Jump to content

K. K. Muhammed

Add links
From Wikiquote

Karingamannu Kuzhiyil Muhammed (born 1 July 1952) is an Indian archaeologist. He was the Regional Director (North) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and also served as the Project Archaeological Director in the Aga Khan Trust for Culture from 2013 to 2016.

Quotes

[edit]
  • A team of Left historians in Jawaharlal Nehru University such as Romila Thapar, Bipin Chanra, and S. Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before the nineteenth century and Ayodhya was a Buddhist-Jain centre. Historians such as Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Athar Ali, D.N. Jha, Suraj Bhan, too joined and it became a big grouping. [The Leftist drama] instilled courage and gave false hopes to the BMAC. This resulted in a reversal of the thought process amongst Muslims who had till then, been pondering wholeheartedly about giving back the mosque and setting the matter amicably. They came to a renewed conclusion that the mosque will not be given...
    • K. K. Muhammed, Autobiography [Njan E1111a Blrarati y m1 (I an Indian)], Dr. K.K. Muhammad, in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 1
  • I had written: "I can reiterate this (the existence of a Hindu temple before it was displaced by the Babri mosque) with greater authority - for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-'77 under Prof BB Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the others..." ... By JNU historians, I meant the Leftist historians such as Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, DN Jha, Bipin Chandra and RS Sharma who do not want to see a solution to the Ayodhya issue. Till the Allahabad High Court judgment came out on September 30, 2010, these historians maintained that there was no temple beneath the Babri mosque.
  • Mr. Mahadevan's comments were really an objective analysis of the archaeological data. I can reiterate this with greater authority, for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavation in 1976-77 under Professor Lal...I was at the Hanuman Garhi site, but I have visited the excavation near the Babri Masjid and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the other. ... Ayodhya is as holy to Hindus as Mecca is to Muslims. Muslims should respect the sentiments of their millions of Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Rama temple.
    • K.K. Muhammad (deputy superintending archaeologist), commenting on Iravatham Mahadevan, who held the JNU historians guilty of "political abuse of history". Indian Express. Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (1991). Ayodhya and after: Issues before Hindu society.
  • "The Babri issue, would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia would not fallen prey to the brain washing of these historians".
    • Deccan Chronicle 15 January 2016; in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 1
  • At the site where we got 12 pillars, they found 50 with the base and in 17 rows, indicating the presence of a huge temple. They also found ‘amalaka’ (a notched stone disk that sits on top of Hindu Temple ‘shikhara’) and ‘pranala’ (discharge outlet attached to the wall of a Hindu temple sanctum) and that too ‘magar pranala’ (crocodile-faced), which must be in a temple and not anywhere else. He also found over 263 terracotta idols. Do you expect this in a mosque? Then there was an inscription which clearly says that this temple is dedicated to Mahavishnu who killed Bali and Ravan. Also, in my work, I was the only Muslim… but in Mani’s excavation one fourth of the labourers engaged in earthwork were Muslims deputed to ensure that there was no bias or manipulation. Everything was videographed in the presence of an expert committee comprising independent people like lawyers and magistrates. The truth came out and proved some historians just wanted to complicate the issue. Muslims were ready (to find an amicable solution) and wanted to settle the issue without bloodshed. But a group of historians would not allow that.
  • Talking to Firstpost on his claims made in the book, Muhammed said the the action committee held several meetings under the leadership of Irfan Habib, the then chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research. "The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brain washing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib,RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali," he said.

About

[edit]
  • Given all the drama and moralistic bombast with which they used to surround this controversy, one would have expected their eagerness to report KK Muhammad's eyewitness account. But no, they were extremely sparing in their coverage, reluctant to face an unpleasant fact: the guilt of their heroes, the "eminent historians". These people outsourced the dirty work to Hindu and Muslim streetfighters and to Islamic terrorists, but in fact it is they who have blood on their hands.
[edit]
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=K._K._Muhammed&oldid=3456826"