Suggestions For New Employee Engagement And - Human Bb: Fill & Download for Free

Because Apple makes excellent no-compromise on quality products (although at a different level all sorts of technology compromises must be made to build anything).Once-upon-a-time there was a company named Big Blue (BB, name changed so as not to protect the guilty). This company made huge piles of money from the very expensive machines it made. It did not like the idea of computers that could be sold to a mass market at less than $1,000. Big Blue also had an army of devotees who bought the BB religion and poured scorn, vitriol, and generally disparaged any of the other manufacturers at the time, like DEC, Burroughs (which had far superior systems to BB), etc.In the 1970s people could buy kits of microprocessors and other components and solder together for themselves a computer for $100s. But not everyone was handy with a soldering iron so Altair put together a pre-made machine, but you had to toggle in instructions - again tedious.But then two kids in a garage - Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs - started up their own operation putting the computer together with a screen and a keyboard and selling this whole package. So the PC industry was born and Steve Jobs named the company after his favourite food, Apple.BB was obviously not pleased, neither was its army of devotees (which was around 80% of all computer people). “We’ll have learn new techniques and languages” was their fear, particularly since using and programming BB’s machines was incredibly arcane with assembly code and JCL. So the same derision and scorn was heaped on Apple, for at least a few years until BB brought out an Apple II copy that really two kids in a garage could have invented. (Except, BB forgot that software and an OS in a computer is an essential component, so the went to the Bee Gees who sold them Saturday Night Fever to run as an OS.)This was the start of much of the scorn against Apple that exists to this day.The competitors of Apple and their devotees still use this same tactic of scorn, vitriol, and derision against Apple. It’s just very convenient to compete with these tactics and not leave it up to chance in the market place when they release their own (usually inferior) copied-from-Apple products. Thus confuse the market place with all kinds of falsehoods, like Apple treats customers with contempt because they end-of-lifed a technology that was at the end of its life. Many of the other complaints against Apple are just baseless. Apple does things with good reason and they usually stem from the best interests of the customer and helping them out with technology as it changes.Queue the howls of protest that I am just a ‘fanboy’.‘Fanboy’ accusations is another tactic. You put up a clear case refuting the attacks against Apple which the opponents have no answer for so they just resort to the ad hominem attack of ‘fanboy’. The accusation of ‘fanboy’ is just a lazy attack.This suggests that those who buy Apple (for their good reasons) are just weak-minded idiots who have ‘drunk the kool aid’ followed the religion, or whatever. That is just absurd - Apple really designs most of this stuff in the first place, spends years doing it, just for others to come along and quickly copy it. That is what Microsoft did with Windows. Queue the scorn against Apple in the mid 1980s giving Microsoft some time to catch up (and Windows is still awful).While other companies might have given up, Apple stuck to its principles (although it was very shaky until Steve Jobs came back and had a clear vision for the direction again).So that is why there is so much division about Apple.You can read the original ‘kool aid’ at:http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdfAt one time (I don’t know if it is still true) new Apple employees had to read Ted Nelson’s manifesto to get a clear vision as to where they were going. More kool aid came from Alan Kay (who went to Apple from Xerox PARC) - writings and Quora answers all of the web. And Alan Kay had been a student of Bob Barton - who was the original think-different guy in the early 1960s and most brilliant computer architect (most people think of Gene Amdahl and Seymour Cray) of the 20th century who designed the Burroughs B5000, which was the machine far in advance of anything that BB produced, but which faced the same scorn, vitriol, and derision from BB devotees. (The descendants of the B5000 are still the most sophisticated commercial machines around.)Really what all the vitriol against Apple comes down to is the old world of BB against the new world of Apple. The old world’s vision of computers was that they would control humans - tell workers what to do which is the Business the B stands for in BB. The new world (starting with Doug Englebart, Ted Nelson, Alan Kay and others) said that computers are just tools and people are in control of the computers. That new philosophy is a threat to the old power base.For a further historical note, the tactics of BB and the anti-competitive tactics go back to the 1890s. This is documented in a very-difficult-to-obtain book by Richard DeLamarter ‘Big Blue: BB’s Use and Abuse of Power’.DeLamarter documents how there was a company called NCR (you might remember them) and NCR’s founder, Patterson. There were many other cash register companies at the time, but Patterson found he could sell more by going round and spreading false information about the competitors - how their product was not so good, etc. He took on an employee called Thomas J. Watson who also spread this FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). To cut a long story short, Patterson was eventually sent to gaol for his anti-competitive practices and in the US, the Sherman Act was institution detailing and making anti-competitive acts illegal.For Thomas J. Watson, he went on the form the aforementioned BB company. But the same practices had to be used in a more subtle form. But they found that - like any religion - they could get an army of followers to put around the dubious messages against any competition.What Patterson and Watson had found is that it is very easy to enrage and engage hatred - even when based on a lie - in order to put around all sorts of false thinking. This is another reason for the vitriol against Apple and it should be noted that the same vitriol is not based on Apple being the large and powerful company it now is - it was always the case, even in the early days and the early 1990s when Apple was a failing company.I’ve just written another answer to a similar question at:Why do people in the IT field have so much disdain for Apple products?

Was the Babri Masjid built on the remains of a Hindu temple? The issue has been under discussion since the very beginning and now the Supreme Court has passed the judgment on the issue .Many of the Hindus does’nt know that the in this story of Ram Janmabhumi Ayodhya Babri Masjid issue the hero and villain both are Muslims.The hero is an archeologist KK. Muhammed and villain is Irfan HabibKK MuhammedIrfan HabibThis guy along with Historian Romilla Thapar is primary responsible for glorification of Mughals in Indian History and neglect of history of North east and South Indian History as well as the resistance shown by Hindu Kings against Islamic rule in North India.Before going into their role let us go through the history of Ayodhya issue first.British-era studiesIn 1862–63, Alexander Cunningham (Alexander Cunningham - Wikipedia), the founder of Archaeological Survey of India (Archaeological Survey of India - Wikipedia) (ASI), conducted a survey of Ayodhya. Cunnigham identified Ayodhya with *Sha-chi* mentioned in Fa-Hien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa-Hien)'s writings, Visakha mentioned in Xuanzang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang)'s writings and Saketa (Sāketa - Wikipedia) mentioned in Hindu-Buddhist legends. According to him, Gautama Buddha (Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia) spent six years at this place. Although Ayodhya is mentioned in several ancient Hindu texts, Cunningham found no ancient structures in the city. According to him, the existing temples at Ayodhya were of relatively modern origin. Referring to legends, he wrote that the old city of Ayodhya must have been deserted after the death of Brihadbala (Brihadbala - Wikipedia) "in the great war" around 1426 BCE. When King Vikramāditya (Vikramaditya - Wikipedia) of Ujjain (Ujjain - Wikipedia) visited the city around first century CE, he constructed new temples at the spots mentioned in Ramayana. Cunningham believed that by the time Xuanzang visited the city in 7th century, Vikramaditya's temples had "already disappeared"; the city was a Buddhist centre, and had several Buddhist monuments.Cunningham's main objective in surveying Ayodhya was to discover these Buddhist monuments.In 1889-91, an ASI team led by Alois Anton Führer (Alois Anton Führer - Wikipedia) conducted another survey of Ayodhya.Führer did not find any ancient statues, sculptures or pillars that marked the sites of other ancient cities. He found "a low irregular mass of rubbish heaps", from which material had been used for building the neighbouring Muslim city of Faizabad. The only ancient structures found by him were three earthen mounds to the south of the city: *Maniparbat*, *Kuberparbat* and *Sugribparbat*. Cunningham identified these mounds with the sites of the monasteries described in Xuanzang's writings. Like Cunningham, Führer also mentioned the legend of the Ramayana-era city being destroyed after death of Brihadbala, and its rebuilding by Vikramaditya. He wrote that the existing Hindu and Jain temples in the city were modern, although they occupied the sites of the ancient temples that had been destroyed by Muslims. The five Digambara (Digambara - Wikipedia) Jain temples had been built in 1781 CE to mark the birth places of five tirthankaras (Tirthankara - Wikipedia), who are said to have been born at Ayodhya. A Svetambara (Śvētāmbara - Wikipedia) Jain temple dedicated to Ajitanatha (Ajitanatha - Wikipedia) was built in 1881. Based on local folk narratives, Führer wrote that Ayodhya had three Hindu temples at the time of Muslim conquest: *Janmasthanam* (where Rama was born), *Svargadvaram* (where Rama was cremated) and *Treta-ke-Thakur* (where Rama performed a sacrifice). According to Führer, Mir Khan built the Babri mosque at the place of *Janmasthanam* temple in 930 AH (Hegira - Wikipedia) (1523 CE). He stated that many columns of the old temple had been utilized by the Muslims for the construction of Babri mosque: these pillars were of black stone, called *kasauti* by the natives. Führer also wrote that Aurangzeb had built now-ruined mosques at the sites of *Svargadvaram* and *Treta-ke-Thakur* temples. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachandra of Kannauj (Jayachandra - Wikipedia), dated to 1241 Samvat (Vikram Samvat - Wikipedia) (1185 CE), and a record of a Vishnu temple's construction were recovered from Aurangazeb's *Treta-ke-Thakur* mosque, and kept in Faizabad museum.Archaeological studies in the 1960s and 1970sAwadh Kishore Narain (A. K. Narain - Wikipedia) of Banaras Hindu University (Banaras Hindu University - Wikipedia) led an excavation in Ayodhya during 1969–70. He dated establishment of Ayodhya to early 17th century BCE, and also observed that there was evidence of strong Buddhist presence in the area.B. B. Lal led a more detailed ASI (Archaeological Survey of India ) study of the area in 1975–76.Though the results of this study were not published in that period, between 1975 and 1985 an archaeological project was carried out in Ayodhya to examine certain sites referenced to in the Ramayana or that belong to its tradition. Ascribed to the 4th century AD, it is the oldest image found in Ayodhya.The Babri Mosque site was one of the fourteen sites examined during this project. Prof B. B. Lal ) conducted excavations in Ayodhya and found a terracotta image showing a Jain ascetic.He pointed out that Ayodhya was the birthplace of five Jain Tirthankaras . It is called Ishvakubhumi in Jain writings, and the first Tirthankara, Rishabhanatha is believed to have been born here. After a gap of many years since the excavation, an article in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) magazine *Manthan* in October 1990 by the BB Lal - led Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) team claimed to have found the pillar-bases of what may have been a temple at the site which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri MosqueThe team of archaeologists of the ASI, led by former Director-General ASI (1968–1972), B.B. Lal in 1975–76, worked on a project titled "Archaeology of Ramayana Sites", which excavated five Ramayana sites of Ayodhya , Bharadwaj Ashram, Nandigram , Chitrakoot and Shringaverapura.At Ayodhya, the team found rows of pillar-bases which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque. In 2003 statement to the Allahabad High Court , Lal stated that after he submitted a seven-page preliminary report to the Archaeological Survey of India, mentioning the discovery of "pillar bases", immediately south of the Babri mosque structure in Ayodhya. Subsequently, all technical facilities were withdrawn and the project wasn't revived for another 10–12 years, despite his repeated request. Thus the final report was never submitted, the preliminary report was only published in 1989, and in Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) volume on historicity of Ramayana and Mahabharat.Subsequently, in his 2008 book, *Rama: His Historicity Mandir and Setu*, he wrote, "Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid, there were twelve stone pillars, which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings, but also figures of Hindu deities. It was self-evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid, but were foreign to it."B. B. Lal's team also had K. K. Muhammed , who in his autobiography claimed that Hindu temple was found in excavation and said that left historians are misleading the Muslim communities by aligning with fundamentalists.Accordingly, archaeological findings of burnt bases of pillars made of brick , a few metres from the mosque, indicated that a large temple stood in alignment with the Babri Mosque since the 11th century.In a trench at a distance of four metres south of the mosque, parallel rows of pillar-foundations made of brick-bats and stones were found.June to July 1992In July 1992, eight eminent archaeologists (among them former ASI directors, Dr. Y.D. Sharma and Dr. K.M. Srivastava) went to the Ramkot hill to evaluate and examine the findings. These findings included religious sculptures and a statue of Vishnu . They said that the inner boundary of the disputed structure rests, at least on one side, on an earlier existing structure, which "may have belonged to an earlier temple". (Indian Express, 4 July 1992.) The objects examined by them also included terracotta Hindu images of the Kushan period (100–300 AD) and carved buff sandstone objects that showed images of Vaishnav deities and of Shiva . They concluded that these fragments belonged to a temple of the Nagara style (900–1200 AD).Prof. S.P. Gupta commented on the discoveries:>*"The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late **Pratiharas* and early **Gahadvals*. These objects included a number of **amakalas* , i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main **shikhara* This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period (...) There was other evidence – of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others – leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th–12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya."*2003: The ASI reportThe Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Mosque site at the direction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court Uttar Pradesh in 2003. The archaeologists also reported evidence of a large structure pre-existed the Babri Masjid. A team of 131 labourers, including 52 Muslims was engaged in the excavations. On 11 June 2003 the ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the period between 22 May and 6 June 2003. In August 2003 the ASI handed a 574-page report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.The ASI , who examined the site, issued a report of the findings of the period between 22 May and 6 June 2003. This report stated:*Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls 'in east-west orientation', several 'in north-south orientation', 'decorated coloured floor', several 'pillar bases', and a '1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with figurines on four corners' as well as inscription of holy verses on stone in Arabic language" *Earlier reports by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among other things a staircase and two black basalt columns 'bearing fine decorative carvings with two crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers are raised upwards'.The excavations gave ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure. Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have been found beneath the Babri structure. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., were used in these walls. These decorated architectural pieces were anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Devanagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name claimed by VHP but is disputed and thus still unproven whether it is a Hindu name or not. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years.Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides a clue to the existence of some structure at that place over the last 2,500 years.More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillar-base rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) was found. These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a construction material in our country for over 2,000 years and, in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi, Surkhii has been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes and sizes were neither in vogue during the Middle Ages nor are they in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago. Many ornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the excavation. Terracotta religious figures, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day, terracotta figures are used in worship during Diwali celebrations, then put by temple sanctums for invoking divine blessings. Gupta Empire and Kushan Empire period bricks have been found. Brick walls of the Garhwal period (12th Century CE) also have been found in excavations .. ASI also mentioned in its report that they have found ruins of other eras also. These ruins could be the ruins of a Jain temples.Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential habitation there. The excavation suggests a picture of a vast compound housing a sole distinguished and greatly celebrated structure used for divine purposes and not that of a colony or Mohalla consisting of small houses. It was an uncommon and highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people. Hindu pilgrims have visited that place for thousands of years.Even today there are temples around that place and the items found in the excavations point to the existence of a holy structure of North Indian architectural style at that place.Some results of the 2003 ASI reportPeriod 1000BC to 300BCThe findings suggest that a Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) culture existed at the mosque site between 1000 BC and 300 BC. A round signet with a legend in Asokan Brahmi , terracotta figurines of female deities with archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass , wheels and fragments of votive tanks have been found. 15)Shunga Period. 200 BCTypical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads , hairpins, pottery (includes black slipped, red and grey wares), and stone and brick structures of the Shunga period have been found.Kushan period. 100–300 ADTerracotta human and animal figurines, fragments of votive tanks, beads, bangle fragments, ceramics with red ware and large-sized structures running into twenty-two courses have been found from this level. )Gupta era (320–600 AD) and post-Gupta eraTypical terracotta figurines, a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta), and illustrative potsherds of the Gupta period have been found. A circular brick shrine with an entrance from the east and a provision for a water-chute on the northern wall have also been found.11th to 12th centuryA huge structure of almost fifty metres in north-south orientation have been found on this level. Only four of the fifty pillar bases belong to this level. Above this lay a structure with at least three structural phases which had a huge pillared hall.Radar searchIn the January 2003, Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard performed a search with a ground-penetrating radar . The survey concluded the following:>*"There is some structure under the mosque. The structures were ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site"*.Claude Robillard, the chief geophysicist stated the following:>*"There are some anomalies found underneath the site relating to some archaeological features. You might associate them (the anomalies) with pillars, or floors, or concrete floors, wall foundation or something. These anomalies could be associated with archaeological features but until we dig, I can't say for sure what the construction is under the mosque."***Inscriptions****Vishnu-Hari inscription:**During the demolition of the Babri mosque in December 1992, three inscriptions on stone were found. The most important one is the Vishnu inscription inscribed on a 1.10 x .56-metre slab with 20 lines that was provisionally dated to ca. 1140. The inscription mentioned that the temple was dedicated to "Vishnu , slayer of Bali and of the ten-headed one" [Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu who is said to have defeated Bali and Ravana].The inscription is written in the Nagari Lipi script, a Sanskrit script of the 11th and 12th century.It was examined by world class epigraphists and Sanskrit scholars (among them Prof. Ajay Mitra Shastri.Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India and a specialist in epigraphy and numismatics , examined the Vishnu-Hari inscription and stated:>"The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (*sila-samhati-grahais*) and beautified with a golden spire (*hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram*) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (*purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir*) was constructed. This wonderful temple (*aty-adbhutam*) was built in the temple-city (*vibudh-alaayni*) of Ayodhya situated in the *Saketamandala* (district, line 17) (...). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king *Bali* (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (*Dasanana*, i.e., RavanaPillarsPillar bases were first discovered by the ASI's former director-general, BB Lal, in 1975. In the Babri Mosque were at least fourteen stone pillars that have been dated to the early 11th century and more pillars were found during excavations buried in the ground near the mosque. Two similar pillars were also found placed upside down by the side of the grave of Fazle Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan. This Muslim saint was the person that incited Mir Baqi to destroy the Janmasthan temple and build a mosque on it.Animal remainsEarlier excavations had unearthed animal bones and even human remains. According to historian Irfan Habib, the presence of animal bones meant that it was a residential area (and not a shrine) inhabited not necessarily by a non-vegetarian community and that it was in that Muslim habitat that a mosque was raised in 1528 or thereafter. The ASI report mentions the bones, but does not explain how they came to be there.Controversy regarding the archaeological findingsThe ASI findings were disputed.In fact, two Muslim graves were also recovered in the excavation, as reported in Outlook weekly.While the ASI videographed and photographed the graves on 22 April, it did not perform a detailed analysis of them. The skeletons found at the site were not sent for carbon-dating, neither were the graves measured.Anirudha Srivastava, a former ASI archaeologist, said that in some trenches, some graves, terracotta and lime mortar and surkhi were discovered which also indicated Muslim habitation. It was surmised, also, that some mosque existed on the site and that Babri was built on the site of another mosque.Following allegations that the Hari inscription corresponded to an inscription dedicated to Vishnu that was supposedly missing in the Lucknow State Museum since the 1980s, the museum director Jitendra Kumar stated that the inscription had never been missing from the museum, although it wasn't on display. He showed the inscription held by his museum at a press conference for all to see. It was different in shape, colour and textual content from the Vishnu-Hari inscription.There were also attempts by Babri Masjid supporters to prohibit all archaeological excavations at the disputed site. Naved Yar Khan's petition at the Supreme Court to prohibit all archaeological excavations at the Mosque site was rejected.Similarly, there were questions raised as to what level the archaeological digging should reach – should they stop when evidence of a Hindu temple was found? Both Buddhists and Jains asked for the digging to continue much further to learn whether they, too, could lay claim to the site.Pillar bases were first discovered by the ASI's former director-general, B.B. Lal , in 1975. His report gave an enormous boost to the Ram Temple cause. It was however criticised by archaeologist D. Mandal . In the excavation of 2003, fifty of the "pillar bases" were once again unearthed. Although they appear to be aligned, D. Mandal's conclusion by archaeological theory stated that the "pillar bases" belonged to different periods; that is, they had never existed together at any point of time; they were not really in alignment with one another; they were not even pillar bases, but junctions of walls, bases of the load-bearing columns at the intersections of walls.Buddhist claimsThe Buddhists have also claimed the Ayodhya site. According to Udit Raj 's Buddha Education Foundation, the structure excavated by ASI in 2003 was a Buddhist *stupa* destroyed during and after the Muslim invasion of India. Besides the 2003 ASI report, Raj has also based his claim on the 1870 report of the British archaeologist Patrick Carnegie. According to Carnegie, the Kasauti pillars at the Ayodhya site strongly resemble the ones at Buddhist *viharas* in Sarnath and Varanasi.Jains claimsJain Samata Vahini, a social organisation of the Jains stated that the excavation conducted at Hanuman Garhi by Prof B B Lal ) in 1976 threw up a grey terracotta figurine that was dated back to the fourth century BC,and Prof B B La , former director-general of the Archaeological Survey of India also acknowledge the same.**Political reaction**The leaders of Babri Masjid Action-Reconstruction expressed reservations on the credibility of the ASI in carrying out the assignment impartially, owing to political pressure. ASI comes under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which was headed by Murli Manohar Joshi, himself an accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case.The Muslim side expressed doubts on the final ASI report, claiming that the notes and other draft items were supposedly destroyed by the ASI, within 24 hours following the submission of the final report.The sounding tests by a Canadian agency mentioned that some structure or anomalies could be established but they could not be identified, conclusively, as a temple.Professor Suraj Bhan , who has personally taken an inventory of the site, said the ASI had clubbed pottery from the 11th to the 19th centuries together and not really distinguished them by their different periods. However, he questioned the basis for the ASI's interpretation that the massive burnt brick structure was that of a Ram temple. "The Babri Masjid had a planned structure and the ASI findings conform to this plan. The Nagar style of star-shaped temple construction prevalent between the 9th and 12th centuries is not at all present in the structure," he said.One of the central findings in the ASI report was that of a very large temple, the foundations of which far exceed the circumference of the Babri mosque.Along the same lines as Habib , Muslim Personal Law Board secretary Mohammed Abdul Rahim Quraishi "said a team of well-known archaeologists including Prof. Suraj Bhan had visited the site and inspected the excavated pits and was of [the] opinion that there was evidence of an earlier mosque beneath the structure of the Babri Masjid".The two agree on a pre-Babri Muslim presence, but Quraishi's "interpretation" of the findings is already starkly at variance with Habib's: the latter saw no mosque underneath, while Quraishi's employee Bhan did.Noted lawyer Rajeev Dhawan said the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case had taken a wrong turn and the ASI report had no historical or moral significance and the conclusions were based on political considerations. However, an anti-temple lawyer, Mr. Dhawan said, "The legal case did not relate to the question of whether a temple existed on the site or not".When the Director-General of the Indian Archaeological Archaeological Survey of India, BB Lal, for the first time surveyed the disputed land of Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid, KK Muhammad was also included in the team.In 1976 and 1977, Muhammed began studying in the School of Archeology after completing his Masters in History from Aligarh Muslim University, meaning that he had joined the survey as a student.**Ram temple existed before Babri mosque in Ayodhya: Archaeologist KK Muhammed**A few years later, KK Muhammad surprised everyone at the time when he stated that the controversial site had visible traces of an “ancient temple”.According to many experts, it is difficult to say whether these artifacts belong to Hindu temples, but some archaeologists also stated that the possibility of Jain or Buddhist temples cannot be ruled out.Earlier, BB Lal had said the same thing in his report, but KK Mohammed’s statement renewed the whole controversy because he was a Muslim and he had studied history from the Aligarh Muslim University.KK Muhammad is still firm on the survey he conducted in the late seventies. He says the first survey was done in the seventies, but in 2003 another survey was conducted that included three Muslims working in the Archaeological Survey of India.A few years ago, KK Muhammad retired as Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (Northern India). He now lives in Kozhikode (Calicut), Kerala.Analyzing two archaeological surveys twice, KK Muhammad says that the high walls and dome-like structures found at the disputed site are not part of any Islamic construction because they contain statues, which are not meant to be in an Islamic mosque.In addition, he mentioned the idols that were discovered by the Archaeological Survey of India during the excavation of the controversial site which belonged to the tenth century AD.Questions raised on the surveySeveral historians have also raised questions on the Archaeological Survey of India’s temple and mosque controversy. The Sunni Waqf Board hired two independent archaeologists who penned research articles and raised several questions.Referring to travelers arriving in India in the tenth and twelfth centuries, Muhammad says that all these travelers have mentioned the rituals of Hindu worship at the place of Ayodhya.KK Muhammad quotes William Finch and Joseph Tieffenthaler as well as Ain-i-Akbari, which was written in Persian by Abul Fazl, the court historian of the Mughal king Akbar. It mentions the ‘worship of Lord Ram’.Finch came to India between 1607 and 1611, while Joseph came to India between 1766 and 1771. KK Muhammad is a renowned archaeologist and is credited with many ancient discoveries including Fatehpur Sikri in Agra.In 2016, Muhammad wrote his autobiography ‘Najin Anna Bharatin’, meaning ‘I am Indian. The book attracted controversy due to his claim that the Marxist historians sided with the extremist Muslim groups and derailed attempts to find an amicable solution to the Ayodhya dispute.According to Muhammad, archaeological excavations at Ayodhya clearly indicated the presence of a temple below the mosque, but the leftist historians dismissed these, and even tried to mislead the Allahabad High Court.The Supreme court is holding day-to-day hearings on the Ram Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid case and is likely to give a verdict by November 17. KK Muhammed, former regional director, North, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was part of the team of archaeologists which had carried out the first excavation at the site in 1976-77. He maintains that there is enough archaeological proof of a grand temple below the Babri Mosque. He spoke to TOI on why he thinks Muslims should voluntarily hand over the land at Ayodhya.Q: What do you have to say about the Ayodhya case being heard in the Supreme Court?A: There are three important issues. First is archaeological evidence, second is literary evidence and the third is the social issues.Q: What is the archaeological evidence to prove whether there was a pre-existing temple or not?A: Archaeologically there is enough evidence to say that below the controversial Babri mosque, there were temple remains. In fact, there was a grand temple structure.Two excavations were carried out at the site.The first excavation was carried out in the year 1976-77 under eminent archaeologist BB Lal, who was the director general of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from 1968 to 1972.I was a member of the excavation team and the only Muslim who had participated in the excavation.The excavation took place at a time when Saiyid Nurul Hassan, himself a historian, was the then Union minister of state (with independent charge) of education, social welfare and culture between 1971 and 1977.Excavation has two important components. As per the procedures, we first conducted surface exploration to find out the remains on the surface. The controversial mosque was under the custody of the police and no common visitors were allowed inside. But as were part of the excavation team, we were allowed inside it.Moreover, the Ayodhya issue was not as heated up as it became later.When we went inside, I saw 12 pillars of the mosque which were made from temple remains.Q: How do you say that the pillars belong to some temple? And did you take pictures of the pillars?A: No, I did not take pictures at that time. But other pictures are available now.In almost all the temples of the 12th and 13 th centuries, you get 'Purna Kalasha' at the base. It is the structure of a 'ghada' (water pitcher) from which foliage would be coming out. It is the symbol of prosperity in Hinduism and is known as 'Asht-Mangala Chinha' - one of the eight auspicious symbols.If you want to see it further, you can go to Quwwatul Islam mosque near Qutub Minar. This mosque was also made out of the spoils of 27 temples. There is evidence for this as well. There is a book called Taj-ul-Masir written by Hassan Nizami, a contemporary historian. He says that temples were destroyed and a mosque was constructed out of it.There is also an inscription in front of the Quwwatul mosque which says that it was made out of the spoils of 27 temples. When you go inside, you can see a number of 'Purna Kalashas' and a number of gods and goddesses.Similar things were there in Babri mosque also. There were no gods and goddesses but 'Asht-Mangala Chinhas' were there. So, on the basis of these, any archaeologist would say that these are temple remains.Subsequently, BB Lal undertook excavations on the western side of the mosque. The pillar bases were also excavated. A number of terracotta sculptures were found. If it is a mosque, you will never get depiction of human beings or animals because it is 'haraam' (forbidden or proscribed) in Islam. This means there was a temple.But these findings were not highlighted by BB Lal because our excavation purpose was not to establish whether there was a temple or not. We just wanted to see the cultural sequence of the place.Q: So, were BB Lal's findings ever highlighted? Wasn't there a critique of how the study findings were presented?A: Unfortunately, a group of Left historians led by Romila Thapar, DN Jha and RS Sharma among others went to the media around 1990 and falsely claimed that no temple remains were found in the excavation. They also said the report did not mention anything about the temple remains.BB Lal was forced to defend. He made it clear that we got a number of temple remains but we did not make it an issue.At that time, I was a deputy superintending archaeologist posted at Chennai. I came out with a press statement through a letter to the editor in a national newspaper.I said that I was the only Muslim who had participated in that excavation and we got a number of temple remains.I further said that this is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims should willingly hand it over to Hindus.There was a senior IAS officer, I Mahadevan, a prominent archaeologist who had written a book on Indus script, came out with another statement. He said one group says there are temple remains and another group says there are no temple remains. Then why can't we undertake another excavation?Q: So the second excavation was carried out under orders of the Allahabad High Court. What do you say about its findings?A: The second excavation was carried out in 2003 as per the directions of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. By that time, the mosque had been destroyed. Before the excavation, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. It found that there were several structures below the ground. Many anomalies were reported. Anomalies meaning that you will be getting structures below the Babri Masjid.The excavation was carried out under the supervision of archaeologists Hari Manjhi and BR Mani. Since this excavation was carried out as per the direction of the court, the report assumes the status of a Court Commissioner's report and it is fully authentic. The ASI excavation was neither for Nirmohi Akhara nor for Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) nor for Sunni Waqf Board. It is an impartial and scientific report by ASI.During the first excavation, the controversial structure was having 12 temple pillars reused in the mosque. Excavation also exposed bases on which many pillars were standing.But in the second excavation, more than 50 pillar bases in 17 rows were exposed. It means that the structure was imposing and large.The structure discovered was a temple below the Babri Mosque and dated back to the 12th century AD.They also got temple 'pranala'. We have to bathe the deity and the 'abhishek jal' flows through 'pranali'. The pranali is mostly 'makara pranali', having a crocodile face.Crocodile is a symbol of river Ganga. In some of the temples, before reaching the 'garbha griha' (sanctum sanctorum), on the one side there would be a lady standing on crocodile and on the other side there would be a lady standing on tortoise.This means that you are taking a symbolic bath in rivers Ganga, Yamuna and the underground Saraswati. After cleansing yourself of all the previous sins, you are going to the main God.This 'makara pranali' was excavated. Had it been some other architectural member, one could have argued that it belonged to the part of a house. But this 'makara pranali' is neither seen in a residential area nor in a bazar area but it is exclusively the property of a temple.Also, on top of the temple just below the 'kalasha', there is another architectural member known as 'amalka'. It was also excavated.Below the 'amalka' there is the 'grivah' and also the 'shikhara' portion of the temple in North India. Many architectural members of the 'shikhara' was also excavated from there by the team.Besides, 263 pieces of terracotta objects of various gods and goddesses, human figures and female figures were excavated from there.The hired team by the Waqf Committee said the structure was another mosque before the Babri Mosque. While they call it a structure, ASI calls it a temple.Had it been a mosque, how could you get these terracotta objects of various living beings? Depiction of any living being is prohibited in Islam.Then how could you get sculptures of living beings had it been a mosque? So, it was not a mosque.They also say that it might have been a Jain or a Buddhist temple if their argument that it was a pre-Babri mosque was rejected. But there are no remains of Jainism or Buddhism in that disputed area.One of the directors of the excavation Hari Manjhi himself is a practising Buddhist and he has never come out with such a strange argument.Apart from all these things, a 'Vishnu Hari Sheela Phalak' inscription was also found in two pieces from the site.Of course, they were not part of the excavations but were found after the demolition of the mosque. But they form an important circumstantial evidence which clearly says the temple has been dedicated to that incarnation of Lord Vishnu who had killed Bali and a 10-headed person.All this is evidence which we have in order to establish that there was a pre-existing Hindu temple and that too dedicated to Lord Vishnu at that place.Q: What is the proof that this second ASI excavation in 2003 was impartial?A: Firstly, the excavation was completely videographed. Apart from ASI officials there were court-appointed judicial members. There were the so-called experts of Babri mosque. Those who had filed the cases such as Zafaryab Jilani and their advocates were also overseeing the entire excavation process.Besides, the excavation team comprised several Muslims who were senior archaeologists of the ASI.They included Ghulam Syeddin Khwaja from ASI, who retired as director Arabic and Persian epigraphy at Nagpur. There also was Atiqur Rehman Siddiqui who retired as superintending archaeologist of Agra.Zulfikar Ali, who presently is the superintending archaeologist of Chandigarh circle and AA Hashmi, who retired from Chanderi were there.They not only carried the excavation but they also were co-authors of the report which was submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.This is highly fool-proof.Their conclusion was simple - that there was a pre-existing temple below the Babri Mosque and dedicated to Lord Vishnu.Q: Was there no dissenting view?A: No, there was no dissenting view. Nobody had resigned from the team either. Those who differed were the hired experts of the Waqf committee. But they tried to create some confusion.But the Court Commissioner's report is crucial and final.Read Also: Ram temple excavation report far from foolproof?Q: Will these findings contribute in settling the issue by the Supreme Court?A: Archaeological evidence is fully in favour of a Hindu temple. I only believe that the Supreme Court cannot come out with any other kind of judgment. Even if they do give another kind of judgment, though there is no chance at all, that would be a decision which would not be able to implement. I lived there for two months. I saw that throughout the day and night, people used to continuously visit there and worship. It has that kind of importance for the Hindus.Q: Archaeological evidence is one aspect of the case. What are the other two which you wished to discuss?A: There is ample literary evidence to prove that Hindus continued to worship at that place.In Ain-e-Akbari Volume III, Abu Fazal says that Ayodhya was worshipped by Hindus in the month of Chaitra.Then there was a traveller known as William Filch (1608-1611) who came to India during the time of Jehangir . In his travelogue, he says a lot of people assembled and worshipped at this place in Ayodhya.In 1631, during the time of Jehangir and Shah Jahan, a Dutch geographer John Daeleat also speaks about the worship of the place by Hindus.Thomas Herbert (1606-1682) mentions also speaks about the Hindu worship of the place.Joseph Taissen Thaler, who wrote in 1766, also speaks about the erection of a cradle at the place. It was for the first time, he said that the temple was destroyed either by Babur or Aurangzeb.Q: What is the third aspect of the Ayodhya issue?A: The third and last aspect is the social issue. Ram Temple at Ayodhya is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims.For Muslims, it is neither associated with Prophet Mohammed nor with any of his prominent companions in Islam nor with any Auliya like Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer, Nizamuddin Auliya of Delhi or Salim Chisti of Fatehpur Sikri or any Islamic divine personality.Therefore, Muslims should have willingly handed it over to Hindus.For that, Hindus should also come forward to construct a grand mosque for Muslims, somewhere in Lucknow or wherever they are in the majority.In Ayodhya area, the Muslim population is sporadic. Therefore, there is no point in arguing for a mosque in that area.If Muslims had shown willingness on their part, many of the problems that they facing might have been automatically solved. That would have generated goodwill among Hindus also.Muslims were ready for this. But these Marxist historians led by Irfan Habib created the problem. It is they who told the Muslim community that they have excavated the place and they did not get anything by which they could say that they there was a temple beneath the mosque.And none of these people except one or two were archaeologists.They were all simple historians. They were not technically qualified to be archaeologists. They had no excavation experience also. They came out in the open with their own ignorance and Muslims were taken for a ride by those people.Muslims were in a cleft stick by these people.Now at least they (Muslims) should show the political maturity to come out of the trap of the Marxist historians. Even now the time has not elapsed. Before the Supreme Court gives its judgment, Muslims should hand over the place to Hindus and create an example. That is my humble request to them.Court verdict after analysis of ASI reportOn October 2010, after sifting through all the evidence placed before it, the Allahabad High Court, in an order that ran into over 8,000 pages, said that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods are placed in a makeshift temple, belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus.The 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute states that the entire disputed land of area of 2.77 acres be handed over to a trust to build a Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative 5 acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board .The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.linksThe Proof Of Ram Temple At Ayodhya That You May Have Missedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Ayodhya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Ayodhya)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ram-temple-existed-before-babri-mosque-in-ayodhya-archaeologist-kk-muhammed/articleshow/71391712.cms (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ram-temple-existed-before-babri-mosque-in-ayodhya-archaeologist-kk-muhammed/articleshow/71391712.cms)