips with traces of mortar on them were found. This
\nwhole contraption was made into a so called pillar base by
\n                                                         4152<\/span><\/p>\n
selective digging and partial removal of brickbats. It
\nappears that any co-occurrence of stone, even in the form
\nof chips, and brickbats was made into a so called pillar
\nbase, as long as it is 3.30 m to 3.50 m away from the next.
\nAny stones along with brickbats found out of this alignment
\nwas not made into a pillar base. A complaint was lodged
\nduring excavation about the creation of this “pillar base”
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) That the same situation of creation of so called pillar
\nbases can be seen in Trench F3. The relevant excavation s
\ntook place from July 8th to 12th July2003. In this trench,
\npart of the wall of the northern dome of the Babri Masjid is
\nstill standing. A sandstone slab was recovered in the north-
\nwestern corner of the trench at 2.30 m bsl. On excavation,
\nbrickbats were found lying all over the trench and Floor 2
\nwas partially seen below the brickbats at 3.08 m below
\nsurface level (bsl). On the 9th of July 2003, brickbats were
\nselectively removed, leaving those only around the
\nsandstone slab. Further excavation down to Floor 3 at 3.35
\nm bsl revealed a similar layer of brickbats under it. Finally
\nthe so called pillar base was created by heaps of brickbats
\nthat had been left in place around a sandstone slab while
\nremoving all the other brickbats in the rest of the trench. A
\ncomplaint was lodged during excavation about the creation
\nof this “pillar base”.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) That the construction of a so called pillar base was
\nobserved in Trenches F2\/G2 from the 23rd to the 26th of July
\n2003. The loose deposit under the Babri Masjid floor was
\nremoved leaving brickbats in the north-eastern part of the
\n                                                         4153<\/span><\/p>\n
trench in a semi-circular shape. By the 24th of July, the
\nentire area was cleared leaving brickbats in the eastern
\narea and a small patch in the south-western part. What is
\nimportant is that the eastern and western parts of the
\ntrench were excavated carefully with knife and brush unlike
\nthe rest of the trench that was excavated with a pick. This
\nwas because it was in the eastern and western portions that
\nso called pillar bases had to be created, keeping their
\ndistance from those constructed in Trench G1. It must also
\nbe pointed out that in the clearing work, a collection
\nbrickbats and sandstone in the north-western part of the
\nexcavated area was removed because it did not fall in an
\nexpected alignment of so called pillar bases. This
\n‘structure’ had been objected to earlier in a complaint filed
\non 21st May 2003. By the 26th of July, brickbats in the
\nsouth-western part were recovered along with sandstone
\nchips. Digging under Floor 1 revealed brickbats in the
\nentire area, but the south-eastern and south-western areas
\nwere excavated separately. It was very obvious that these
\nwere going to be made into so called pillar bases, even
\nthough brickbats had been found in the entire area. By
\n11.40 am, the area was cleared but further digging
\nrevealed the same king of deposit of brickbats, mud, and
\nbrick nodules. By afternoon, the so called “pillar base” in
\nthe south-eastern area was created by removing brickbats
\nfrom its edges to give it a neat shape. Glazed were sherds
\nwere found at this level. The so called “pillar base” in the
\nsouth-western part of the trench was cleared of brickbats of
\nmake it equal in size to its counterpart and a piece of
\n                                                        4154<\/span><\/p>\n
broken floor sticking to it was removed. Very obviously,
\nthese so called pillar bases were created by selectively
\nremoving brickbats that lie under each floor. A complaint
\nwas lodged during excavation about the creation of this so
\ncalled “pillar base”.\n<\/p>\n
N.    That it was observed that, during excavation,
\nbrickbats were selectively removed so as to leave brickbat
\nheaps around stone piece and blocks. (There were
\npreconceived ideas about where so called “pillar bases”
\nwere to be carved out of brickbats. If no sandstone or
\ncalcrete blocks or slabs were noted, heaps of brickbats
\nwere left at intervals of 3.00-3.30 m.) A clear attempt was
\nmade to neaten the edges of so called “pillar bases” by
\nremoving brickbats to give rounded\/squarish shapes. It
\nappears that at the end of the excavation, when some so
\ncalled ‘pillar bases’ were found obviously out of alignment,
\nthey were dismantled as in the case of the structure in the
\nnorth-west of Trench G2.\n<\/p>\n
O.    That the sections of a trench provide us direct
\nevidence of the brickbats layers that lay under individual
\nfloors. (It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed
\nfrom the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of
\nG8\/G9 baulk, north, south, and east-facing sections of F1,
\nnorth- and south facing sections of G1, north-facing
\nsection of H1, and east-facing section H1\/H2 baulk, south-
\nand west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section of G2
\nand east-facing section of F9.) In archaeology, whenever
\nsections are made during excavation, protruding artefacts
\nlike antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are never
\n                                                                 4155<\/span><\/p>\n
        scraped level with the section but are allowed to protrude.
\n        This provides a correct picture of the section and its
\n        cultural material. In the case of Ayodhya, the above-
\n        mentioned trenches show gaping holes from where
\n        brickbats have been removed.\n<\/p>\n
        P.    That the so called “pillar bases” were only part of a
\n        floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
\n        underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
\n        stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. The
\n        intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and
\n        brick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as
\n        fillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final
\n        Report), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and
\n        platforms and so forth.\n<\/p>\n
        Q.    That it seems that originally the aim was to create the
\n        so called pillar bases all over the excavated area. 8 so
\n        called ‘pillar bases’ were carved out in the L series of
\n        trenches as can be seen by Appendix IV (page 17) of the
\n        Final Report. As pointed out, there is no mention of these in
\n        the individual Site Note Books of the L series of trenches.
\n        These were probably not included in the final tabulation or
\n        in Fig. 3B showing so called ‘pillar bases’ as they did not
\n        fit in which the ASI’ plan of a so called temple with a large
\n        brick pavement in front. This brick pavement to the east
\n        was considered as the entrance of the massive structure
\n        and hence pillar bases would not have fitted into this plan
\n        further to the east.”\n<\/p>\n
3888.         PW 32 (Dr. Supriya Verma) in her affidavit dated
\n27th March, 2006 has said:\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4156<\/span><\/p>\n
A.     That the northern area is the only area of the site
\nwhere pillar bases have been found. In an area of about 10
\nx 10 m, these were embedded in Floor 1 and hence were
\ncontemporary with Floor 1. These pillar bases comprise of
\nsquare sandstone slabs, of which only one has been
\nexcavated with a calcrete block. The inner dimensions of
\nthese pillar bases range from 48.5 x 43, 50 x 50, 47 x 46,
\n48 x 56, 49.5 x 49 and 51 x 51 cm. These dimensions are
\ncompletely different from those of the black stone pillars
\nthat have actually been recovered with dimensions ranging
\nfrom 21 x 21 to 24 x 24 cm. There is a pillar lying in the
\ngully to the north of the mound that may have fitted on top
\nof these pillar bases. Thus, the pillars that would have
\nstood on the northern side pillar bases were certainly not
\nthe black stone pillars. These northern pillar bases are the
\nones numbered 1-8, 13 and 14, by the ASI.\n<\/p>\n
B.     That barring pillar bases 1-8, 13 and 14, the ASI has
\ncreated ‘pillar bases’ in the rest of the site. Their creation
\nhas been actually observed during excavation was even
\nand complained about. The deponent has personally
\nwitnessed the creation of “pillar bases” in Trenches G2, G5
\nand F3. Observations were made on the creation of “pillar
\nbases” in Trench G2 from May 16-20, 2003, in Trench G5
\nfrom May 27-30, 2003, and in Trench F3 from July 8-12,
\n2003 and complaints were filed on May 21, 2003, June 28,
\n2003     and    July    26,   2003     respectively.   These
\ncomplaints\/objections were prepared by the deponent and
\nDr. Jaya Menon and were filed under the signatures of
\nMuslim parties and their counsels.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4157<\/span><\/p>\n
C.    That a close observation of the excavation and
\nrecording was done of Trench G2 from May 16 to May 20,
\n2003. It was found that brickbats randomly scattered over
\nthe entire excavated area were selectively removed so as to
\ncreate a visual impression that the brickbats were confined
\nto only a portion of the excavated area. An examination of
\nthe section will reveal the fact that brickbats lay in the
\nlayer below Floor 1. When Floor 2 was dug through, once
\nagain a whole layer of brickbats was exposed.
\nD..   That the so called “pillar bases” were only part of a
\nfloor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
\nunderlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
\nstone block blocks and slabs and other material as fillers.
\nThe intervening spaces were filled with brickbats, mud and
\nbrick nodules. Stones have also been used at the site as
\nfillers (as seen from the Plates 4, 21, 30, 50 in the Final
\nReport), levelling mechanisms and for raising walls and
\nplatforms and so forth.\n<\/p>\n
E.    That during excavation, brickbats were selectively
\nremoved so as to leave brickbat heaps around stone pieces
\nand blocks. If no sandstone or calcrete blocks or slabs were
\nnoted, heaps of brickbats were left at intervals of 3.00-3.30
\nm. It appears that at the end of the excavation, when some
\nso called “pillar bases” were found obviously out of
\nalignment, they were dismantled as in the case of the
\nstructure in the northwest part of Trench G2.
\nF.    That the sections of a trench provide us direct
\nevidence of the brickbat layers that lay under individual
\nfloors. It is also obvious that brickbats have been removed
\n                                                         4158<\/span><\/p>\n
from the sections of many trenches: south-facing section of
\nG8\/G9 baulk, north-, south-, and east-facing sections of
\nF1, north- and south-facing sections of G1, north-facing
\nsection of H1, and east-facing section of H1\/H2 baulk,
\nsouth- and west-facing sections of ZF1, east-facing section
\nG2 and east-facing section of F9. (In archaeology,
\nwhenever sections are made during excavation, protruding
\nartefacts like antiquities or bricks, stone and brickbats are
\nnever scraped level with the section but are allowed to
\nprotrude. This provides a correct picture of the section and
\nits cultural material.) In the case of Ayodhya, the above-
\nmentioned trenches show gaping holes from where
\nbrickbats have been removed.\n<\/p>\n
G.    That the ASI’s own information on the so called
\n“pillar bases” is highly confusing and marked with
\ndiscrepancies. For example, in the tabulation of “pillar
\nbases” in Chapter IV of the Final Report, 50 “pillar bases”
\nhave been described and have been illustrated in Fig. 3A.
\nThe number and the location of “pillar bases”, however, do
\nnot tally with the information given in Appendix IV. The
\ndetails have been provided in the Objections filed by the
\nSunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP on October 8th 2003.
\nH.    That Appendix IV in the Final Report mentions so
\ncalled “pillar bases” in trenches L1, L2, L3 and L7 (p. 17 of
\nAppendix IV). Yet, Site Note Book No. 30 makes no mention
\nof pillar bases in L1 (pp. 76-85), L3 (pp. 67-75) and L7
\n(pp. 54-66). Nor are there any “pillar bases” mentioned in
\nSite Note Book No. 24 for Trench L2, or Site Note Books
\nNo. 22 and 38 on the cutting of baulks between various
\n                                                          4159<\/span><\/p>\n
trenches in the L series.\n<\/p>\n
I.    That it seems that originally the aim was to create
\n“pillar bases” all over the excavated area. Eight so called
\n“pillar bases” were carved out in the L series of trenches as
\ncan be seen by Appendix IV. (p. 17) of the Final Report. As
\npointed out, there is no mention of these in the individual
\nSite Note Books of the L series of trenches. These were
\nprobably not included in the final tabulation or in Fig. 3B
\nshowing “pillar bases” as they did not fit in with in the
\nASI’s plan of a temple with a large brick pavement in front.
\nThis brick pavement to the east was considered as the
\nentrance of the massive structure and hence so called
\n“pillar bases” would not have fitted into this plan further to
\nthe east.\n<\/p>\n
J.    That a study of the Site Note Books brings out
\ndiscrepancies from the information provided in the Final
\nReport. Site Note Books Nos.37 and 21 for Trench G7 make
\nno mention of recovering any so called “pillar bases”.
\nHowever, the listing of “pillar bases” in the Final Report
\nfrom pp. 56-67 has records of “pillar bases” in Trench G7
\n(pillar base No. 36; pp. 64-65) and in the G6\/G7 baulk
\n(“pillar base” No.33; p. 64). Appendix IV of the Final Reprt
\non p. 10 mentions two disturbed “pillar bases” for Trench
\nG7. It needs to be emphasized that the Site Note Books are
\nthe result of the trench supervisor’s observations and
\nimpressions. Interpretations may also form a part of Site
\nNote Books. But, here, we find that trench supervisors make
\nno mention of anything remotely like a “pillar base” but
\nthese suddenly appear in the Final Report.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4160<\/span><\/p>\n
K.    That the so called “pillar bases” are not even in
\nalignment with each other as should be expected in a
\npillared hall. At the same time, anything that has been
\nfound out of line with their imagined alignment has been
\ndiscarded as evidence. A complaint filed on 24th July, 2003
\nnoted that a structure was exposed in the eastern part of
\nJ2\/J3 baulk after excavating a platform. Since it did not fall
\nin line with the ASI’s so called “pillar base” in Trench J1 it
\nwas not considered as a base. But in physical appearance,
\nmade of calcrete and brickbats, this structure resembles
\nmany of the ASI’s so called “pillar base”. It is clear that
\nthis structure indicates nothing but the manner in which the
\nplatform was constructed. This shows the bias with which
\nthe ASI was working and their selective use of evidence.
\nL.    That it is clear that at times, walls were cut to made
\nso called “pillar base” as in Trench F6 and thus there is in
\nAppendix IV, a confusion between walls and “pillar bases”
\nin Trenches E1 and E2. The same is the case with the
\n“pillar base” in Trench H5. This is nothing but the southern
\npart of Wall 18B.\n<\/p>\n
M.    That a more serious problem is that of showing the so
\ncalled “pillar bases” hypothetically in Figs. 23A and 23B.
\nAn incorrect impression is being created, by showing some
\n‘pillar bases’ where they do not exist.\n<\/p>\n
N.    That the ASI’s assumption that the floor with which
\nare associated these so called “pillar bases” in the north is
\nthe same as Floor 2 in the south is baseless as there has
\nbeen no concordance of trenches in the north and south.
\nO.    That according to the Report (p. 54), Structure 4 (the
\n                                                        4161<\/span><\/p>\n
‘massive structure’) “has survived through its nearly 50 m
\nlong wall (Wall 16) in the west and fifty exposed pillar
\nbases to its east attached with Floor 2 or the floor of the
\nlast phase of Structure 4.” However, several sections
\nprovided by the ASI (Figs. 6, 10, 16, Plates 21, 46) clearly
\nshow that the floor to which they were supposed to be
\nattached sealed these “pillar bases”. In Fig. 6, the “pillar
\nbase” has cut through Floor 3 (the floor associated with
\nsub-period VIIB) and should have been attached to Floor\n<\/p>\n
2. However, the section in Fig. 6 clearly shows Floor 2
\nintact over “pillar base” 31 which means the supposed
\nsandstone block with orthostates and pillar could not have
\nprojected over Floor 2. This was the case also with “pillar
\nbases” in Trenches F2, G2 and G5.\n<\/p>\n
P.    That these so called “pillar bases” are too flimsy to
\nhave supported any load-bearing pillars. Made largely of
\nbrickbats, these are completely lacking in uniformity that
\nwould be expected if these were in reality pillar bases.
\nDiameters vary from 1.10 m to 1.90 m. Brickbats are not
\nplaced in courses as should be the case, but are randaom,
\nin many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats
\nvaries from 5-55 cm within a single base. Brickbats do not
\nlie only under the stone but also over the stone as in
\nTrenches F7 and F10. Brickbats make the entire structure
\nunstable and would get broken if a weight was placed over
\nthem. If these really were rounded bases, originally they
\nwould have been constructed of wedge-shaped bricks
\ninstead of which we find brickbats of jagged shape.
\nQ.    That if these really were pillar bases, they should
\n                                                               4162<\/span><\/p>\n
        have had casings within which the pillar would have fitted.
\n        In contrast, we see real pillar bases at the Early Historic
\n        site of Sanghol. One notices that these are rectangular,
\n        made of large bricks neatly placed with a depression in the
\n        centre to set the pillar. These are all of uniform size,
\n        constructed uniformly and are accurately aligned, unlike in
\n        the case of Ayodhya. The deponent had visited the said site
\n        of Sanghol. District Ludhiana (Panjab) alongwith Dr. Jaya
\n        Menon and Dr. Suchi Dayal in 2004 and Dr. Jaya Menon
\n        and the deponent had taken the photographs of the said
\n        Sanghol site (3 of which have already been filed as
\n        ANNEXURES Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Additional objection
\n        dated 3-2-2004 filed by the Sunni Waqf Board against the
\n        A.S.I. Report.)
\n3889.         After very careful considerations of the above as
\nalso the arguments advanced before us including ASI report, it
\nappears to us that the report of ASI sought to be criticized by the
\nplaintiffs (Suit-4) as if ASI was supposed to satisfy them about
\nits finding and not the Court. Several fanciful objections have
\nbeen made just to multiply and add the list of the objections.
\n3890.         Under the heading “The Myth of so called pillar
\nbases”, paras 5.12, 5.16, in a general way, all the pillar bases are
\nsought to be discredited though a number of pillar bases, we
\nhave already demonstrated, are admitted by the experts of the
\nmuslim parties. Complaints in respect to some of the pillar
\nbases, which were made on 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003
\nhave already been discussed above and that itself is sufficient to
\ndiscard the objections of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect.
\nHowever, we propose to throw some more light on the subject
\n                                                                         4163<\/span><\/p>\n
of pillar bases.\n<\/p>\n
3891.          In the cross examination, the Expert (Archaeologist)
\nplaintiffs (Suit-4) have also said something about pillar bases.
\nPW-16 (Surajbhan) said:\n<\/p>\n
               ^^bu rFkkdfFkr fiyj c sl st + ij e af njk s a d s dk sb Z fpUg
\n        vFkok flEcy ugh a gS aA ** \u00bcist 149\u00bd
\n               “There are no signs or symbols of temples on these
\n        so-called pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)
\n               ^^cuHkksj okys LVksu ds fiyj cslt+ ckcjh efLtn ds mRrjh Hkkx
\n        esa mR[kfur fd;s x;s fiyjcslst ls dqN fHkUu FksA ysfdu tks bZaVksa ds
\n        fiyj cslst crk;s x;s gSa mu lcdk okLro esa fiyj csl gksuk lafnX\/k
\n        gSA mu fiyj cslst+ ds lkFk dzkllsD’ku ugh fn;k x;k gS] ftlls ;g
\n        VsLV fd;k tk lds fd og NksVk dj ,slk :i rks ugha ns fn;k
\n        gSA**\u00bcist 150\u00bd
\n               ” Pillar bases of the Banbhor stone were slightly
\n        different from the pillar bases excavated in the northern
\n        part of the Babri mosque but it is doubtful that what have
\n        been reported to be brick-built pillar bases are all actual
\n        pillar bases. These pillar bases have not been provided
\n        with cross section enabling it to ascertain whether that
\n        small structure was actually built completely as a
\n        symmetrical come-back(?) of a pillar base or whether it is
\n        an irregular structure. Without the cross section, it is not
\n        possible to know that the excavator has not by mistake or
\n        deliberately     given      it   such      a    shape      in    the
\n        excavation.”(E.T.C.)
\n               ^^eq[; ijh{kk ds ‘kiFk&i= ds izLrj & 2 dh nwljh iafDr esa
\n                                                                    4164<\/span>
\n^^loZ fn fyfeVsM ijit+ vkQ+ fMfxax** fy[kk gS] blls esjk rkRi;Z ;g gS
\nfd th0ih0vkj0 lo sZ u s tk s ,ukeyht fgUV dh Fkh] mue s a
\nl s dq N ij mR[kuu e s a okYl] fiylZ vkS j Q~ +y k sl Z rk s fey s
\nFk s] ^^ \u00bcist 153\u00bd
\n        “By the words ‘serve the limited purpose of digging’
\nwhich I have written in the second line, I mean to say that
\nat some places in respect of which anomalies were
\nhinted at in the G.P.R. survey, walls pillars and floors
\nwere discovered in the excavation” (E.T.C.)
\n        ^^eq[; ijh{kk ds ‘kiFk i= ds i`”B 6 yxk;r 8 izLrj 11 ds i`”B
\n7 ij fn;s x;s va’k ^^fn lks dkYM fiyj cslst gSo uks flEckfyd
\nQhpjl vku nse** ls lk{kh dk rkRi;Z D;k gS\\ lk{kh us crk;k fd
\nbll s e sj k rkRi;Z e af njk s a dh rjg fiylZ d s okgd LVk sU l
\ne s a dk sb Z fp=dkjh] dk sb Z fMt +k bZ u ] fdlh ;{k vkfn dh
\nvkd` f r;k s a l s gS A
\niz’u&fdlh Hkou ds fuekZ.k djrs le; D;k mlds vk\/kkjf’kyk
\n\u00bcQkmUMs’ku LVksu esa\u00bd fpf=r iRFkj Mkys tkrs gSa\\
\nmRrj& fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ;g rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst izk;% Q+’kZ ds \u00c5ij
\nekStwn crk;s x;s gSa vkSj uhao [kksn dj j[ks ugha crk;s x;s gSa] u gh
\nbuds lkFk ds dksbZ vU; Q+’kZ ledkyhu fn[kk;s x;s] blfy, ;gh
\nle>k tk;sxk fd bu fiyj cslst+ ds \u00c5ij okyk <kapk ;fn eafnj Fkk rks
\nbudk Q+'kZ oky ua0 16 o 17 okyk Q+'kZ gh Fkk vkSj bu ij Hkh dksbZ
\nflEcy vFkok dksbZ fMt+kbZu mRdh.kZ feyuh pkfg, Fkh] ojuk dfFkr
\nfo'kky eafnj ds Hkou esa ;g dq:irk dks gh tksM+saxsA** \u00bcist 226\u00bd
\n        " On being asked what the witness meant to say by
\nthe words 'the so called pillar basis have no symbolic
\nfeatures on them', which words find mention on point -7 of
\npara-11 given on pages 6 to 8 of the affidavit in the
\nExamination-in-Chief, the witness stated – By the said
\nwords I meant to denote any drawing, any design and
\nany figure like that of Yaksha engraved in the stones
\n                                                                 4165<\/span><\/p>\n
sustaining the weight of the pillars looking like those of
\ntemples.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Question:- Are engraved stones used as foundation stones
\nwhile constructing any building ?\n<\/p>\n
Answer:- As per the report these so called pillar bases were
\noften said to be present on the floor and they have not been
\nlaid after digging up the base, nor was any other floor
\nshown to be contemporaneous to them. Hence it will be
\ntaken to me only that if the structure above these pillar
\nbasis was a temple then the floor of wall no.16 or 17 was
\ncertainly their floor and there ought to have been an
\nengraving in shape of symbol or design on them also, or
\nelse they will be giving an ugly shape to the building of the
\nalleged large temple” (E.T.C.)
\n       ^^bl l aj puk dk s n s[ ku s l s , sl k ugh a yx jgk gS fd
\nfdlh Q +’ kZ dk s cukdj mld s \u00c5ij dk sb Z fiyj c sl cuk;k
\nx;k gk s vkSj u gh bl rFkkdfFkr fiyj csl ds lkFk ;gkWa dksbZ \u00c5ij
\nds fiyj ds VqdM+s gh fn[kkbZ ns jgs gSa] tks bls izekf.kr djrs fd ;g
\nokLro esa fiyj csl FkkA** \u00bcist 229\u00bd
\n       “From the site of this structure, any pillar bases do
\nnot seem to have been erected after building a floor, nor
\neven pieces of any upward pillars are seen along with this
\nso-called pillar-base, which fact would have been capable
\nof demonstrating that it was really a pillar base.” (E.T.C.)
\n       ^^bu fiyj c sl st e s a l s dq N dk s eS au s fookfnr LFky
\nij n s[ kk FkkA fookfnr LFky d s mRrj rjQ + tk s okLrfod
\nfiyj c sl st fn[kkbZ n s jg s Fk s] mue s a p wu k&lq [ khZ ekVZ j d s
\nrkS j ij bLr se ky gq b Z eky we n sr h FkhA**
\n                                                            \u00bcist 230\u00bd
\n       “I saw some of these pillar bases at the disputed
\n                                                                      4166<\/span><\/p>\n
site. Lime and brick powder appeared to have been used
\nas a mortar in the actual pillar bases seen on the north
\nof the disputed site.” (E.T.C.)
\n^^mRrj& pwafd eSa vusd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst+ dks lgh ugha ekurk]
\nblfy, fiyj cslst+ dk dky crkuk rks lEHko ugha gSA ;fn dksbZ
\nokLrfod fiyj cslst eq>s fp= esa fn[kk,a tk,a vkSj mlds lkFk Q~+yksj
\nysfoYl vkSj mlds lkFk dzkl lsD’ku fufnZ”V gks] rks ;g crkuk lEHko
\ngksxkA fQj Hkh ;fn rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst+ ds dky dh gh tkudkjh
\nysuh gS] rks eSa Q~yksj rFkk dzkl lsD’ku ds lkFk mlds lEcU\/kksa dh tkap
\ndjds crk nWwaxkA
\niz’u&fcuk fiyj cslst+ ds v\/;;u ds gh vkius buds lanHkZ esa
\n^^rFkkdfFkr** ‘kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k gS] blds ckjs esa vki d;k dgsaxs\\
\nmRrj& ;g dguk lgh ughaa gksxkA D;ksafd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst dbZ
\nQ+’kksaZ ds lkFk fn[kk, x, gSa] tSlk fd vkblksesfV~d O;w okys fp= esa Hkh
\nlkQ nh[k iM+ jgk gS] blfy, buds vk\/kkj ij ckcjh efLtn ds iwoZ ds
\nHkou dk vkadyu ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj ;gh ctg gS fd eSaus ckcjh
\nefLtn dh if’peh nhokj ds uhps tks if’peh nhokj ns[kh Fkh vkSj muds
\nlkFk Q+’kZ tks eSaus ns[ks Fks] muds vfrfjDr eq>s dksbZ vkSj izekf.kd vk\/kkj
\nugha fn[kkbZ fn;k] tks LV\u00aaDpjy Q+slst vFkok dkyksa dks fu\/kkZfjr djus esa
\nenn dj ldrkA** \u00bcist 230&231\u00bd
\n“Answer:- Since I do not take many of the so-called pillar
\nbases to be real ones, hence it is not possible for me to date
\nsuch pillar bases. If any actual pillar base is shown in a
\npicture and floor levels and cross section are also specified
\nalong with it, it will be possible for me to determine its
\nantiquity. However, if the antiquity of the so called pillar
\nbases is to be ascertain, I will tell about it after examining
\ntheir floors and their relations to the cross section.
\nQuestion:- Even without having any study of these pillar
\nbases, you have used the word ‘so-called’ in reference to
\nthem. What would you like to say in this regard?\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        4167<\/span><\/p>\n
        Answer:- It will not be correct to say so, because the so
\n        called pillar bases have been shown with several floors, as
\n        are seen even in the picture having an isometric view.
\n        Hence, on the basis of this the building situated on the east
\n        of the Babri masjid cannot be assessed. This is the reason
\n        why I did not, except for the western wall and its
\n        accompanying floor, which I had seen below the western
\n        wall of the Babri masjid, see any other reliable basis,
\n        which could have been helpful in determining structural
\n        phases and their timings.” (E.T.C.)
\n              ^^,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ okY;we&2 ds IysV la[;k& 46 ns[kus ij
\n        iz’u fd, tkus ij crk;k fd xk sy vkdkj d s fiyj tS l h vkd` f r
\n        dk ;g Li”V fp= gS A bls fiyj csl eSa blfy, ugha dg ldrk]
\n        D;ksafd blds lkFk fdlh fiyj dk ,lksfl,’ku vFkok mlds VqdM+ksa
\n        dh ,lksfl,’ku ugha fn[kkbZ nsrk vFkkZr~ fiyj csl ge mls dgrs gSa] tks
\n        fdlh LrEHk dk vk\/kkj gksA** \u00bcist 231&232\u00bd
\n              “When plate no.46 of the ASI report volume-2 was
\n        shown to the witness, on being questioned he stated – This
\n        picture clearly shows a figure like cylinder-shaped pillar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        I cannot style it a pillar base because its association with
\n        any pillar or its pieces is not visible. I mean to say that
\n        what we term as a pillar base is a base supporting a
\n        pillar.”(E.T.C.)
\n3892.         PW-29 (Jaya Menon) about pillar bases has said:\n<\/p>\n
              “A.S.I. has also mentioned about pillarbases in its
\n        report. The total number of pillarbases mentioned in the
\n        A.S.I. report is 50 in relation to particular phase of
\n        structure. . Some of the pillarbases have been reported by
\n        the A.S.I. in the sections also. I don’t know the exact
\n        number of pillarbases mentioned in the sections.” (Page
\n                                                         4168<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
181)
\n       “I think one pillar base was found in the section in
\nthe northern part of the disputed site. . . . . That 8 pillar
\nbases are projected over floor no 2. So far as floor no. 3 is
\nconcerned I can not make out the exact no. of so called
\npillar bases. Approximately they are 6 in number. It does
\nnot appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so
\ncalled pillar bases from 3 have penetrated down to floor\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.” (Page 204-205)
\n       “The plate no. 46 and 47 in Vol. II of ASI reports
\nhave been shown to the witness who stated that they are not
\npillar bases. The plate no. 48 shows some structure but the
\nsame is not pillar base. I do not know what it is. This is
\nwrong to suggest that plate no. 48 shows a pillar base and
\nthis is also wrong to say that I am not making the correct
\nstatement . Plate no. 45 also does not show nay pillar
\nbases. The pillar bases shown by ASI in plate nos. 42 and
\n43 are not pillar bases. These are the part of the floors. In
\nreference to plate no. 43, the witness stated that the pillars
\nbase have been created by removing the brick bats around
\nit and the photograph shows the alleged pillar base after
\nremoval of brick-bats. In Plates no. 46 and 47, the lower
\nfloor is visible. Besides decorative stones, decorative bricks
\nwere also recovered. Plates No. 95 and 96 are decorative
\nbricks.” (Page 230-231)
\n       “Pillar base means base of the pillar. . . . . Since I
\nam not an engineer, therefore, I am unable to reply that if I
\nam required to build a pillar base a foundation will be
\nrequired or not. ” (Page 248)
\n                                                                             4169<\/span><\/p>\n
3893.          PW-30 (R.C.Thakran) about pillar bases has said:\n<\/p>\n
               ^^tc rd eS a [kq n kbZ LFky ij jgk] , sl k ugh a gS fd ,
\n        0,l0 vkbZ 0 okyk s a u s fiyj c sl cuk, gk s a] ckn esa vxj mUgksaus
\n        dqN fd;k gks] rks eq>s bl ckr dk Kku ugha gSA ;fn lHkh V~ s ap st e s a
\n        yxkrkj ohfM;k sx z k Q +h gk s jgh gk s] rk s fiyj c sl cukuk
\n        lEHko ugh a gS ] — ^^ \u00bcist 118\u00bd
\n               “As long as I was present at the excavation site, it
\n        was not that the ASI men might have erected pillar
\n        bases. I do not have any knowledge if they may have done
\n        so later on. If all the trenches are being constantly video-
\n        graphed, it is not possible to erect pillar bases. .” (E.T.C.)
\n               ^^v;ks\/;k dh [kqnkbZ esa rFkkdfFkr lHkh fiyj cslst ij LVksu
\n        LySc ugha gSaA t;knkrj dfFkr fiyj csl ij LVksu ugha gSa] ftu ij
\n        LVksu fey jgs gSa] os dSfY’k;e vkSj dkcksZusV ls cus LvksUl feys gSa] tks
\n        detksj gksrs gSa A ,sls iRFkjksa dks dSYdzhV LVksu dgrs gSaA – – – IysV ua0
\n        46 esa fiyj csl vk\/ks Q+yksj ij gSA bls] tSlk ns[kus esa yx jgk gS]
\n        isMLVy LVksu ugha dgsaxs] ysfdu vxj bldh [kqnkbZ esa iwjk csl gks] rks
\n        isMsLVy LVksu dgk tk ldrk gS] ;kfu vxj vkSj [kqnkbZ djus ij uhps
\n        LvksUl dh iwjh ,d irZ feys rks mls isMsLVy LVksu dgsaxsA – – – –
\n        eSaus ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ vkifRr;ksa dks i<+k gS]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        – -eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd eSaus lHkh vkifRr;kWa is ;g
\n        Hkh ugha ekywe fd dqy fdruh vkifRr;kW fjiksVZ ds fo:) QkbZy dh xbZ
\n        FkhaA – – – – -eq>s ugha ekywe gS fd mijksDr nksuksa vkifRr;ksa esa bl ckr
\n        dh vkifRr dh xbZ Fkh fd fiyj cslst+ dks tgkWa rd [kksnk x;k Fkk] ml
\n        fiyj csl dks fMLesaVy u fd;k tk,A- – – – – tc rd eS a [kq n kbZ
\n        LFky ij jgk eq > s ;kn ugh a gS fd fiyj c sl d s lEcU\/k e s a
\n        , sl h dk sb Z vkifRr nh xbZ ;k ugh aA ** \u00bcist 117\u00bd
\n               “As revealed from the Ayodhya excavation, stone
\n        slabs are not there at all the so called pillar-bases. Stones
\n        are not there at most of the so called pillar-bases. The
\n        stones which have been discovered, are made of calcium
\n                                                                   4170<\/span><\/p>\n
        and carbonate and they are very week. Such stones are
\n        called calcrete stones. . . . . In plate no. 46, the pillar base
\n        stretches up to half of the floor. Keeping in view what it
\n        looks like, we would not call it pedestal stone but if on
\n        being excavated it is found to have full base, it can be
\n        called pedestal stone. That is to say, we would call it
\n        pedestal stone if we discover a full layer of stones below on
\n        further excavation being carried out. . . . . I have gone
\n        through the objections raised against the ASI report. . . . .I
\n        also do not know how many objections were filed in all
\n        against the report. . . . . . I do not know that in the afore-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        said two objections it was objected to the pillar bases not
\n        being dismantled up to the extent to which they were dug
\n        up. . . . . I do not remember whether or not any such
\n        objection was filed in regard to the pillar bases as long
\n        as I was present on the excavation site.” (E.T.C.)
\n3894.          PW 32 about pillar bases has said:\n<\/p>\n
               “Except the pillar bases in the north all the pillar
\n        bases at different levels have been created, some of whom I
\n        saw personally with my own eyes and complaints were filed
\n        in the case of trenches G2, G5 and F3. These complaints
\n        were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints
\n        were    handed    over    to   muslim    parties    and    their
\n        counsels.”(Page 79)
\n               “…except pillar bases in the north, as I have stated
\n        already, the remaining have been created by the
\n        ASI.”(Page 80)
\n               “I do not agree with the report of the ASI that there is
\n        any pillar base in trench G-8. By saying that ASI people
\n                                                          4171<\/span><\/p>\n
created pillar bases, I mean that while excavating, they
\nremoved brick bats selectively from some portion leaving
\nthe other portion to give shape of a pillar base and it is
\nbecause of this reason that the shape of the pillar bases as
\nalso the size and depth vary from pillar base to pillar base.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I do not agree with the suggestion that the pillar is round in
\nshape and the brick bats set in regular courses and having
\ntwo stone slabs in the middle. However, it is true that two
\nconcrete slabs are there in the middle. I do not agree with
\nthe ASI report that it is a pillar base.” (Page 114)
\n      “Since I do not accept that any pillar bases were
\nfound during excavation except in the northern area, I do
\nnot agree with ASI report that pillar bases were found in
\nthe area of the 39 anomalies having been pointed by the
\nGPR survey report. The pillar bases which are acceptable
\nto me form part of Z series of trenches. The area of the Z
\nseries of trenches was surveyed by the GPR surrey team but
\nI am not hundred percent sure as to whether they had
\ncovered that area or not.” (Page 120)
\n      “Prof. Mandal has referred to the findings of pillar
\nbases of Prof. B.B. Lal and he has contradicted Prof. Lal’s
\ntheory of pillar bases.” (Page 131)
\n      “The ASI has reported about the existence of 50
\npillar bases at one place and perhaps 67 at other place but
\naccording to me, the number does not seem to be correct as
\nthere is no consistency.” (Page 131-132)
\n      “I clarify that no pillar base was exposed by ASI.
\nRather it were floor bases that were exposed and partially
\ncleared and partially it was left exposed and then labelled
\n                                                          4172<\/span><\/p>\n
as so called pillar bases.” (Page 132)
\n      “An archaeologist can create pillar bases even in the
\nsection by pulling out brick bats from the section while
\nexcavating and preparing the section.” (Page 132)
\n      “Such so called pillar bases appearing in the
\nsection were not created in my presence but from the
\nclose study of the section, I could say that there were
\ncreated pillar bases.” (Page 132)
\n      “It is wrong to suggest that it is not possible to create
\na pillar base in a section of baulk; rather it is very easy to
\ndo so. Pillar base shown in the baulk of F2 G2 was created
\nin my presence and I lodged complaint against ASI
\nobservations. It was created between 16 to 20 May, 2003.
\nBesides me, Mohd. Abid was also present at the time of
\naforesaid pillar base being created. This pillar base and
\npillar base no. 21 were created during aforesaid period of
\nfive days. I complained against the ASI to the observer
\nabout both the aforesaid pillar bases. The complaint was
\nlodged in writing. I completely disagree with the suggestion
\nthat I am making a wrong statement to the effect that the
\naforesaid pillar bases were created by ASI.\n<\/p>\n
      I do not know whether the GPR report has revealed
\nanomalies exactly on the spot where subsequently ASI has
\nshown the pillar bases. I do not know whether ASI has
\nindicated 22 pillar bases exactly on such spot where
\nanomalies were shown in GPR report. No doubts the ASI
\nhas sketched a chart in its report indicating the places of
\npillar bases allegedly found on the spots on the anomalies.
\nSince I do not accept the very existence of pillar bases, I
\n                                                                 4173<\/span><\/p>\n
        did not considered it necessary verify the genuineness of
\n        ASI report on the basis of GPR report.” (Page 133-134)
\n              “In the second line of para 14 of my affidavit I have
\n        used the words created ‘pillar bases’ because in my opinion
\n        and observation floor bases were cut and pillar base
\n        created. In my opinion barring pillar bases 1 to 8, 13 and
\n        14, all other pillar bases were created by ASI. According
\n        to me this creation of pillar bases was right from the
\n        beginning of the excavations till the end of it. When I was
\n        at the site in April 2003 no pillar bases had been excavated
\n        when I returned to the site around 10th May 2003 some
\n        pillar bases had already been excavated from 10th May
\n        onwards I begin observing and between may 16th and 20th I
\n        found that pillar base was created in trench G-2 and on
\n        may 21st a complain was filed in this regard. Except the
\n        complaint which are mentioned in para 14 of my affidavit
\n        some other complaints were also filed by Dr. Jaya
\n        Menon.”(Page 155-156)
\n              “I do not agree with the suggestion that in plate 43 of
\n        the ASI report Vol. II pillar bases have been shown. In fact,
\n        the pillar bases asserted by the ASI are part of the floor
\n        base.” (Page 165)
\n              “As a matter of fact, they were crated before me. I
\n        did make complaint regarding creation of pillar bases by
\n        ASI. The complaints made by me were given to the Muslim
\n        parties, who passed it to the observers, present
\n        there.”(Page 166)
\n3895.         The ASI has discovered 50 pillar bases during
\nexcavation out of which twelve were completely exposed, thirty
\n                                                             4174<\/span><\/p>\n
five partially and three were traced in section. The pillar bases
\ntraced in section were F2, G2 in baulk (pillar base no.20), F8 F9
\nin baulk (pillar base No.40) and trench No.F8 F9 in baulk (pillar
\nbase no.41). Confirming GPR survey report, twenty pillar bases
\nhave been excavated in trenches no.E2, E9, F8, F9, ZG1, G2,
\nG5, G8, G9, ZH1 and H5. In all these trenches, one pillar base
\neach was discovered. Besides, in Trench F-6, three pillar bases,
\nTrench G-2, two pillar bases and Trench H-1, two pillar bases
\nhave been found. Foundation of these pillar bases are circular,
\nsquare, oval or irregular in shape. Pillar base no.3 shows square
\nsandstone block with orthostats provided on its four sides,
\ncontemporary with floor 2. Multiple courses of brick bats set in
\nmud mortar incasing rectangular blocks of calcrete stone fixed
\nwith lime mortar were provided as foundation to the pillar bases.
\nFigure 3A shows alignment of pillar base and details of
\nrespective distances. The important feature pointed out is that
\nthere were seventeen rows of pillar bases from North to South,
\neach row having 5 pillar bases. There is no North-South row of
\nthe West of wall 16 and17, as is being read and suggested by the
\naforesaid experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4). Though we are not
\nagreeable to the allegation that some of them, or many of the
\npillar bases are created but even if, for a moment, we assume as
\nclaimed by three witnesses i.e. PW-29 Jaya Menon, PW-32 Dr.
\nSupriya Verma and DW-6\/1-2 Mohd. Abid that they sought G-2
\nand F-6 trenches wherein pillar bases were created by one
\nTrench Supervisor S.K. Sharma and one more person, that will
\nnot be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain several other
\npillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is
\nthere.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  4175<\/span><\/p>\n
3896.         Archaeology provides scientific factual data for
\nreconstructing ancient historical material culture, understanding,
\narchaeology for the past is a multi disciplinary scientific subject
\nand requires a team of workers for effective results. Excavation
\nof ancient sites is one of the major works of Archaeologists. As
\nit is a scientific discipline, it uses scientific methods in its
\nworking. All archaeological excavations are and also at the same
\ntime destructive; revealing in the sense they yield unknown data
\nlike structures, antiquities etc., destructive that as one digs layer
\nafter layer, the upper layer have to be removed to go deeper and
\ndeeper to know more and may cause destruction of the site for
\nany future excavation at that place.\n<\/p>\n
3897.         The term “Archaeology” came to be considered by
\nApex Court in Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR
\n1965 SC 1514 and in paras 13 and 14 it observed:\n<\/p>\n
        “13. The Constitution itself, as we have noticed earlier,
\n        maintains a clear distinction between ancient monuments
\n        and archaeological site or remains; the former is put in
\n        the State List and the latter, in the Concurrent List.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        14.   The dictionary meaning of the two expressions also
\n        brings out the distinction between the two concepts.
\n        “Monument” is derived from monere, which means to
\n        remind, to warn. “Monument” means, among others,”a
\n        structure surviving from a former period” whereas
\n        “archaeology” is the scientific study of the life and
\n        culture of ancient peoples. Archaeological site or remains,
\n        therefore, is a site or remains which could be explored in
\n        order to study the life and culture of the ancient peoples.
\n        The two expressions, therefore, bear different meanings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 4176<\/span><\/p>\n
        Though the demarcating line may be thin in a rare case, the
\n        distinction is clear.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3898.         The Court also held that Ancient and Historical
\nMonuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration
\nof National Importance) Act, 1951 apply to ancient and
\nhistorical monuments referred to or specified in Part 1 of the
\nSchedule thereto, which had been declared to be of national
\nimportance.\n<\/p>\n
3899.         In this case, ASI did not work on an unknown
\nsubject and site but was backed by a scientific investigation
\nreport of GPR Survey which is a well known scientific system
\nused in such matters. The survey has pointed out a number of
\nanomalies underneath. The actual excavation needed to confirm
\nand verify those anomalies and their exact nature to avoid any
\ndoubt. Regarding Pillar Bases, a number of such anomolies were
\nalready pointed out by GPR Survey and ASI simply found the
\nexistence of pillar bases so as to confirm the anomalies pointed
\nout by GPR Survey at those places. If we look carefully to GPR
\nSurvey, as also the pillar bases confirmed by actual excavation
\nof ASI, a total number thereof we find comes to about twenty.
\nThey are:<\/p>\n
\nSl. No. of Trench No. Pillar       Bases   (with Page Confirmation\nthe report of the Report\/ depth)                  no. of of     Pillar\n           (GPR)\/ Page P.B.                       the    Bases with\n           No.\/ Report                            report pillar  base\n                                                         No.\n25         E-2\/P. 23     1. Rectangular    Pillar 23     *\n                         Base (1.80 m.)\n<\/pre>\n
29         E-9\/ P. 24    1. Pillar Base (0.60 m.) 29   43, 65
\n35         F-6\/ P. 25    1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.) 25   40, 41, 65\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Pillar Base (0.55 m.)\n<\/p>\n
                         3. Pillar Bases (01.60
\n                         m.)
\n                                                                  4177<\/span><\/p>\n
36         F-8\/ P. 25    1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 25    38, 65
\n37         F-9\/ P. 26    1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26    44, 66
\n38         ZG-1\/ P. 26   1. Pillar Base (0.50 m.) 26    8, 55, 11, 58
\n39         G-2\/P. 26     1. Pillar Base (2.20 m.) 26    21, 60, 24, 61\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Pillar Base (2.20 m.)
\n42         G-5\/P. 27     1. Pillar Base (2.50 m.) 27    26, 62
\n45         G-8\/ P. 27    1. Pillar Base (0.90 m.) 27    28, 39, 63
\n46         G-9\/ P. 28    1. Pillar Base (0.20 m.) 28    45, 66
\n47         ZH-1\/ P. 28   1. Pillar Base (0.55 m.) 28    8, 58
\n48         H-1\/ P. 28    1. Pillar Base (0.70 m.) 28    18, 60, 19\n<\/p>\n
                         2. Pillar Base (1.50 m.)
\n52         H-5\/ P. 29    1. Pillar Base (0.820 m.) 29   27, 62<\/p>\n
3900.         Interestingly, we find that in the two major
\ncomplaints dated 21st May, 2003 and 7th June, 2003 submitted to
\nthe Observer when the excavation was going on, the allegations
\nof creation of pillar base mainly were made in those very
\ntrenches where the GPR Survey has already detected anomalies
\nin the form of pillar bases etc. The complaints were already to
\nsome extent aware of likelyhood of finding pillar bases in those
\ntrenches. Trenches No.F1, F6, F8, F9, G1, G2, G5, G8, G9, H1,
\nZG1 and ZH1 are in that very category. In other words, it can
\neasily be appreciated that the mind of two experts instead
\nworking for the assistance of the Court in finding a truth, tried to
\ncreate a background alibi so that later on the same may be
\nutilized to attack the very findings. However, this attempt has
\nnot gone well since some of these very pillar bases have been
\nadmitted by one or the other expert of plaintiffs (Suit-4) to be
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
3901.         Sri M.M.Pandey, learned Advocate appearing on
\nbehalf of defendant no.2\/1 (Suit-4) while justifying ASI report
\nin respect to the various pillar bases, submitted that centre to
\ncentre distance can not be measured correctly, except for those
\n                                                               4178<\/span><\/p>\n
found complete topped by sandstone blocks and attached to
\nfloor. It is not possible to fix the point where the finished sand
\nstone block would have been placed on top of the calcrete
\nblocks. Two pillar bases that have been found in sections (Fig. 8
\n& 9) demonstrate vividly that the sandstone block was not
\nnecessarily placed in the centre of the calcrete block and
\nbrickbat foundation rather was shifted as per the requirement of
\nalignment. Exposition of a structure that exist is done in an
\nexcavation. The question of creation of any structure including
\npillar base does not arise. Nothing was ignored during the
\nexcavation. Utmost care was taken to ensure that each and every
\nfind is documented and mentioned in the Report. No “calcrete
\ntopped brickbat heap” is either found or identified as pillar
\nbases. Brickbats in the pillar bases are not heaped up rather they
\nare carefully laid in well defined courses. It is to be remembered
\nthat pillar bases, except those found complete with sandstone
\nblocks in the northern area whose existence and genuineness is
\nadmitted by Sunni Central Board of Waqf and its companion
\nparties, are essentially the foundation part required to remain
\nburied in ground. Once this fact is borne in mind then the
\npicture may be clearly understood. When the floor of sub-Period
\nVII B is “weathered enough to be replaced, debris of brick
\nstructures was leveled to attain the desired height. In this deposit
\nfoundations to support pillar or columns were sunk” to different
\nlevels. Floors 1, 1A, 1B and 1C belonged to the disputed
\nstructure (Period VIII & IX), Floors 2, 3 and 4 belonged to
\nperiod VII and the brick-crush floor existed in the earlier Period
\nVI. There appears to be some attempt on part of the plaintiff to
\ntwist the facts and mislead by creating some sort of confusion.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               4179<\/span><\/p>\n
The transition from “calcrete topped brickbat heaps” through
\n“brickbat heaps” to “some kind of loosely-bonded brickbats
\ndeposits” is very clear. The plaintiff at least accepts some sort of
\nbonding in brickbats which cannot be in case of “heaps”
\n(random deposit). This at best may be termed as self
\ncontradicting argument.. Floor (F1.2) around most of the pillar
\nbases is found broken with pillar base foundations in much
\ndisturbed condition.: (p.42, 2nd para). The evidence of broken
\nfloor above most of the pillar base foundations, complete
\nfinished pillar bases and the evidence of finished pillar bases
\npartly excavated and partly visible in section when combined
\ntogether point to the fact that all these 46 pillar bases belonged
\nto the one and the same period and were constructed in
\nassociation of wall 16 and F1.2. The pillars that have actually
\nbeen recovered are from the debris of the disputed structure.
\nFurther, nowhere in the report it is said or hinted at that these
\nstone pillar were standing over these pillar bases. It is nothing
\nbut wilful negation of the evident fact, nothing more can be said
\nin this regard. Layer of pillar bases are clear from the perusal of
\nthe report. The objections of the plaintiff regarding creation of
\npillar bases, distances and alignments and its interpretation is
\nwithout any substance. It is well established in archaeology that
\nwalls can not be cut and shaped like pillar bases. The walls
\nalleged to have been cut and shaped like pillar bases are at the
\nmaximum 0.55 m wide, whereas the pillar bases show much
\nbigger dimension which prima-facie falsifies the objection of
\nthe plaintiff. The plaintiffs challenging the identity of pillar
\nbases alleged that unused brick broken or entire have been used
\nto fill hollow to raise the level of ground or to function apron for
\n                                                                4180<\/span><\/p>\n
a building. In this connection it may be mentioned that a perusal
\nof report shows that most of the pillar bases are attached with
\nthe floor 2, 3 & 4. If “hollow” is a synonym for foundation pit,
\nthen certainly it is a good explanation. But ‘fill’ would be wrong
\nexpression, as the brickbats are laid in defined courses. Raising
\nof ground is done uniformly and throughout and not as if “a pile
\nof unused bricks” or “to fill hollows”. It is surprising to note that
\nthe “heavy wall” disappears without leaving any trace except the
\n“pile of unused bricks” to “shore up”. As “apron” for which
\nbuilding? Apparently all the objections tendered above are
\nemanating from technically ignorant persons and willful attempt
\nto mislead the Court. All the interpretations were reached after
\nexploring all the possible explanations. ASI conducted
\nexcavation at the behest and orders of this Court as Court
\nCommissioner and submitted its scientific Report to the Court
\nand did not engage in creation and that too in the presence of
\njudicial officers.\n<\/p>\n
3902.        The pillar bases traced on spot makes 64 squares in
\nbetween 17 rows of 5 pillar bases each. The seventeen rows of
\npillar bases were constructed along the north-south running
\nbrick wall (wall No. 16). The distance of the first pillar base in
\neach row from the wall 3.60 to 3.86 m. Seventeen rose of pillar
\nbases could be categorized in three different groups whereas
\neast-west distance which varies in different groups whereas east-
\nwest distance from the centre of centre of each pillar base vary
\nfrom 2.90 to 3.30 m. Six rows of the pillar bases on north and
\nsouth were at the equidistance which ranges from 3 to 3.30 m.
\nCentral five rows consisting of twenty-five pillar bases show
\ndifferent equations- two rows on either side of the central row
\n                                                                4181<\/span><\/p>\n
were placed approximately at the distance of 5.25 whereas the
\nother two rows on either side of these three rose were at the
\ndistance of 4.20-4.25 m. The pillar bases are in alignment. The
\nASI unit report in figure 23B has given an isometric view of the
\npillar bases and in figure 23A the isometric view of the
\nexcavated site with different floors and pillar bases.
\n3903.       The foundation of the pillar bases are circular,
\nsquare, oval, or irregular in shape and the foundation has been
\nfilled with brick bats covered with orthostat which prima facie
\nestablishes its load bearing nature. It is also clear from the report
\nthat all the fifty pillar bases, more or less are of similar pattern
\nexcept the orthostate position. The factual position is that the
\npillar bases of northern side which are admitted by the plaintiffs
\nand other objectors to be pillar bases are undisturbed and
\nunexposed whereas the pillar bases of the southern side are
\ndamaged and exposed but in any way there is no basic
\ndifference between the two. The isometric view is a geometrical
\ndrawing to show a building in three dimensions. The plan is set
\nup with lines at an equal angle (usually 300) to the horizontal,
\nwhile verticals remain vertical and to scale. It gives a more
\nrealistic effect than an axonometric projection, but diagonals
\nand curves are distorted. The existence of pillar bases was
\nchallenged by the objectors on the ground that the distance
\nbetween the pillar bases, the spot position is not common as
\nsuch the same may not be considered pillar bases. In this
\nconnection reference may be given of plan of Ukha Mandir
\ntemple converted in to a Masjid published at surveyor general
\noffice Calcutta in 1877 in which square pillars were found with
\ndifferent angles and distances. Similarly in temple of Vishala
\n                                                               4182<\/span><\/p>\n
Devi pillar bases of different sizes with different distances were
\nfound which to has been lithograph at the surveyor general
\noffice Calcutta in July 1877. Examples of plan of Shiva Temple
\nat Bastar, Shiva Temple at Shighanpur, Shiva Temple at
\nChindgaon, Shiva Temple at Chitrakoot, Shiva Temple at
\nNarayanpur are relating to 10th Century A.D. may be given. A
\nperusal of photographs of the pillar bases, videography and the
\ntime of excavation also falsify the allegations of the objectors
\nregarding creation of pillar bases.\n<\/p>\n
3904.        A perusal of the report particularly at page 54 shows
\nthat all the 50 exposed pillar bases are attached with floor 2
\ndateable to 1200 A. D. and most of them are resting over floor
\nno. 4 which has the earliest floor,. The carbon dating report
\nreferred at page 69 of the report also proves that in a trench ZH-
\n1 the date reported between floor 2 & 3 is between 900-1300
\nA.D. which prima facie makes it clear that floor 2 was not made
\nafter 1300 A.D. and not before 900 A.D. while floor 3 was made
\nbefore 900 A.D. It is also clear from the report that all the pillar
\nbases exposed are attached with the floors existing prior to the
\nfloor of disputed structure. Pillar base is reported from the same
\ntrench, i.e. ZH-1 along with the floor which confirm the
\nassociation of floor 2\/3 and pillar bases along with C14 date
\nbetween floor 2 & 3 (S. No. 47 of pillar base in page no. 28) The
\nsame pillar base of ZH-1 was predicted as an anomaly in the
\nGRP Survey. Therefore, it is clear that floor 4 which support the
\nfoundation of pillar bases was the most extensive floor belong to
\nperiod VII A (page 42 of the report & fig. 23 & plate 35). The
\ntiming of period VII-A is the beginning of 12th century (page 41
\nof the report.).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 4183<\/span><\/p>\n
3905.       It is clear from the report that floor 4 which support
\nthe foundation of pillar bases was a floor of a Temple. It cannot
\nbe the floor of Idgah or Kanati Mosque because pillars are
\nalways absent in Idgah so that maximum persons could be
\naccommodated in minimum space for offering prayer.
\n3906.       Association of pillar bases has been reported at page
\n56 to 68 and a perusal of the same shows that pillar base no. 1,
\n2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 total 8 are projected over floor no. 2, pillar
\nbase no. 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30 total 8 are projected over floor
\nno. 3 which have penetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2
\nand pillar bases no. 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,
\n32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
\ntotal 29 pillar bases are projected over floor 4 which have
\npenetrated downward by cutting floor no. 2 & 3. In addition to
\nabove pillar base no. 20, 40, 41 are pillar bases in the section
\nwhereas pillar base no. 4 and 25 are not associated with any
\nfloor due to damaged condition.\n<\/p>\n
3907.       We find substance in the submission of Sri Pandey.
\nWe may also notice at this stage that though most of the pillar
\nbases were excavated at earlier point of time but complaint
\nthereof particularly about so called creation was made after
\nmuch gap. To start with, the first complaint of 21st May, 2003
\nwas confined only to one pillar base found in trench G-2 but a
\nnumber of such pillar bases were included in the second
\ncomplaint dated 7th June, 2003, when both the so called authors
\nof the objections were not on the site. On the basis of record
\nthese details can be shown in the form of a chart as under:<\/p>\n
\nPillar       Shape\/Size Site Note Date     of Name      of\nBase\/        in cm      Book No.\/ Excavation\/ Supervisor\nTrench                  Page No. Date      of\n                                                         4184<\/span>\n\n                                objection, if\n                                any\n1\/ZH3-    Square\/63x   41\/43      22.4.03       S.K. Sharma\nZH2 baulk 61.5x9\n2\/ZF2          -         7        15.05.03      G.L.Katade\n3\/ZG2     Rectangula   30\/36    13\/14.05.03 A.R.Siddiqui\n          r\/60x53.5x\n          7<\/span>\n4\/ZG2     Square (?)     30     13\/14.05.03 A.r.Siddiqui\n5\/ZH2     Square\/61x     41     19\/22.04.03 S.K.Sharma\n          60x11\n          including\n          the\n          thickness\n          of missing\n          western\n          orthostat\n6\/ZH2-ZJ2 Square\/58x     7        11.06.03      G.L.Katade\nBaulk     56\n          including\n          the\n          thickness\n          of missing\n          northern\n          orthostat\n7\/ZF1     Square\/55x     30     29.04.03,       A.R.Siddiqui\n          55x6.5                3\/13.05.03\n8\/ZG1     Square\/59x 30\/31-39   03\/16.05.03\/ A.R.Siddiqui\n          61.5x5                07.06.03\n9\/ZH1     Probably 41\/25-26     14\/15     to S.K.Sharma\n          square                20.04.03\/07.\n          foundation\/           06.03\n          125x105x7\n          5<\/span>\n10\/ZF1    Irregular   30\/24-29 29.04.03         A.R.Siddiqui\n          shaped      depth 65 13.05.03\/07.     Plaintiff\n          foundation\/ cm       06.03            occupied by\n          150x100x4                             barbed wire.\n          0                                     Only\n                                                southern\n                                                       4185<\/span>\n\n                                              portion\n                                              excavated\n<\/pre>\n
11\/ZG1     Circular (?)   30      03\/04\/16.05. A.R.Siddiqui
\n           foundation             03<\/span>
\n           partially
\n           exposed\/97
\n           x94x26
\n12\/ZG1     Circular (?) 30\/31-35 03\/04\/13.05. A.R.Siddiqui
\n           foundation            03\/07.06.03
\n           badly
\n           damaged
\n           and
\n           partially
\n           exposed\/N
\n           S 55 Ht 60
\n13\/ZH1     Square\/Als 41\/25-27 14.04.03 to S.K.Sharma
\n           o available         20.04.03\/07.\n<\/p>\n
           in section.         06.03\n           Top\n           54.5x46.5\n           foundation\n           EW      122\n           Ht.      69\n           (from top\n           to bottom)\n14\/ZH1-    Square\/63x     30       12.07.03   A.R.Siddiqui\nH1         63x6.5\n15\/F1      Rectangular 30\/14-21   22.04.03 to A.R.Siddiqui\n           (?)        depth    98 27.04.03\/07.\n           foundation cm          06.03\n           square\n           top\/130x13\n           8<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
16\/F1-G1   Irregular      30      22\/27\/18\/23. A.R.Siddiqui
\n           baulk\/130x             04.03
\n           120×55
\n           foundation
\n           partially
\n           exposed
\n17\/G1      Square     30\/5, 6, 7, 19\/20.04.03 A.R.Siddiqui
\n           foundation 8           18.06.03\/07.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             4186<\/span><\/p>\n
           partially                 06.03\n           exposed\/14\n           0x125x45\n<\/pre>\n
18\/H1      Square     41\/3-9 11- 12.04.03\/07. S.K.Sharma
\n           foundation 14         06.03
\n           partially
\n           exposed\/15
\n           0x130x56
\n19\/H1      Square        41\/3-14 06\/18.05.03\/ S.K.Sharma
\n           foundation            07.06.03
\n           partially
\n           exposed\/78
\n           x110x38
\n20\/F2 G2 Partially  7-8,        32, 08.07.03       Zulfiquar
\nBaulk    exposed\/N 45               17.07.03       Ali,
\n         S 55 Ht.22                 02.08.03       G.L.Katade,
\n                                    24.05.03       C.B.Patil,
\n                                    03.06.03       S.K.Sharma
\n                                    10.05.03
\n                                    20.05.03
\n21\/G2      Square (?) 32\/49-54       10\/20.05.03\/ S.K.Sharma
\n           foundation 27-85          07.06.03     Zulfiqar Ali
\n           partially                 21.05.03
\n           exposed\/E
\n           W 140 Ht.\n<\/p>\n
           28<\/span><\/p>\n
22\/F2      Square         7-8        08\/17.07.03\n           foundation\/\n           122x115x2\n           5<\/span>\n23\/F2-G2   Square (?) 7, 8, 32,              -\nbaulk      foundation 45\n           partially\n           exposed\/10\n           5x72x33\n24\/G2      Oval       32        20    17.07.03     Zulfiqar Ali\n           foundation 45\/22     49    02.08.03     S.K.Sharma\n           partially  37 30           10.05.03\n           exposed\/15                 20.05.03\/\n           0x125x32                   07.06.03\n25\/F3      Square (?)      16          21.05.03    Sujeet\n                                                           4187<\/span>\n\n           foundation                30.05.03   Nayan\n           partially                 19.07.03\n           exposed\/65\n           x145x55\n26\/G5      Irregular   13\/1 22 23     24.05.03 Sujeet\n           foundation                 21.05.03 Nayan\n           with square               10.06.03 \/\n           top                        07.06.03\n           partially\n           exposed\/12\n           0x165x90\n27\/H5      Square (?)     40        26\/30.04.03 Bhuvan\n           foundation                           Vikrama\n           partially\n           exposed\/10\n           0x25x35\n28\/F6      Irregular      23         24.05.03   Zulfiqar Ali\n           foundation                01.06.03\n           partially\n           exposed\/14\n           8x147x54\n29\/F6      Rectangular   19\/3-4     29.04.03 to G.L.Katade\n           foundation               06.05.03\/07.\n           partially                06.03\n           exposed\/76\n           x170x51\n\n30\/G6      Rectangular    33        07\/11.05.03 G.L.Katade\n           foundation\n           partially\n           exposed\/83\n           x55x40\n\n31\/F6-F7   Elliptical 15, 19, 23         -\nbaulk      foundation\n           partially\n           exposed\/12\n           6x198x38\n32\/F6-F7   Irregular  15-F-7 19-     19.04.03   G.L.Katade\n           foundation F-6, 23        10.09.03   Zulfiqar Ali\n           partially                 19.04.03\n                                                        4188<\/span>\n\n           exposed\/95               06.05.03\n           x155x40                  24.05.03\n                                    01.06.03\n33\/G6-G7 Square (?)        21           -\nbaulk    foundation\n         \/70x40x35\n34\/E7-F7   Square    or    12       05.04.03   Zulfiqar Ali\nbaulk      Rectangular              08.05.03\n           foundation               14.05.03\n           partially\n           exposed\/10\n           0x100x34\n\n35\/F7      Rectangular 15\/ 1 to 31 19.04.03 to G.L.Katade\n           (?)                    13.05.03\/07.\n           foundation             06.03\n           partially\n           exposed\/17\n           0x160x38\n36\/G7      Square (?)      21       20.05.03   N.C.Prakash\n           foundation               09.07.03\n           partially                10.07.03\n           exposed\/80               07.08.03\n           x40x40\n37\/F8      Circular   44\/ 2 to 45 15.04.03 to Sameer\n           foundation             23.05.03\/07. Dewan\n           \/170x170               06.03\n38\/F8      Circular (?)   44\/13   15.04.03 to Sameer\n           foundation             23.05.03    Dewan\n           partially\n           exposed\/70\n           0x145x37\n39\/G8      Circular   30 10\/86 24.06.03 to     A.R.Siddiqui\n           foundation to 90 10   27.06.03      N.C. Prakash\n           \/                     09.05.03      Sujeet\n           42x130x30           10.05.03\/07.    Nayan\n                                  06.03\n40\/F8-F9   -\/EW-120        44           -\nbaulk      Ht.33\n<\/pre>\n
41\/F8-F9   -\/EW-80         18     10\/19\/17\/30. N.C.Prakash
\n                                                           4189<\/span><\/p>\n
baulk      Ht. 35                 04.03        Sujeet
\n                                               Nayan
\n42\/G8-G9 Circular        30, 10     24.06.03   A.R.\n<\/p>\n
baulk    foundation\/                27.07.03   Siddiqui\n         43x120x28                  09.05.03   Sujeet\n                                    10.05.03   Nayan\n43\/E9-F9   Rectangular   22, 35     04.07.03   Sujeet\nbaulk      foundation               20.04.03   Nayan\n           \/                        07.05.03\n           55x130x20\n44\/F9      Square        18\/ 3-34 08.04.03 to Sujeet\n           foundation             30.04.03\/07. Nayan\n           \/                      06.03\n           95x142x30\n45\/G9      Circular   10\/3-9 14- 06.04.03 to N.C.Prakash\n           foundation 22         09.04.03 to Sujeet\n           \/Dia- 118             11.05.03     Nayan\n           Ht. 34                14.05.03\/07.\n                                 06.03\n46\/G9-H9 Square            10       06.04.03   N.C.Prakash\nbaulk    foundation                 09.04.03   Sujeet\n         partially                  11.05.03   Nayan\n         exposed\/11                 14.05.03\n         0x80x45\n47\/E10-   Circular          9       18.05.03   Zulfiqar Ali\nF10 baulk foundation                22.05.03\n          partially\n          exposed\/14\n          0x55x48\n48\/F10     Circular     9\/37 to 45 18.05.03 to Zulfiqar Ali\n           base and 38 45          22.05.03\/07.\n           square top              06.03\n           of       the\n           foundation\/\n           155x145x4\n           0 square 90\n           Ht. 12\n\n49\/G10-   Square            -             -\nH10 baulk foundation\/\n          115x120x5\n                                                                 4190<\/span>\n\n               0<\/span>\n50\/H10         Circular          -            -\n               foundation\/\n               115x90x48\n\n<\/pre>\n
3908.         This chart would reveal that most of the pillar bases
\nwere found during excavation in the months of April and May,
\n2003 which could have cleared to anyone having an idea on the
\nsubject as to what inference those excavations is likely to cause.
\nIt appear that in these circumstances under the Expert’s advice
\nthe complaints were made as a ground, so as to utilize later. It
\ncannot be doubted that as and when the pillar bases have been
\nexcavated on that very day mentioned in the site notebook.
\n3909.         We have very carefully perused the site note book,
\nday-to-day register as also more than twenty five video cassettes
\nas well as the photographs but find nothing unusual which may
\ncreate any suspicion in what the ASI has said in respect to pillar
\nbases in his report. Except of minor typographical mistake,
\nwhich is quite understandable in the manner they have worked
\nand with the pace with which have accomplished such a gigantic
\njob, that too under unusual circumstances where they were
\nconstantly watched by huge number of persons and officials of
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
3910.         We may reproduce at this stage some part of the
\nstatement of PW-29, 30, 31 and 32 again which would show that
\nin general, the finding of ASI about pillar bases, not found
\nincorrect:\n<\/p>\n
3911.         PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon- She said:\n<\/p>\n
              “In my opinion 10 pillar bases were found in the
\n        northern side of the disputed site. All these 10 pillar bases
\n                                                                4191<\/span><\/p>\n
        on the northern side were beyond the disputed structure.
\n        …” (Page 204)
\n              “…I think one pillar base was found in the section in
\n        the northern part of the disputed site. I remember that one
\n        pillar base was identified by the ASI in the baulk of the
\n        trenches F2 and G2 and two so-called pillar bases were
\n        identified by the ASI in the baulk of trench F8 and F9 but
\n        according to me these were not actually pillar bases. …”
\n        (Page 204-205)
\n              “…approximately they are 6 in number. It does not
\n        appear on the perusal of figure 23 that some of the so
\n        called pillar bases from floor 3 have penetrated down to
\n        floor 4. Approximately 25 so called pillar bases have been
\n        shown in figure 23a as associated with floor 4 and floor 4a.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        I do not remember whether floor 2 and 3 were carbon
\n        dated by ASI from 900 to 1300 AD or not. In my opinion
\n        floor I is the floor of Babri Masjid which is approximately
\n        dated to the 16th century. Floor 2, floor 3 and 4 were
\n        associated with the pre Babri Masjid structure. I don’t have
\n        separate dates for floors 2, 3 and 4 but approximately these
\n        floors may be dated from the end of the 12th century to the
\n        16th century AD. According to me walls and structures
\n        prior to 12th century were found in excavation but no floor
\n        prior to 12th century was found at the site. According to me
\n        the oldest wall found in excavation was of first to third
\n        century AD. And the oldest structure found would be
\n        structure 5 which may be of 6th century AD.” (Page 205)
\n3912.         Dr R.C. Thakran (PW-30) admitting the existence
\nof pillar bases stated that:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          4192<\/span><\/p>\n
        ^^eSa ml fjiksVZ esa fy[kh bl ckr ls lger gwWa fd fiyj cslst iRFkj ds
\n        iSMsLVYl ij fVds gq, FksA – – – eSaus v;ks\/;k dh [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku lHkh
\n        fiyj cslst dks ns[kk FkkA mlesa iSMsLVYl LVksu dgha ij ugha gSaA dsoy
\n        ek= lhrk dh jlksbZ dh rjQ dqN fiyj cslst+ ds \u00c5ij iRFkj ik;s x;s
\n        gSaA tks isMsLVy ls fHkUu gSaA – – -tc rd eSa [kqnkbZ LFky ij jgk] ,slk
\n        ugha gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 okyksa us fiyj csl cuk;s gksa] ckn esa vxj
\n        mUgksaus dqN fd;k gks] rks eq>s bl ckr dk Kku ugha gSA ;fn lHkh V\u00aaspst
\n        essa yxkrkj ohfM;ksaxzkQh gks jgh gks] rks fiyj csl cukuk lEHko ugha
\n        gSA^^\u00bcist 116@118\u00bd
\n        ^^ – – -efLtn esa tks fiyj cuk;s tkrs gSa] muds fy, fiyj cslst dh
\n        vko’;drk gksrh gSA mijksDr \/kkjk 22 esa bu fiyj cslst+ ds lEcU\/k esa
\n        ppkZ dh x;h gS rFkk fiyj cslst ds \u00c5ij tks fiylZ [kM+s fd;s x;s gSa]
\n        mudh Hkh ppkZ gSA** \u00bcist 176\u00bd
\n        “I agree with the fact mentioned in that report that the
\n        pillar bases rested on pedestals of stone ….. I had seen all
\n        the pillar bases in course of the Ayodhya excavation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Pedestal stones were nowhere in them. Only towards Sita
\n        Rasoi, above some pillar bases have been found stones,
\n        which are different from the pedestals…. As long as I
\n        stayed at the excavation site, it is not that the A.S.I men
\n        carved pillar bases; but if they did so later on, I do not
\n        have knowledge about that. If all the trenches are
\n        constantly being videographed, it is not possible to carved
\n        pillar bases.” (Page 116\/118)
\n        “…For pillars to be carved in a mosque, there is
\n        requirement of pillar bases. The aforesaid para 22
\n        discusses about these pillar bases and also about the
\n        pillars which have been erected above the pillar
\n        bases.”(Page 176)
\n3913.          Dr Ashok Dutta (PW-31) admitting the existence of
\n                                                                 4193<\/span><\/p>\n
pillar bases underneath of the disputed structure stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “…Plate no. 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. II were shown to
\n      the witness who stated that stones slabs are possibly of
\n      black basalt with some decorative motifs can be seen in
\n      these plates. Black basalt is a kind of rock, which is
\n      igneous rock. …” (page 109)
\n      “…Learned cross examiner drew the attention of the
\n      witness towards paper no. 200 C-1 after seeing
\n      photographs no. 122 and 123 the witness stated that it
\n      appears to me from the photographs that the stones used in
\n      stole pillars is possibly black basalt. It appears that the
\n      pillars which are seen in paper 122 and 123 are similar to
\n      that as shown in plate 82 and 83 of ASI report vol. 2. …”
\n      (page 110)
\n      “…As an archaeologist at least I have that amount of
\n      knowledge to differentiate between mosque and temple. I
\n      don’t have any idea whether this type of stone slabs having
\n      decorative motif were used in the mosque or not. In plate
\n      no. 83 there are flower designs on the stone slab lower part
\n      of this stone slab is not distinct and clear. After seeing plate
\n      no. 83 with the magnifying glass the witness stated that
\n      some objects are visible in this stone slab. They appear to
\n      be lower part of a figure. But whether it represents human
\n      being or any thing else is difficult to ascertain because the
\n      foot is shown in different way than the man. In the centre of
\n      this plate it gives an impression of a ‘Ghat with flower’. I
\n      don’t have any idea whether these type of decorative motifs
\n      are used in mosque. …” (Page 110-111)
\n      “…I know that the depiction of human and animal figures
\n                                                                             4194<\/span><\/p>\n
        is prohibited in the Muslim architecture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        So far I remember there was no figure of human beings on
\n        the black basalt pillars. …” (Page 140)
\n        “…I believe the theory of ‘Super imposition’. I believe that
\n        according to the theory of ‘super imposition’ creation of the
\n        pillar bases in the trenches is impossible but in certain
\n        cases some super imposition is found. …” (Page 266)
\n3914.          Dr Supriya Verma (PW-32) stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “16. That the so called “pillar bases” were only part of a
\n        floor construction technique. Each lime-surkhi floor was
\n        underlain with several layers of brickbats interspersed with
\n        stone blocks and slabs and other material as fillers. …”
\n        (Page 12)
\n        “…It was for the first time in the year 1989 in an article
\n        published in a magazine, namely, ‘Manthan’ that the
\n        existence of pillar bases was mentioned by him (Prof. B.B.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Lal). …” (Page 127)
\n3915.          Prof. Suraj Bhan (PW-16) who visited the site for
\nthree days only, as mentioned by him at page-34, admitting the
\nexistence of pillar bases, stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
        ^^v;ks\/;k ds bl LFky ij ckcjh efLtn ds <kaps ds rqjUr uhps okys <kaps
\n        ds lkFk okys Q'kZ vkSj fiyj csl dk ,d lkFk QksVks fy;k tk ldrk
\n        Fkk c'krsZ fd bl n`f"V ls [kqnkbZ dh x;h gksrhA – – -** \u00bcist 227\u00bd
\n        "At this site of Ayodhya, the floor appurtenant to the
\n        structure immediately below the structure of the Babri
\n        Mosque      could      have     been     photographed,        provided
\n        excavation had been done from this angle…"(Page 227)
\n        ^^fo}ku ftjgdrkZ vf\/koDrk us lk{kh dk \/;ku ,0,l0vkbZ0 fjiksVZ O;wywe
\n        2 ds IysV la[;k 42 ij vkd`"V fd;kA lk{kh us bls ns[kdj iz'u fd;s
\n        tkus ij crk;k fd bl IysV esa nks ,sls dULV~d'ku gSa tks fiyj csl
\n                                                                 4195<\/span>
\nds :i esa eku fy;s x;s gSa] ijUrq budks izekf.kr djus ds fy, dzkl
\nlsD’ku Bhd ls ugha fn[k ik jgk gSA** \u00bcist 228\u00bd
\n“The learned cross-examining counsel drew the attention
\nof the witness to Plate no. 42 of the A.S.I. report, volume 2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After looking at this the witness on being questioned
\nreplied that in this plate there are two such constructions as
\nhave been taken to be pillar bases but cross section,
\ncapable of establishing them, is not properly seen.”(page\n<\/p>\n
228).\n<\/p>\n
^^,d nhokj dks ‘kk;n dkV dj ftls fiyj csl dgk tk jgk gS ‘kk;n
\nmls cuk;k x;k gSA** \u00bcist 229\u00bd
\n“What is being termed as pillar base, is perhaps carved out
\nfrom a wall.”(Page 229)
\n^^fiyj csl ge mls dgrs gSa tks fdlh LrEHk dk vk\/kkj gksaA losZ dh
\nfjiksVZ ds eqrkfcd izks0 ch0ch0yky ds mR[kuu esa ik;s x;s dULV~d’ku
\ndks blfy, fiyj csl dgk x;k gS D;ksafd muds vuqlkj mu ij
\nrFkkdfFkr efUnj ds LrEHk [kM+s ekus x;s FksA** \u00bcist 232\u00bd
\n“We term as pillar base what is the base of any pillar. As
\nper the survey report, the constructions discovered at the
\nexcavation carried out by Prof. B.B.Lal have been termed
\nas pillar bases because the pillars of the so called temple,
\nin his opinion, rested on them.”(Page 232).
\n^^IysV la[;k 46 ds ckjs esa lk{kh us bls ns[kdj iwNus ij crk;k fd
\neSaus ;gkWa ;g dgus dk iz;kl fd;k gS fd rFkkdfFkr fiyj cslst ij u
\nrks dksbZ flEcksfyd vkd`fr;kWa gSa vkSj u gh muds lkFk ,d Hkh iRFkj dk
\nLrEHk vFkok mlds VqdM+s feysA** \u00bcist 234\u00bd
\n“On being queried about plate no.46, the witness, after
\nlooking at the same, stated that here he had tried to say
\nthat there are no symbolic shapes on the so -called pillar
\nbases and not a single stone pillar or its fragments were
\n                                                                   4196<\/span><\/p>\n
discovered with them.”(Page 234)
\n^^eq>s bl le; ;g ;kn ugha gS fd mijksDr fQxj 3, esa nf’kZr 50
\nfiyj cslst esa ls fdrus esjs fujh{k.k ds le; ,Dlikst gks pqds FksA
\nLo;a dgk] buesa ls dqN LV~sDplZ mRrj esa] dqN if’peh Hkkx esa rFkk dqN
\nnf{k.k esa LV~sDplZ ikVZyh ;k iwjh rjg ,Dlikst gks pqds gSa] ftUgsa fiyj
\ncls dgk tk jgk gSA ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk iznf’kZr fiyj cslst esa
\n,ykbUesUV rks fn[kkbZ nsrk gS ijUrq fQj Hkh buesa vUrj rks gS gh vkSj
\nfjiksVZ esa Hkh ;gh fy[kk x;k gSA** \u00bcist 464\u00bd
\n“At present I do not remember how many of the 50 pillar
\nbases shown in the aforesaid figure 3A had been exposed at
\nthe time of my observation. (Stated on his own) Out of these
\nstructures, some have been partly or completely exposed in
\nthe north, some in the western part and some in the south,
\nwhich structures are being called pillar bases. Alignment is
\ncertainly seen in the pillar bases shown by A.S.I., but they
\ndefinitely have differences, and this very fact is written in
\nthe report.”(Page 464)
\n^^izk;% ;g dULV~D’ku Q’kZ cukus ds fy, Hkjh x;h feV~Vh ds yscy dks
\nesUVsu djus ds fy, Fkh ;k fdlh vkSj ijit ds fy, izek.k vHkh ugha
\ngSA
\niz’u&bu fiyj cslst ds lEcU\/k esa ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk izLrqr Vsap
\nuksVcqd]   Mk;jh o Mk;jh jftLVj vkfn dk Hkh vkius fiyj csl ds
\nlEcU\/k esa dksbZ tkudkjh fd;k gS vFkok ugha\\
\nmRrj& eSa rks fjiksVZ ds v\/;;u ls gh vkSj lkbZV ij foftV djds rFkk
\nvius bUVj,D’ku }kjk gh viuk er cuk;k gSA bu lqijokbtjks dh
\nMk;jh ;k ,UVhD;wVh jftLVj dks eSaus ugha ns[kk gSA fjiksVZ esa Hkh mudk
\ndksbZ fo’ks”k mYys[k ugha gSA** \u00bcist 470\u00bd
\n“As of now, there is nothing to show whether these
\nconstructions were          often meant to maintain the level of
\nsoil for floor making or for any other purpose.
\nQuestion- Whether any inquiry in respect of these pillar
\n                                                                         4197<\/span><\/p>\n
        bases, has been made by you or not of the Trench notebook,
\n        diary and diary register etc. submitted by ASI ?
\n        Answer- I have formed my opinion on studying the report,
\n        visiting the site and by my interaction. I have not seen the
\n        diary of Supervisors or the Antiquity Register. There is no
\n        special reference of these in the report as well.” (Page 470)
\n3916.          Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal (PW-24) who was again
\nexamined as expert witness after excavation by Sunni Central
\nWaqf Board, appreciated the work of ASI and its methodology,
\nnowhere alleged anything against ASI or manufacture of pillar
\nbases by them. Rather he admitted the existence of pillar bases
\nand the reference of the same in the report. Prof. Mandal stated
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
        ^^fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj 50 rFkk&dfFkr LrEHk vk\/kkjksa \u00bcpillar bases\u00bd ds
\n        uho dh igpku dh x;h gSA mUgsa Floor 2 ( ;k Structure 4 dh
\n        vfUre voLFkk\u00bd ls lEc) dgk x;k gS (ASI Report, Vol.I, p.54).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        bl dFku ls ;g Li”V ladsr feyrk gS fd mudk fuekZ.k Floor 2 ds
\n        le; gqvk gksxkA bl fLFkfr esa nksuksa ijLij ledkfyd gq,A \u00bcist 118\u00bd
\n        “According to the report, the foundations of 50 alleged
\n        pillar bases have been identified. They have been termed as
\n        attached to Floor 2 (or the last stage of Structure 4) (ASI
\n        Report, Vol.1,p.54). This statement clearly indicates that
\n        their construction would have taken place at time of Floor\n<\/p>\n
        2. In such situation both of them are mutually
\n        contemporary. ” (page 118)
\n        ^^iqjkrRo foKku ds vuqlkj ftl lrg ls ;g [kkbZ [kksnh Pit tkrh gS
\n        og mlds fuekZ.k dky dk ledkfyd ekuk tkrk gSA – – – – fjiksVZ esa
\n        yxHkx 14 LrEHk vk\/kkjksa dk lsD’ku rFkk Iyku izdkf’kr gSA** \u00bcist 118\u00bd
\n        “According to the archaeology, the level from which this
\n                                                                     4198<\/span><\/p>\n
pit is excavated, is considered to be contemporary with its
\nperiod of construction………. The section and plan of about
\n14 pillar bases have been published in the report.” (page\n<\/p>\n
118)
\n“…eSaus dy vius c;ku ds ckn th0ih0vkj0 losZ fjiksVZ rFkk mlesa
\nmfYyf[kr ftu ,ukfeyht+ dh iq”Vh ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk dh xbZ gS mlds
\nlanHkZ esa fjiksVZ dk iqu% voyksdu ugha fd;k gS] blfy, eSa vkt Hkh ugha
\ncrk ldrk gwWa fd th0ih0vkj0 fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr ftu ,ukfeyht+ dh
\niqf”V ,,lvkbZ us mR[kuu }kjk dh gS] og fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr gSa vFkok
\nughaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 esa viuh fjiksVZ esa fiyjcsl dk vkblksesfVd O;w fn;k
\ngS ftldks eSaus ns[kk gSA ,,lvkbZ }kjk fn, x, bl vkblksesfVd O;w esa
\nnf’kZr fiyjcsfll dk lR;kiu eSaus fookfnr LFky ls ugha fd;k gSA
\nfookfnr LFky ij tks LV\u00aaDpj ik, x, gSa] mudk fooj.k ,0,l0vkbZ0 esa
\nvius fjiksVZ okY;we 1 ds fQxj 3 vkSj 3, esa fn;k gSA fookfnr LFky ij
\nik, x, ftu LV\u00aadpjl~ dk mYys[k Qhxj 3 rFkk 3, esa fd;k x;k gS]
\nog fookfnr LFky ij gSa] blls eSa lger gwWaA ,0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh
\nfjiksVZ esa pkj Q~ykslZ dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlls eSa lger gwWa ijUrq
\ntgkWa rd ,0,l0vkbZ0 }kjk fn[kk, x, Q~yksj 4, dk iz’u gS] mlls eSa
\nlger ugha gwWa D;ksafd bldk mYys[k ,,lvkbZ dh fjiksVZ okY;we 1 ds
\ni`”B 37, \u00bcVsUVsfVo ihfj;Mkbt+s’ku vkWQ fn fMLI;wfVM lkbV ,V
\nv;ks\/;k\u00bd esa Hkh ugha gSA Q~yksj 1 fMLI;wfVM LV\u00aaDpj dh Q~yksj gSA Q~yksj
\n2] Q~yksj 1 ls iwoZorhZ Q~yksj gS ftlesa fjiksVZ esa lHkh fiyjcslst+ o
\nLV\u00aaDplZ dks fn[kk;k x; gSA Q~yksj 3] Q~yksj 2 ds iwoZ dh gS] ,
\n0,l0vkbZ0 us viuh fjiksVZ esa Q~yksj 3 ls vVSPM tks okWy rFkk fiyj
\ncslst+ gSa mldks fn[kk;k gS] ijUrq eSa mlls lger ugha gwWaA okWy ds laca\/k
\nesa esjh vlgerh ugha gS …” \u00bcist 275\u00bd
\n“…….After my yesterday’s statement, I have not re-perused
\nthe report in context of the GPR survey report as well as
\nthe anomalies mentioned therein, which have been verified
\nby ASI. As such even today I cannot tell whether the
\nanomalies mentioned in the GPR report and verified by ASI
\n                                                                4199<\/span><\/p>\n
through excavation, have been mentioned in the report or
\nnot. The ASI has given isometric view of the pillar bases in
\nits report, which has been perused by me. The verification
\nof the pillar bases appearing in this isometric view given by
\nthe ASI, has not been done by me from the disputed site.
\nThe details of the structures found at the disputed site have
\nbeen given by the ASI in Figure 3 and 3A of Volume 1 of its
\nreport. I agree that the structures found at the disputed site
\nand mentioned in Figure 3 and 3A, are at the disputed site.
\nIn its report, the ASI has mentioned about four floors, with
\nwhich I agree, but so far as the Floor 4A shown by ASI is
\nconcerned, I do not agree with the same because it has not
\nbeen mentioned even at Page 37A(tentative            periodisation
\nof the disputed site at Ayodhya) of Volume 1 of ASI report.
\nThe Floor 1 is the floor of the disputed structure. The Floor
\n2 is anterior to the Floor 1, in which all the pillar bases
\nand structures of the report have been shown. The Floor 3
\nis anterior to the Floor2, in its report the ASI has shown
\nthose walls and pillar bases which are attached to Floor 3,
\nbut I do not agree with the same. I have no disagreement
\nregarding the wall……”(Page 275)
\n“…fookfnr LFky ij gq, mR[kuu esa dqy fdruh fnokjsa feyha Fkha]
\nmudh la[;k eSa ugha crk ldrkA dqy 50 fiyjcslst+ mR[kuu ds nkSjku
\nfeys FksA dqy fiyjcslst+ lsD’ku ls tqM+s gq, Fks] mudh la[;k yxHkx 14
\ngSaA…” \u00bcist 276\u00bd
\n“…….I cannot tell the total number of walls found in the
\nexcavation at the disputed site. A total of 50 pillar bases
\nwere found during the excavation. Few pillar bases were
\nattached to the section, their number is around 14
\n                                                                            4200<\/span><\/p>\n
        ………”(Page 276)
\n        “…mijksDr fQxj 3, esa mR[kuu ds nkSjku tks Hkh nhokjsa vkfn feyh gSa]
\n        mudks ,,lvkbZ }kjk iznf’kZr fd;k x;k gSA ;g okWy rFkk LV\u00aaDpj vius
\n        LFkku ij gh fQxj 3, esa iznf’kZr gSa ;k ugha] bldks fcuk bUoSLVhxsV
\n        fd, ugha crk;k tk ldrkA eSaus bl ckjs esa vkt rd dksbZ bUosLVhxs’ku
\n        ugha fd;k gS fd fQxj 3, esa tks nhokjsa rFkk LV\u00aaDpj fn[kk, x, gSa]
\n        os ;Fkk LFkku bl fQxj esa iznf’kZr gSa vFkok ughaA—-pwafd eSaus fQxj 3,
\n        esa LV\u00aaDpj rFkk nhokjksa ds ;FkkLFkku fn[kk, tkus ds ckjs esa dksbZ v\/;;u
\n        ugha fd;k gS blfy, eSa bl ckjsa eas ugha crk ik\u00c5WaxkA””\u00bcist 276&277\u00bd
\n        “…..The walls etc. found during excavation, have been
\n        shown by ASI in the aforesaid Figure 3A. Whether this wall
\n        and structure have been shown at their respective place or
\n        not in the Figure 3A, cannot be told without being
\n        investigated. I have not carried out any investigation in this
\n        behalf till date as to whether the walls and structures
\n        shown in Figure 3A have been shown or not at their
\n        respective places in this figure…….. Since            I have not
\n        carried out any study regarding the depiction of structures
\n        and walls at their respective places in Figure 3A, as such I
\n        will not be able to reply in this behalf. “(Page 276-277).
\n3917.          One of the objection with respect to the pillar bases
\nis that nothing has been found intact with them saying that the
\npillars were affixed thereon. The submission, in our view,
\nthoroughly hollow and an attempt in vain. The other parties i.e.
\nHindus categorically claimed that the erstwhile structure was
\nremoved i.e. demolished so as to construct the disputed
\nstructure. If we assume other cause to be correct for a moment,
\nin case of demolition of a construction, it is a kind of childish
\nexpectation to hope that some overt structure as it is would
\nremain intact. There cannot be any presumption that the pillar
\n                                                               4201<\/span><\/p>\n
bases was remained intact along ancillary material. Whatever
\nhas been found that has to be seen in the context and not what is
\nnot found. All the things have to be seen carefully and nothing
\nindependently and in isolation. The pillar bases were detected by
\nB.B.Lal also in 1976-77 when he made excavation on the
\nwestern and southern side of the disputed site along with a wall
\nstructure. The Archaeologist said that the matter needs further
\ninvestigation. It is thus further investigation which has infact
\nfortified and explained the earlier structure also. The pillar bases
\nin general were found during excavation in regular bases for
\ncolumns constructed in a proper pattern with equal distance
\npattern in regular style. The calcrete stones were topped by
\nsandstone blocks over which pillars must have rested. Brickbats
\nwere used in their foundation in the same manner as brick
\naggregates were used in foundation of walls. The brickbats
\ncourse of the foundation rested under the ground. The question
\nof falling apart of the brickbat foundation could not have arisen.
\nThe calcrete blocks topped by the sandstone blocks is capable of
\nsupporting pillar bearings, the load of the roof. Even if there is
\nsome minor variation in the measurement of the pillar bases that
\nwould not invite the approach of total rejection of something
\nwhich is otherwise apparent from the existence of the above
\npillar bases. There may be a reason for having variation in the
\nmeasurement of the pillar bases that the actual centre of the
\npillar bases could not have been pointed out since the top
\nsandstone blocks are missing from most of them. Figure 3A in
\nany case has been confirmed to be correct by most of the
\nExperts (Archaeologist) of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
\n3918.       In general, therefore, we do not find any substance
\n                                                                4202<\/span><\/p>\n
in the objections relating to pillar bases and the same is hereby
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
3919.         The next objection is with regard to the Walls and
\nFloors. This has been complained by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) under
\nthe title “Archaeological Evidence of Massive Structure” Para
\n4.1 to 4.14 in the objections dated 28.10.2003. It says:\n<\/p>\n
        “4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF “MASSIVE
\n        STRUCTURE”:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.1   That the theory of a so called “massive structure”
\n        below “Babri Masjid” (P. 54), given by the A.S.I., is based
\n        mainly upon nearly 50m long wall (wall 16) in the west
\n        and the dumps of brick bats which it claims to be “pillar
\n        bases”, to its east. According to the A.S.I. they found 17
\n        rows of the so called pillar bases from North to South; each
\n        row having 5 pillar bases while actually they have referred
\n        to 50 only, out of which only 12 were said to be completely
\n        exposed, 35 were said to be partially exposed and 3 could
\n        be traced in section only. The A.S.I. also asserts that the
\n        central part of the pillared structure was important and
\n        special treatment was given to its architectural planning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The A.S.I. also claims that the so-called pillar bases found
\n        in these excavations have settled the controversy regarding
\n        association of these so-called pillar bases with different
\n        layers and load bearing capacity while the report fails to
\n        give any details about the actual regular layers and
\n        accurate depth of all these so called pillar bases. The
\n        remarks of the A.S.I about the central part of the pillared
\n        structure also seem to be without any evidence. On what
\n        basis the A.S.I. is saying that this part was important and
\n                                                           4203<\/span><\/p>\n
special treatment was given to it in architectural planning,
\nis also not evident from the report.\n<\/p>\n
4.2. That the A.S.I. failed to take into account that any
\nmedieval temple in classical style would be expected to
\nhave a Central portion with thick internal walls to support
\na high superstructure like a Shikhara, while the Key Plan
\nof Structures shows, in H1, two lengths of a narrow wall or
\ntwo walls, each less than a metre long, with a gap of about
\n70 cm. Between them. No further information is given to
\nconvince us that there is an ” exposed entrance” as stated
\non P. 69.\n<\/p>\n
4.3.     That the A.S.I. Report itself describes traces of inner
\nwalls having a width of 0.48 m to 0.55 m, attached with the
\nearliest activities alongwith wall 16. These internal walls
\nnot only appear to be narrow and not more than two or
\nthree brick courses high, but also consisting of brickbats
\nonly. They are plastered over the sides and upper surface
\nand it is difficult to infer that they were load bearing
\nwalls:\n<\/p>\n
4.4. That regarding the said wall 16, an unexplained
\nanomaly is that from the inner side its first phase of 10
\ncourses is said to be plastered while on the exterior side
\nplaster was provided in the second phase of its raising
\n( four courses).\n<\/p>\n
4.5. That no single example is offered by the A.S.I. of any
\ntemple of pre-Moghal times having such a lime-Surkhi
\nfloor, though one would think that this is an essential
\nrequirement when a purely Muslim structure is being
\nappropriate as a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has
\n                                                         4204<\/span><\/p>\n
occurred (page 41), we are then asked to imagine a
\n“Massive Structure Below the Distputed Structure”, the
\nmassive structure being a temple. It is supposed to have
\nstood upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures
\n23, 23A and 23B), it has been ” reconstructed”. [Though
\none may still feel that if was hardly “massive” when one
\ncompares Figure 23 (showing Babri Masjid before
\ndemolition) and Figure 23B (showing the reconstructed
\ntemple with 50 imaginary pillars!)] Now, according to the
\nA.S.I.’s Report, this massive structure with “bases” of 46 of
\nits alleged 50 pillars now exposed, was built in Period VII,
\nthe Period of the Delhi Sultans, Sharqi rulers and Lodi
\nSultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the alleged Grand
\nTemple, to the “Muslim” period is not by choice, but
\nbecause of the presence of “Muslim” style materials and
\ntechniques all through. This, given the distorted view of
\nmedieval Indian history, must have been a bitter pill for the
\nA.S.I.’s, mentors to swallow; and, therefore, there has been
\nall the more reason for them to imagine a still earlier
\nstructure assignable to an earlier time. Of this structure,
\nhowever,   only    four   alleged   “pillar   bases”,   with
\n“foundations” attached to Floor 4, have been found; and it
\nis astonishing that this should be sufficient to ascribe them
\n10th -11th century and to assume that they all belong to one
\nstructure. That structure is proclaimed as “huge”,
\nextending nearly 50 metres that separate the “pillar-bases”
\nat the extremes. Four “pillar bases” can hardly have held
\nsuch a long roof, and if any one tried it on them it is not
\nsurprising that the result was “short-loved” (Report, p.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4205<\/span><\/p>\n
269). All of this seems a regular part of the Mandir
\npropagandist archaeology rather than a report from a body
\ncalled the Archaeological Survey of India.
\n4.6. That the four alleged pillar bases dated to 11th -12th
\ncenturies are said “to belong to this level with a brick crush
\nfloor”. This amounts to a totally unsubstantiated claim that
\nsurkhi was used in the region in Gahadavala times (11th –
\n12th centuries). No examples are predictably offered. One
\nwould have thought that Sravasti (Dist. Bahraich), from
\nwhich the A.S.I. team has produced a linga-centred Shavite
\n“circular shrine” of the said period for comparison with the
\nso-called “circular shrine” at the Babri Masjid site, would
\nbe able to produce a single example of either surkhi or lime
\nmortar from the Gahadavala-period structures at Sravasti.
\nBut such has not at all been the case. One can see now why
\nit had been necessary to call this period (Period V)
\n“Medieval-Sultanate” (p. 40) though it is actually claimed
\nto be pre-Sultanate, being dated 11th – 12th century. By
\nclubbing together the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, the
\nsurkhi is sought to be explained away; but if so, the “huge”
\nstructure too must come to a time after 1206, for Delhi
\nSultanate was only established in that year. And so, to go
\nby A.S.I.’s reasoning, the earlier allegedly “huge” temple
\ntoo must have been built when the Sultans ruled!
\n4.7. That the way the A.S.I. has distorted evidence to suit
\nits temple theory is shown by its treatment of the mihrab
\n(arched recess) and taq (niche) found in the western wall,
\nwhich it turns into features of its imagined temple. The
\nabsurdity of this is self evident and particularly so when the
\n                                                          4206<\/span><\/p>\n
inner walls of the niche are also found plastered, and the
\nA.S.I. is able to produce no example of similar recess and
\nniche from any temple.\n<\/p>\n
4.8. That the structure denoted by wall 17 and a brick
\nCrush floor in Period VI has not been allotted any number
\nby the A.S.I. and the A.S.I.’s claims about the attribution of
\nthe walls and floors of ” Periods VI and VII” to two
\nsuccessive temple structures can not be accepted. The
\nA.S.I.’s report in this respect also is full of contradictions
\nand other infirmities.\n<\/p>\n
4.9. That the reason why would the western wall to be so
\nmassive (1.77 m) and the other walls so thin ( 0.48-0.55) is
\nquite obvious. It should be noted that Wall 17 also was 1.86
\nm wide. Such wide western walls are a features of mosque
\nconstruction and not of temples. Temple walls, in fact, are
\nof uniform thickness. If, as the A.S.I. points out, the Babri
\nMasjid used this Wall 16 as a foundation for its western
\nwall, then this Wall 16 can only have been the foundation
\nof the Babri Masjid itself. Moreover, no Hindu temple has a
\nlong continuously straight western wall-this is only a
\nfeature of the mosque in India. In the case of a temple, a
\nplinth or raised platform would be required and the walls
\nwould be broken by offsets, providing a cruciform plan to
\nthe temple form. Moreover, the temple would have
\nmandapas      in front of the grabagriha (the sanctum
\nsantorum) and any at the side of the latter would be very
\nsmall and insignificant in nature. According to Krishna
\nDeva, “the main compartment of the temple are axially
\narticulated.” ( See Temples of India by Krishna Dewa,
\n                                                           4207<\/span><\/p>\n
1995, Vol. I ) In this case, as being suggested by the A.S.I.,
\nthe central area now under the makeshift structure was the
\ngarbagriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple structure
\nshould have mainly projected towards the east, and not to
\nsuch an extent to the north and south ( as in Fig. 23A or
\n23B). The kind of structure as indicated in Fig. 23B
\nindicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can
\nonly be the case in a mosque.\n<\/p>\n
4.10.That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has some
\ndecorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and
\ncalcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the
\nconstruction of a foundation where any available motley
\nmaterial would be used, as the foundation would not be
\nvisible. It has been pointed out by the A.S.I. (pp. 68, 269-\n<\/p>\n
70) that material, from the structure associated with Wall
\n17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been
\nthe case, decorated blocks would have been used for the
\nupper portions of walls rather than in the foundation. To
\ncorroborate their statement of the reuse of decorated
\nblocks,   the   A.S.I.   gives    the   examples     of    the
\nDharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi of the 12th
\ncentury A.D. at Sarnath. However, as can be seen in Plates
\n27-28, decorated blocks were used not for the foundations
\nbut in the enclosure wall of a vihara. Moreover, this
\nstructure was a vihara and cannot in any way be compared
\nwith a Hindu temple.\n<\/p>\n
4.11. That it can also be pointed out here that Krishna Deva
\nmentions ( on P. 11) that a temple customarily has a
\nvedibandha consisting of moulded courses. Even if the
\n                                                         4208<\/span><\/p>\n
southern part of Wall 16 has not been excavated on its
\nouter face to indicate the presence or absence of
\nmouldings, we have the evidence of the outer face of Wall
\n16 in Trench ZE 1, to the north, where no mouldings are to
\nbe seen. This kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches
\non its inner face can only be a mosque\/ Eidgah wall.
\n4.12. That On p. 68 are described two niches in the inner
\nside of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 m I trenches E6 and
\nE7. These were 0.20 m deep and 1 m wide. A similar niche
\nwas found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area and these
\nhave been attributed to the first phase of construction of the
\nso called ‘massive structure’ associated with Wall 16. Such
\nniches along the inner face of a western wall, are again
\ncharacteristic of mosque\/ Eidgah construction. Moreover,
\nthe inner walls of the niche are also plalstelred (as in Plate\n<\/p>\n
49) which indicates that the plaster was meant to be
\nvisible. A temple niche (and if found, would be on the outer
\nwall) would not be plastered if it were to hold a sculpture
\nor a relief. In the first phase of construction, the supposed
\nmassive structure was confined to the thin wall found in
\nTrenches ZE1-ZE1 in the north and E6-H5\/H6 in the south
\n(p. 41). How then does one explain the location of niches
\noutside the floor area of the said massive structure ? This is
\ntypical of a mosque, which has a long, wide north-south
\nwall, with niches at intervals on its inner face and there
\nmay be a small covered area in the center. Which would
\nhave narrow demarcating walls.\n<\/p>\n
4.13. That according to the A.S.I. (p. 42), the massive
\nstructure in sub-period B collapsed and its debris of brick
\n                                                          4209<\/span><\/p>\n
and stone was levelled to attain height. ” In this deposit,
\nfoundations to support pillars or columns were sunk which
\nwere overlaid with a 4-5 cm thick floor, which had a grid of
\nsquare sandstone bases for pillars projecting out, only a
\nfew still survive.”\n<\/p>\n
If, as implied, the structure of sub-period B had collapsed
\nand another floor constructed with another set of pillar
\nbases, then these are not phases of construction of a
\nstructure but three separate structures. What is perhaps a
\nmore plausible explanation is that in the beginning of the
\n13th century, some Muslim structure was built with a well-
\npolished lime surkhi floor. There was a low enclosure wall
\n(0.40-0.50 m wide) demarcating the area from E6 to ZE!
\nAnd extending east to the H series of trenches. Within this
\nenclosure was probably a small central covered area of
\nwhich the northern wall with a niche can be seen the
\nTrench F2. This wall was narrower (0.35-40 m ) thick.
\nProbably this was wall structure only as can be seen by the
\nnarrow walls with no deep foundation. When this
\ncollapsed, the entire area was filled in with brickbats, stone
\nslabs, calcrete blocks, brick nodules and mud to raise the
\nlevel in order to construct the next lime-surkhi floor. This
\nfloor probably now functioned as an Eidgah or so as no
\nstructural activity has been observed in association. When
\nthis floor was degraded, another floor was raised, both
\nfloors being of poor quality.\n<\/p>\n
4.14. That wall recesses or niches are observed in the
\nmosque\/ Eidgah structure in a highter stratum also (P. 53)
\nbut the report fails to discuss about the same.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  4210<\/span><\/p>\n
3920.         PW-29 (Jaya Menon) however in para 11 and 12 of
\naffidavit on this aspect has said:\n<\/p>\n
        A.    That the Period VI structure according to the ASI
\n        consisted of a 50 metre long wall and a brick crush floor,
\n        and had 4 (so called) pillar bases associated with it.
\n        However, nowhere are any specific (so called) pillar bases
\n        associated with the brick crush layer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        B.    That the brick crush layer was not a floor but a
\n        levelling mechanism to level the area for the building of
\n        subsequent structures. This is because the brick crush layer
\n        can be seen to be of varying thickness in different trenches.
\n        C.    That Structure 4 to the ASI essentially seems to
\n        consist of a massive western wall and (so called) pillar
\n        bases and has been considered to have been a (so called)
\n        temple. The important point is why should the western wall
\n        have been so massive (1.77 metre) and the other walls so
\n        thin (0.48-0.55 metre)? Such wide western walls are a
\n        feature of mosque construction and not of temple
\n        construction. Temple walls, in fact, are of uniform
\n        thickness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        D.    That the western wall of the Babri Masjid had a
\n        slight tilt towards the east which is a feature of the western
\n        wall of the mosques in India because of the direction of
\n        Mecca. If, as the ASI points out, the Babri Masjid used Wall
\n        16 as a foundation for its western wall, then this Wall 16
\n        could only have been the foundation of the Babri Masjid
\n        itself as it shows the same tilt. It should be noted that Wall
\n        17, supposedly associated with the Period VI structure,
\n        also had this tilt and was 1.86 metre wide. Also, if Wall 16
\n                                                          4211<\/span><\/p>\n
and 17 were temple walls, why should they have had the
\nsame tilt towards the east?\n<\/p>\n
E.    That no Hindu temple has a log continuously straight
\nwestern wall-this is only a feature of the mosque in India.
\nIn the case of temple, a plinth or raised platform would be
\nrequired and the walls would be broken by offsets,
\nproviding a cruciform plan to the temple form. Moreover,
\nthe temple would have a linear alignment with mandapas
\nin front of the garbagriha (the sanctum sanctorum) and any
\nat the side of the latte would be very small and insignificant
\nin nature. In this case, as being pointed out by the ASI, the
\ncentral area now under the makeshift structure was the
\nalleged garbgriha and hence if so, the rest of the temple
\nstructure should have mainly projected towards the east,
\nand not to such an extent to the north south. The king of
\nstructure as indicated in Fig. 23B of the Final Report
\nindicates the pre-eminence of the western wall which can
\nonly be the case in a Eidgah mosque.\n<\/p>\n
F.    That the foundation of the Babri Masjid has
\ndecorated stone blocks along with plain sandstone and
\ncalcrete blocks and bricks. This is natural in the
\nconstruction of a foundation where any available motley
\nmaterial would be used, as the foundation would not be
\nvisible. It has been pointed out by the ASI (pages 68, 269-\n<\/p>\n
270) that material, from the structure associated with Wall
\n17, was reused to make Wall 16. However, if this had been
\nthe case, decorated blocks would have been used for the
\nupper portions of alleged temple walls rather than in the
\nfoundation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4212<\/span><\/p>\n
G.    That temple walls customarily have mouldings on the
\nouter face. The outer face of Wall 16 in Trench ZE1, to the
\nnorth, is available to view where no mouldings are to be
\nseen this kind of a plain wall with nothing but niches on its
\ninner face can only be an Eidgah or mosque wall. On page
\n68 of the Final Report are described two niches in the inner
\nside of Wall 16 at an interval of 4.60 metre in trenches E6
\nand E7. These were 0.20 metre deep and 1 metre wide. A
\nsimilar niche was found in Trench ZE2 in the northern area
\nand these have been attributed to the first phase of
\nconstruction of ‘massive structure’ associated with Wall 16.
\n(Such niches, along the inner face of a western wall, are
\nagain characteristic of Eidgah or mosque construction.)
\nMoreover, the inner walls of the niche are also plastered
\n(as in Plate 49) which indicates that plaster was meant to
\nbe visible.\n<\/p>\n
H.    That two Mughal coins were found in Trench K5 in
\nlayer 3 “below (sic) the brick pavement” and from layer 3
\nin Trench L7. According to the ASI, the brick pavement
\nextended east from Trenches J4, J5 and J6 upto the
\njunction of the K and L series of trenches. The pavement
\nhas been accorded great ritual significance by the ASI and
\nhas been dated to Period VII, i.e. Medieval\/Medieval-
\nSultanate (end of 12th century to beginning of 16th century
\nAD\/ before AD 1526). (Final Report pages 41-42).
\nHowever, if the brick pavement is pre-Mughal, it is
\nimpossible for later period (Mughal) coins to be found in a
\nstratified context under it. Thus, clearly, the brick pavement
\ncannot be of pre-Mughal date.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    4213<\/span><\/p>\n
        I.      That the ASI’s sections in Figures 5 and 19 of the
\n        Final Report make no mention of “the massive structure”
\n        (their so called temple) and only to “the disputed structure”
\n        (the Babri Masjid), which means the hypothesis of a temple
\n        was added at a later stage of the writing of the Report.”
\n3921.           Sri D.Mandal PW-24 has mainly confined his
\nobjection with regard to stratification. Sri Suraj Bhan -PW16
\nhas made a general statement against the conclusion of ASI that
\nunderneath the disputed building there was a temple structure.
\nPW 30 R.C.Thakran and 31 have not said anything about
\nvarious walls excavated by ASI.\n<\/p>\n
3922.           The excavation of 28 walls by ASI virtually has
\nbeen admitted by the experts of plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. PW-16 at
\npages 153, 199, PW 29 at Pages 146, 147, 158, 159, 163, 164
\nand 181. PW-32 Dr. Supriya Varma very categorically on page
\n137 has said:\n<\/p>\n
                “from walls 16 to 28 except wall 18D are the walls
\n        underneath the disputed structure.”\n<\/p>\n
3923.           PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran specifically at page 190
\npage 46\/190 said:\n<\/p>\n
                ^^eSa ;g ekurk gwWa fd tgka&tgka th0ih0vkj0 rduhd ds }kjk
\n        ,ukeyht dh rjQ b’kkjk gS] ogka & ogka dqN Bksl lClVkUl ;k oLrq
\n        izkIr gqbZ gSaA** \u00bcist 190\u00bd
\n                “I hold that wherever anomalies have been alluded
\n        to through the G.P.R. technique, some solid substances or
\n        objects have been discovered.” (E.T.C.)
\n3924.           The ASI has discussed the walls and Floors as
\nunder:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “Excavations in trenches D6, E6, F6, D7, E7 and F7
\n                                                          4214<\/span><\/p>\n
brought to light the remains of foundation wall and floors
\nof the southern square chamber (Pl. 21, Fig. 4) of the
\ndisputes structure (structure 3) which internally measured
\n6.14 m in north-south and 6.10 m in east-west direction
\nwith its western wall (wall 5) measuring 3.0 m wide having
\nfive courses of calcrete blocks with occasional use of sand
\nstone blocks as veneers filled in the core with brick-bats.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is a recess of 0.75 m depth and 2.10 m in length in
\nthe wall 5 in the inner side. Two decorated sand store
\nblocks from an earlier structure, one having the damaged
\nfigure of a possible foliated makara-pra \u0101la were found
\nreused in the foundation of wall 5 on its outer face (Pls. 22-\n<\/p>\n
23). The wall 5 of the structure 3 was found resting directly
\n(Pl. 24, Fig. 5) over an earlier plastered brick wall (wall\n<\/p>\n
16) having a foundation of five to six courses of calcrete
\nand sand stone blocks. Some of them reused from yet
\nanother earlier structure as they are decorated ones with
\nfoliage (Pls. 25-26) and other decorations. Similar nature
\nof wide brick walls with plain and decorated stone
\nmembers of earlier structures reused in their foundations
\n(Pls. 27-28) have been noticed at the Dharmachakrajina
\nVihara of Kum\u0101radev\u012b, queen of Gahadwal ruler
\nGovindachandra of the twelfth century A.D. at Sarnath
\nexposed after excavation conducted in 1907 and 1908. The
\nwall 16 has externally as well as internally plastered
\nsurface (Pl. 29) below the level of the twin floors of
\nstructure 3.\n<\/p>\n
      The southern foundation wall (wall 6) of structure 3
\ndirectly rests over two pillar bases of earlier period (PB 34
\n                                                        4215<\/span><\/p>\n
and PB 35) below its middle and south-eastern corner (Pl.\n<\/p>\n
30). It has three courses of calcrete blocks and a width of
\n1.55 m with 0.15 m off-set and the length in east-west
\ndirection of 10.70 m out of which 4.0 m in south-west is
\ndisturbed and damaged. It takes a turn from south-eastern
\ncorner towards north forming wall 7 of the front side
\n(eastern side) of the southern chamber of the structure 3.
\nThe wall 7 of structure 3 in front of its southern chamber
\nrests over three pillar bases of the earlier period (PB 29,
\nPB 32 and PB 35) which were attached through floor 2 of it
\nto the wall 16 (Fig. 6). The width of wall 7 is 1.54 m and
\nthere was an entrance to the southern chamber in the
\nmiddle of the wall having a gap of 2.65 m. There was a
\nnorthern wall or wall 8 of the southern chamber of
\nstructure 3 measuring no less than 8.53 m in length and
\nwhose width could not be determined due to debris on the
\nraised platform. Through wall 8 there was an entrance to
\nthe central chamber of the structure 3.\n<\/p>\n
      Due to close proximity of the Ram Lala on the raised
\nplatform, the central chamber could not be exposed fully,
\nbut only a small cutting of 3 x 2 m in between trenches F4
\nand F5 was made to collect more evidence and to verify the
\nanomalies mentioned in the GPR Survey report and the
\nfloor of the central chamber was found besides earlier
\nfloors. In an area of 2.50 x 2.50 m in F3 also the same
\nfloors were encountered with parts of the inner faces of the
\nsouthern wall (wall 10) and eastern wall (wall 11) of the
\nnorthern chamber of the structure 3 (Pl. 31). Ten extant
\ncourses of calcrete blocks of wall 10 and eight courses of
\n                                                           4216<\/span><\/p>\n
wall 11 were noticed with three such courses in the
\nfoundation.\n<\/p>\n
      Parts of the western, eastern and northern walls
\n(walls 5, 11 and 12 consecutively) of the northern chamber
\nof structure 3 were found in trenches E2, F2 and G2. Wall 5
\nat the north western corner seems to be 2.40 m in width
\nmade of reused bricks and brick-bats having two courses of
\ncalcrete and sand stone blocks in its foundation. This part
\nis raised over the earlier brick wall (wall 16). Three
\ncourses of calcrete blocks were found in the foundation of
\nthe eastern wall (wall 11) of the northern chamber with its
\nextended lime floor over it in the courtyard and floors 1
\nand 1A in the inner side with decorative coloured cemented
\nsurface painted with black and buff coloured arched
\nrectangles pointing towards west, a feature of the mosque
\n(Pl. 32). The width of wall 11 is 1.60 m and its two courses
\nof calcrete blocks plastered from inside were found in
\ntrench F2. While laying the foundation of the wall, the
\npillar base 23 was cut as noticed in the baulk between F2
\nand G2.\n<\/p>\n
      The northern wall (wall 12) of the structure 3 has
\nfour courses of calcrete blocks in its foundation with one
\ncourse of bricks above the last courses of foundation
\nblocks. The wall over the foundation was plastered with 4
\ncm thick lime plaster. Width of the wall is 1.70 m and there
\nis a recess in the middle of the wall, 0.70 m deep and 2.50
\nm in length. The total length of wall 12 is 8.38 m (Fig. 7)
\nwhich in trench F2 rests just over the pillars base 22.\n<\/p>\n
      As mentioned earlier, remains of an outer wall was
\n                                                         4217<\/span><\/p>\n
found in the section facing north in between trenches E10
\nand E11. Exact nature of the wall could not be studied, but
\nit seems to be the wall enclosing the outer pathway which
\nled to the back of the structure 3. In the western side the
\ndamaged wall (wall 14) was traced partly in trenches D6,
\nD7 and D8 attached with a lime floor pathway. On the
\nnorthern side similar wall (wall 15) running in east-west
\ndirection as noticed in the section facing south in the baulk
\nbetween ZF1 and ZF2. The C14 date from the
\ncontemporary deposit of the foundation of the disputed
\nstructure is 450\u00b1110 BP (1500 \u00b1 110 A.D.) which is quite
\nconsistant as determined from the charcoal sample from
\ntrench G6.\n<\/p>\n
The Massive Structure Below the Disputed Structure
\n      As stated earlier the disputed structure or structure 3
\nwas found directly resting over an earlier construction,
\nstructure 4 (Pls. 33-34) which has survived through its
\nnearly 50 m long wall (wall 16) in the west and 50 exposed
\npillar bases to its east attached with floor 2 or the floor of
\nthe last phase of structure 4 (Pl. 35).\n<\/p>\n
      A square sandstone block placed at the top and the
\northostats provided on its four sides, contemporary with the
\nfloor 2 was the prima facie nature of the pillar base which
\nprimarily served as base for the pillar erected over it. Their
\nfoundations were circular or square or irregular in shapes
\nmade of brick-bat courses laid in mud mortar, most of them
\nresting over floor 4, top of which was provided with sand-
\nstone or calcrete blocks in lime mortar, these blocks were
\nalso encased with brick-bats and somewhere sandstone
\n                                                          4218<\/span><\/p>\n
chips were used to get the desired height and level.” (Page
\n51-54)
\n      “The wall 16 having its existing length around 50 m,
\nwith its unexposed middle part, is 1.77 m wide. Its ten
\nlower brick courses are original and belongs to the first
\nphase of its construction, but the upper six courses as seen
\nin trenches E6, E7 and E8 are added at a later date- four
\ncourses during the second phase of construction and top
\ntwo courses when its southern length outside the disputed
\nstructure was utilized in later constructions by reducing the
\nwidth of the wall for the new structure along with the
\nstructure 3. It is also noticed that the first phase of wall 16
\nhas been plastered in the inner side with lime plaster while
\non the outer side the plaster was provided in the second
\nphase of its raising. There are a few square cavities at
\nintervals on both the faces of the wall in the second phase
\nwhich might have been used for providing reinforcement to
\nthe wall. At an interval of 4.60 m in the inner side of the
\nwall 16 in its first phase of construction two recessed
\nniches were found 0.20 m deep and 1.0 m wide along the
\nface of the wall and 0.78 m wide at its deeper side with
\n0.02 m thick lime plaster in trenches E6 and E7. The niche
\nin E6 was exposed while the niche in E7 was found
\nattached with the E7-E8 baulk. A similar niche was found
\nin ZE2 in the northern area with same dimensions (Pl. 49).
\nAll of these three niches were closed during the second
\nphase of construction when the floor level was raised and
\nwall was raised above the ten original courses. A band of
\ndecorative bricks was perhaps provided in the first phase of
\n                                                         4219<\/span><\/p>\n
construction or in the preceding wall (wall 17) of which
\nscattered decorated bricks with floral pattern were found
\nreused in the wall 16. Walls 16 and 17 were found running
\non almost the same alignment in north-south orientation in
\ntrenches ZE1 and ZF1 (Fig. 14). Measurements of bricks of
\nbricks of wall 16 comprise 22x14x5, 24x16x5.5, 26x17x5.5,
\n29x19x6 and 28x14x5 cm. Due to restrictions in an area of
\nabout 15×15 m comprising trenches D3 to F3, D4 to F4
\nand D5 to F5 forming the central part of raised platform,
\nthe precise arrangement of the central part of the
\nconstruction below the level of the disputed structure and
\nalso the elevation of the super structure of the former
\nconstruction cannot be ascertained. A layout plan of
\ntrenches showing index of various sections can be seen at a
\nglance in Fig. 15.\n<\/p>\n
      The wall 17 which is a brick wall was found to be
\n1.86 m wide having the maximum of four courses in the
\nnorthern area (Pl. 50) and six courses in southern area. It
\nwas found to be of the same length as that of wall 16,
\nthrough having a slight deviation in its orientation in the
\ncardinal direction. Thus, it runs in the lower level than that
\nof wall 16, almost parallel to it in the northern area and
\ncomes out below the wall 16 in the southern area as
\nnoticed in trench D7 where in the northern part it is
\nprojected 0.74 m below wall 16 and in the southern part it
\nis projected 1.07 m below wall 16 having provided
\ndecorated stone blocks on its top and also refixed in its
\nveneer (Pl. 51), probably at the time of the construction of
\nwall 16 to serve as its foundation. A thick floor of brick
\n                                                         4220<\/span><\/p>\n
crush (Pl. 52) spread over a large area in northern and
\nsouthern areas with varying thickness was found associated
\nwith wall 17. The floor was cut for foundation trench of
\nwall 16 with which were associated three lime floors
\nraising the ground levels in three different phases described
\nearlier in chapter III. Amongst the three lime floors
\nassociated with this wall 16, the lowest was found in a
\nlimited area within the inner walls 18A, 18B and 18C. The
\nupper two floors (Pls. 53-54, Fig 16) were found spread in
\nthe area along wall 16 and show signs of repair patch
\nworks (Pl. 41). Thus the evidence of three phases of the
\nstructure 4 suggests its long span of existence. The
\navailable C14 dates from the deposit between floors 2 and
\n3 in the trench ZH1 is 1040\u00b170B.P (910\u00b170 A.D.) having
\nthe calibrated age range of A.D. 900-1030. The early date
\nmay be because of the filling for leveling the ground after
\ndigging the earth from the previous deposit in the vicinity.
\nA pavement no less than 29.25 x 6 m of large square bricks
\nin the eastern area as described in chapter III is associated
\nwith the period.\n<\/p>\n
      Attached with the earliest activities along with wall
\n16 are traces of inner walls having a width of 0.48 m to
\n0.55 m having one exposed entrance to the east found in
\ntrench H1. The inner walls are attached with the wall 16 in
\nthe northern as well as southern areas. In northern area
\nthe inner wall (Pl. 55) or wall 18A runs to a length of about
\n15.0 m in east-west direction and takes a turn to south in
\ntrench ZH1 (Fig.8). It was traced upto a length of 6.0 m
\n(wall 18B) after which due to the existence of the
\n                                                         4221<\/span><\/p>\n
barricaded gangway it was not possible to dig further. The
\ntwo parallel running walls 18C and 18D were traced in
\ntrenches E6-F6, G6 and in E7 respectively. Traces of a
\nretaining brick wall (wall 19) with eroded outer face were
\nnoticed in trenches ZE2, ZD2, C1 and C2.\n<\/p>\n
      Just below the levels attached with wall 16 and
\npossibly associated with wall 17 are remains of brick
\nstructures located in parts of trenches ZH1 (P1. 56), G2,
\nF3, G5, J5 (Pl. 57) and F8 in the forms of walls, platforms
\nand brick foundations (structures 6 to 11 respectively). A
\nstructure of calcrete blocks with calcrete block flooring was
\nfound in trench G5 (structure 9). The exact nature and plan
\nof these structures could not be studied due to existence of
\nstructures and floors of later phase resting above their
\nlevels. Some skeletons lid in north-south orientation with
\ntheir faces turned towards west, which are apparently in
\nMuslim graves excavated through the top floor and sealed
\nby layer 1 were found in northern (Pl. 58) and southern
\nareas.” (Page 67 – 70)
\n      “The wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (wall 20)
\nwhich is 0.62 m wide having damaged with which seems to
\nbe attached a brick floor to its north. The end of another
\nwall (wall 21) attached with the section facing south in
\ntrench F8 was found whose length was traced upto 1.39 m
\nwhere it goes in the section facing west. The minimum
\ndistance of this wall from the structure 5 at the corners of
\nthe walls is 0.51 m. Still another wall (wall 22) of six
\ncourses of bricks running to a length of 5.43 m in east-west
\ndirection and its western part going below the foundation
\n                                                        4222<\/span><\/p>\n
of wall 16 (Pl. 62 was exposed along the section facing
\nnorth with a passage, 0.55 m wide, between it and wall 19A
\n(Pl. 63) seems to be an earlier wall than the structure 5.
\nParts of two more brick walls (walls 23 and 24) attached
\nwith sections facing east and west respectively in trench G7
\nbelong to the same level. Although their width could not be
\nconfirmed as they were attached with the sections, the wall
\n23 was found to be a brick wall of six courses having
\nbroken length of 1.60 m. The wall 24 was noticed having
\nonly two extant courses, the corner of which was found
\nattached with section facing west which is 0.75 m projected
\nfrom the section.\n<\/p>\n
      Layer 5A has contemporary deposit of structure 5
\nbelow which lie walls 19A and 20 respectively datable to
\npost-Gupta and Gupta periods. The layer below their
\nworking level is layer 7 from which the charcoal sample
\nfrom trench E8 has been dated to 1810\u00b1 80 B.P.(or 140 \u00b180
\nB.C.) on C14 determination of which the calibrated age
\nrange is A.D. 90-340.\n<\/p>\n
      Two more walls noticed in J6 belong to the Gupta
\nperiods. The wall 25 (Figs. 19-20) runs in east-west
\ndirection having only four extant courses of brick-bats, the
\ndimensions of which could not be seen as it was attached
\nwith the section. Same is the case of another earlier wall,
\nwall 26 which also runs in east-west direction and which is
\nmade of 17 courses of broken bricks. 52 cm below the
\ncourse of wall 26 was noticed wall 27 (Pl. 64) which seems
\nto be a wall of the Kushan period having 22 courses of
\nbricks of the size 38 to 41 to 43×25 to 27×5 to 7 cm running
\n                                                                  4223<\/span><\/p>\n
        in north-south direction. The length of the wall in the
\n        trench is 3.90 m though it runs further on either sides.
\n        Attached with this wall was a floor like level having huge
\n        calcrete blocks (Fig. 21) which at one place had three such
\n        blocks resting one over the other. This construction also
\n        seems to be a large one and not an ordinary house
\n        complex. Working levels of Kushan period were noticed in
\n        the trench J3 (Pls. 65-66).\n<\/p>\n
                 Structural activity of Sunga period is represented by
\n        a calcrete stone wall (wall 28) in the trench J3. It was not
\n        found in the two excavated trenches in the respective levels
\n        (Fig. 22) during NBPW period but can be inferred from the
\n        presence of brick-bats from both the Sunga and NBPW
\n        periods and reed impressions (Pl.68) from NBPW levels on
\n        burnt clay, the latter suggesting constructions of hut like
\n        structure of wattle and daub. Pictorial views of upper
\n        levels     of   excavated   trenches   showing    conjectural
\n        representation of the disputed structure and deposit below
\n        it. Figs. 23-24 give a fair idea of the succession of
\n        structural activity at the site.” (Page 71-72)
\n3925.            Let us examine the manner of recovery of the walls
\nand the inference which may be drawn.\n<\/p>\n
3926.            During excavations, in all 28 walls were traced as
\nshown in Fig. 3A out of which wall no. 1 to 15 are either
\ncotemporary to the disputed structure or belong to disputed
\nstructure. Walls no. 16 to 28 are earlier to the disputed structure
\nand were found underneath of the disputed structure. The details
\nof the walls found in excavation and their relative position, with
\nreference to the report, is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                           4224<\/span><\/p>\n
Wall No 1 & 2   =   of Modern time (p.48 of the report)
\nWall No 3 & 4   =   of 1856 (p.49 of the report)
\nWall No 5       =   (3 m. wide & 6.10 m. in east-west
\n                    direction is the foundation wall of the
\n                    southern chamber of mosque towards
\n                    west side and its north-south direction as
\n                    foundation of southern chamber is seen
\n                    in p.21) (p.51 & 52 of the report). Two
\n                    decorated sand stone block from an
\n                    earlier structure one having the damaged
\n                    figure of the possible foliated maker-\n<\/p>\n
                    pranala were found resued in the
\n                    foundation of Wall 5 on its outer face
\n                    (pls. 22-23, page 52 of the report)
\nWall No 6           =     It is a north-south direction wall
\n                    which was a foundation wall of southern
\n                    chamber or str. 3 (p.52 of the report)
\nWall No 7       =   It is the extension of wall 6 in the eastern
\n                    side, therefore it is also a foundation
\n                    wall of the southern chamber of the
\n                    mosque towards east (p.52 of the report)
\nWall No 8       =   It is the northern wall of the southern
\n                    chamber of the mosque.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 9       =   (8 m, in east-west direction) is the
\n                    southern enclosure wall of the disputed
\n                    structure (after 1526 A.D.) (p. 49 of the
\n                    report)
\nWall No 10      =   Southern wall of the northern chamber
\n                    of the mosque (p.53 of the report)
\n                                                           4225<\/span><\/p>\n
Wall No 11       =   Eastern wall of the northern chamber of
\n                     the mosque (p. 53 of the report)
\nWall No 12       =   Northern wall of the northern chamber
\n                     of the mosque (p.53 of the report)
\nWall No 13       =   (is also like wall no. 9) i.e. wall of 1526
\n                     or after 1526 (p.49 of the report)
\nWall No 14       =   South-north direction wall, present west
\n                     of southern chamber (fir. 3-A) p.54 of
\n                     the report.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 15       =   As wall no. 14 are present in west, like
\n                     that wall no. 15 is present on northern
\n                     chamber running east-west direction
\n                     contemporary to mosque (1500+110
\n                     A.D.) (p.54 of the report)
\nWall No 16       =   Wall no. 5 is the wall of the mosque
\n                     which is directly resting over 50m. long
\n                     wall no. 16 running in north-south
\n                     direction (p. 52 of the report)and further
\n                     projects towards north and south beyond
\n                     the excavated area.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 16       =   (1) Wall no. 16 is attached with floor no.\n<\/p>\n
                     2 (page 52 of the report) belong to
\n                     period VII-A i.e. end of the 12th century
\n                     A.D. (page 52 & 54 of the report) and 50
\n                     pillar bases to the east of wall no. 16 is
\n                     attached with floor 2 (page 54 of the
\n                     report)
\n     Wall no. 16, Floor No. 2 and 50 pillar bases were
\ncontemporary and belong to period VII-A i.e. end of the 12th
\n                                                                  4226<\/span><\/p>\n
Century A.D.
\n      Wall No. 16 has 16 course of brick constructions relating
\nto three phases (page 67 of the report)
\n      (1) Its 10 lower brick courses are original and belong to its
\n      first phase of construction (page no. 67 & plate 52 of the
\n      report)
\n      (2) But the upper 6 courses are of second phase of
\n      construction, out of which 4 courses are of 2nd phase and
\n      top 2 courses are of letter construction (page 67 of the
\n      report)
\n      (3) The lower phase i.e. 6 courses of wall no. 16 has been
\n      plastered in the inner side only i.e. towards east by lime
\n      while upper 4 courses of wall no. 16 has been plastered by
\n      both inner & outer side i.e. both in the east & in the west
\n      (page 67 of the report)
\n      (4) At interval of 4.60 meter in the inner side of wall no.
\n      16 two inches were found in the lower phase of its
\n      construction towards east (page 68 of the report)
\nWall No 17        =      Wall no. 17 is of the same length as that
\n                         of wall no. 16 (50 m) in north-south
\n                         direction below wall no. 16 though
\n                         having    a   slight   deviation   in     its
\n                         orientation in north-east direction (p. 68
\n                         of the report). When wall 17 was not in
\n                         use, it served as a foundation of wall 16
\n                         (page 64 of the report)
\n             (1) It is a 1.86 meter wide wall (plate 50)
\n             (2) It function as a foundation wall for wall no. 16
\n             having decorated stone blocks on its top and also re-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  4227<\/span><\/p>\n
             fixed in its veneer (surface covering) (page 51 &
\n             page 68 of the report)
\n             (3) Since wall no. 17 in the foundation of wall no.
\n             16 (period VII-A) therefore it belong to period VI
\n             (1100-1200 A.D.)
\nWall No 18-A        =    In northern position, this wall is in
\n                         north-south direction, attached with the
\n                         same floor of wall no. 16 (p. 69 of the
\n                         report)
\nWall No 18-B        =    In northern portion this wall is 15 m.\n<\/p>\n
                         long      in   east-west    direction    and
\n                         perpendicular to wall No. 16 like wall
\n                         No. 18-A (pl.55) (p. 69 of the report)
\nWall No 18-C        =    In southern portion this wall is in east-\n<\/p>\n
                         west      direction   and   attached    with
\n                         westerly wall No. 16 like wall No. 18A
\n                         & B this wall also runs perpendicular to
\n                         wall No. 16.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 18-D         = This wall is parallel to wall No. 18-C is
\n                         southern portion (p. 69 of the report)
\nWall No 19-A         = In east west direction outside circular
\n                         shrine.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 19-B         = In south-north direction outside circular
\n                         shrine.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 19-B         = is sealed by layer 5A, which is
\n                         contemporary layer of structure 5 or
\n                         circular shrine (p. 70 of the report)
\nWall No 20           = Wall No. 19-A rests over wall no. 20 in
\n                         east-west direction (Gupta period p. 72
\n                                                           4228<\/span><\/p>\n
                 of the report) therefore, wall no. 20 is
\n                 earlier than wall no. 19-A (p.71) A brick
\n                 floor in north is attached with wall No.
\n                 20<\/span>
\nWall No 21   = 1.39 meters east-west direction wall
\n                 towards north side of the circular shrine.
\nWall No 22   = 5.43 meters long wall running east west
\n                 direction south to circular shrine, and
\n                 entered below the foundation of wall no.\n<\/p>\n
                 16 in west (p. 71 of the report) This
\n                 shows that wall no. 22 is earlier than
\n                 wall no. 16.\n<\/p>\n
Wall No 23   =   Running south -north having broken
\n                 length of 1.60 m (p. 72 of the report)
\nWall No 24   =   Present in sections, therefore, direction
\n                 is not traceable (p. 72 of the report)
\nWall No 25   =   Run east-west direction of Gupta Period
\n                 (p.72 of the report) in east of disputed
\n                 structure (J-6)
\nWall No 26   =   It is an earlier wall to wall no. 25, in
\n                 east-west direction in east of the
\n                 disputed structure (J-6)
\nWall No 27   =   52 cm below the course of wall No. 26,
\n                 a wall No. 27 is present running north-\n<\/p>\n
                 south direction of Kushan Period. (page
\n                 72 of the report) Huge calcrete block is
\n                 attached. with wall no. 27 of Kushan
\n                 Period (p. 72 of the report)
\nWall No 28   =   Calcrete stone wall in J-3 of Sunga
\n                                                                  4229<\/span><\/p>\n
                         Period (east of disputed structure).\n<\/p>\n
3927.        As the main wall of the disputed structure i.e. wall
\nNo. 5 was filled with brick bats, it implies that it was
\nconstructed with reused material. These brick bats prima facie
\nestablish that they must be of the previous structure. Structurally
\nthe date of the designing of pillar bases has also been confirmed
\nwith example of Sarnath in which decorated octagonal stone
\nblocks were found in Trench F-7 belonging to 12th century A.D.
\n(page 56 & pl. 39 & 40 of the report). Plate 45 shows disputed
\nstructure resting over pillar base No. 29. Wall No. 6 (foundation
\nwall of southern chamber of mosque) was directly rests over
\ntwo pillar bases no. 34 & 35 (Pl. 30). Wall No. 7 (foundation of
\nsouthern chambers of mosque towards east) is resting over 3
\npillar bases (No. 29, 32 & 35) (P. 52) read with Fig. 6. Wall No.
\n12 (Northern wall of Northern Chamber of the Mosque) rests
\njust over the pillar base No. 22 (P. 53).\n<\/p>\n
3928.        The statements of Experts (Archaeologist) of
\nplaintiffs (Suit-4) in respect to walls and floors have already
\nbeen referred in brief saying that there is no substantial
\nobjection except that the opinion ought to this or that, but that is
\nalso with the caution that it can be dealt with in this way or that
\nboth and not in a certain way. In other words on this aspect
\nwitnesses are shaky and uncertain. We, therefore find no
\nsubstantial reason to doubt the report of ASI in this respect.
\n3929.        The next serious objection is about “Circular Shrine”
\nwhich has been detailed in para 6 (6.1 to 6.10) as under:\n<\/p>\n
        6. THE ALLEGED “CIRCULAR SHRINE”:-<\/p>\n
        6.1. That the sub-heading given to the discovery of a
\n        structure of burnt bricks as “The Circular Shrine” at page
\n        70 is indicative of the mindset with which the A.S.I. team
\n                                                        4230<\/span><\/p>\n
did the excavation work. The A.S.I. team should have just
\nsaid “The circular structure” because there is no evidence
\nto make this structure a shrine. Just by comparing it with
\ncertain temple structures and not with circular walls and
\nbuildings of Muslim construction one can not come to the
\nconclusion that the circular structure was a Hindu shrine.
\nNo object of Hindu worship was found on this layer. The
\nstory of “pranala” is also a sheer figment of imagination
\nand a conjecture without any evidentiary basis. The
\ncomparison at page 71 is irrelevant and also unrealistic.
\nThe layer on which this circular structure was discovered
\ndid not throw up any material to justify the naming of this
\ncircular structure as a shrine. The surviving wall, even in
\nA.S.I.’s own drawing, makes only a quarter of circle and
\nsuch shapes are fairly popular in walls of Muslim
\nconstruction. And then there are Muslim built domed
\ncircular building also.\n<\/p>\n
6.2. That the scale of the Plan (as given in Figure 17 of
\nthe Report), would have an internal diameter of just 160
\ncms. or barely 5 \u00bd feet. Such a small “shrine” can hardly
\nbe worth writing home about. But it is, in fact, much
\nsmaller. The plan in Fig. 17 shows not a circle (as one
\nwould have if the wall shown in Plates 59 and 60 are
\ncontinued) but an ellipse, which it has to be in order to
\nenclose the entire masonry floor.     No “elliptic (Hindu)
\nshrine” is, however produced by A.S.I. for comparison: the
\nfew that are show are all circular. As Plate 59 makes clear
\nthe drawing in Fig. 17 ignores a course of bricks which juts
\nout to suggest a true circle, much shorter than the elliptic
\n                                                         4231<\/span><\/p>\n
one: this would reduce the internal diameter to even less
\nthan 130 cms. or just 4.3 feet ! Finally, as admitted by the
\nA.S.I. itself, nothing has been found in the structure in the
\nway of image or sacred piece that can justify it being called
\na “shrine”.\n<\/p>\n
6.3. That “the southern part of the said structure was
\nfound resting over a 0.75 m wide brick wall (Wall 19A) of 9
\ncourses belonging to earlier period which runs in east-west
\ndirection and joins the end of the north-south oriented
\nbrick wall (Wall 19B) having 7 extant courses of bricks and
\na width of 0.55 m, making the south-western corner of the
\nearlier structure.”\n<\/p>\n
     “The Wall 19A rests over a still earlier wall (Wall 20)
\nwhich is 0.62 m wide”.\n<\/p>\n
Another wall (Wall 21) is about 0.51 m away from
\nStructure 5 and northeast of it.\n<\/p>\n
     Wall 19A and Wall 20 are considered to belong to the
\nPost Gupta (Period V) and Gupta (Period IV) periods
\nrespectively. It appears from their description and from
\nPlate 59 that the ‘circular shrine’ was built over existing
\nwalls without removing the walls. These earlier walls were
\nof the preceding period as well as the same period. These
\nearlier walls could not have been used as the foundation
\nfor the structure as they are of completely different
\ndimensions and shape.\n<\/p>\n
6.4. That the size of Structure of 5 has an outer diameter
\nof 1.6 m and measures 0.6 m in the inner area. The
\nentrance is 0.5 m wide and length of the ‘passage’, from the
\nentrance to the inner area, is 0.4 m. Comparisons are being
\n                                                         4232<\/span><\/p>\n
made with circular brick temples at Sravasti, Kurari,
\nMasaon, Tinduli and Chandrehe (p. 71, Fig. 18). The outer
\ndiameter of these structures range from 6.1 m (Masaon),
\n5.8 (Chandrehe and Chirenath), 5.5 m (Tinduli), 4.9 m
\n(Kurari I) and 3.6 m (Kurari II) (See Fig.18). The inner
\narea of Kurari II, the nearest in size to the Ayodhya
\nstructure is 1.4 m, Kurari I is about 1.8 m and Chirenath is
\n2 m. The entrance measurements are 0.9 m for Kurari II
\nand 0.7 m for Kurari I. The length of passage is 0.6 m for
\nKurari II and 1.5 m for Kurari I.\n<\/p>\n
6.5. That all the circular shrines have a mandapa except
\nfor the Kurari temples. Kurari I is also on a plinth with
\nsteps on the east. The closest in size to Structure 5, Kurari
\nII, is more than double the former structure. The inner area
\nof Structure 5 is too small to even allow anyone to enter it.
\nWhere is the possibility, then, of performing any kind of
\nabhisekha?\n<\/p>\n
     Out of all the temples illustrated in Fig. 18, four have
\nthe entrance from the west, one from the north and one
\nfrom the east. Thus, it seems that the comparison between
\nStructure 5 and these shrines is being stretched too far.
\nStructure 5 has been dated to the 10th century AD.
\nHowever, as will be evident from the Report, the layers
\nassociated with this structure have mixed material,
\npreventing any chronological determination of the
\nstructure.\n<\/p>\n
6.6. That if, as pointed out by the A.S.I., subsequent
\nstructural activity (in Period VI) damaged the circular
\nshrine, it is surprising that a later so called temple would
\n                                                          4233<\/span><\/p>\n
destroy an earlier Hindu religious structure. Moreover, a
\nlater temple could easily have incorporated an earlier
\ntemple into its plan and maintained the sanctity of the
\nearlier structure. Instead, what is being suggested is that
\nthe central part of the later temple is much further away to
\nthe north, about 20 m away. Thus, it seems highly unlikely
\nthat this structure was a Hindu religious shrine.
\n6.7. That Structure 5 could well have been a stupa,
\nbelonging to perhaps the 6th or 7th century AD. Figure 24
\ngiving a bird’s eye view of the structure, shows a slight
\ndifference in diameter between the first few lower courses
\nof bricks and the courses above them. This difference
\nrecalls the two parts of the stupa, the medhi (or the drum)
\nand the anda (or the higher rounded portion of the stupa).
\nThe ‘opening’ towards the east could well have been a
\nniche for a Buddha figure. One of the reasons for
\nconsisting this structure as a stupa is that it is too small to
\nenter, which one would not have to do in the case of a
\nBuddist stupa. These religious structures symbolizing the
\nBuddha are meant to be walked around and not entered.
\n6.8. That According to the Table placed after Page 37
\n(A.S.I. Report) this period V is represented by layers 6 and\n<\/p>\n
5. Layer 6 is a flood deposit and layer 5 belongs to Gupta
\nperiod. So the formulation of Period V assigned to Post
\nGupta – Rajput times is arbitrary. Thus whatever structures
\nare said to have belonged to Period V, in fact, they belong
\nto Period IV (Gupta Period).\n<\/p>\n
6.9. That the Text says that layer 5 A is a contemporary
\nlayer of the shrine (structure 5) “below which lie walls 19A
\n                                                         4234<\/span><\/p>\n
and 20……….The layer below their working level is layer\n<\/p>\n
7………..”(page 72 of A.S.I. Report). There is existence of
\nonly one layer between layers 5A and 7, the layer 6 (A.S.I.
\nSection, F8, Fig 16). Layer 7 has been dated to 140-80 BC
\non 14c determination. The calibrated date reads AD 90 –
\n340 (Page 72 A.S.I. Report). The range of calibrated date
\nis extremely wide. However, on its maximum range it reads
\nabout 4th C. A.D. While layer 7 is dated to 4th century A.D.
\nand layer 5A is being said to be contemporary to the Shrine
\nwhich has been dated to 10th century A.D. The shrine on
\nstylistic grounds has been dated to 10th century A.D. (Page
\n71, A.S.I. Report). The concerned two layers (i.e. 5A and 7)
\nis intervened by only one layer. That is layer 6. Could this
\nlone layer represent a temporal duration of about six
\ncenturies? It is ridiculous and fantastic. It is simply not
\npossible. Thus the dating of the shrine to about 10th
\nCentury A.D. is arbitrary. The structure 5, whatever it may
\nby either a simple structure or a Buddha circular Stupa, in
\nview of the radiocorban data seems to have belonged to
\nslightly later than circa 4th Century A.D. That is Gupta
\nPeriod.\n<\/p>\n
6.10. That there is yet another important feature of the so
\ncalled Shrine that needs comment. It is about it’s suggested
\nwater channel. Stylistically, its northward orientation has
\nbeen marked to have some special significance.\n<\/p>\n
            The channel does not have a uniform width
\nthroughout. It does not have even a gradually decreasing
\nwidth from south to north. It becomes suddenly very narrow
\nat nearing its end. Thus it appears that it was not made for
\n                                                                 4235<\/span><\/p>\n
        the purpose it has been suggested. It seems to have taken
\n        the existing form by the removal of mortar during
\n        excavation as was filled therein.\n<\/p>\n
              It did not function for draining water from south to
\n        north is evident by the fact that there is no evidence of
\n        slope towards the direction in question. It has been
\n        measured by the levelling instrument at three different
\n        points of the channel. It was found that there is no slope on
\n        its surface.\n<\/p>\n
               Further, had the so-called channel been in use for
\n        draining water for a longtime, then there should have been
\n        the remains of water residuals in the channel. Such
\n        evidence could be expected on the northern side of the
\n        circular wall corresponding along to the area of water
\n        discharge. But there is no such evidence either in the
\n        channel or on the surface of the wall in question.
\n3930.         ASI has recorded its finding on ‘Circular Shrine’
\nfrom page 70 to 71 as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “A partly damaged east facing brick shrine, structure 5
\n        (Pls. 59-60, Fig. 17, 24 and 24A) was noticed after removal
\n        of baulk between trenches E8 and F8. It is a circular
\n        structure with a rectangular projection in the east, the
\n        latter having been already visible before the removal of the
\n        baulk. The northern part of the circular part has retained
\n        its lower eight courses above the foundation of brick-bats
\n        while the southern half is damaged by constructional
\n        activity of the subsequent phase whose brick-bats have
\n        damaged the structure upto its working level. The structure
\n        was squarish from the inner side and a 0.04 m wide and
\n                                                        4236<\/span><\/p>\n
0.53 m long chute or outlet was noticed on plan made
\nthrough the northern wall upto the end where in the lower
\ncourse a 5.0 cm thick brick cut in ‘V’ shape was fixed which
\nwas found broken and which projects 3.5 cm outside the
\ncircular outer face as a pranala to drain out the water,
\nobviously after the abhisheka of the deity, which is not
\npresent in the shrine now. The entrance of the structure is
\nfrom east in the form of a rectangular projection having a
\ntwelve course of bricks interlocked with the circular
\nstructure and having a 70x27x17 cm calcrete block fixed in
\nit as the threshold. Two sizes of bricks were used in the
\nconstruction of the shrine measuring 28x21x5.5 cm and
\n22x18x5 cm. The rectangular projection of entrance is
\n1.32m in length and 32.5 cm projected towards east. The
\nsouthern part of the structure was found resting over a 0.75
\nm wide brick wall (wall 19A) of nine courses belonging to
\nearlier period which runs in east-west direction and joins
\nthe end of the north-south oriented brick wall (wall 19B)
\nhaving 7 extant courses of bricks and a width of 0.55 m,
\nmaking the south-western corner of the earlier structure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The north-south length of wall 19B was exposed upto a
\nlength of 2.72 m when it joins section facing south in the
\ntrench E8. It is sealed by layer 5A which is contemporary
\nlayer of the structure 5.\n<\/p>\n
      The brick shrine is similar (fig. 18) on plan to the
\nChirenath brick temple at Sravasti exposed recently by the
\nArchaeological Survey of India though which is larger
\n(approximately 5 m in diameter including its projections).
\nIts central part is 2.20 m square where a Siva Linga is
\n                                                                   4237<\/span><\/p>\n
        placed in the centre (Pl. 61). It has also affinity with
\n        circular Siva temples near Rewa in Madhya Pradesh at
\n        Chandrehe and Masaon belonging to C. 950 A.D. and a
\n        Vishnu temple and another without deity at Kurari in
\n        Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh and Surya temple at
\n        Tinduli in Fatehpur district. V.V.Mirashi thought that
\n        temples having circular garbha-griha where a speciality of
\n        the Chedi country and were built for the first time by the
\n        Acharyas of the Mattamayura clan as in the case of
\n        Chandrehe temple which was built by Prasanta siva as per
\n        the Chandrehe stone inscription of 972 A.D. Thus on
\n        stylistic grounds, the present circular shrine can be dated
\n        to c. tenth century A.D. when the Kalachuris moved in this
\n        area and settled across river Sarayu. They possibly brought
\n        the tradition of stone circular temples transformed into
\n        brick in Ganga-Yamuna valley.” (Page 70-71)
\n3931.          ‘Circular Shrine’ more virtually its existence that it
\nwas found by ASI has been admitted by most of the Experts
\n(Archaeologist) of Muslim parties though a reluctant attempt
\nhas been made for diverting the identity by suggesting that it
\nmay be a “Buddhist Shrine” or a tomb of erstwhile Islamic
\nreligious structure. PW-30 has categorically admitted it on page
\n15 and has said that his statement in para 14 of the affidavit was
\nnot after looking to the shrine at the spot but on the basis of its
\nphoto only.\n<\/p>\n
3932.          Circular shrine has been admitted by the experts of
\nplaintiffs (Suit-4). PW-30 Dr. R.C.Thakran on page 150 and
\n129 as said:\n<\/p>\n
               ^^eq>s ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVZ okY;we & 1 ds i`”B & 70, ij
\n                                                                           4238<\/span>
\n        Q+hxj & 17 ds uhps okys fp= esa nkfguh vksj ,d iryh lh ukyh
\n        fn[kkbZ iM+ jgh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl Q+hxj & 17 ds
\n        vuqlkj ;g ukyh mRrj dh vksj tk jgh gSA ;g Hkh dguk lgh gS fd
\n        mRrj dh vksj tkrh gqbZ ,slh ukyh ckS) Lrwi es ugha gksrh gSA – – – – – –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        – ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,0,l0vkbZ0 dh fjiksVz okY;we&2 ds IysV
\n        la[;k&60 es ckbZ vksj ,d rhj dk fu’kku cuk gqvk gSA bl IysV esa ,d
\n        iryh lh ukyh ut+j vk jgh gSA** \u00bcist 150\u00bd
\n               “A slender drain is visible to me on the north side in
\n        the picture below figure 17 on page 70-A of the ASI report
\n        volume-1. It is correct to say that as per this figure 70, this
\n        drain is going northwards. It is also correct to say that the
\n        Buddhist stupas do not have such north- bound drains. .. . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        . . . . . It is true to say that there is an arrow mark on the
\n        left side in plate no.60 of the ASI report, volume-2. A
\n        narrow drain is seen in this plate.” (E.T.C.)
\n               ^^ldqZyj Jkbu] ftldk mYys[k eSaus viuh c;ku gYQh ds izLrj
\n        &14 esa fd;k gS] mldks eSaus O;fDrxr :i ls ns[kk ugha gS] cfYd Q+ksVks
\n        ns[kdj eSaus ;g c;ku fn;k gSA** \u00bcist 129\u00bd
\n               “I have not personally seen the circular shrine of
\n        which I have made mention in para 14 of my sworn
\n        statement; but I have given this statement after seeing the
\n        photograph.” (E.T.C.)
\n3933.          PW 32-Dr. Supriya Verma on page 147-148 (page\n<\/p>\n
14) said:\n<\/p>\n
               “…it is correct to say that plate no. 60 is insitu
\n        photograph of circular shrine. It is true that Budha stupa
\n        is always solid. The structure shows a Pranal but Experts
\n        who visited site and measured the angle of slope with the
\n        help of sprit Level had found that the slope which was
\n        necessary for the water to pass out was not there. It is
\n                                                                   4239<\/span><\/p>\n
        correct that I was not present when this structure was
\n        exposed nor I have visited this spot there after but I can
\n        express my opinion on the basis of information given by
\n        expert as well as the information in the final report and site
\n        notebooks. Prof. D. Mandal, Prof. Ratnagar and Prof.
\n        Suraj Bhan have given this information.”(Page 147-148)
\n3934.         PW 29 (Dr. Jaya Menon) on “circular shrine” said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “Since circular shrine” was not found in my
\n        presence, I have not seen its stratigraphical association. In
\n        my view “circular shrine” was probably a Buddhist Stupa.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        There appears a hollow space within the excavated
\n        “circular shrine”. Stupa is not always solid. It is generally
\n        made of bricks or stone and mud brick bats. . . . . .It is a
\n        non-Islamic structure. . . . It is probably of Gupta or late
\n        Gupta period.” (Page 202-203)
\n              “In my opinion, the finding of ASI report regarding
\n        circular shrine as recorded at page 73 is not based on any
\n        result of carbon-dating. In my mind, the ASI report on the
\n        point is not clear at page 72 of the report. I do not agree
\n        with the ASI report that it was a circular shrine mentioned
\n        from pages 70 to 73 with figures 24 and 24-A. In my
\n        opinion, the alleged circular shrine structure dates back to
\n        around 6th century AD. . . . . . . It is correct to say that the
\n        alleged circular shrine shown in plates 59 and 60 belongs
\n        to Sixth century AD, although ASI’s report says that it
\n        belongs to post-Gupta period.” (Page 225-226)
\n3935.         During excavation at the disputed site between
\ntrenches E-8 & F-8 a circular structure of burnt bricks facing
\neast was recovered, commonly termed as “circular shrine”,
\n                                                                4240<\/span><\/p>\n
detailed at page 70 to 72 of report, volume 1, and shown in
\nfigure 17, 24, 24A, and plates 59, 60 & 62 (volume 2) of the
\nreport. The bricks used here are of two sizes: 28x21x5.5 cm and
\n22x18x5 cm. The bonding material was mud mortar. On its
\neastern side, there is a rectangular opening, 1.32 m in length and
\n32.5 cm in width, which was the entrance of the structure. A
\ncalcrete block, measuring 70x27x17 cm, has also been found
\nhere, fixed, obviously, as the door-sill.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3936.        An extremely important feature of this structure is
\nthe provision of a gargoyle (Pranala) made in its northern wall.
\nThe ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 cm long,
\nprojecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is ‘V’
\nshaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall. In
\nthis connection it may be mentioned that in books of history, in
\nSanskrit Literature, reference of circular shrine and Pranala
\nfinds place. A famous book styled as “Aaprajit Prichchha” by
\nBhuwan Dev in its book in chapter 207 at serial no. 23 mentions
\nabout it.\n<\/p>\n
3937.        The elevation, as shown in the drawing (Fig. 17 of
\nthe ASI Report) suggests that this structure was built on a raised
\nplatform, viz. adhisthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was
\nprovided on the northern side. The structure may be dated to 9th-
\n10th century A.D. (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from
\nthis level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 A.D. and
\n1030 A.D.)
\n3938.        This was an independent miniature shrine. The
\narchitectural features suggest that, that it was a Shiva shrine.
\n3939.        It is unthinkable that inspite of these clear features
\nof Shiva shrine, the objectors are identifying the same as a
\n                                                              4241<\/span><\/p>\n
Muslim tomb.\n<\/p>\n
3940.        Secondly, it is too small a structure for a tomb, from
\ninside it is only 4.4 ft. square. Neither could it accommodate a
\ngrave in its interior, nor a Qiblah-Mihrab on its western wall ;
\nQiblah was an integral and essential part of tomb-structure
\nduring the Sultanate period (1192-1526 A.D.) as is illustrated by
\nnumerous examples all over northern India.
\n3941.        Thirdly, there is no trace of an arch required for
\nconstructing dome over the tomb. There are no hook-shafts to
\nbear and no structural trace to suggest any lateral thrust of the
\nmihrab. It may be noted that the sub-structure of the mihrab is
\nbuilt massively on the edges of the four corners, to counter the
\nlateral thrust. One wonders, if it was a tomb without any arch or
\ndome, and without even a grave?\n<\/p>\n
3942.        Thus, on the one hand the dimension of this
\nstructure are too small for a tomb and on the other the gargoyle
\nwas never in tombs while it was an integral feature of the
\nsanctum of Shiva temples to drain out water poured on the
\nSivlinga.\n<\/p>\n
3943.        Shrine is a holy place where worship is performed.
\nIt is a structure where holiness is enshrined. Denial for the sake
\nof denial should not be allowed. “No evidence to make this
\nstructure a shrine” and “a sheer figment of imagination and a
\nconjecture without any evidentiary basis”, such comments
\ngrossly lack technical acumen and clearly show the dearth of
\nlogical thinking. These themselves are mere arguments lacking
\n“evidentiary basis”. By these and many like arguments show the
\n‘ostrich attitude’ of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
3944.        A structure is identified by its shape and\/or by the
\n                                                              4242<\/span><\/p>\n
use it was put to or by the function it was supposed to perform.
\nThis circular structure was found with a well defined ‘Pranala’
\n(water chute to drain out ablution liquids).The pranala could
\nwell have been denoted as drain but the area from where it was
\nissuing was only 40 x 60 m (including the squarish hollow
\nchamber for fixing the object of worship and the small entrance
\nof the east) which could not be used for bath room or for
\nkitchen, a few alternatives where water is required to be drained
\nout, thus, the only valid explanation was it being a ‘pranala’ of a
\nshrine, small only a subsidiary one and not the main shrine
\nholding central\/main deity.\n<\/p>\n
3945.       Circular Shrine is found resting over wall 19A and
\nothers, this single fact, does not make the ‘Circular Shrine’
\nContemporary to the said walls, as the working level for the
\n‘Circular Shrine’ is much higher, and only foundations of
\nCircular Shrine rest over the existing walls, which have been
\nincorporated as foundation of Circular Shrine, these walls
\ndefinitely are not made for providing foundation to the circular
\nShrine. Apparently, when the Circular Shrine was built the wall
\n19A and others were all buried under the ground and foundation
\nof the circular shrine were just reached upto that level.
\n3946.       Circular shrine is compared with other pre-existing
\nand published circular shrines of proven dates found at different
\nplaces, primarily to compare the style and not size. These
\ncircular shrines are not the exact replicas of one another. All the
\nshrines reproduced in comparison are independent shrines while
\nthe structure 5 shrine is of subsidiary nature. Layers producing
\nmixed material are dated on the basis of the latest material found
\nin their milieu. Therefore, the period, of Circular Shrine (Str. 5)
\n                                                             4243<\/span><\/p>\n
is stratigraphically placed in the correct period much earlier to
\nearly medieval period.\n<\/p>\n
3947.       The Circular Shrine which was stated to be “not a
\ncircle but an ellipse” (para 6.2 of the objection) has also been
\nalleged to be a “Stupa”; a circular Buddhist stupa in which on
\nthe east was a niche to support image of Buddha. Logic given in
\nsupport is that “it is too small to enter”. There are several
\nminiature shrines which are even smaller in dimension and
\nunder worship. In such miniature shrine, often called subsidiary
\nshrines, devotee is not supposed to enter but offers his\/her
\nworship from out side.\n<\/p>\n
3948.       The famous writer of classical Sanskrit literature
\nVarahmihir in his book “Brihat Samhita” has described 20 types
\nof temple in which besides kunjara and Guhraja types which are
\napsidal nature, circular temple such as samduga, padma, Vrish,
\nGhata and Vritta have been mentioned. Padma is shaped like a
\nlotus but other three types samduga, Vrish and Vritta are clearly
\nCircular Shrines.\n<\/p>\n
3949.       A circular brick temple has been noticed recently at
\nSikhara Kohanda in Siddharthnagar district, about 6 m from
\nDomariyaganj, where eight brick structures- four circular and
\nfour square have been noticed and have been roughly dated to
\napproximately eleventh century A.D. Another prominent
\ncircular brick temple has been excavated at Chirenath in
\nSravasti whose sikhara is missing but on plan the temple upto its
\njangha portion is circular from exterior having a circumference
\nof 14.70 m. with three niches in all the three cardinal directions
\nand entrance in the west. The garbhagriha is roughly square,
\nmeasuring 2.10 x 2.10 m. with a 1.70 m high Sivalinga of red
\n                                                             4244<\/span><\/p>\n
sandstone in the middle (IAR 1997-98 p. 193-95 p. 136).
\n3950.      “The temple’s interior is square (side 6 ft. 8 in.) and
\nthe exterior is circular -stellate having 16 bhadra-facets and 16
\nkarna-projections. Of the bhadras four are sham and four are
\nreal, each separated from the other by an acute-angled
\nprojection produced by turning the square. The doorway which,
\noriginally was preceded by a praggriva, faces north, while the
\nthree bhadras face the remaining cardinal directions.
\n3951.      The hypaethral and circular temples of yoginis are
\nwell known in north and Central India. They have been
\nmentioned by Krishna Deva as at Dudhai in Jhansi district,
\nMitaoli in Morena district. Bheraghat in Jabalpur district,
\nRanipur Jharial in Bolangir district and Surada near Kalahandi
\nand Hirapur near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. They range from
\n16.72 m to 39.52 m in outer diameter, with 65 to 81 peripheral
\nchapels and a principal shrine, normally in the centre of the
\ncourtyard. Inscribed yogini images from Central India suggest
\nmore such temples and one such shrine has been excavated and
\nidentified as Golakimatha in Jabalpur district (Krishna Deva
\n1999). The proliferation of circular temples with their
\nidentification with the types mentioned in classical treatises
\nrequire further investigative studies of their origin and
\ndevelopmental process.\n<\/p>\n
3952.      In the overall view we find no reason to doubt the
\nfindings of ASI on this aspect also and the objections otherwise
\nare accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
3953.      Then comes two items i.e. “The Divine Couple and
\nOther Architectural Members” referred to in para 7 (7.1 to 7.8)
\nand “Figurines” (Para 9.1 to 9.3) which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4245<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   THE      \"DIVINE       COUPLE\"           AND   OTHER\nARCHITETURAL MEMBERS:-\n<\/pre>\n
7.1. That the stone “mutilated sculpture of a divine
\ncouple” (p 272 ) is described on p. 130. (Reg. No. 1184)
\nand Plate 235. The lower portion alone is present, below
\nthe waist. The piece is so damaged that it is almost
\nundecipherable. What aspects of this incomprehensible
\npiece make it a “divine” couple, we are not told. Thus the
\nreport shows clear bias in the use of the adjective “divine”
\nand also “couple”.\n<\/p>\n
7.2. That further, and more important, the recorded
\nfindspot (p. 130) of this piece is Trenches K3-K4 (in the
\neast) and the recorded layer is “Debris”. Clearly, this piece
\nof sculpture does not come from a stratified context, leave
\nalone the strata of Period VII.\n<\/p>\n
7.3. That so too, a black, schist pillar with a square base
\nand octagonal shaft and intricate carving comes from
\nsurface debris above the topmost floor (Floor I) in Trench
\nF3 (p. 140), which is also of no relevance.\n<\/p>\n
7.4. That regarding the octagonal stone that was said to
\nhave been carved in twefth-century style, it may be noted
\nthat according to the text (on p. 56), it was found in Trench
\nF-7, on pillar base 32 but as per table (on P. 63) that was
\n“resting on Floor 2”, in Trench F-6-F-7, while its
\nfoundation was resting on floor 4. It may be noticed that in
\nthe Section Facing South Sest-East (E-F), no floor marked
\n“Floor 4” is indicated.\n<\/p>\n
7.5. That the theory of the so-called temple rests on some
\nother reported architectural fragments also. Out of about
\n                                                          4246<\/span><\/p>\n
380 pieces have been tabulated, 205 are featureless with
\nonly marks of dressing or in some cases are completely
\nundressed stones. To give examples, No. 122 (Reg. No. 882)
\nkept in Manas Bhawan is a rectangular piece with pecking
\nmarks and partially polished (p. 129), No. 131 (Reg. No.\n<\/p>\n
953) is a “rectangular slab with one of its sides nicely
\npolished” (p. 129), No. 3 (Reg. No. AYD-1\/74) kept in the
\ntin shed at the excavated site is “a rectangular partly
\ndressed sand stone slab with an open groove meant for
\ndowel” (p. 131). The majority of these came from the dump
\nor fill and were in many cases part of the Masjid walls.
\nThere were numerous others (particularly of calcrete) that
\nwere removed from the dump from trenches, during
\nexcavation, that were thrown away and are not tabulated.
\nOut of 383 architectural fragments, only 40 came from
\nstratified contexts. Out of this 40 too, none were specified
\nto a temple, even the 8 that have been separately
\nmentioned: pillar, doorjamb, octagonal shaft of pillar,
\namalaka, divine couple, slab with srivatsa motif, lotus
\nmedallion and a re-chiselled slab with lozenge design, are
\nof no significance. The srivatsa design is associated with
\nJainism and the lotus design could as well be Buddhist or
\neven Muslim. The lozenge design could well belong to a
\nMuslim structure. It is also interesting that the floral design
\non the architectural fragment in Plate 90 matches the lower
\nportion of the Arabic inscription in Plate 92. The latter
\ndepicts a floral design and the design, as sell as the method
\nof carving, in the two pieces are very similar. It is also
\nmischievous to label a sculpture showing the waist portions
\n                                                        4247<\/span><\/p>\n
of two human figures as representing a divine couple.
\nMoreover, all the above noted 8 pieces came from the
\ndebris. The octagonal shafts has, in fact, not even been
\ntabulated. Many of the architectural fragments are, as
\nadmitted, of different materials (pink sandstone, buff
\nsandstone, spotted red sandstone, calcrete, and so forth),
\nand it is well known that temples do not use stones of
\ndiverse colours and types for decoration.
\n7.6. That report admits that there are few architectural
\nmembers (plates 92 to 94) which can clearly be associated
\nwith Islamic architecture and on stylistic grounds which
\nmight belong to 16th century A.D. onwards. (page 122). On
\nthe same page in earlier sentences the report described
\ncertain architectural members. The photographs of these
\narchitectural members appear on plates 79, 80, 81, 84, 85,
\n86, 87, 89, 90. The report says that stylistically these
\narchitectural members in general and pillars in particular
\nmay be placed in a time bracket of 10-12 century AD. In
\nIndo-Muslim architecture elements of early Indian
\narchitecture which were consistent with Islamic traditions
\nwere freely used. Foliage, floral and geometric designs as
\nfound in early Indian architecture were copied and used in
\nthe Indo-Muslim architecture and this is the important
\nfeature which distinguished Indo-Muslim architecture from
\nthat of Arbian Land and Persia. The elements and designs
\nin plates 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89 and 90 are found in
\nmany Muslim religious and other buildings. Lotus
\nmedallian as in pl. 70 are found as apex-stone in domes.\n<\/p>\n
      On what basis the style and design contained in plate
\n                                                            4248<\/span><\/p>\n
no. 93, 94 is attributed to 16 century, is also not mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
      The architectural members shown in plate no. 79, 80,
\n81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, and 90 do not contain any carving
\nof a Hindu deity. Such elements and designs have been
\nused in Indo-Muslim architecture and hence these
\narchitectural members may have been parts of a Muslim
\nstructure. On what basis the A.S.I. remarks that these
\n“emphatically” speak about their association with temple
\narchitecture”, is not known. What is the basis for placing
\nthese architectural members in time bracket of 10-12
\ncentury A.D. is also not given in the report. Plate No. 81 is
\nnot amalaka but a part of petal design. It has to be noted
\nthat the so-called amalaka (pl. 81) is a surface collection
\nfound in debris above floor -1 (Page 141 Sr. No. 125)
\n7.7. That the octagonal stone block having so-called
\nfloral motif has been dated to 12th century A.D. on its
\nalleged    similarity     with   that   one   found   in    the
\nDharmachakrajina Vihar or Kumardavi at Sarnath (Plates
\n39 and 40). Even a cursory inspection clearly reveals that
\nthere is not the least similarity between the two. The
\nSarnath Specimen is rectangular on plan while the
\nAyodhya one is Octagonal. Again the Sarnath specimen
\nhas depiction of floral motif but the Ayodhya specimen has
\na different motif. Further, apart from the stylistic
\ndissimilarity there is dissimilarity in their architectural
\ntechnique as well. On the Sarnath Specimen the depiction
\nof motif is in slightly low relief while on the Ayodhya one it
\nis in very bold relief.\n<\/p>\n
            There is of course one very distinct similarity
\n                                                         4249<\/span><\/p>\n
between the two. Both belong to the category of reused
\nmaterial. The Sarnath Vihar in question has been built
\nmainly by reused earlier materials such as broken bricks,
\nstone architectural members, both plain as well as
\ndecorated etc. The stone pilaster as cited for comparison
\nwith octagonal stone block is also a reused specimen. It,
\nthus, cannot be contemporary to the builder of the builder
\nof the Vihar in question. There is no question on the date of
\nKumardevi. It is early 12th century A.D. But there is of
\ncourse a big question over the date of the pilaster cited for
\ncomparison. It is certainly of some earlier date it could be
\neven of Gupta period.\n<\/p>\n
          So it is obvious that of the listed architectural
\nmembers (stored in Manas Bhawan as well as in the Tin
\nShed at the excavation site, mostly collected from the
\nsurface or debris above floor 1) majority of them are
\nfragmentry and plain in nature. It is also obvious that they
\ncannot be dated on stylistic ground.\n<\/p>\n
7.8. That in view of the evidence drawn from the
\ndepositional history of the site there was no habitation at
\nthis site after Gupta period for a long time. It was
\nreoccupied after a long desertion in 13th century A.D.
\nUnder this situation, many of the remains of architectural
\nmembers having so called association with temples, as
\nalleged, could have belonged to Gupta period. Some of
\nthese said to have belonged to 10th – 12th century A.D.,
\ncould have been brought here to be used as building
\nmaterial from some neighbouring sites. This is the
\nsituation also of the decorated \/ moulded bricks. Needless
\n                                                            4250<\/span><\/p>\n
to mention that moulded bricks were quite prevalent in
\nGupta Period.\n<\/p>\n
Figurines
\n9.1. That during the excavation, the A.S.I. found 62
\nhuman 131 animal figurines. These discoveries are
\nirrelevant to the question under inquiry. A large number of
\nthem belong to ancient period. The A.S.I. unnecessarily
\ntook pains to give details of terracotta figurines and to
\ninclude their 33 plates (Pls. No. 104 to 136) knowing well
\nthat these figurines, most of which belong to ancient
\nperiods, were not at all relevant to the question contained
\nin the Hon’ble Court’s order. The chart below gives an idea
\nof this exercise in futility. It is possible that the A.S.I. gave
\ndetailed description of human figurines and their
\nphotographs to lead credence to its theory of an alleged
\ntemple-like structure beneath Babri Masjid.<\/p>\n
\nPlate No.          Period of the Figurine Page of Vol. 1\n104                Late level (period not specified)       177\n105                2nd Cent. A.D.                          179<\/span>\n106                1st Cent. A.D.                          179<\/span>\n107                2nd Cent. A.D.                          177<\/span>\n108                2nd Cent. A.D.                          183<\/span>\n109                3rd Cent. A.D.                          181<\/span>\n111                3rd Cent. BC                            177<\/span>\n112                Gupta level                             180<\/span>\n113                Gupta level                             182<\/span>\n114                6th Cent. A.D.                          182<\/span>\n115                1st Cent. A.D.                          184<\/span>\n116                4th Cent. A.D.                          184<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 1 4001 ^^,0,l0vkbZ0 us lhfer le; esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ’kkuqlkj gk sj ht + s a V y rFkk ofVZ d y nk su k s a fof\/k;k s a l s mR[kuu dk;Z i w. kZ fd;k] tk s ,d iz […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"379 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":46931,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"379 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005"},"wordCount":46931,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005","name":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T01:36:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-relative-method-on-28-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs Relative Method on 28 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}