December 11, 2009.

Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party.

The Report of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, unwittingly and ironically, supports the VHP’s case for a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

In Chapter 15 (Recommendations) , Page 978, Para 176.5, the Commission states: “…..The question whether a structure was a temple or a mosque can only be answered by a scientific study by archaeologists, historians and anthropologists.” This is precisely the VHP’s stated position for the last 25 years.

The Allahabad High Court on VHP’s petition in the year 2002 got extensive investigation done at the disputed site through scientific GPR Survey and archaeological excavations. Vide orders, dated August 01, 2002 and October 23, 2002, the High Court Bench asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out Ground Penetrating Radar Survey/Geo-radiolog y Survey (GPR) of the disputed land, so as to ascertain possibility of proof of remnants of some earlier structure.  In compliance of these orders, the ASI, with the help of Tozo Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. undertook this exercise.

The High Court thereafter suo moto passed a detailed order on March 05, 2003, issuing a commission to ASI to investigate into the matter by excavating the relevant area of the disputed land.  The ASI took about five months  in carrying out the excavation work and thereafter submitted a bulky report in two volumes together with 45 site notebooks, 12 albums containing 329 black & white photographs, 28 albums having coloured photographs, 11 video cassettes, 6 DVD cassettes, registers of pottery, unsealed bones, architectural objects stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual list of 9 boxes containing bones, glazed wares, antiquities, day-to-day registers, antiquity register etc., etc..

In this excavation report (Ayodhya 2002-03, Vol.1 text, Chapter-X, Summary of Results, Page Nos. 268-269, 270, 271 and 272), the ASI states in the last paragraph: “…….Now viewing in totality and taking into account the  archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from 10^th Century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural  members including foliage patterns, Amlaka, Kapotapali, Door Jamb, and semi-circular plaster, broken  octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having Pranala (water chute) in the North, 50 pillar bases in association of a hue structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”

Other observations of the Liberhan Commission too support the VHP case for a Rama temple at the disputed site:

In Chapter No.2 (Ayodhya & its Geography) page No. 23 the Liberhan Report says:

Para 9.1: “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city.”

Para 9.2: “Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks,  travelers, tourists.”

9.3: “Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, Khosla (sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ram Janam Bhoomi.

9.4: “Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”

9.5: “This place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future, this religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after successive rulers had gone by”.

Page 25, Para-10.3: “On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about 2,10,000. It has large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”

Page 26, Para-10.10: “The town is currently inhibited (sic) (means inhabited!) with a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations.”

Page 29, Para 12.1: “There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area: rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”

Page 29, Para 12.2: “Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Pr3eethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kaushalya Bhavan…….”

Paga 32, Para 12.12: “The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction.”

Hence, since the Union Government has accepted the Liberhan Commission Report and this Report, read with the Supreme Court’s 1994 Constitutional Bench judgment in the Farooqui case, that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam but a facilitation center for reading of namaz, hence any government can acquire any mosque for a public purpose and even demolish it,

There are hidden facets to the sorry episode of the Babri Masjid that also implicate others

The Liberhan Report can be excused for its longwinded vacuity as also the time it took to see the light of day. But the more hilarious aspect of the aftermath of the tabling of the report is the manner in which politicians of various persuasions have reacted to it. All of them have come up with their own version of the truth. In Indian politics, truth never prevails, but all that prevails is true.

In a mature democracy, it would have been the norm for the BJP to accept that they participated in a criminal act that vitiated public life and divided people.

Equally so, the Congress ought to have apologised to the country for P. V. Narasimha Rao’s inept handling of the entire situation.

Mulayam Singh ought to have kept silent in Parliament, if only because he was, until recently, extolling the virtues of a certain Kalyan Singh. The Left too ought to have toned down its self- righteous bluster, especially after their cosy understanding with the BJP recently in trying to bring down the UPA government over the issue of the nuclear deal. “ In the congregation of the righteous”, said a poet, “ the sinners are well- disguised: do not seek to count them”.

Opportunity

For the BJP and certain of its leaders, the Liberhan report seems like a godgiven opportunity to revive its ever- dwindling fortunes. Just as their conception of Hindutva is stuck in an imaginary past, so are their political calculations. They hope to revive the irrational mobilisation of the rath yatra and karseva movements, if only to rectify their rockbottom status in the arena of Uttar Pradesh politics.

Even if their hope of a revival on the lines of the Ayodhya movement clashes with pictures of Narendra Modi in denims, they would love to live under the fatal illusion that they have the moral and intellectual wherewithal to merge and resolve all such contradictions.

The spectacle of Rajnath Singh thundering about the existence of a Ram Temple in the past and the assurance of a temple in the future weeks before he is to be given the marching orders by the RSS in favour of a man whose sole claim to fame is building flyovers is all too delicious for the ordinary spectator. After all, flyovers for the BJP are the new temples of their conception of modern India.

In all this, the RSS presents a picture that is a strange mixture of bravado, innocence and lack of contrition. They have been consistent in stating that they have no regrets about the demolition of the Babri Mosque.

But they are equally consistent in saying that a spontaneous surge of karsevaks resulted in the felling of what has been known as the disputed structure. This theory of spontaneity and popular sentiment has served the RSS and the Sangh Parivar well over the years in their systematic attempts at subverting democracy, the rule of law and the Indian Constitution.

One just has to remember the rhetoric at all levels within the Sangh Parivar in justifying the post- Godhra riots and the systematic killing of Muslims to know that this is a familiar tool in their kit of medieval barbarity. The only consolation that the Sangh Parivar has is that even the Congress borrowed the same set of rhetorical devices in order to justify the massacre of innocent Sikhs in 1984 and continues to condone similar acts by not acting on the findings of the Srikrishna Report concerning the 1992- 93 riots in Bombay.

Is there, then, a difference between the Sangh Parivar and the Congress? The difference is a small, but significant one. The Congress condones similar acts of violence for political expediency and does so with cynical impunity. The Sangh Parivar indulges in acts of organised violence in the name of God, Hinduism, cultural pride and with the express purpose of destroying a plurality of the ideas of India.

In keeping the mandirmasjid issue alive, the RSS also has a different agenda. It hopes to alienate Muslims to an extent by which it becomes untenable for them to exist as first- class citizens in India, and, thereby, foist its limited, shortsighted and dangerous idea of a Hindu nation.

Logic

A few examples would suffice. The former RSS sarsanghchalak , K. P Sudarshan, wrote a pamphlet published in 2000 called ‘ Sangh ki saphalta ka rahasya’ ( The Secret of the Sangh’s Success). He writes that when Indira Gandhi visited Afghanistan and wanted to lay a wreath at the tombstone of Babur, the Afghans had to clean the place overnight. The tombstone was in a state of acute disrepair. Sudarshan cites an official in the Prime Minister’s party asking the caretaker of the cemetery about Babur’s tomb and its sorry state.

The caretaker is supposed to have replied that they did not care because Babur was no Afghan.

Sudarshan goes on to say that it is unfortunate that many Indian Muslims still connect themselves to Babur. He goes on to explain how the structure that was demolished was on purpose designated as Babri Mosque, and they created futile anger in the country upon its demolition.

Sudarshan’s amnesia makes him forget that if his story of the Afghan caretaker of the cemetery is a desirable one, then the Sangh ought not to have screamed and shouted as much as it did when the Bamiyan Buddhas were blown away by dynamite sticks. After all, the Buddha was no Afghan either! But Sudarshan’s perverse creativity in rewriting history reaches hitherto unscaled heights when he dismisses the historical veracity of a structure that is a few hundred years old, but argues that the existence of a Ram Temple at the very spot was historically true and incontrovertible.

Irony

But there is one other gem in Sudarshan’s pamphlet.

He quotes a fax sent to Narasimha Rao on 10 December 1992 by a senior leader from Maharashtra.

Sudarshan says that this leader advised Rao not to ban the RSS in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri mosque because Balasaheb Deoras was a friend of the Congress government.

Deoras wanted the government to survive for five years and was not in favour of frequently bringing governments down.

This unnamed Maharashtra leader warns Rao that if the Sangh was banned, a section of the Sangh sympathetic to Rao’s government would turn hostile.

Despite this advice, the Sangh was banned. It would do us all a lot of good if Sudarshan could release the copy of that fax to the Indian people now and expose this senior Maharashtra leader.

But nothing of this sort is likely to happen. The irony is that all those associated with this act of mob violence and vandalism will go scot- free. In the case of L. K. Advani, like the proverbial cat with nine lives, he will probably see a revival in his political fortunes and his political ambitions. In the meantime, the RSS will go on with its business of sullying Indian public life in a manner only it can and has perfected over the years. History, perhaps, will forgive those karsevaks , but it will scarcely condone the likes of Advani for being complicit in the RSS’s agenda of the diminution of what India is all about.

-By Jyotirmaya Sharma
The writer teaches politics in University of Hyderabad
Source: Mail Today , 10 December 2009

——TOP

ttp://sites. google.com/ site/hindunow/ ramajanmabhumi

Updated 12 Dec. 2009

The UPA government led by Sonia Gandhi with spokespersons like P. Chidambaram may get away with their half-truths and avoiding the core issue of Rama Mandiram in Ayodhya, by claiming that the issue of rebuilding Shri Rama Mandiram in Ayodhya is subjudice. Maybe subjudice, but it does not prevent the citizens of India from asserting the evidence about two destroyed Hindu temples by muslim jihadists, an area where the Babari dhaancha was later built.

The evidence marshaled by Dr. BB Lal is emphatic. There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.

It is a travesty of justice that the justice system in Hindusthan is still dithering and not rendering justice to the Hindus who demand the building of Rama Mandiram at Ayodhya. There is no bar in Sharia law to relocate masjids, even assuming that Babari dhaancha was a masjid. Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries do such relocations of masjids on a regular basis.

K.V. Ramesh’s note on Ayodhya Vishnu-Hari temple inscription on a stone slab 115 cms x 55 cms. Read http://www.docstoc. com/docs/19263264/ayodhya1 Appendix from BB Lal’s book (Inscription read by KV Ramesh)

This is Appendix II referred to in Chapter II of BB Lal’s book. The chapter is titled: ‘Was there a temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid?’ Read http://www.docstoc. com/docs/19263282/ayodhya2 Chapter II of BB Lal’s work

His summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in anguish, but in subdued tones: “The evidence presented in the foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary. Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of historians and archaeologists – and others of the same ilk – is that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite of them the truth has revealed itself.”

Arun Shourie devotes a complete chapter to DN Jha, one historian of this category of historians. Read http://www.docstoc. com/docs/19263243/ayodhya3 Arun Shourie on DN Jha

Is it worth the effort to debunk a self-styled historian who says 1. that Lord Indra is ‘rowdy and amoral’; 2. that the God Krishna has a ‘rather questionable personal record.’; 3. that Lord Shiva is just ‘a development of phallic cults.’; 4. that bhakti is just the reflection of ‘the complete dependence of the serfs or tenants on the landowners in the context of Indian feudal society’. This Marxian view of history lead historians of the ilk of DN Jha to a pathetic, perverted state requiring only psychiatric help. Anyway, Arun Shourie has demolished the bogus interpretative frauds perpetrated by DN Jha in the name of history.

Sitaram Goel has analysed the state of communists writing Indian history.

The following extracts from Arun Shorie’s and Sitaram Goel’s books speak for themselves and expose the historian ilk of the DN Jha type:

EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK: “EMINENT HISTORIANS: THEIR TECHNOLOGY, THEIR LINE, THEIR FRAUD ” – ARUN SHOURIE – RUPA & CO

THE DOUBLE SPEAK ON THE “INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH” (ICHR)

INTRODUCTION

1.     “In JUN-JUL, 1998, progressives kicked up quite a racket. The government  has packed the ICHR with pro-Ram-Mandir historians, they shouted. It has surreptitiously altered the aims and objectives of the Council, they shouted.” AS IS THEIR WONT,THEY SPARKED THE COMMOTION BY GIVING WIND TO A CONCOTION. As is their wont too, THEY WERE CHARGING OTHERS WITH ‘planning’ to do in‘some undefined future’what they had themselves been actually doing for decades- that is WRITE HISTORY TO A PURPOSE”

2.   “The commotion led me(ARUN SHOURIE) to look into their record-to look at what they had made of an institution like the ICHR, and to read textbooks they had authored. They have used them to have a COMFORTABLE TIME, of course. They have used them to puff up each other’s reputations, of course. But the worst of it is that they used THEIR CONTROL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS TO PERVERT PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND THEREBY DERAIL PUBLIC POLICY.”

3.   “ They have made out India to have been AN EMPTY LAND- filled by successive invaders. They have made present-dayIndia, AND HINDUISM more so, OUT TO BE A ZOO- AN AGGLOMERATION OF ASSORTED DISPARATE SPECIMENS. NO SUCH THING AS ‘INDIA’, just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British, NO SUCH THING AS HINDUISM,just a word used by the Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the COMMUNALISTS to impose a uniformity- THAT HAS BEEN THEIR STANCE. For this they have BLACKENED THE HINDU PERIOD OF OUR HISTORY, AND, STRAINED TOWHITEWASH THE ISLAMIC PERIOD.They have denounced ancient India’s social system as the epitomy of oppression, and MADE TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGIES OUT TO BE EGALITARIAN AND JUST. They have belittled OUR ANCIENT CULTURE AND EXAGGERATED SYNCRETISTIC ELEMENTS  which survived and made them out to have beenAN ENTIRE CULTURE, THE COMPOSITE CULTURE, as THEY CALL IT. AND ALL THE WHILE THEY HAVE TAKEN CARE TO HIDE THE CENTRAL FACTS ABOUT THESE COMMON ELEMENTS IN THE LIFE OF OUR PEOPLE: THAT THEY HAVE SURVIVED IN SPITE OF THE MOST STRENUOUS EFFORTS SPREAD OVER A THOUSAND YEARS OF ISLAMIC RULERS AND THE ULEMA TO ERASE THEM, THAT THEY HAVE SURVIVED IN SPITE OF SUSTAINED EFFORTS DURING THE LAST ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF MISSIONARIES AND BRITISH RULERS TO MAKE US FORGET AND SHED THESE ELEMENTS, THAT THESE ELEMENTS HAD SURVIVED THEIR EFFORTS TO INSTEAD INFLAME EACH SECTION TO SEE ITS ‘IDENTITY’ AND ESSENCE IN FACTORS WHICH, IF INTERNALISED, WOULD SET IT APART. Most of all, these INTELLECTUALS AND THE LIKE have completely diverted public view from the activities in our day of organizations likeTABHLIGI JAMAAT and the CHURCH which are exerting every nerve, and deploying unaccounted resources to get their adherents to discard every practice and belief WHICH THEY SHARE WITH THEIR HINDU NEIGHBOURS.”

4.     “ These intellectuals and their patrons have worked a DIABOLIC INVERSION: the inclusive religion, the pluralist spiritual search of our people and land, they have projected as INTOLERANT, NARROW-MINDED AND OBSCURANTIST; and THE EXCLUSIVIST, TOTALITARIAN, REVELATORY RELIGIONS AND IDEOLOGIES- ISLAM, CHRISTIANITY AND MARXISM-LENINISM-THEY HAVE MADE OUT TO BE THE EPITOMES OF TOLERANCE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, DEMOCRACY, SECULARISM!” THAT,IS THEIR CRIME!

THE DOUBLE-SPEAK ON ICHR

AND

THE MEDIA SPIN

THE OLD AND NEW PALL-BEARERS

5.     “ ‘RATIONAL vs NATIONAL’, screamed the headline of the new pall – bearer of secularism, the magazine OUTLOOK. Fresh evidence available with OUTLOOK reveals that NOT ONLY has the ICHR beenpacked with sympathizers, the story announced, but a new statement of objectives or resolution has been added, changing certain key words from the original Memorandum of Association of 1972, legitimized by an Act of Parliament. While the original Memorandum of Association states that ICHR’s aims would be to give ‘rational’( please MARK this word, as it assumes importance as this narrative progresses)direction to historical research and foster ‘ an objective and scientific writing of history’, the new resolution, which will be included in theGAZETTE of INDIA, states that ICHR now seeks to give a ‘national’( please mark this word also!)direction to an ‘objective and national presentation of history’. So, ‘RATIONAL’ has been CHANGED TO ‘ NATIONAL’, and ‘SCIENTIFIC’ too has been CHANGED TO ‘NATIONAL’—-.” (MY COMMENT: WELL DONE MR. (SECULAR) VINOD MEHTA)

6.     “ ‘TAMPERING WITH HISTORY’, proclaimed theold pall – bearer, THE HINDU.

‘ Apprehensions of this kind ( that the fabled SANGH PARIVAR is out to rewrite history) have been substantiated by a related decision. The resolution by the Ministry of Human Resources Development- nodal Ministry under which the ICHR comes- that details new nominations carries with it an amendment to the Memorandum of Association by which the ICHR was set up; while the institution was set up ‘ to foster objective and scientific writing of history such as will inculcate an informed appreciation of the country’s national and cultural heritage’, the new Government’s mandate is that ICHR will give a ‘NATIONAL DIRECTION’ to an ‘OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’. This amendment is certainly NOT JUST A MATTER OF SEMANTICS. Instead, one can clearly see in this AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE BJP-LED GOVERNMENT TO REWRITE HISTORY’—-.( MY COMMENT:THUS SPOKE MOUNT ROAD MAHA VISHNU!! AS THIS NARRATIVE PROGRESSES THE READER WILL CLEARLY SEE THE ‘FRAUD’ PERPETRATED ON THE CITIZENS BY THE SECULAR ENGLISH MEDIA!! THE 21^STCENTURY ‘PALL-BEARERS’ OF SECULARISM!! )

7.     “ The next issue of the CPI (M) mouthpiece PEOPLE’SDEMOCRACY , reproduced this editorial! (MY COMMENT: of THE HINDU- ANY WONDER THEN DR. KOENRAAD ELST CALLS THE HINDU-A COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER AND THE FRONTLINE A MARXIST PUBLICATION! !) And carried with it an Article by ONE OF THE RING LEADERS, K. N. PANIKKAR. ‘SAFFRONISATION of HISTORICAL RESEARCH’, proclaimed the heading. Panikkar repeated the charge of the word ‘RATIONAL’ having been replaced by ‘NATIONAL’. He added another: the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR mentions five objectives, he said, but the RESOLUTION PUT OUT BY THE SAFFRON BRIGADE MENTIONS ONLY TWO.” (MY COMMENT: PLEASE NOTE THIS ALSO- 5 BECOMES 2!!)

8.     SUMMARY OF THE ‘SECULAR’ CHARGE SHEET!! “ Thus

the charge rested on three bits of ‘evidence’: that the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR had BEEN CHANGED; SECOND- that a WORD- ‘RATIONAL’- in the Resolution announcing the new members of the ICHR had been SURREPTITIOUSLY replaced by another WORD-‘ NATIONAL’; THIRD- that while the original Memorandum of Association had specified five objectives for the ICHR, the new Resolution CUT OUT THREE of these.” (MY COMMENT: THE GREAT INDIAN ROPE TRICK-FIVE TO THREE!!)

SHOURIE’S INVESTIGATION.

9.     “ Having been educated by THE HINDU that the ‘nodal ministry’ for the matter was the Ministry of Human Resources Development, I (SHOURIE) rang up the SECRETARY of that Ministry. Has the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR been changed?, I asked.NO, he said. IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, he said.”

10.  And what of the WHODUNIT MYSTERY- RATIONAL BEING CHANGED TO NATIONAL?!! SHOURIE writes. “ I have before me the statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development ( NO: F-30-28/86-U3) Dated 06 OCTOBER 1987, THAT IS ELEVEN YEARS AGO. It gives the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib is being appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 09 SEPTEMBER 1986. The corresponding expression in it is, ‘ TO GIVE A ‘NATIONAL’ DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’( MY COMMENT: AND WHAT DID THE OLD AND NEW PALL BEARERS WRITE ABOVE? THE SECULAR FRAUDS!!) AGAIN. “ I (SHOURIE) have before me the statement of the Ministry of Human Resources Development ( NO: F-30-13/89-U3) dated 15 MAY 1991. It gives the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that Irfan Habib is being re-appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 12 MARCH 1990. The corresponding expression in it is, ‘ TO GIVE A NATIONAL DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’. To test my hypothesis yet again, I looked for and obtained the immediately preceding statement of the Ministry. It bore the number F-30-3/94-U3 dated 08 SEPTEMBER 1994. Like the others, it furnished the text of the Resolution of the Government of India announcing the new members- announcing, among other things, that RAVINDER KUMAR, another ‘historian’ of the SAME HUE, was being appointed as Chairman with retrospective effect from 08 SEPTEMBER 1990. The corresponding expression in it was, ‘ TO GIVE A NATIONAL DIRECTION TO AN OBJECTIVE AND NATIONAL PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY’ (MY COMMENT: WHAT AN HONEST AND A ‘SECULAR’ ENGLISH MEDIA WE ARE BLESSED WITH!!)

11.  On a request from ARUN SHOURIE, the Secretary in theUnion Ministry of Human Resources Development, traced the RESOLUTIONS of the EARLIER YEARS-UPTO 1978. AND-EACH OF THEM CARRIED THE SAME WORDS!! (MY COMMENT: THE ‘COMMIES’ ARE INVETERATE ‘LIARS’. THAT’S THE LESSON TO BE LEARNT. I LEARNT IT MANY YEARS AGO IN THE ERSTWHILE U.S.S.R.)

12.  THE CAUSE OF THE ERROR. “ The research of the Secretary and his colleagues established that- to reproduce the word of the Secretary used- the whole mystery had arisen from a

‘ TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR’: some typist banging away on his typewriter some TWENTY YEARS AGO typed ‘RATIONAL’ as ‘NATIONAL’! As each typist, when asked to type the subsequent Resolution,COPIED THE PRECEDING ONE, THAT WORD CONTINUED TO BE TYPED AS ‘NATIONAL’ YEAR AFTER YEAR!! THE LEFTISTS INFERRED NO CONSPIRACY. But lo and behold, now that a BJP Government was in power, inferring conspiracies- to use their favourite phrase- WAS A HISTORICAL NECESSITY. IT WAS OBJECTIVE HISTORY! IT WAS PROGRESSIVE METHODOLOGY! !

13.  THE RESPONSE OF OUR ‘SECULAR’ AND HONEST(?)

EDITORS.!! “ I (SHOURIE) rang UP Vinod Mehta, the Editor of OUTLOOK and PRESIDENT OF THE EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA. ‘ But the reporter says she has the text and everything,’ he said. I narrated what I had found. He promised to check and get back to me. When we talked again he said he had sent me the text of the Resolution. BUT THAT WAS THE CURRENT ONE. My point had been that the ‘change’ on which OUTLOOKhad built its story had existedin all the Resolutions for at least TWENTY YEARS. HE SAID HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME. HE NEVER DID. NOR DID THE SENIOR JOURNALISTS OF TWO OTHER PUBLICATIONS THAT HAD BUILT THEIR STORIES ON THE FABRICATION, AND WHO, AFTER I REQUESTED THEM TO ASCERTAIN THE BASIS OF THEIR ACCOUNTS, HAD PROMISED TO GET BACK TO ME.”( MY COMMENT: THE SECULARISTS LIE THROUGH EVERY PORE IN THEIR ANATOMY!!)

14. AND WHAT OF ‘FIVE’ BECOMING ‘TWO’? “ The exact same thing held for THE FABRICATION of K.N. PANIKKAR: about five objectives having become two. In every single one of the Resolutions- including the 1994 Resolution under which PANIKKAR had himself been nominated to the ICHR, a Resolution he can find printed at page 32 of the GAZETTE of INDIA, 22 OCTOBER 1994, THE EXACT SAME SENTENCES HAD BEEN USED: ONLY THOSE OBJECTIVES HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS WERE MENTIONED IN THE RESOLUTION ISSUED IN 1998!!! And another thing: If an RSS publication publishes even an interview with me (SHOURIE), that is further proof of my being COMMUNAL; but so tough are the hymen of these progressives that, even when they contribute signed Articles to publications of the Communist Party, THEIR VIRGINITY REMAINS INTACT.”

THE OTHER CHARGE- ICHR PACKED WITH ‘RAM BAKHTS’!!

15. “ The associated charge, repeated in the OUTLOOK and all the other publications, was that historians who had now been nominated to the ICHR were the ones that supported the proposition that there had been a Ram-temple at Ayodhya before it was replaced by the Babri Mosque. Assume that the charge was entirely correct. What about the members who had NOT BEEN RE-NOMINATED? THEY WERE THE INTELLECTUAL GUIDES AND PROPAGANDISTS OF THE BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE. Not only were these ‘historians’ the advisers of the BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE, its advocates in the negotiations, they simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the BABRI MASJID ACTION COMMITTEE’S case-WHICH WAS THE CASE THEY HAD THEMSELVES PREPARED! A well- practiced technique, if I may say so: THEY ARE FROM A SCHOOL IN WHICH MEMBERS HAVE MADE EACH OTHER FAMOUS BY APPLAUDING EACH OTHERS BOOKS AND ‘THESES’!!( MY COMMENT: A CLASSIC CASE OF ‘YOU SCRATCH MY BACK- I SCRATCH YOURS!!)

16.  “And these very ‘historians’ are ‘cited’ as witnesses in the pleadings filed by the SUNNI WAQF BOARD in the courts which are considering the Ayodhya matter!!!

- Witness number 63:  R.S. SHARMA.

-          Witness number 64: Suraj Bhan

-          Witness number 65: D,N. Jha

-          Witness number 66: Romila Thapar

-          Witness number 67: Athar Ali (since deceased)

-          Witness number70: Irfan Habib (ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY)

-          Witness number 71: Shireen Moosvi ( also AMU)

-          Witness number 72: B.N Pandey (since deceased)

-          Witness number 74: R.L. Shukla

-          Witness number 82: Sushil Srivastava

-          Witness number 95: K.M. Shrimali

-          Witness number 96: Suveera Jayaswal

-          Witness number 99: Satish Chandra

-          Witness number 101: Sumit Sarkar

-          Witness number 102: Gyanendra Pandey

17. “ Their deceitful role in Ayodhya- which in the end harmed their clients more than anyone else- was just symptomatic. FOR FIFTY YEARS THIS BUNCH HAS BEEN SUPPRESSING FACTS AND ‘INVENTING LIES’. How concerned they pretend to be today about the objective of the ICHR- to promote objective and rational research into events of our past! The capture of institutions like the ICHR has been bad enough, but in the end it has been a device. The major CRIME of these ‘historians’ has been this partisanship: SUPPRESSO VERI, SUGGESTO FALSI.”

CONCLUSION

18. “ But these are not just partisan ‘historians’. THEY ARE NEPOTISTS OF THE FIRST ORDER. I had documented several years ago the doings of some of them in regard to appointments in the ALIGARHMUSLIM UNIVERSITY.THEIR DOINGS IN THE ICHR WERE TRUE TO PATTERN.How is it that over twenty-five years persons from their school alone had been nominated to the ICHR? How come Romila Thapar had been on the Council four times? ( MY COMMENT: ‘COMRADE HARKISHEN SURJEET, IN HIS LATEST MISSIVE IN THE ‘PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY’, THE ONE THAT GAVE ANUPAM KHER THE ‘BOOT’. WANTS ROMILA THAPER BACK AT THE ICHR!!) Irfan Habib five times? Satish Chandra four times? S. Gopal three times?- – - The same pattern held for the post of the Chairman.”

19.   And what was their response when their ‘fabrication’ was ‘nailed’? “ As unlike Shourie, who, a resident of Delhi, is a BJP M.P. from U.P.( MY COMMENT: SO WHAT? MANMOHAN SINGH IS AN M.P. FROM ASSAM!!) I am not a Member of Parliament, wrote their spokesman, Panikkar, ‘I HAVE NO MEANS TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE MNISTRY’ whether WHAT SHOURIE HAS WRITTEN IS TRUE!!!!!”( MY COMMENT: IF I AM A ‘COMMIE’- I HAVE UNTRAMELLED RIGHTS TO ‘LIE’ AND IT WILL BE CARRIED BY THE ‘SECULAR ENGLISH MEDIA’ FAITHFULLY!! BUT WHEN SHOURIE ‘NAILS’ ME I CANNOT ASCERTAIN HIS TRUTHFULLNESS! ! ONLY THE ‘COMMIES’ ARE VESTED WITH SUCH A CONVOLUTED THOUGHT PROCESS!! REMEMBER THEIR PERFIDY IN ‘THE ONLY FATHERLAND’?)

20.  “ A much favoured device: when caught peddling a ‘lie’, insinuate the other man is privileged!! And that, as you from the ‘toiling masses’, you cannot ascertain whether the facts he has stated are true. THEREFORE, WHAT YOU STATED MUST STAND AS FACT. Q.E.D.!!!!”   (TO BE CONTINUED)

EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK: “PERVERSION OF INDIA’S POLITICAL PARLANCE” – SITA RAM GOEL – VOICE OF INDIA

“ THE LANGUAGE OF COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM.’

1.     “ The language of ‘COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM’ started trickling into Indiasoon after the BOLSHEVIKS seized power in Russia in November 1917. ‘LEADING WESTERN SCHOLARS LIKE BERTRAND RUSSELL HAVE IDENTIFIED COMMUNISM AS A CHRISTIAN HERESY’. SMALL WONDER THEN THAT THE LANGUAGE OF ‘COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM’ IS THE SAME AS THAT OF ‘CHRISTIAN IMPERIALISM’,EXCEPT FOR THE Marxist trappings in which Lenin has disguised it. This becomes obvious when we contemplate the following features:

-         FORCES OF PRODUCTION, MATURING IN THE WOMB OF HISTORY, FOUND A MATCHLESS MIDWIFE IN COMRADE LENIN, AND A FIELD FOR THEIR FULLEST FREE-PLAY IN SOVIET RUSSIA AFTER THE REVOLUTION IN 1917.

-         HISTORY, WHICH HAD SO FAR BEEN A ‘HISTORY OF CLASS OPPRESSION’ AND ‘CLASS STRUGGLE’, NOW TOOK A ‘DECISIVE TURN TOWARDS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY’.

-         The whole world includingIndia became a battle-ground between ‘FORCES OF FUEDAL AND CAPITALIST REACTION’on the one hand, and, ‘FORCES OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION’ on the other.

-         The ‘PROLETARIAT’ in every country, including India, became part of an ‘INTERNATIONALE’ COMARADERIE’ WHICH AHD NO USE FOR ‘NATIONALISM’ IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM. (MY COMMENT: I had received on the NET from another e-group a disturbing message in the recent past. It involves the outcome of a debate in the J.N.U. The subject of the debate was “CHINA IS WRONG IN DEPICTING PARTS OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AS ITS TERRITORY”. THE MOTION WAS ‘DEFEATED’ THANKS TO THE STUDENTS FEDERATION OF INDIA (SFI) A COMMUNIST STUDENTS UNION VOTING EN-MASSE AGAINST THE ‘MOTION’. DIDN’T OUR COMRADES DO THE SAME DURING 1962?)

-         History has mandated the whole earth, including India, to the ‘COMMUNIST INTERNATIONALE’, THE VANGUARD OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAT, AND IT WAS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT INTERNATIONALE’ TO PROMOTE A PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION IN EVERY COUNTRY.

-         The victory of the INTERNATIONALE’ was inevitable, and its sections in different countries should endeavour to expedite the end.

-         History had pronounced as outmoded all existing political, social, cultural and economic institutions in India, and the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, a section of the COMMUNIST INTERNATIONALE’, SHOULD SMASH THEM SO THAT THE LAST VESTIGES OF FUEDALISM, CAPITALISM AND COLONIALISM WERE WIPED OUT.

-         THE FEUDAL LORDS AND CAPITALISTS IN INDIA HAD CONSPIRED WITH BRITISH IMPERIALISM IN ORDER TO KEEP THE INDIAN PEOPLE ENSLAVED, AND THEY DESERVED TO BE DESTROYED TOGETHER WITH THEIR POLITICAL CONSPIRACY, – ‘THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS’.

2.     “ This is not the place to tell how the CPI has functioned as a fifth-

column of Soviet Russia for nearly sixty seven years. ( FOOTNOTE: The author writes ‘ THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1984. SINCE THEN THE SOVIET UNION HAS COLLAPSED). What is relevant in the present context is that, although the COMMUNISTS have failed to consolidate any substantial political base beyond West Bengal and Kerala, the spread of the language of COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM has been phenomenal . By now, this language has become the standard language of ‘SECULARISM IN INDIA’, whatever be the names by which various political parties and factions describe themselves.”

3.      “ What is still more significant, the language of COMMUNIST

IMPERIALISM operates in close cooperation with the languages of Islamic, Christian and Western imperialism and has succeeded, for the time being, in silencing or putting on the defensive whatever is still left of the language of INDIAN NATIONALISM. This becomes crystal clear when we examine the history and role of the LEFTIST LANGUAGE EVER SINCE IT INVADED India in the early 1920’s.”

12 Dec. 2009

The Liberhan report was tabled in the Parliament and was subjected to great debate. Primarily, it was the Congress led UPA trying to do the mud slinging act against its arch rival BJP. Although the entire nation has the common sense to figure out that the BJP was indeed involved in bringing down of the structure, the Congress too isn’t completely innocent. One does get the feeling that although the Congress tries to portray itself as a custodian of secularism, it has maintained silence on many an occasion where it could have acted upon to control communal violence in the country even before the Babri episode. All said and done, who was the ruling party at the Centre when the mosque was razed? It was the Congress. No matter what the party says today, the truth remains that it could have and should have stopped what went down in the history of Independent India as one of the darkest chapters of intolerance.

Arun Jaitly is easily the most erudite speaker BJP has. Here is the speech he made at Rajya Sabha yesterday during a debate on the ‘Leaked’ first subsequently ‘reluctantly tabled’ in Parliament. Courtesy this site.

As for my response, shall blog soon after. Enjoy this speech mean while.

PI.

Shri Arun Jaitly On Liberhan Commission Report on Dec. 9/2009 in Rajya Sabha.

The Justice Liberhan Commission of Inquiry has now admittedly proved to be an exercise in futility. The title suit with regard to the disputed structure is pending before the Allahabad High Court. The criminal trials with regard to the purported incidents of 6th December, 1992 are pending before the Special Judge, Lucknow and Faizabad. The civil trial will decide the title issues and the criminal trial will address the culpability, if any. The Liberhan Commission was appointed by a Government in panic. This report, as is apparent from the Action Taken Report, is unimplementable. Several questions arise in the context of this report.

1) Why did it take 17 years for a Commission of Inquiry to formulate its recommendations and findings? Did the retired judge use the opportunity of heading this Commission to perpetuate his self-employment?
2) The manner and the leak of the report is as dubious as the report itself. The Home Minister says solemnly before the House that he or his Ministry did not leak the report. As the only other copies of the report are available either with the Judge or with de-facto drafts person of the report, the source of the leak has to be investigated.
3) Is the Report, as is apparent from the ATR, an unimplementable document? An analysis of the ATR reveals that except for lauding the political opinion expressed by the judge and agreeing with him, the other recommendations only relate to a proposal to legislate the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, a subject over which the Central Government has no power to legislate or refer the matters to appropriate authorities like the UPSC, Election Commission and other statutory authorities.

Who has drafted the report ?

The report is hardly a document capable of being drafted by a retired High Court judge. The language is not judicial. The judge has unquestionably entered the political thicket. He has expressed an opinion on a variety of political subjects completely outside the Terms of Reference and outside the scope of a judicial training. The apprehension that the report is drafted by a person other than the judge himself is strengthened by the observation at page 999 where the judge thanks one Shri Harpreet Singh Giani and credits him in helping the judge in (a) analyzing the evidence (b) coming to conclusions (c) editing the report (d) adding and modifying the language (e) adding and modifying the ideas and (f) clearing the mess created by others.

Admittedly, it was Shri Giani who has analyzed the evidence, come to conclusions, edited the report, modified the language, added and modified the ideas. The judge seems only to have done the rest, if anything remained. The Liberhan – Giani report is the first Example of ‘Judgment Outsourcing’.

Does the report conclusively answer the key questions referred to the Commission ?

A Commission of Inquiry has to give a finding on basis of evidence. There has to be a link between the evidence produced and the conclusions reached. The learned judge admits in the report that there was no evidence of conspiracy or pre-planning lead by any party. (Refer page 15 para 7.4)

“No evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or preplanning or the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels”.

Page 775 para 130.5 –

“No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of this manner, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of planning of demolition available.”

Page 782 para 130.2

”Home Secretary, Godbole stated that there was no information of planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a conspiracy of the Congress and BJP for demolition; this could not be accepted on the face of it particularly in the absence of any specific circumstances leading to such an inference.”

Page 992 para 178.34

“Neither the police nor the investigation team of the commission, despite the prolonged process, were able to identify any witness, nor produced any witness who could identify any of the demolishers, or lead any other evidence against suspects. Suspects were not even identified. Even after the unprecedented publicity throughout the long spell of inquiry nobody has come forward to advance the case or identify persons who physically carried out the demolition or the ones who plotted its demolition.”

Page 724 para 121.7

“In totality, it becomes obvious that some leaders were consciously kept out of the operational area or planning in order to protect them and preserve their secular credentials for later political use”.

After coming to this conclusion the judge fails to identify the leaders who were unaware of the design of the so-called planners. And still the judge goes on to blame the entire leadership of BJP and RSS for being aware and privy to the conspiracy.

At page 994 para 178.37 the Commission observes that “Important leaders of political parties, icons of movements, organizers of the movement continuously issued statements from time to time in relation to the conspiracy of demolition but no affidavit was filed before the Commission by them.”

In the White Paper published by the Govt. of India in 1993, which was placed before the Commission there was not even an averment of pre-planning or conspiracy involving senior leaders or organizations.

It is a settled law that the level of proof a Commission of Inquiry has to accept in fixing culpability has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In a case of no evidence, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the demolition was pre-planned and has named a large number of people, including those who were in no way connected with the incident of 6th December, 1992.

I am constrained to say that this Commission is a text book illustration of what a Commission should not be. A Junior judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is picked up to head the Commission. The only credentials of the judge at the time of his appointment was his proximity to the then Law Minister. It has frequently been said that there are two categories of judges – “those who know the law and those who know the Law Minister” This judge fell in the latter category. His knowledge of the Queen’s language was somewhat limited. He therefore needed the ghost writer to analyse the evidence, come to conclusions, modify the language and ideas. He used the 17 years tenure of the Commission to perpetuate an employment for himself. He probably wanted to use the conclusions and findings as an application for future employment. The report of the Commission would itself demonstrate that this truth investigator had turned into a political pundit.

Does this Report go beyond its terms and errs on basic facts?

The Liberhan Commission is a compilation of howlers and mistakes as is evident from the following :

1) Page 282 of the Report gives a compilation of 8 names of leaders of Ayodhya movement whom no role could be attributed to except participating in negotiations. The list includes two alleged supporters of the movement who are well known historians viz. Prof. R.S. Sharma and Prof. D. N. Jha. Both are Left leaning historians who presented the case of Babri Masjid Action Committee in the dialogue. The list of those who participated in the movement (P 270) includes Additional DGP Intelligence, Col. B.S. Zaidi (BMAC representative) Devraha Baba, Jagdambika Pal etc. Read the absurd list of Muslim Leaders on Page 279. This will only prove that the report suffers from factual hallucinations. The Commission also gets the date of Gandhiji’s assassination wrong (page 69). He even regards Veer Savarkar as the founder of the RSS and Dr. Hedgewar as his successor (page 562)

2) On page 566 the Commission in para 85.14 goes beyond the scope of inquiry and accuses – “Shri Din Dayal Upadhyay impliedly and by his conduct agreed with MA Jinnah’s theory that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations”. He then quotes from Deen Dayal Upadhyay to the effect that “Muslims are not a minority community; they are a nation. They must have their independent land and their own State.” He therefore compares the BJP philosophy to that of Mr. Jinnah. This subject matter was privately obtained by the Commission. The fundamental mistake he made was that the entire paragraph was never said by Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyay. This is a quote from M.A. Jinnah which he puts in the mouth of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and then compares his philosophy with that of Jinnah. This is precisely what happens to a judge with no understanding of politics who tries to don the role of a political pundit.

3) The judge has a strong bias on certain issues. On page 556 he indicts political leadership for greed. “for their individual aggrandizement through repression, misguidance, acquiring power through mass means and improper reliance on philosophies such as Hindutva, Mandal, son of soil etc.”

4) The bias of the judge is further apparent in his recommendations where on page 970 para 173.8 and 173.9 he calls for a review of the recruitment procedure of the bureaucracy. He wants only excellence in certain areas to be a criteria for recruitment. He wants the postings to be done only on merit and not on casteist or regional basis. Who authorized this judge to carry on a tirade against social justice and Mandal Commission which has been unanimously accepted in this country? The Government has done a dis-service to this nation by mentioning in its ATR that the UPSC is examining changes in the recruitment process of officers and this recommendation was also communicated to the UPSC.

5) The Commission uses the report to indict the entire leadership of this country. –

Pg 540 paras 79.3, 79.4 and para 79.5

“The loss of political neutrality and the convenience with which justification can be found for every action has rendered all objectives of peaceful civilized society as enunciated by intellectuals, leaders, philosophers, thinkers since ancient times, obliterated…..

The law – common or constitutional, morals, ethics, epics and everything else is being examined in the scales of politically desirable results. It is immaterial whether those results are legitimate or healthy for democratic governance. Every one is out to become politician rather than a statesman.

The politician has become the epitome of the proverbial rags-to-riches story.

The common Indian has formed the firm belief already that the ills that face us can be traced to the political leadership and can be cured by a voluntary reform in the political parties and their leadership itself.”

On Gulzari Lal Nanda and Devraha Baba

The judge chooses to condemn whoever he desires to and that too without evidence. There is no mention of the former Prime Minister, Shri Gulzari Lal Nanda in evidence. Yet the judge choses to refer to him by saying –“Prof. Rajinder Singh, RSS leader, Dau Dayal Khanna, Gulzari Lal Nanda, the die-hard Hindus, in connivance with people with similar thoughts, started conceiving and exploiting the local dispute at a national level, may be for their selfish political needs or for achieving their old theory of Hindu Rashtra.” (Page 336) The Commission has no concern for truth. He is willing to go by giving irresponsible statements. On page 427 para 69.22 he says “open threats by exhorting the dacoits to take to arms for Ram temple were made by Ashok Singhal, Devrah Baba, Harish bhai etc.” The Judge fixes responsibility on Devrah baba for leading the country to communal discord on page 958and 959. This is notwithstanding the fact that Devrah Baba, a highly revered person had died in the year 1990, much prior to the alleged incident.

The report makes an interesting fairy tale. The Commission indicts the District Judge of Faizbad for directing the opening of the locks of the disputed site in 1986 (page 87). The Commission is convinced that the judge was inspired by a monkey to pass the judicial order since the monkey always accompanied Mr. Pandey, the District Judge of Faizabad.

The Evidence against Mr. L.K. Advani

The key question was that whether Mr. L.K. Advani and other senior BJP leaders made repeated requests to a small section of Kar Sewaks who had climbed up to the disputed structures, not to demolish it and come down. The Commission considers these appeals made by Shri L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vijay Raje Scindia HV Sheshadari etc. (page 255) as having been made either in earnest or for media’s benefit. The Commission contrives a curious logic that an appeal was made to the kar sewaks to come down from the domes but no appeal was made not to enter the Garb Grih. Therefore the hidden intention was to demolish the structure. The judge conveniently forgets the evidence given to the CBI in relation to the charge sheet by a lady IPS officer deputed as Mr. L.K. Advani’s PSO that he requested Uma Bharati to go to the structure to persuade the kar sewaks to come down. In fact Shri Advani insisted on going himself but could not go because the security officers including the PSO refused to take him there in order to avoid a possible conflict with the kar sewaks who had climbed on to the dome. Voluminous evidence of witnesses who have testified to the same effect of the appeals of senior leaders has been completely ignored by the Commission. While ignoring this evidence of the Lady Officer on page 507 with regard to another questions he says – “There is no reason to disbelieve her on these facts since as the security officer attached to LK Advani she had unrestricted access to all the happenings…..”

Did the Commission have a bias against the temple being built at the Ram Janamasthan ?

The Commission at page 23 of the report accepts Ayodhya as the birth place of the Hindu god Ram and therefore a holy city. He accepts at page 63 that – “yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934”. He does not contest the finding of 1885 by a British judge FEA Chalmers in a civil appeal “It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on a land sacredly held by hindus and as that occurred 356 years ago it is too late to remedy the grievance. (Page 97) “The judge accepts on page 561 that “the history books produced before Commission as well as the White Paper issued by the Govt.of India and BJP and also contentions by various counsels are unanimous that in 1528, the Emperor Babar ordered Mir Baqi, his Commander to erect a mosque at Ayodhya.” And yet his bias is apparent at page 547 where he says – “The demand for construction of the temple deprived the Hindu religion of its secular, multi-religious and multicultural credentials of the well reputed Hindu philosophy and the thoughts generally prevalent.” The judge ostensibly makes this entire narration of circumstances as leading up to 6th December, 1992. If admittedly Ayodhya is perceived to be the birth place of Lord Ram, if Mir Baqi converted the temple into a mosque, if for over 500 years a struggle for a temple was on, how could the demand for restoration of temple be anti- secular and the demand for maintaining forcible occupation of a mosque be secular. It is precisely this perversion in the concept of secularism that the Ayodhya movement was aimed at exposing. The truth investigator turned political pundit suffered from the same perversion.

Malafide error relating to Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee

The Commission was more loyal than the king. The Commission has committed a fundamental error in relation to its finding with regard to Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Little did the Commission realize that Shri Vajpayee is a tall national leader of proven credibility. The Commission of Inquiry Act in section 8B clearly mentions that if the Commission is of the opinion that the conduct of a person is required to be inquired into or that his reputation is likely to be affected, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Commission on page 958 gives a list of persons including Shri Vajpayee and Shri Devrah Baba who are culpable for creating communal discord. There are at least 30 people out of 68 to whom admittedly no notice was given under section 8B. While the Commission on page 942 states that leaders like LK Advani, Shri A.B. Vajpayee and Shri Murli Manohar Joshi would have known the designs of the Sangh parivar, they are pseudo moderates. Obviously in trying to indict Mr. Vajpayee the Commission went for an overkill little realizing that Mr. Vajpayee had a high credibility. In that process the Commission shot itself in the foot and hurt its own credibility. Was it any part of the Commission’s job to find a political response to the BJP’s use of Phrase ‘pseudo Secular’? It is not only in Shri Vajpayee’s case, the commission has chosen to indict several leaders including many of the Muslim community without issuing a Section 8B notice to them. The report in so far as it hurts reputation of people without a Section 8B Notice is non-est.

On the Role of Central Govt.

The Commission was obviously kind to its appointing authority. The burden of its argument is that since the central government did not receive a report from the Governor whose judgement was badly flawed, the Central government was helpless in the matter of invoking Article 356. The Commission did not issue a notice to the Governor. It indicts the Governor but without a notice under section 8B. Shri PV Narasimha Rao authored a book titled ‘Ayodhya 6th December, 1992.’ The book has been published after his demise. At page 170 of the book, Shri Narasimha Rao reproduced the letter/report of the Governor wherein he categorically stated that ‘the possibility of demolition of the structure could not be ruled out.’ Obviously, the Commission wanted to be more charitable to his appointing authority, Shri Narasimha Rao. He even concealed the existence of a report. Even otherwise the argument of the Commission that the existence of a report was a condition precedent for invoking Article 356 by the Central Government is specious. The Commission completely ignored the words “or otherwise” in Article 356.

Strictures against Constitutional authorities

The Judge presiding over Commission is a bitter man. He was extremely keen to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Despite his keenness, members of the Supreme Court collegium did not consider it appropriate to recommend his name. This was his last opportunity to get back at the Supreme Court. He departs from the principle of inter institutional courtesy and indicts the Governor of UP, High Court of UP, an observer of Supreme Court and even the Supreme Court itself. At page 935 the Commission opines –

“For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court’s observer and the short-sightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb.”

The Commission is unaware of the basic courtesies and constitutional restraints imposed upon senior constitutional functionaries. The Commission ignores the requirement of section 8B and decides to indict superior constitutional authorities even without a notice.

Who were present on 6th December, 1992 ?

The Commission records the presence of every person in Ayodhya on 6.12.1992 (page 743). Prominent amongst those the Commission names who were admittedly not present. Balasaheb Thakre who was in Mumbai, Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister, UP who was in Lucnow, Rajinder Gupta, Uma Nath Singh,Lalji Tandon, Brahm Dutt Dwivedi ministers in UP Govt. who were in Lucknow, Kusha bhau Thakre, S.S. Bhandari, Sikander Bakht who were in Delhi and Shri Prabhat Kumar Chief Secretary UP who was in Lucknow. Where did the Commission get all this erroneous facts from. The Commission never bagged this factual narration and conclusions on any evidence but got it from some extraneous source.

How the Commission and the Government procured evidence ?

There is a Central government witness – a journalist named Raman Kirpal. He had purportedly deposed before the Commission and the Commission has relied on his affidavit and evidence. In 29 November, 2009 issue of the weekly magazine ‘OPEN’ Raman Kirpal has written an article titled “My Crippled Testimony”. Shri KIrpal’s article amongst others states “ The CBI officials gave me a date for deposition in New Delhi. I reached there right on time. They showed me an affidavit and asked me to sign……… During the cross examination I was asked to reply in “Yes’ or ‘no’. The format was so tight you could not explain anything. For instance, I was asked whether BJP ‘s LK Advani gave any speech at the dias asking the Kar Sewaks to demolish. I said ‘no’ but………. The lawyer interrogating me immediately shut me up… just reply in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ he said………… The tight format of the cross examination and my status as CGW 24 undermined several things which should have put the Central government of PV Narasimha Rao in a spot….. What surprises me that the Commission rescues the Central Government in its conclusions it says “The Central Government was crippled by the failure of intelligence agencies to provide an analysis of the situation. …..

This is my truth as a reporter. My affidavit as CGW 24 still stands but it is a crippled truth. There was much more that I could have wanted to say……..”. Did this Commission function as a Kangaroo court?

Recommendations of the Commission on subjects beyond its jurisdiction.

(a) The Commission has recommended (page 966) that “the next logical conclusion must therefore be that the government which is formed on the premise of religion or has religion on its agenda can be barred.” This is not constitutionally permissible. This is a new jurisprudence espoused by the Commission. How can a government be barred?

(b) The Commission has recommended that there must be a body constituted to look into the working of the Constitution. Perhaps the Commission was blissfully unaware of the fact that the Committee headed by Justice Venkatchaliah has already given a detailed report to the Government. The Commission at page 970 recommends a review of the Recruitment policy of the government into the civil service. He wants merit alone to be the criteria and not a caste or regional basis. Read in the context of the Commission’s earlier recommendation on Mandal Commission it is clear that the Commission suffers from caste bias. The Commission has recommended (page 971) that civil servants should be barred from holding office of profit after retirement. It is indeed a paradoxical recommendation from a judge who retired long ago and has enjoyed 48 extensions recommends no retired civil servant should be given any post retirement assignment. The Commission has gone into the question of Centre State relations (page 976) AND RECOMMENDED THAT NO State government can claim that it acts only for the persons or people within the boundary of the State and discriminate against others. While not disagreeing with the Commission on this, the question was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Was he dealing with Ayodhya incident or going into larger issue – the question of Centre State relation. Similarly the Commission recommends (page 976) party affiliations must come to an end the moment a legislator is elected. The Commission now wants the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution prohibiting defections to be repealed. Was this within the terms of reference of the Commission?

(c) The Commission obviously dislikes the media. (page 980 ). The Commission recommends that there must be a permanent authority to hear complaints against “mischievous journalists”. He wants a licensing regime back not in the industry but for joining the profession of journalism.

(d) The Commission at page 979 states as under:-

“It is therefore my recommendation that a statutory national commission be composed of acknowledged experts to delve into the questions of the provenance of historical monuments, artifacts etc. and their determination should be deemed to be definitive and final.”

The word provenance means — “the history of the ownership of the object specially when demanded or authenticated”. The Oxford dictionary of difficult words defines provenance as a place of origin or the earliest known history of something. Let this test recommended by Justice Liberhan be applied to the disputed structure at Ayodhya where already a report of the ASI exists indicating the existence of a temple before 1528. The Government in its ATR has rightly said in para 6.6 that a special Commission is not required for the said purpose as the ASI is already undertaking this mandate. The Allahabad High Court had asked the ASI to examine the site and the recovered stones from the erstwhile structure and submit to the High Court its expert opinion. The ASI in the year 2003 submitted its report to the Allahabad High Court where it concludes on basis of entire evidence. “Now viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below he disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards upto the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus moif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

This report was preceded by a Ground penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS) which also came to same conclusions.
Did a temple exist at the site prior to 1528 ?

The Commission has categorically given an opinion that Ayodhya is perceived as the birth place of Lord Rama and that Mir Baqi constructed a mosque at the disputed site in 1528. The crucial question is what is the historical character of the site in question. Admittedly, the site has great religious and cultural significance to our civilization and nation. Overwhelming evidence exists about the existence of a temple at the birth place of Lord Rama at Ayodhya. This evidence is in the form of archaeological evidence, GPRS evidence and accounts of various travelers who contemporaneously wrote their accounts.

………. The universally revered Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak Dev visited Ayodhya along with his associate ‘Mardana’. Contemporaneous Sikh literature finds a reference to the Guru’s communication to Mardana. Bhai Bala wali janam Sakhi also has a detailed reference to this visit. The visit took place between 1508 and 1510. The eighth successor of Guru Nanak Dev’s eldest son Lakhmi Chand Ji Baba Sukhi Ram Bedi in his works has referred to Guru Nanak Dev’s darshan of Ram Janamasthan.

The historical sketch of the Faizabad in Zila Faizabad refers to the existence of the Janamasthan at Ayodhya. It categorically records that at the janamasthan Emperor Babar built a mosque in 1528.

The Earlier Travels in India written by William Foster refers to Ayodhya where the ruins of Ram Chander acknowledged as an Indian God were found.

The Gazetteer of Awadh refers to the Janamasthan as the place where Ram Chander was born.

The Geography of Hindustan written by Father Jose Tieffn-Thacer Is still available in French. A copy of it was obtained from France and got translated into English under directions of the Court. The said travel refers to Ayodhya where a temple had been constructed on elevated bank of the river. It then refers to a debate as to whether it was demolished and converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb and then corrected to say that others believed that it was actually constructed by Babar.

There have been several struggles in the past 500 years for the restoration of the Janamasthan. The existence of a mosque built after desecration of the temple has never been accepted by the Hindus. The past 500 years have witnessed repeated struggles for rights of the Hindus at the Janamasthan.

In the later part of the 19th century the Nihangs had occupied the structure for a reasonable long period on the premise that Guru Nanak Dev had performed his worship at the site. In 1934 the Hindus were fined by the British Government for some damage caused to the structure during an agitation. There are judicial orders dating back to 1885 in relation to the legal and judicial dispute.

The principal question is – What was the original character of this structure? Unquestionably, the original character was a temple. It was no ordinary temple. It was a temple built at the place believed to be the Janamasthan of Lord Ram. No religious denomination can ever accept a conquest of such a sacred place. The historical, archaeological and GPRS evidence is entirely against the historical vandalism of 1528. The next 500 years have seen agitation for recapturing and litigation over the issue. Since 1934 no namaz has been performed and puja goes on regularly.

The ability of Indian society at dispute settlement is at stake. The judicial institutions have been unable to decide the issue for decades. The ideal dispute resolution is through negotiations.

A fair secular society requires equality of all. A secular order is not irreligious. It is not anti-religion. It is respect for all religions. Protection of legitimate rights of the minorities is unquestionably a test of a secular society. At the same time the majority cannot live for centuries with a feeling of reverse discrimination. The history of the past 500 years has shown that the majority has been denied its right to build a historical temple at its most revered place. The Home Minister has framed the wrong question that it is a choice between inclusiveness and divisiveness. Does your inclusiveness exclude the religious aspiration of the majority for the sake of vote bank politics. We reject your ‘Vote bank inclusiveness’ as we reject the LIberhan report. We stand for “Justice for all, with neither discrimination nor reverse discrimination”.

That the BJP was a party of crazed fundamentalists was never in doubt. That they are also rank idiots and cowards has been made evident to anybody who bothered to watch the debates in the Parliament over the Liberhan Commission report.

For the first two days, the BJP spoke. There were a lot of angry protestations from their side about the inaccuracies of the report. Their primary grouse was with the naming of Vajpayee in the report. Now PrimePayee was a much despised man during his active politician days. The moderates hated him for his association with the fascist Parivaar and the Parivaar hated him for not being enough of a khakichaddiwallah. In his retirement however, post senility and dementia, he has become some sort of a sacred, holy figure for the same RSS blokes. Thus his name being “tarnished” has hurt the chaddis where it hurts them most (and I am not talking about the groin). Now whether they are jealous that inspite of not doing enough to destroy the mosque he got to hog credit or whether they actually believe he is innocent is anybody’s guess. The fact remains that half the time that the BJP got to speak was used in singing paeans to the ex-British agent-turned-3rd-rate-poet-cum-PM. There was no discussion on the merits of the report. Just plain fury about the balls of Liberhan to name PrimePayee among the accused.

Next on the list of Rajnath and Co. was the insult to Advani and MM Joshi who were called “little men”. For theatrical effect, Rajnath removed his glasses and wiped a crocodilian tear on this insult. Again, no discussion about the validity of the claim. He also had an issue with Liberhan calling the structure Babri Masjid and not disputed structure! Sushma Swaraj went into hyperventilating mode. In a replay of her infamous “sar mundwa ke, bhune chane khaoongi aur farsh pe soungi” drama, she accused everybody of conspiring against the BJP’s two oldies. She claimed Liberhan was offered governorships and a seat on the Supreme Court to write what he did. In the same speech, she also claimed that Liberhan did not write the report himself! Perhaps what Ms. Swaraj needed was a shot of morphine more than anything.

When the Home Minister got up to make a reply to their speeches, he was shouted down by the BJP goons. The Hon’ble members of India’s own National Socialist Party created a ruckus, threw papers and raised slogans of “Jai Shri Ram” in the sanctum sanctorum of Indian democracy. What was the logic of their speeches if they wouldnt allow the Home Minister to even reply? Throughout all this the BJP front row sat silently and made no effort to calm them. It highlighted the BJP’s fear of an open debate quite clearly and bore out Liberhan’s accusation of them being “little men”.

I had chanced upon a facebook group that wants Arun Jaitley to be made PM. Seeing the man speak today I could only wonder what kind of idiots would want to entrust the country to such a sly and evil man. He completely skirted the point and instead debated on how ASI records proved that there was some sort of pre Mosque structure at the site of the Babri Masjid. Selectively culling out passages from the report, he made fun of Liberhan’s suggestion to divorce religion from politics, provoking much laughter from the Bharat Jalao Party backbenchers who were evidently shocked at such a suggestion. Mr. Jaitley, the issue is WHO demolished the Masjid on 6th December, 1992. Not whether there was a temple there. And even if we did believe your point what about the other 10 temples in Ayodhya that claim to be Ram Janmabhoomis? Are they lying?

The point is no matter how much the BJP claims to represent the interests of the majority, it simply does not. It infact represents a minority, a tiny minority at that. A tiny minority of crazed saffron maniacs who idolise Savarkar and follow Jinnah. This country still remains secular not because of the Congress or the Muslims, but because of the overwhelming majority of the Hindus who can see through the BJP’s gameplan and make sure that it remains out of power. The whole of Ayodhya is Ramjanmabhoomi and Ram, unlike the BJP, will not grudge the Muslim inhabitants of his town a mosque. A fact that the BJP cannot be expected to understand because in its lust for power and in its devotion for the khaki chaddi, it has drifted farther from Hinduism than it can ever imagine.

AYODHYA: BJP leader Vinay Katiyar today claimed that a group of about fifty men who had first entered the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya were not VHP workers but CRPF jawans in plainclothes who started demolishing the mosque and provoked the ‘Kar Sewaks’ to charge at it.

The BJP MP alleged that on December 6, 1992 when the mosque was being demolished by ‘Kar Sewaks’, muslim leaders, some union ministers and Members of Parliament tried to contact the then Prime Minister P V Narsimha Rao, seeking his intervention to stop the demolition.

He alleged the then Union Home Minister S B Chavan had also failed to stop the demolition of the mosque.

Express Buzz

——TOP

Cartoon: courtesy E.P. Unny/ The Indian Express

Download Liberhan’s Babri Masjid Commission Report

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EDOLSFRL

——TOP

Liberhan doesn’t even notice that underneath Babri structure were temples.

Here is a precise report (not from Liberhan!):

Open source literature indicates that from 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992. He discovered a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD. Supporting Prof. Lal’s discovery was Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( Madras Circle ), who was a trainee at that juncture. He had written : ” I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. 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 OTHER.”

Then came the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court mandated ASI excavations at the site in the summer of 2001, using ‘ground penetrating radar’. Here again the ASI team discovered the ruins of a demolished 16th Century A.D. Hindu Temple.

The fact of the matter is that the archaeological evidence is irrefutable and has already shown the existence of two Hindu Temples at the site – one belonging to the Delhi Sultanate Period and the second during Babur’s reign. That these  never appeared in the media is an altogether different story.

H. Balakrishnan

Liberties Liberhan took

Chandan Mitra

Remember Gulzari Lal Nanda? Although he was Prime Minister twice, I can bet only the 60-plus generation of informed citizens and quiz show participants will recall the name, fame or lack of it. GL Nanda last hit the news pages about 20 years ago when he was unceremoniously thrown out bag and baggage from a flat in Delhi’s Defence Colony for non-payment of rent. The elderly Gandhian leader died shortly thereafter in near-penury after leading a long ascetic life. The ramrod straight Congress leader of yesteryear used to wash his own clothes and cook his own meals till he was too old, infirm and bed-ridden. Upon the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 and Lal Bahadur Shastri in early 1966, Nanda was sworn in as Prime Minister for brief periods by virtue of being the senior-most member of the Cabinet. Although described as Acting PM by the media, his name adorns the record books because the Constitution does not recognise any category as ‘Acting’. He dutifully resigned on both occasions after the party chose Shastri and Indira Gandhi respectively to head the Government and was re-inducted into the Cabinet by both his successors.

Poor Gulzari Lal Nanda has been resurrected once more, this time in rather unflattering light. On page 336 of the 1,000-page-plus Justice MS Liberhan Report, there is a stinging indictment of Nanda along with former RSS chief Prof Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiyya) and Dau Dayal Khanna (a respected advocate of post-Partition refugee rehabilitation) . They have been blamed for being “ardent Hindus” who created an atmosphere in which radical Hindu sentiment could grow. Nanda’s ashes must be churning in their urn at the bracketing. But more sinisterly, Liberhan insinuates that the efforts by leaders like GL Nanda eventually culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid!

If anyone has the patience or masochistic passion to labour through Liberhan’s voluminous essay on the state of the Indian polity since Independence, he will discover many prize gems of this nature. Still one thing must be said in Liberhan’s favour: Loyalist ho toh aisa! The man who appointed him to the job to which Liberhan clung on for 17 long years emerges as the silent hero of the so-called inquiry report. And why not, for thanks to PV Narasimha Rao, the retired Supreme Court judge was able to secure a bungalow in Central Delhi, a posse of staff, vehicles and other facilities at his disposal. As a result of Rao’s largesse and the indecision of subsequent United Front, NDA and UPA Governments, Liberhan’s Commission cost the exchequer a whopping Rs 8 crore in salaries alone! We don’t as yet know what the total extent of us taxpayers’ money that was squandered on producing the costliest essay in history!

Having plodded through much of this alleged report, I was left wondering who actually wrote the document. Almost every page reeks with JNU’s left-secularist ardour, barring the occasional bad grammar. It seems so pre-determined that the entire purpose of undertaking what was meant to be an “impartial inquiry” becomes a breathless blitz against Hindu sentiment. Terms like pseudo-moderate, used particularly to lampoon Atal Bihari Vajpayee give the game away. It’s typically JNU intelligentsia’s too-clever-by- half retort to LK Advani’s famous coinage — pseudo-secularist. There are long passages of pedestrian political philosophy lamenting how some politicians prioritise pursuit of power, as if politicians are supposed to renounce politics, abjure power, migrate to the jungles and meditate over their destiny!

Copious tears are shed over the presumed attempt by some people to perpetuate casteism (what’s that got to with Babri?) and damage India’s secular fabric although that is a basic feature of the Constitution. (The word ‘secular’, incidentally, was introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution along with ‘socialist’ only by an amendment passed during the Emergency years by Indira Gandhi). Also ironic is the fact that Justice Liberhan took nearly 182 months to compile his report when the same thing was completed by the CBI in 9! Cases are going on in various courts on the basis of CBI charge-sheets since then. In other words, the Liberhan report is of mere academic interest today although the use of ‘academic’ in the context of this boring essay is rather misplaced.

It is not my intention to compete with Justice Liberhan to produce an antidote for insomnia. I shall, therefore, refer only to something that concerns me personally. Having just come across LK Advani’s testimony before the Commission spanning from April 2001 to January 2002, I was surprised by the number of references to my reports regarding the fateful events of December 6, 1992, that appeared in Hindustan Times (of which I was then Executive Editor). On several occasions, the Commission’s counsel Anupam Gupta, whose ideological affinities are well known, attempted to trip up Advani by referring to passages in two reports I filed from Ayodhya (“All domes collapse under kar sewaks’ onslaught” published December 7 and “Control room that had no control”, December 8, 1992). In his reply to one of Gupta’s queries, Advani said: “I would think that as Chandan Mitra has said this, Chandan Mitra would be a very valuable witness before the Commission because I can affirm that he was present on the terrace (Ram Katha Kunj, makeshift dais where BJP/VHP leaders had assembled) for most of the time. And, therefore, if the Commission were to hear from him what precisely he saw and heard, that would be a very valuable testimony.”

Interestingly, I never got any summons from the Commission although it questioned 1,500 witnesses and virtually every journalist who was present in the Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid complex that day. In its report, the Commission narrates at length the alleged manhandling of Ruchira Gupta who was reporting for Business India those days. It reproduces without verification her (patently false) claim that she was manhandled by kar sewaks and her clothes torn. Had the Commission summoned me I would have testified under oath that nothing of the kind happened. She accompanied me, despite my pleas to the contrary, when I decided to visit the structure under destruction. In fact, she was saved by an assistant to Pramod Mahajan who pushed her out of the way because some kar sewaks got agitated by her remarks and demanded to know who she was, doubting her claim to be a kar sewak despite the saffron bandana she wore to pretend being a member of the demolition squad.

I was not remotely associated with the BJP those days and my reports in HT were factual and non-commentative, unlike those of my Leftist compatriots. Those two reports are still widely referred to by Western researchers into the demolition and its aftermath. Yet, the Commission never thought it fit to call me for evidence. But then, I am in august company. Justice Liberhan who liberally savages Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his report, never called him to testify either. After the leak of the document, Liberhan even denied on camera that Vajpayee had been pilloried. I can excuse the retired judge. If anybody takes 17 years to compile a litany of half-truths and untruths, memory can well play truant. Unless, of course, the report’s authorship itself is in some doubt!

http://dailypioneer .com/219008/ Liberties- Liberhan- took.html

VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD

Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022

Tel. 011-26178992, 26103495 Fax : 26195527

Dec. 1, 2009

ANALYSIS OF THE LIBERHAN AYODHYA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT

COMMISSION EXPOSED MORE THAN THE FACTS

The Commission was constituted with the following terms of reference to enquire into the following issues:-

1. Sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the occurrence in the RJBM complex at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 involving the destruction of the RJBM structure.

2. The role played by the Chief Minister, Members of the Council of Ministers, Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the individuals, concerned organizations and agencies in or in connection with the destruction of the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid structure.

3. The deficiencies in the security measures and other arrangements as prescribed or operated in practice by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which might have contributed to the events that took place in the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid complex, Ayodhya town and Faizabad on 6th December, 1992.

4. The sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assault on media persons at Ayodhya on 6th of December, 1992 and

5. Any other matter related to the subject of enquiry.

Preliminary observations:

The Commission took seventeen long years to present its final report. The Commission has cost the nation tens of crores of rupees. It has failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It has failed to dig out facts and serve the purpose for which it was constituted. The report appears to be the handiwork of a prejudiced mind that had made up his mind to give the report on a particular persons &/or institutions. The Commission seems to have decided beforehand to give a report of guilty to some individuals and organizations and to give a clean chit to others. In the process, the Commission has ended in exposing itself more than exposing the truth behind the episode. The report stands punctured with numerous contradictions and anomalies.

It is important to note that the Commission has rarely visited the spot where the alleged incident took place. Its report is paralyzed with the absence of detailed visit of Ayodhya and the fact that it has been written only in office. Further, the office of the Commission was declared by the Government of India to be in Lucknow, but he never functioned from there but from Delhi.

Went beyond the terms of reference:

1.       The Commission in its report in Chapter No. 14 (Conclusions) on Page 942, Paragraph No. 166.8 says… .”The much repeated and much denied remarks attributed to Govindacharya ———— ——— -

Comments: It is absolutely misplaced and irrelevant to the terms of reference. The alleged comments are also reported to have been made (and also denied) much after December, 1992.

2.       At Page No. 958, Para No. 171, the Commission has listed, among others, the some persons as culpable, viz., Deoraha Baba, A.B. Vajpayee, Badri Prasad Toshniwal, Moropant Pingle, Onkar Bhave, Prof. Rajendra Singh, Gurjan Singh, G.M. Lodha, Champat Rai and so many others.

Comments: But all these persons were never called to defend themselves by the Commission. If there was any evidence or proof against any individual, then it was a legal and moral binding on the Commission to have called them to present their case and defend themselves. As a judge of High Court he should have known that this was a primary requirement for justice under the law of jurisprudence and nobody could be held guilty unless he was called to defend himself.

3.     In this list, Commission has mentioned the name of Shri Pravin Togadiya also. On or before December 06, 1992, the sphere of activities of Shri Togadiya was limited to Gujarat only. And so, he was neither on the dais nor amongst the speakers of the day.

4.       At Page 931, Para 162.2 Commission says: “There is no requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it must not take sides”

Comment: Everywhere in the world in any form of govt. has anybody so far said that the media should not be free, fair, impartial and objective. The above comment of the commission ventures to promote a fourth estate that is unethical, irresponsible and not honest to itself.

5.       At Page No. 935, Para No. 163.2 the commission says

“For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court’s observer and the shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb.”

Comment: This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of the Commission who himself was a judge of the High Court. This unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh to appear before him. Yet, he made these disparaging remarks against the Governor. The Commission also failed to understand that he was only a judge of the High Court and a judge of the High Court has no right to comment on the Apex court, that is the Supreme Court.

Conspiracy

6.       At Page 917, Para 158.9 the commission says

“………Prognosis of evidence leads to the conclusion that the mobilisation of the Karsevaks and their convergence to Ayodhya and Faizabad was neither spontaneous nor voluntary. It was well-orchestrated and planned….. .”

But, the same report states:-

At Chapter No. 1, Page No. 15, Para No. 7.4, the Commission states

…”…no evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise by any of these counsels…” (of the Muslim organisations) .

Of the above same chapter in Para 7.5, ”……there was no effective participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise. No alternative theory or any version was put forth on behalf of the Muslims before the Commission.. .”

In the same paragraph 7.5, it states ”…responsible educated literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular community or the ones who participated in negotiations preceding the demolition etc. never came forward to disclose any material or fact in any form…..”

At Chapter 10, page 775, para 130.5

“No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of this nature, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of planning of demolition was obtainable”

At page 782 para 130.24 commission says:

“….Home secretary Godbole stated that there was No information of planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a conspiracy of the Congress & BJP for demolition,. ..”

Comment: Then, on what grounds, evidence and justification has the Commission come to the conclusion that it “was well-orchestrated and planned”.

At the same time it needs to be taken note of the fact that after demolition of the alleged structure on December 06, 1992 three organizations namely RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal were banned through Government notifications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 10th December, 1992. As per the requirement of this Act, a Tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri, the sitting Judge of Delhi High Court was constituted on 30th December, 1992. Being a constitutional body, after due trial, the tribunal delivered its verdict on 18th June, 1993 which has been published by the Government in official gazette (The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section- II).

At Page 71 of this gazette, the tribunal holds “…It is pertinent to mention that PW-7 has categorically admitted that there was no material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure. It is admitted by PW-7 again that a video recording of the events which took place on the fateful day on December 06, 1992 at Ayodhya was prepared by the IB…”

On page No. 72 in the same verdict Justice Bahri states “…even the white paper prepared by the Central Government does not support this theory of pre-planning for destruction of the disputed structure by these associations or their workers…”

It is worth mentioning that PW-7 Mr. Padhi was a very senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau and authorised by the Government of India to present the case before the Bahri Tribunal.

The above facts clearly shows the prejudiced mind of the Commission which has written its report in a pre-meditated manner. Justice Bahri was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal he was heading, was a judicial body whose verdict was binding on the Government. On \the other hand, the report of the Liberhan Commission has no legal binding on the Government and is just recommendatory in nature which the Government may or may not accept.

The Commission seems to have been suffering from the same ailments which he mentions in Page No. 1, Chapter No. 1 (Introduction) , Para No. 1.1 ”…For some, the temptation of power is supreme. The usual means for acquiring power is through politics. There is always an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one’s own purpose — nothing matters beyond political desirable results, however achieved. In the process of acquisition of power the consequence of the process on the institution, the nation, individuals and society as a whole does not matter. Life itself becomes politicised. Objectivity or intellectual honesty or logic is lost in the process…”

Comment:  His words apply more aptly to the Commission itself. Despite government orders and wish, he never functioned from Lucknow. He stuck to Delhi with “an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one’s own purpose”.

Supports Ramjanambhoomi

By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or controverted. He has ended up supporting the Ramjanambhoomi case:

In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography)

page No. 23 the Report says:

Para 9.1:    ”Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city.”

Para 9.2:    ”Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors, pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travellers, tourists.”

Para 9.3 :   ”Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ra Janam Bhoomi”

Para 9.4:    ”Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims,sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”

Para 9.5 :   …”This Place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future. this religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after success ruler had gone by.

Page 25, Para-10.3 :

“On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about 2,10,000. It has a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”

Page-26, Para-10.10

“The town is currently inhibited (sic) (inhabited!) With a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations.”

Page 29, Para 12.1

“There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area; rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”

Page 29, Para 12.2

“Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kasushalya Bhawan…… ..”

Page 32, Para 12.12

“The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction.”

Chapter-4 (Sequence of Events)

Page 61, Para 18.6

“In the year 1528, the Mughal Emperor Babar ordered his commander Mir Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya. Protagonists of the present movement claimed that after demolishing the temple at the birth place of Ram, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque i.e. the “disputed structure.”

Page 61, Para 18.8

“Worship of idols installed on the Ram Chabutra by Hindu devotees in general was performed for a considerable period. There was no objection from the Muslims staking the counter claim prior to the shifting of idols into the disputed structure in 1949.”

Page 62, Para 18.9

“It is, however, not the Commission’s mandate to record a finding with respect to the exact question of history and a discourse on whether a mosque was constructed at the place of temple is outside the Commission’s purview. Suffice to say, the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact.”

Page 63, Para 18.13

“Although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to the disputed structure or from offering Namaz therein either by the judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934. No processions were taken out inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug there about.”

Comment:  This clearly shows that the Commission indirectly confirms that a mosque was constructed at the site of the temple. Ayodhya is in existence from times immemorial while Babur came much afterwards and the mosque was constructed in 1528 CE.

Page 88, para 26.2 say:

“…It is noteworthy that no member of the Muslim community from Ayodhya was a member of the Babri Masjid Action committee or other committee protesting the opening of locks at the disputed structure. Sultan Shahabuddin Owaisi, aMember of Parliament from Hyderabad challenged the opening of locks alongwith some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation”

Page 89 Para 26.4 says:

“Muslims variously protested between 1st of January to the 30th of March, 1987. Apart from giving calls for, boycotting Republic Day (which call was later withdrawn), Bandhs were observed and a public rally held at Boat Club in Delhi.Public threats of violence were made by personalities no less than the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc.”

Comment: Yet the Commission fails to make any adverse comment on these individuals.

In Paragraph 158.3 the Commission says that it “…never became a movement…”. Whereas, in Para 158.9 & 159.10, it contradicted itself with the contention as to “…entire process of the movement” and “…leaders of the movement”.

Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION)

Page 15, Para 7.3

“Prominent members of the Muslim community claimed on behalf of their constituents, to be adversely affected by the demolition, in their sentiments and emotions. They claimed that their religious feelings were hurt. Initially various councils (sic) (counsels) representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Waqf Board, other Muslim organizations and individuals appeared and associated with the Commission before and during the framing of the Commission’s rules.”

Page 15, Para 7.4

“Thereafter, it was in the last stages, i.e., almost after a decade, that the counsel for the Muslim Law Board joined the proceedings. Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing before the Commission after half a decade of its existence; before the joining or associating of the Muslim Law Board before the Commission. Azad Makhmal representing Shahabuddin and another lawyer A. Haq showed up once or twice but made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry. Mushtaq Ahmed did, however, cross-examined some witnesses intermittently. After a decade of the Commission’s inquiry, one Bahar-ul-Barki representing the AIMLB appeared along with senior Counsel, Yusuf Muchhala representing the Muslim Personal Law Board and cross-examined some key witnesses like L.K. Adjani in part. No evidence was led or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels. O.P. Sharma, advocate who also joined almost the fag end of the inquiry conducted himself equally ineffectually.”

At Page 17 Para 8.3 the Commission says:

“The dispute with respect to disputed structure is proclaimed to be as ancient as history. Innumerable writings in books and research papers, commission proceedings were placed on the record of the commission. The title of the property was never settled much less finally by any civil court which is still pending before the honourable high court till date. From time to time rulers of the time permitted the people of their faith the possession.”

Story of acquisition of 2.77 acres of land surrounding the structure:

The 2.77 acres land was acquired by the UP Govt. on Oct. 1991 for public purpose. This acquisition was challenged in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High court  by a local Muslim. The case was heard by full bench comprising of Hon’ble justice H.C. Mathur, Hon. Justice Brijesh Kumar & Hon. Justice S.H.A. Raza. The arguments were over by Nov.04, 1992. The date fixed for the pronouncement of the judgement was 4th December 1992. Justice Mathur & Justice Brijesh Kumar had already written their openion regarding this acquisition order. But the justice Raza delayed the pronouncement of its Judgement to the 11th of December 1992 which was after the 6th December, date fixed for commencement of karsewa.

This deliberate delay in pronouncement of the order infused a sense of disappointment in the mind of the people to get justice and ultimately led to the incidents. The Kar sevaks broke loose and climbed up the disputed structure. The structure was made to collepse in five hours and a temporary canopy (makeshift structure) was errected on the debris of the disputed structure where the Pooja is going on.

A few words regarding the civil suites:

The first civil suit regarding the title of Ram Janambhoomi was filed in 1950 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 1/1989). The second suit was filed in 1959 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 3/1989). The third suit was filed in 1961 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 4/1989). The fourth suit was filed in 1989 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 5/1989). For 40 years the cases remained hanging fire in district court of Faizabad.

After 40 years, in 1989 these cases were transferred to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since then another twenty years have passed. Due to the retirement of one or the other judge, the bench had to be reconstituted eleven times and consequently the justice is not only been delayed but also derailed and denied.

Conclusion:

Even after 40+ extensions during seventeen long years of the country’s valuable time and wasting four years in marely preparing huge volume of useless report, the commission declared  many prominent personalities as culpable without giving them a chance of hearing. It is shameful that in its long list of culprits one had already been died before the date of incident and seventeen therafter before submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex judiciary of the country, Media, head of the state(governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable.

Convened by Chamapat Rai, Joint General Secretary-VHP, and compiled by members of the team i.e. Amba Charan Vashisth, K.K. Sharma, Vinod Bansal, Rakesh Upadhyay.

Kindly Note & Circulate to all your contacts.
REGARDS

VINOD BANSAL
(MEDIA COORDINATOR)
VISHWA HINDU PARISHAD, Delhi
M – 98109 49109

ivhpmedia@gmail. com

By Badri Raina, ZNet, Nov 30, 2009
Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

On  December 6,1992, hordes of  right-wing Hindutva extremists (called karsevaks)  took the town of Ayodhya hostage with the full and willing connivance of the then state government of Uttar Pradesh and in physical presence of most of the  top leaders of the Sangh Parivar (the RSS and its affiliates/fronts like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, the Shiv Sena, and the Bhartiya Janata Party).

By evening of that fateful day, the 460 year old mosque built there by one of Babar’s lieutenants, Mir Baqi, was razed to a heap of rubble on the grounds that the mosque was built over a temple which enclosed the birthplace  of the god, Ram.

To this day, there is no evidence of any kind that a temple of any sort pre-existed at the site of the demolished mosque.

Continues >>

Babri Masjid: Background

The below article is a reproduction of the one written by Harkishan Singh Surjeet on the occasion of 10th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, that was published in the Special Number of People’s Democracy, on December 08, 2002.

The tenth anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition, a momentous event in the history of independent India, comes at a time when the nation is in the midst of a battle to defend its unity, amity and harmony, its composite culture and secular ethos. Needless to say, the BJP-ruled Gujarat, slated to go to polls on December 12, has become the immediate battlefield.

IMPORTANCE OF THE DAY

THE importance of the day cannot be underestimated from the viewpoint of mass mobilisation against the communal danger. The people will have to be clearly told that the dispute is not just a temple-mosque dispute. If only it had been simply that, it could have been solved long back. The thing to realise is that the temple-mosque dispute is just a pretext for the communal forces who are out to impress upon us that the Muslims, and the minorities in general, have no right to live in this country. That is why these forces do not want any amicable settlement of the Ayodhya dispute and, whenever the possibility for a settlement arises, they do something to scuttle it. Nay, every now and then these forces keep threatening to raise the issue of a mosque in Mathura and of Gyanvapi mosque in Benaras. This only shows that, on one pretext or another, these forces are out to play their fratricidal game to achieve their aim of turning India into a fascistic theocratic state.

The struggle to bring to book those who led the Babri demolition squad, and to get the mosque rebuilt on the spot, assumes importance in this very context. In sum, this is a struggle to unambiguously tell the saffron brigade that the secular, patriotic masses are very much alive to the dangers facing the country and will foil every attempt of the brigade to threaten our secular polity, our composite culture, our existence as a civilised nation.

NO BASIS IN HISTORY

IN regard to the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute, the fact is that there is no proof for the saffron brigade’s claim that the mosque was built in the year 1528, i e more than four and a half centuries ago, by demolishing a temple. Writing his works in Akbar’s reign, even Tulsidas did not mention any such thing. Guru Nanak, who died in 1539, was highly critical of Babur, but he too did not say that a temple was demolished to construct the mosque. Historians have quoted these and many other facts to demolish the myth of temple demolition that is propagated by the brigade. A Report To The Nation issued in 1990 by four eminent historians, viz Professors R S Sharma, D N Jha, Athar Ali and Surajbhan, has effectively debunked the claims made by the saffron brigade in this regard.

The said report also gives us incontrovertible evidence to show that, as per their policy of divide and rule, the British rulers of India propagated the same myth which the brigade is propagating today. Also, a mistake made by Mrs Beverige in her translation of the Baburnama gave this myth a boost it did not deserve.

In sum, the saffron brigade’s claim about temple demolition lacks any basis in history. Its much-touted grievance in this regard is purely hypothetical.

GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE

IT is also a fact that even if there was a dispute about the character of the site, it remained dormant till the country attained freedom. But the communal forces got particularly unnerved when it became clear that, contrary to the newly created Pakistan, India was not going to become a theocratic state. In the face of the indescribable horror that preceded and accompanied the country’s partition, our constitution-makers did realise the value of secularism to ensure that such horror was not repeated in future. The word “secularism” was included in the constitution’s preamble only in 1976, but it was clear from day one that Indian political system would be a secular one. Here the citizens are not to be discriminated or favoured on the basis of their religion(s), just as they are not to be discriminated or favoured on the basis of caste, ethnic group, region, language or sex.

True there was a flaw in the conception of secularism our rulers upheld; in practice they did not keep religion completely separate from politics. Yet, there is no gainsaying that India has been an essentially secular country. And the credit for it goes to the mass of our people who, while following their respective religions, have an instinctive regard for other faiths.

But this was enough to make the communal forces nervous and they did everything to turn the tide of events. The dastardly assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in the immediate aftermath of independence was but a move to remove from the scene this most towering figure of our liberation struggle — simply because he was a staunch defender of secularism.

In this situation, in less than two years of the Mahatma’s assassination, idols were surreptitiously placed in the Babri Masjid in one wintry night of December 1949. But the then chief minister of UP, Govind Ballabh Pant, did nothing to restore the status quo ante. However, the site was locked after the prime minister Nehru wrote him a strong letter about the incident. The idols remained untouched. At that time, the communal forces failed to rouse the people for an agitation against this locking.

This situation continued for the next 36-odd years, till the Faizabad district administration removed the locks of the site in February 1986, at the behest of the powers-that-be. It was thus that the dispute, after remaining dormant for decades, got a new lease of life. Only a little while ago the BJP had suffered the worst rout in its history; it was swept by the sympathy wave generated by Mrs Indira Gandhi’s assassination and could win just two Lok Sabha seats in the early 1985 polls. The party saw in this unlocking a golden opportunity to recover the lost ground, and the RSS moved one of its pawns, the VHP, on the political chessboard. The VHP’s Ekatma Yatra from Kathmandu to Benaras and collection of bricks in various parts of the country in the name of temple construction were some of the brigade’s moves in this period to rouse passions.

The unfortunate stand taken by the ruling Congress party in the Shahbano case and the subsequent bill passed in parliament regarding the alimony for divorced Muslim women only added grist to the RSS mill, appearing to confirm the brigade’s charge of “Muslim appeasement.”

The ruling party made yet another mistake of giving the VHP permission to perform shilanyas at some distance from the disputed site. This was done some time before the Lok Sabha polls took place in November 1989.

COMMUNAL DRIVE INTENSIFIES

THE 1989 polls led to a rout of the Congress party and the V P Singh-led Janata Dal (JD) emerged as the biggest group in Lok Sabha. The BJP did try to join the government along with JD, but the Left parties’ intervention foiled the move. The Left asked the JD to form a government and implement its own poll manifesto. As a result, and under the pressure of pro-JD sentiments in the country, the BJP had no option but to extend support from outside. It was thus that the JD-led National Front formed a government, with V P Singh as prime minister. Evidently, this was too much for the BJP whose game to capture power had been foiled.

However, as soon as the government announced its intention to implement the Mandal commission recommendation to give 27 per cent reservation to the OBCs, the BJP and the opposition Congress party began vying with one another in rousing anti-Mandal sentiments. In this period many towns in north India saw the worst type of street violence. The then BJP president, L K Advani, took out a rathyatra from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya. This infamous yatra, with the BJP’s election symbol prominently displayed on the rath, left a trail of blood and mayhem in its wake. Many places along the yatra’s route suffered communal violence engineered by the brigade. The process halted only when the JD government of Bihar, led by Laloo Prasad Yadav, showed the courage to stop the yatra and detain Advani. The JD government of UP, led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, also incensed the BJP by taking strong steps against the so-called karsevaks when tens of thousands of them assembled in Ayodhya. Some in this crowd were even found in possession of dynamite rods; it was only the state government’s determination that prevented any damage to the mosque.

Now the BJP withdrew its support from the National Front government while a section of the JD defected from it. These defectors, the Congress and the BJP now objectively collaborated with one another to defeat the confidence motion moved by V P Singh government; only the Left stood by it. The government had to resign. In its place the Congress propped up a government of the defectors; that lasted only for five-odd months till the Congress ditched it midway.

The mid-term polls then brought the Congress back to power, with P V Narasimha Rao in the lead. In the meantime, the Mulayam government of UP also fell and the BJP came to power in the state. It was already in control of state governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal.

BACKGROUND OF THE CRIME

THIS was the background in which the saffron brigade intensified its drive to polarise the country on communal lines; the BJP’s Palampur conclave had already given up the pretense of aloofness from the Ayodhya dispute. The sad facts that the BJP’s strength in Lok Sabha had gone up in 1989 and again in 1991 and the party was able to form a government in UP, made it believe that it could sweep the country by a strident communal campaign. The VHP served a warning on the Rao government that it was going to start its so-called kar seva at the disputed site from December 6.

This was a cause of serious concern for all patriotic people, more so because the RSS-controlled state governments were openly misusing the official machinery to mobilise the karsevaks and take them to Ayodhya.

This was the background when the National Integration Council met in the third week of November 1992. All political parties attended the meet; only the BJP boycotted it though it well knew its importance. On behalf of the opposition I moved a resolution at the NIC meeting and it was unanimously accepted. The meeting authorised the prime minister to take whatever steps he thought to be necessary to protect the mosque from any damage. In the midst of dissatisfaction over the official resolution, even the then home minister S V Chavan extended support to the resolution I moved.

But this was precisely what the prime minister failed to do. I was in England when karsevaks began to assemble at Ayodhya. This was causing concern, more so in view of their vandalism at the same site two years ago. While in England, I received a message that 15,000 to 20,000 had already gathered at Ayodhya and many more were on their way. The message also said a task force had been deployed around the site but it was lying idle and confused for want of orders from above. However, when I contacted the prime minister, he assured me that he was keeping an eye on the situation and that no damage to the mosque would be allowed.

The rest is history. We all know how the heinous mosque demolition took place, how the government remained a mute spectator to the event and how the crime was followed by a wave of anti-Muslim riots in Mumbai, Surat, Jaipur, Bhopal and many other cities.

In this context, it is notable that the saffron brigade once again resorted to mean tricks to keep the people in dark. At the time of shilanyas in 1989, the VHP had assured the central government in writing that the whole affair would be peaceful, that peace and communal harmony would be maintained and that it would not try to “change the nature of the property in question.” But we also know how the VHP breached its promise; in fact, but for the strong steps taken by the Mulayam government the mosque could have suffered incalculable damage. The trick was repeated by the UP’s BJP government in 1992 when the chief minister assured the Supreme Court and the prime minister that no harm to the mosque would be allowed. This was nothing but the height of perfidy. But no less astonishing was to see how naively the central government behaved and took the brigade’s assurance at its face value.

Incidentally, the brigade performed its perfidious act on the death anniversary of Dr B R Ambedkar, the architect of India’s constitution.

CAN THE BRIGADE ESCAPE UNPUNISHED?

IT is this criminal act that will be remembered on December 6. For, as Balzac said, “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.” The brigade is already trying to vitiate the atmosphere; in fact it never gave up its game during the last one decade. Though they said development would be their main poll plank in Gujarat, they are in fact rousing basest passions to garner votes there. This only indicates what their strategy at the all-India level will be in the days to come. The minorities are in a state of fear.

Meanwhile, the UP’s BSP-BJP government played a dirty game to let Advani and other culprits of the Babri demolition off the hook. For some reason unknown, the Liberhan commission too is taking an exceptionally long time to finish its work and bring the role of various conspirators to light. But will all this save the BJP from facing the day of judgement?

It is true that sometimes people may be temporarily misled but, as they say, you cannot dupe everybody every time. Our people are instinctively secular and will never allow the communal forces to play with national unity and harmony. It is they who showed the BJP the door in UP, MP and Himachal when assembly polls were held there in 1993 after the Babri demolition; in Rajasthan too, the BJP could come to power only by dirty means. It is our people who have routed the BJP and allies in 21 out of 26 polls in the last four odd years. They have also begun to voice their discontent against the anti-people LPG policies the BJP-led regime is following. And, apart from other ways, they will show their anger in the ten states that are to go to assembly polls in 2003.

But all this popular discontent needs to be positively channelised, and it is here that the Left and democratic forces have to step in, in the most vigorous way possible, so as to save the country’s present and future. The coming days are crucial in this regard.

-By Harkishan Singh Surjeet

Source: People’s Democracy

Babri Majid: Timeline

1528 A mosque is built on the site which some Hindus claim is the birthplace of Rama

1859 After first recorded violence in 1853, the British administration erects a fence to
separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer one by Hindus.

1949 Idols of Rama appear inside mosque, placed allegedly by Hindus. Muslims protest; both parties file civil suits. Premises are proclaimed ‘disputed’ and gates are locked.

1984 Hindus under the VHP decide to build a Ram temple at his birthplace

1985 The Rajiv government succumbs to Muslim demands and overturns the Supreme Court decision in the Shah Bano case.

1986 To appease Hindus, the district judge at Ayodhya is ordered to open the gates of the mosque. It allows Hindus to worship there. Muslims protest.

1989 VHP steps up campaign, laying the shilanyas (foundation) of a Ram temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque

Sep 1990 Advani begins rath yatra, fostering discord which flared up into riots post-demolition

Dec 6, 1992 The mosque is demolished by radical Hindu groups as senior BJP leaders watch. Riots break out across India, 2,000-odd dead.

Dec 16, 1992 The M.S. Liberhan Commission is set up to inquire into the demolition

Feb 2002 VHP sets deadline for temple construction. Hundreds of kar sevaks arrive in Ayodhya. On their return, 58 of them are killed in the Godhra train fire.

Mar 2002 Over 2,000 die in the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat

Sep 2003 A court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the Babri destruction, but no charges are brought against L.K. Advani

JUL 2005 Disputed site is attacked by Mujahideen. Security forces kill five militants.

Nov 2009 The Liberhan report is tabled hurriedly in Parliament after it’s leaked to a daily.

Source: Outlook

——TOP

Dec 6, ’92: Kar sevaks on the morning before things got ugly

EXCLUSIVE cover story 1992 IB Reports

‘A Rehearsal Was Conducted…’

IB dispatches from Ayodhya belie the fact that the Centre was unaware of the crisis

If the Liberhan Commission has completely absolved anyone of responsibility for the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, it is P.V. Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister, and the central government. In his 100o-page conclusion, Justice M.S. Liberhan has devoted just one paragraph (160.9) to the role of the Centre which he says was crippled by the failure of the intelligence agencies in providing an analysis of the situation. Was the Narasimha Rao government really that uninformed about the ground realities at Ayodhya in the days leading up to the Babri demolition?

Outlook got exclusive access to secret reports from then prepared by top Intelligence Bureau officials, which were sent to the offices of the prime minister, then home minister S.B. Chavan and home secretary Madhav Godbole. These reports, sent on a daily basis, highlighted the grave situation unfolding in Ayodhya in the critical week before the demolition. The IB reports were also made available to the Liberhan Commission in 1994. But they don’t find any mention in the commission’s report. These IB dispatches clearly reveal that the Centre knew exactly what was happening at Ayodhya. Excerpts:

December 1, 1992

Status report by N.C. Padhi, joint director, IB (Para 5): “A report indicates the dispatch of a suicide squad trained in the use of firearms and explosives to Ayodhya from MP…. A meeting of Boudhik Manch started at 1015 hrs today near Sita Koop where speakers included Uma Bharati, Mahant Avaidyanath, Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, Acharya Dharmendra Dev and B.L. Sharma. Just before the start of the meeting, a group of four kar sevaks from Vidarbha went to the manch and enquired aggressively when they should blow up the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid structure. Mahant Maharishi Tyagi said the structure should be removed before the construction of the temple and that too in a single stroke as such opportunities may not recur.” An indication of the impending demolition also came from a report about Murli Manohar Joshi’s speech at Mathura: “At Mathura he appealed to the gathering to assemble at Ayodhya in large numbers and for kar sevaks to demolish the so-called Babri Masjid.”

“Maharishi Tyagi said structure should come down in a single stroke…as such opportunities may not recur.”—N.C. Padhi, Jt Director, IB (Dec 1, ’92)

Padhi further noted: “Despite written advice by the Centre to regulate the number of visitors inside the shrine, this is not being done. Similarly, the number of people allowed to stay inside the complex is far too large for the inner cordon of policemen to handle without the use of strong force should they turn violent.”

Deputy director, IB, V. Rajagopal, also sent this input on the same day: “A procession of kar sevaks entered the RJB (Ramjanmabhoomi) complex singing songs, dancing and chanting slogans. They carried trishuls and lathis and raised provocative slogans…. The slogans were—Mandir ke nirman mein jo bhi ayega, Ramji ke samne jinda nahin jayega.”

December 2, 1992

Rajagopal’s report for the day: “Over one lakh kar sevaks are in Ayodhya and the movement of kar sevaks into the town continues. According to unconfirmed reports, balidan jathas (suicide squads) of young physically fit kar sevaks trained in handling firearms and explosives have been sent to Ayodhya from MP. They would remain around Ayodhya till December 5th and move into the town on December 6th. Besides protecting the kar sevaks against use of force on them by the security forces, they may also be utilised to demolish the disputed structure if the situation so warrants. Two ‘balidan jathas’ consisting of 10 sadhus each are reported to have left MP for Ayodhya who may sacrifice or self-immolate in case of confrontation between kar sevaks and security forces. A balidan jatha of 28 members is reported to have left from Aligarh on December 2.”

December 3, 1992

Rajagopal filed this input: “Reports from various quarters point to the possibility of miscreants smuggling explosives into the structure for triggering off a big explosion at the appropriate time. The DG of UP and dig of Faizabad have been apprised of the matter.”

Padhi’s intelligence inputs to Madhav Godbole, the then Union home secretary, talks of the cataclysmic situation that was unfolding in Ayodhya: “The kar sevaks were in a belligerent and aggressive mood and the atmosphere was surcharged. In the early hours of December 1, kar sevaks razed to the ground three graves in a dilapidated condition in the Ram Katha Kunj and set up a tea stall on the land. The district administration has erected a few wooden barricades inside the Ramjanmabhoomi complex…these barricades however are not strong enough to withstand pressure from a hostile and determined crowd.”

December 4, 1992

Padhi’s status report to the Union ministry of home affairs warned of inadequate security arrangements: “The continuing influx of people has further clogged the streets hampering movement of security forces and their vehicles. This hampers the response of the police in an emergency. The situation, logistics and mood and temper of the kar sevaks continues to be under tremendous strain.” Rajagopal also sent his assessment to the Union home minister and cabinet secretary: “The sale of trishuls has gone up and kar sevaks are moving in the town carrying them. One group of kar sevaks was carrying a spade and iron vessel to symbolise the resolve to do construction work. A lot of wall writings have come up in the night on the perimeter wall. These include “Talwar nikalenge mayan se, mandir banega shaan se. Duniya ki koi sarkar, Raghvendra ki sarkar se badi nahin.”

December 5, 1992

Reporting about the status on December 5, Padhi noted, “Congregation of kar sevaks at Ayodhya has swelled to 2 lakh of which 60,000 are at Ram Katha Kunj. The security arrangements are adequate up to the point where the large congregation is expected to maintain order and discipline. In case of a determined bid to violate the standing orders of the court the security arrangements would not meet the requirements of the situation.”

“Balidan jathas (suicide squads) have left MP for Ayodhya…they may sacrifice in case of a confrontation.”—V. Rajagopal, Dy Director, IB (Dec 2, ’92)

V. Rajagopal’s assessment should have been cause for alarm: “It is learnt that the organisers have decided to accommodate kar sevaks at Rudauli, Dariyabad and Suhawal near Faizabad to obstruct movement of paramilitary forces if and when they do so, by lying down on the roads.” And in paragraph 16 of his report, Rajagopal reports a telling incident: “A rehearsal was conducted in the Ram Katha Kunj on the procedure for the kar seva tomorrow. It is learnt that kar sevaks from various states would line up in two columns. Kar sevaks from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan would queue up in the left column in rows of 15 each. Kar sevaks from AP would be given first opportunity for kar seva.” In paragraph 19, he further notes: “Murli Manohar Joshi, addressing a public meeting at Shahjahanpur on December 4 and at Unnao on December 5, warned that since majority of kar sevaks at Ayodhya are from Andhra Pradesh and south India, if the kar seva is obstructed at the instance of the Centre, they would turn against the PM (who was from Andhra Pradesh).”

Quite evidently, both Narasimha Rao then, and Justice Liberhan later, turned a blind eye to these vital inputs which clearly reveal that the Centre was warned of the possibility of things going out of hand and the masjid being demolished

-By by Chander Suta Dogra
Source: Outlook Magazine, Dec 07, 2009

——TOP

The Liberhan Commission report on the demolition of the Babri masjid throws no new light on the dastardly designs of its its 67 execrable perpetrators. What it does is throw an unlikely pebble at the towering reputation and legacy of what it thinks is the 68th: Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The BJP’s rare “moderate face” has been a carefully constructed and preserved structure, designed to appeal to the soft side of India’s aspiring middle-class millions while providing the smokescreen to the saffron brotherhoodlums; a “mukhauta” in the words of K.N. Govindacharya.

That mask has been, well, unmasked by the lead-laced fingers of Justice Liberhan on the basis of a single videographed speech delivered by Vajpayee on the eve of the demolition, December 5, 1992.

Without calling the former prime minister to the witness box and without giving him a chance to explain, Liberhan calls Vajpayee a “pseudo-moderate” who can be held “culpable” of the crime of being the country to the point of communal discord by his “sins of omission”.

Given that the great voice of Vajpayee is now at the mercy of a voice-box, he cannot even defend himself from the miscarriage of justice at the hands of a judge. However, it speaks for the state of the saffron scrum that no one but no one has mounted a defence of a defenceless man.

Thankfully, Sudheendra Kulkarni steps up to the plate in today’s Indian Express:

“The most egregious part of the Liberhan report is its indictment of former Prime Minister Vajpayee, condemning him, along with Advani, as a “pseudo-moderate”. This will no doubt please communists and Muslim extremists, but, anyone who knows Vajpayee (and also Advani) knows that nothing can be a worse travesty of truth.

“I suspect that this character assassination of Vajpayee by a government-appointed commission has been done deliberately to dishonour him in India’s official history, so that only members of a particular family are recognised by posterity as true nationalist leaders.

“Implicating Vajpayee raises some serious questions. Does the mere fact that he gave a speech supporting the Ayodhya movement make him a “pseudo-moderate? Are we then to believe that only he/she is a moderate Hindu who opposes the BJP, and counters the demand for a Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya?

“I too supported the Ram Mandir movement before 1992 (when I was not in the BJP) and I continue to support it even now, when I am no longer in the BJP. There are millions of ordinary, non-communal but proud Hindus like me who feel outraged by Liberhan’s warped belief that the only correct definition of secularism is that which disregards legitimate Hindu sentiments and silently acquiesces in the negation and falsification of the long history of temple-breaking by bigoted Muslim rulers. If Islamic bigotry could blast Bamyan Buddhas in the age of television in the 21st century, are we to believe that religiously inspired temple-destruction didn’t happen in medieval India?”

Cartoon: courtesy Satya Govind/ The Charicaturist

Read the full article: Vajpayee a pseudo-moderate? A canard

Liberhan Commission Report on Babri Masjid

Vijay M. Deshpande

 

Justice M.S. Liberhan Commission of Enquiry submitted its report on demolition of Babri Masjid on 6^th December 1992. Selective leakages and thereafter extracts of the report have been published by the media. The commission was set up within ten days of the event on 16^th December 1992 and has outlasted any other commission perhaps going into Guinness Book of Records! 48 extensions and 17 years time frame was designed to test the patience of the people. Not that anyone really cares for what the report says, but it speaks volumes about what is not there in the report perhaps.

1. When observations have been made with references to Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was not present at the site, why he was not summoned for any clarifications or information? It is unjust to drag his name without giving him an opportunity to tell the truth.

2. Why is there no reference to P.V.Narsimha Rao, then the Prime Minister, who reportedly went to sleep when the Babri Masjid was being demolished? Wasn’t the Union home minister having any responsibility and role to safeguard the structure? Didn’t home ministry have any intelligence reports on intentions of karsevaks if there was a conspiracy?

3. Why the commission was given 17 long years and 48 extensions to come out with a report only at a politically convenient time to suit the Congress and just when BJP is at nadir of its fortune?

4. The final outcome of commission’s findings is released only when they become irrelevant. Or, perhaps this time the commission was not to be given extension due to austerity measures (sick) and was forced to submit winding up report?

5. Why was there a deliberate leakage of the report when it was only with the home minister? And predictably there was some call for setting up another commission of enquiry on this leakage!

6. Why public money is being wasted on such political tools to fool the public?

7. Now Liberhan Commission Report is handed over to CBI as proof to proceed further in prosecution. Is CBI itself not mandated and competent enough to investigate & find out what happened and who is the culprit? Has the government “outsourced” the fact finding & investigative task to Liberhan Commission taking it away from CBI?

8. Didn’t some one say justice delayed is justice denied? Is this “Pseudo justice”?

Safety Valves:

The commissions of enquiries have been always used to cool off the public anger and to let the time take care of the issues involved. It is only an escape valve to let off the steam.

Commissions of enquiry have been set up in the past by states and the centre whenever there have public disturbances, riots or violence of unusual nature. A retired judge is appointed as chairman of the commission to give a sense of impartiality and sound analysis but not the judgment. With a report from a retired judge the government acquires a moral high ground to deal with opposition. Most of such cases could have been dealt with by CBI which has the necessary mandate and specialization for investigation.

Strengthen CBI:

When there is a need to have a fact finding mission about an event, invariably there is a court case and the matter is sub-judice. The prosecution (or the government) needs to gather evidences and supporting witnesses to present the case to the court. The government should therefore leave the matter to the investigative agencies and not find a substitute like a retired judge. If required, CBI should hire a retired judge to do the work and submit the findings just like they would hire a sleuth. CBI should have enough teeth without political interference to investigate the matter. Does CBI have authority to reject the findings of a commission and trust its own assessment?

At least CBI would not have taken 17 years to present a report of their findings.

More Senas and Dals:

There are many Senas and Dals of different hues and shades all over the country which are the fronts for political parties to engineer public unrests. Be it problems in Godhra, Goa, Mangalore, Mumbai, or Orissa the state governments set up commissions of enquiry and perhaps no one knows what happens to them. When inconvenient the Centre appoints another commission, like Laloo Prasad Yadav did to get contrasting report on Godhra.

 One lesson from appointing such commissions is that we should be ready for tackling more of such public disturbances. Today we have separate National Investigative Agency for terror related cases. CBI now focuses on corruption and criminal cases. Why can’t we have an independent agency or a wing under CBI exclusively for politically triggered public disturbances? Possibly such cases will be more in numbers and more frequent than terror events. In such cases generally there will be a political pressure to submit report before the next session of the assembly or parliament. At least there will be a reasonable time frame for investigation and lesser waste of public money.

As far as the utility of the Liberhan Commission report is concerned the government should reflect on what administrative steps should be taken to make it more responsive in future. But the simple facts stand out like Congress first opened the doors of Ayodhya site for limited worship. That was the first mistake. Then Congress at the Centre slept when the structure was being demolished. That was second mistake. The Liberhan Commission was allowed 48 extensions because of which it was robbed of legitimacy as well as seriousness was the third one. And the report was leaked before being tabled in the parliament was the fourth one. Well, it is not that BJP has done nothing wrong. But Congress in power could have done much more by being proactive instead of passive player & a mute witness and now trying to rewrite the history to project itself as the savior of secularism.

I hope the parliamentary debate focuses on how to deal with similar situations in future to avoid fiasco.

Vijay M. Deshpande

Corporate Advisor,

Strategic Management Initiative,

Pune

November 27, 2009

Scroll down for my other blogs

Or visit www.strami.com

Commissions and their reports have never held any interest for the common man in India. It is an accepted fact that all such reports are always way beyond late, rarely nail the actual wrongdoers and can never force the hand of the government to take action.

Therefore, more intriguing and interesting than the findings and recommendations of the Liberhan report is its ‘leakage’ and the timing of its leak.

As suggested by media reports, the leakage serves to shatter the recent opposition unity as displayed in the sugarcane prices issue. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Liberhan-report-leak-source-still-a-mystery/articleshow/5265606.cms

If we conduct a close examination of the timing of this leakage and the consequent infighting and name calling amongst the political parties, there are some major gains from this discord for the perpetrator of this leak.

The first and the most important gain is that this infighting will ensure that the government will face a lesser degree of heat as the nation faces the first anniversary of Mumbai terror attacks – a sore point in the Indian hearts.

Two, it diverts attention from a close scrutiny of PM’s US visit.

Three, it will also ensure that the ruling party is not pulled up on important issues like inflation, high price rise in essential items and the recessionary state of the economy in the ongoing session of the parliament.

Four, the dramatisation of the leak and the subsequent reactions have once again brought the Hindu-Muslim factor to the forefront. Politicos stand to gain only if the communities remain divided in India.

And of course the most obvious of the lot is to further weaken an already battered major opposition party. 

The drama here lies not in the content of the report but in the timing of the ‘leak’. It makes for a good example of the opportunistic nature of politics. The game of politics has been played extremely adroitly!

By: TimesOnline

World Agenda: BJP in the frame

for Babri mosque massacre

The indictment of the entire top management of the BJP, including the party’s moderate mascot, Atal Behari Vajpayee, for the demolition of the Babri masjid by the Justice Liberhan commission will shock few.

What should really shock is the almost complete lack of contrition on the part of those named and shamed for the trail of death and destruction that the communally pumped-up Ram janmabhoomi movement in general and L.K. Advani’s rath yatra in particular left in their wake.

“We fully own up to the movement, we will not apologise” says the RSS spokesman Ram Madhav. “I’ve said before and will say so again and again, it was the happiest day of my life,” says Vinay Katiyar of the VHP. Former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, who has been slammed for masterminding the State’s soporific response, says “no force on earth” can stop the temple from being built.

However, none of the saffron brotherhoodlums responsible for the “irreparable damage to the secular, democratic fabric of the country” stand for elections. The BJP, which is the political face of those organisations, does. Union law minister Veerappa Moily says the BJP is accountable to the nation for bringing it to the brink of communal discord.

“They owe an explanation, they owe an apology to the nation,” Moily says.

Question: Should the BJP apologise to the nation?

aaaha.. even Vajpayee is involved !!!

If there is a god.. it will protect the country called India.

Penultimate-Line: Most Indian politicians need one or the other religion for their next election victory. Everybody plays for their VOTE BANK. Indian government will never fix the blame on culprits, everybody will go scot free. Irony is this is the same government which is blaming Pakistan for not taking action against 26/11 culprits.

Bottom-Line: Going by Theory of Connecting Dots, top of the parallel lines is the best place for a spectator.

I was told that in history, certain events occur that galvanize a nation to be one. I was also told that once a wrong has been exposed in the system, that system begins its process of transformation. However, all these things may not apply to India. This is taking into account three events, one being the Tabling of the Liberhan report, the other being the anniversary of 26/11 and the Madhu Koda scam. All these events have taken place in the past one week, with the first one happening today.

Now, the first and the second are closely inter-related and go well with the colonial mindset that still dominates our thinking. In about two days from now, it will be the anniversary of the Mumbai terror attacks. A shcoking incident in which 10 people terrorized the city and the citizens for 62 hours. Co-incidentally, you have the ‘leaking’ of the Liberhan report and the tabling the next day.

If you look at it, at the surface, it does look theatrical. However, one influential person I spoke to told me that this is the ploy of the Congress. It is a deliberate ploy to confuse, muddle, move on and impose their will on the population which anyway does not care what goes in Parliament. Some analysts and media houses say that the deliberate ‘leaking’ of the Liberhan report would throw a lifeline to the BJP, who are struggling with internal strife.

So, in our country, an event which is meant to galvanize a population fed up with their problems is now balanced by an event that has proven to be devisive both in mind and soul of every Indian. Babri Masjid remains a contention that has always threatened to have polarizing effects. Now, only time will tell whether or not Polarization in this nation is complete. Prasoon Joshi might write ‘Is Baar nahin’, but unless and until we, the people, seriously come out in numbers and say ‘Is baar nahin’, only then a first step will be taken.

By the way, it has been 17 years since Ayodhya. Do ordinary people in the heartland and in urban areas care whether a temple or a mosuqe is built? Do Atheists still have the belief that Ayodhya is the prime example of religion shedding more blood and it is better that Atheism prevails rather than fascist religions that are hell bent on irrationality? Politicians have already started bickering. Amar Singh of the SP states on Camera that Ram dwells in my heart as well. The Communists have rubbished the report, while excerpts of the Action report have stated that the government will only take necessary action.

The final phase ‘will take necessary action’ has been the bone of contention in Indian politics. If necessary action is taken, it is steamrolled into submission by an inefficient Bureaucracy, a laggard judiciary and a confused media. The lack of unity has been spoken about in detail. Now, I will highlight the lack of Spine that our Indian institutions are blessed with. I am throwing some numbers and the scams that have taken place:

Madhu Koda Scam: Rs 2000 cr

Fodder Scam: Rs 950 cr

SNC Lavalin scam: Rs 300 cr

Orissa Mining scam: Rs 50000 cr

Telgi Scam: Rs 30000 cr

Spectrum Scam: Rs 60000 cr

Bofors Scam: Rs 650 cr

Grand Total: 142000 crore

142000 crore! That is almost 1000 times our GDP. Can we imagine if this money was not laundered in a scam, we could have had multiple lane highways that can rival that of the US and Germanyas far as quality and quantity are concerned. This amount would have helped set up schools in more than 600 districts across the country and that too in every village. This amount of money could have been invested in clean energy like Solar and Wind. This money could have improved Infrastructure, namely electricity, buildings and Public Transport system across the length and breadth of the country. The availability of this money would have reduced the gap significantly between the earnings of Urban and Rural, which according to government data today stands at 1:20. Meaning if one person in the city earns 10000 a month, a person in the rural areas earns only Rs 500 for the month.

Yet, somewhere now anytime, a scam has been concotted. Either the system is too rigid which leads to such scams of such magnitude, or the basic conscience of the power wielders are corrupted beyind recognition. If India lags behind every nation, it is because our mindset has been allowed to become divisive. There is no Unity and Spine among the population as well as the power wielders.

Absence of Unity and Spine means it is the absence of ‘us’ as a people. Scams will continue, no one will rasie a voice. If it is raised, cultural barriers are setup and one will ponder about how it is to be done perfectly. Somewhere, the solution may lie, but knowing us, we will only muddle it furthur. Only things sutaining is hope, but somehow, that feels empty without any concrete action.

(Audrey) On Dec. 6, 1992 India witnessed a tragedy, a failing of culture, civil society, and humanity—the destruction of the Babri Masjid.

The Babri Masjid (i.e. Babur’s mosque) was built in the 16th century in Ayodhya and for most of its existence was not controversial. But over time tensions began to brew as the idea gained hold that the mosque was built on the site of Ram’s birthplace. Ram is a Hindu hero-turned-god over the centuries, whose story is told in the epic poem Ramayana. Ram is from Ayodhya, although historically speaking there’s little evidence that this–dare I say mythical–Ayodhya is the same as the actual dusty town of Ayodhya in modern India. Moreover, regarding Ram’s birthplace… it’s either far too long ago for this to be known or if you take the story non-literally, then it’s a nonsensical question. But try telling all this to Hindu fundamentalists… If you’re interested in the controversy, you can read a bit of background here. The point is that extremist Hindus wanted a temple on this site, and the first necessary step was to get rid of the now insulting mosque.

This wanton destruction continues to haunt India today in several ways. Most painfully, the Babri Masjid incident set off communual riots between Hindus and Muslims that killed 1,000 people or more in the following months. Several outbreaks of violence have followed in the years since as tensions between religious communities have remained relatively high in much of north India. What has the government done about all of this? To their credit, they have prevented any temple from being built on the spot. But primarily they’ve taken 17 years to write a report, called the Liberhan Report, that although completed for several months still hasn’t been released to the public. Why? The fake reasons include that they haven’t completed a Hindi translation of the report, but the real reason is that the report is bound to set off a bunch of government people. You see the Babri Masjid destruction and ensuing violence happened not only with the consent but also with the explicit encouragement of the BJP, a “legitimate” political party in India. Many of its members who were at the forefront of the movement to destroy the mosque (and who still vow to build a temple over the site) continue to wield power in India today.

This is all relevant at the moment because parts of the Liberhan Report were leaked to the press yesterday. I say job well done—it’s a scandal that this report has taken so long and even though finished is being kept secret. But many government individuals feel differently. For starters, Liberhan, a retired justice who wrote the report, was furious when people accused him of leaking it and gave this angry statement: “Don’t challenge my character… I am not a person who is accessible to you [media].” Is it just me or is this preposterous? How is it challenging somebody’s character to suggest that you might be willing to share things with the Indian people? This is a democracy—the people have a right to know and yes, Liberhan, you do have obligations to the real power base of this nation: the Indian public.

Unsurprisingly, the Hindu extremists and the socialists acted even worse by managing to get themselves into a scuffle on the floor of the Lok Sabha (India’s parliament). And the icing on the cake—the report is tabled until further notice. As far as I can tell, it might never see the light of day again. And why? We don’t even know what’s in the full report yet since only parts of it were leaked but because parts were leaked we can’t even discuss it now? How is this respectable behavior? How do these people get reelected? I’ll tell you one thing about perspective—any time you think American politics is totally insane and broken, just read Indian newspapers for a few weeks, and you’re likely to feel a lot better.

BABRI MASJID

Babar was the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. He built a mosque at Ayodhya, where Hindus claim, stood a temple of Ram.

In 1962, there was a movement, spearheaded by Hindu fanatics, to demolish the mosque and build the original temple there. On 6-12-1992, the structure, which was a historic monument, was destroyed, followed be terrorist attacks by Muslims in Bombay.

Now the enquiry commission has come to the conclusion that, it was a conspiracy by leaders of the Hindutwa movement, and not a spontaneous mass movement that resulted in the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Earlier, there used to be Hindu-Muslim riots, in parts of India, but terrorism was practically unknown. All this changed after 6-12-1992. Davood Ibrahim, living in Pakistan, conspired terror strikes against India. Hindu terrorists too became a reality. Black money and illegal arms trade played their own role in this game.

Now, things are out of control.

In today’s paper, details have come, of how the Government of Uttar Pradesh posted police officers, Magistrate etc. sympathetic to their cause, so that none tried to preserve the historic monument when some people climbed up on top of the roof and started pulling it down, in the presence of TV camera !

This is India, our precious democracy.