What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

Any credible proof of what you just said?

Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more indepth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble.[19] The summary of the ASI report [20] indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered "distinctive features associated with... temples of north India". The excavations yielded:

stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure."[21]
The excavation began on 12 March 2003 on the acquired land on the high court's order and by 7 August 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. A bench, comprising Justice S R Alam, Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Khemkaran, had asked the ASI to submit the report and as per the order, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted its final report in the Allahabad high court.[22] The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions, maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. The report said there was archaeological evidence of "a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards". The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Shunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.[23]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A land title case on the site was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.[34] The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.[35]

Of the three judge bench of allahabad high court one is a muslim and all the three unanimously agreed that the alleged mosque was built directly over a temple. need any more proofs ?
 
.
:blink:
Another mallu???
fainting-smiley.gif
....

Some serious misunderstanding right there sister! Imma Bajrangi not mallu
 
.
I haven't really been paying attention to Indian politics recently but it looks like the opposition is playing its usual games in the Monsoon session of Parliament, does this mean we are looking at a logjam and 0 critical reform bills being passed, especially the GST?

@nair @JanjaWeed @SrNair @Echo_419

Nothing new, This is how Indian politics is been played...... BJP cannot comlain, becuase this what exactly they did during UPA ...... But you know where UPA is going wrong????..... They are trying everything in the first stint..... not waiting for the final stint......
 
.
Nothing new, This is how Indian politics is been played...... BJP cannot comlain, becuase this what exactly they did during UPA ...... But you know where UPA is going wrong????..... They are trying everything in the first stint..... not waiting for the final stint......

Lol nopes they're actually shooting themselves in the foot BJP did a lot of ground work to build up perception before they went on FULL offensive in the second half of UPA 2.What Congress is doing now is - desperation - they have only two choices - stall the parliament or face isolation.Also BJP is happily playing along as Bihar election are round the corner.

Unconfirmed Reports of APJ Abdul Kalam's death coming in ! Sad if true
 
.
Trolling would happen when posters cant bear the truth.. Like i said if you think separatist movements are not existent or in operation in Tamil Nadu either your ignorant of the debt of the issue or simple choose the be in denial


Denial???
Trust me dude.We are blood brothers and ranting of some chhotta stupid leaders wont work in TN.

We know a lots about our nation and states ,a lots more than you.
 
.
why do you say that?? because the system will be simplified to a good extent.
I am not against abolishing taxes but this should be done in a planned manner to prevent chaos in economy. In our country it is not that easy to abolish all taxes in one go because there are legal and constitutional issues involved, as sales and excise taxes are in the domain of state governments. And administration of the new regime would require a huge overall of the existing system, most importantly the banking system. Also India has large number of illiterate people, for them banking is a complicated thing.
At the same time I am in favor imposing taxes on corporate earnings , buying luxury goods, drinking & smoking items & usage of non renewable natural resources because India is a developing country it needs money for development.
Arthakranti proposal is not such a bad idea either because Income tax is largely a tax on the middle class salary earner. The poor hardly pays any income tax. The rich have dividends and capital gains as large part of their source of income rather than salaries.
& on abolishing interest system issue I am totally against it. It will result in failure of banking system & discourage people to put their savings in banks. It is not a reform it is just a Sharia banking.
 
. .
Lol nopes they're actually shooting themselves in the foot BJP did a lot of ground work to build up perception before they went on FULL offensive in the second half of UPA 2.What Congress is doing now is - desperation - they have only two choices - stall the parliament or face isolation.Also BJP is happily playing along as Bihar election are round the corner.

Unconfirmed Reports of APJ Abdul Kalam's death coming in ! Sad if true

For the sake of our nation let's hope they are only delaying the land bill due to Bihar elections & no kalam is not yet dead

I am not against abolishing taxes but this should be done in a planned manner to prevent chaos in economy. In our country it is not that easy to abolish all taxes in one go because there are legal and constitutional issues involved, as sales and excise taxes are in the domain of state governments. And administration of the new regime would require a huge overall of the existing system, most importantly the banking system. Also India has large number of illiterate people, for them banking is a complicated thing.
At the same time I am in favor imposing taxes on corporate earnings , buying luxury goods, drinking & smoking items & usage of non renewable natural resources because India is a developing country it needs money for development.
Arthakranti proposal is not such a bad idea either because Income tax is largely a tax on the middle class salary earner. The poor hardly pays any income tax. The rich have dividends and capital gains as large part of their source of income rather than salaries.
& on abolishing interest system issue I am totally against it. It will result in failure of banking system & discourage people to put their savings in banks. It is not a reform it is just a Sharia banking.

I agree with you some parts of the proposal are good but overall it is just to radical
 
. . .
Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more indepth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble.[19] The summary of the ASI report [20] indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered "distinctive features associated with... temples of north India". The excavations yielded:

stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure."[21]
The excavation began on 12 March 2003 on the acquired land on the high court's order and by 7 August 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. A bench, comprising Justice S R Alam, Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Khemkaran, had asked the ASI to submit the report and as per the order, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted its final report in the Allahabad high court.[22] The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions, maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. The report said there was archaeological evidence of "a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards". The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Shunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.[23]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A land title case on the site was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.[34] The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.[35]

Of the three judge bench of allahabad high court one is a muslim and all the three unanimously agreed that the alleged mosque was built directly over a temple. need any more proofs ?
But that doesn't prove that the temple was brought down for a mosque to be built over it. And the findings of ASI has many loopholes in it which has been/will be challenged in Supreme Court.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Experts split on Ayodhya findings

Keep telling that yourself. No one is falling for that no more.
Yes I know its futile reasoning with you guys..
 
. . .
For the sake of our nation let's hope they are only delaying the land bill due to Bihar elections & no kalam is not yet dead



I agree with you some parts of the proposal are good but overall it is just to radical
Arthakranti organisation is not a religious or radical organisation. Some of their Ideas are quite good.
Check it out
ArthaKranti - Proposal

Just hope & prey Apj Abdul Kalam will live for 100 years like most of his family members
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom