Author: J Sudhir Aggrawal
Publication: Forums.Bharat-Rakshak.com
Date: October 7, 2010
URL: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5697&start=200
Quote:
3628. PW-24 Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History
and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who was appointed on adhoc basis as
Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have worked as exploration
assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there
is no archaeological evidence to show either existence of any temple at the
disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed
structure. The statements made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness
of his knowledge in the subject:
Quote:
"I never visited Ayodhya" (E.T.C.)
"I do not have any specific knowledge
of history of Babur's reign." (E.T.C.)
"Whatsoever little knowledge I have about
Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for this,
I do not have any knowledge of Babur.I do not have knowledge of anything in
2nd para of editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar
has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Shangh
for the first time raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the
place which was earlier Rama's birth place. I also do not know whether or
not it is correctly written on page 10 of the afore-said preface that Ayodhya
is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school." (E.T.C.)
"The Communist Party issues a red card,
and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion. A book written
by me (exhibit 63) was not written in series; instead, it was published in
series. This series is called 'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know
whether there is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times Series', which
is only for the criticism of religious organizations. It is true that a book
titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags' has been published under this series,
but I have not read this book." (E.T.C.)
"Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'.
I have no knowledge of a book 'The Question of Faith' under this very series,
nor have I read it. I know under which series the aforesaid book was published.
Faith has nothing to do with archaeological history. I do not properly remember
that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or not. I remember names of
two members comprising the editorial board of this series, first of them being
Prof. Romila Thapar and the other being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do not
remember names of the rest of members. It is true that Sarvapalli Gopal ji
is also a member of the editorial board of this series." (E.T.C.)
"I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is
of Communistic thought or not. But Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism."
(E.T.C.)
"It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has
written editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila Thapar was
a professor at Jawahar Lal Nehru University. In this very University was Shereen
Ratnagar also, who was a teacher." (E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an archaeologist."(E.T.C.)
"It is true that I have not seen the
disputed building as yet. I did not make any physical investigation of stone
used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also
did not make physical investigation of basalt stone." (E.T.C.) 3650
"My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only on any article.
My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given in the
book(paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89, and chiefly on the photograph
(paper no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by Prof.B.B.Lal near
the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also correct to say that I drew findings, taking
the brief report of B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm Bhumi:
Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct."
(E.T.C.)
"Many of my colleagues inspired me to
write the book (exhibit 63)." (E.T.C.)
"It is also true that I had requested
one of them to write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested
was Miss Shereen Ratnagar." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant
Tiwari, who drew figures for me in my book, went ahead with the drafting as
I wished. Laxmi Kant Tiwari was a skilled draftsman.I never even visited Ayodhya."
(E.T.C.)
"The main objective of my research was
to see whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not." (E.T.C.)
"As per my research, initial signs of
human population in Ayodhya are found from the 6th -7th century BC."
(E.T.C.)
"I know that there was Islamic population
from the 13th century to the 15th - 16th century." (E.T.C.)
"On the basis of the source material
which I used and studied in course of my research, I speak of the disputed
structure as Babri Masjid. I did not make any research to see whether it was
Babri Mosque inasmuch as it was not a subject of my research. It is correct
to say that I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid on the basis
of that very source material." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that I term the
disputed structure as Babri Mosque on that very source material on which others
term it as such. For this very reason I term it as Babri Mosque, otherwise
its being Babri Mosque is not a subject of my research." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that I do not believe
those persons who termed the disputed sructure as Rama Janm Bhumi; for this
very reason I have not described it as such, and as a matter of fact it was
not a subject of my research."(E.T.C.)
"Since it was not the issue of my research
to see whether these stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not 3653 make
any research on them, and for this very reason I did not make any research
to see whether they may be of the temple.... It is true that human figures
are engraved on the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46." (E.T.C.)
"The subject of my knowledge is archaeology
and my speciality is in field archaeology under it and in stratification method
under field archaeology." (E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist.
He has also deposed in this litigation. I have knowledge of it also."
(E.T.C.)
"I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have
talks with her also. . . . . . From her articles it appears that she is influenced
by Marxism." (E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She
is also influenced by Marxism. . . . . .I know Sri R.S.Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav,
D.P. Agarwal, S.C. Bhattacharya, N.C. Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also
have talks with them." (E.T.C.)
"Our objective was to study or discover
whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not. My objective did
not have any relation to the structure above the ground. Whatsoever materials
had been discovered by that time was, in my opinion, sufficient to derive
a conclusion as to whether there was any temple below the structure or not."
(E.T.C.)
"It is true that by observing materials
discovered through excavation I will not be in a position to tell whether
there was a temple or a mosque." (E.T.C.)
"It is true that I am of communistic
thought."(E.T.C.)
"I have acquired knowledge of archaeology.
I did not get any degree or diploma in archaeology." (E.T.C.)
"As per my study and knowledge, the disputed
structure was subsequent to the 12th century AD."(Page 78)
"The map given in the supplement is,
in my opinion, a primary source. I did not enquire as to whether the map given
in the supplement is correct or not." (E.T.C.)
"Primary source of my book is paper no.118C1/36."(E.T.C.)
3629. A bare perusal of the above makes it
clear that he virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper
No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and beyond that made
no further or other study/research etc. Only on that basis, he wrote a book,
and analyzed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed
after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11th or 12th
century which was demolished before its onstruction. The own admissions and
clarification this witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this
witness is short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act,
1872 to qualify as an opinion of an Expert which may be considered relevant
on a fact in issue, by this Court.
So here we have an ardchelogist who did not
get any formal grounding in Archaeology, no degree or diploma, never visited
the site and drawn conclusions based on his book written on the Bais of a
paper of Dr B B Lal and doesn't remember what was written as preface by Romilla
Thapar in his book. No wonder he can not tell from the materials recovered
during excavation whether they belonged to temple or mosque. How much reliance
should be placed on his expert deposition.
