expressbuzz.com, 30 November 2009
by Tahir Mahmood
Who demolished the historic mosque in the holy city of Ayodhya, and who all had been preparing the ground for it since long? What strategies were adopted for achieving this goal? The setting up of a derisory one-man enquiry and assigning for it a short period of three months was indicative of the ground reality that to answer these and other related questions no Gordian knot was to be untied. And this was quite understandable.
Answers to the questions to be probed were, thanks to a well-developed electronic media in the country, already in public domain. The heinous crime openly committed in broad-daylight had been witnessed by millions of television viewers across the globe. Unleashing of provocative religious politics in the years preceding the commission of the crime — and indeed culminating into it — was also common knowledge. But official recognition of these well-known facts required authentication by a quasi-judicial body, and hence the Liberhan Commission. What went wrong with that quick-enquiry mechanism compelling it to get its tenure gradually multiplied by 66, remains a mystery uncovered. At last, at a whopping cost of eight crore rupees a report was produced in June this year. While it was yet being kept a closely guarded secret, someone let the cat out of the bag. It had then to be made public in a hurry, with a so-called action-taken report.
Our leaders have since been more concerned about who had ‘leaked’ the report than about what it has to say. Those indicted in it are annoyed and intend to use this opportunity to reunite their warring factions with a view to re-gaining the paradise lost, by whipping up religious sentiments once again. Those expected to act on the report are in a quandary: what to do with the inordinately delayed report while the nation has in the meanwhile buried the bitter past and revived its secular polity? The hurriedly produced ATR promises, besides some cosmetic rhetoric, to get expedited the court cases already pending against those blamed in the report for the 17-year old catastrophe. Later, reacting to the furore over the superficiality of ATR the government reportedly referred the Liberhan findings to the CBI.
In 1991, in the wake of the growing trend of exploiting for petty political gains and religious sensitivities relating to ancient shrines, the government of the day had enacted a law called Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act declaring that in respect of every place of worship in the country its ‘religious character’ existing on August 15, 1947 shall be strictly maintained.
It was further laid down in it that any attempt to convert a place of worship belonging to one religion into that belonging to another religious community would be a punishable offence. Section 3 of the Act however declared: “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place of worship”. The law of the country had thus shut its eyes to the clear signs of what was going to happen in Ayodhya. While in the terminology of this Act the 450-year-old building always shown in municipal records as a mosque had become ‘Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid’, in the politicians’ jargon of later months it graduated to a vivadit dhancha (disputed structure). The rival claims to the ancient shrine having thus been given legislative and political recognition, who could have stopped what people saw happening on that fateful day through the eyes of television cameras worldwide? The judicial system of the country too was not able either to prevent the dastardly act or to make room for any reversal of the unfortunate event. No headway had been made in the title suit relating to the mosque site pending since long, thus leaving sentimentally agitated and politically impatient people to settle scores.
When before the demolition of the mosque some temple-construction material was being transported to Ayodhya by the socalled karsevaks, the apex court of the country ruled that this was an ‘essential practice’ of their religion. Prosecuted for the offence, one of the chief culprits was sentenced to a mere token punishment of a day’s imprisonment. And when State acquisition of the demolished mosque’s site was challenged pleading the Islamic belief that a mosque once built always remains a mosque, the apex court agreed with an old ruling of the British era that ‘this is not the Mohammedan law of India approved by the courts’ — adding a rather startling observation that praying in a mosque is not even an essential practice in Islam.
What national interest has the Liberhan Commission report served, one may legitimately ask, by reiterating the obvious? Recording the fact that the demolition of the mosque had been skilfully planned and identifying who all were responsible for that melodrama of national shame cannot be seen as a discovery or revelation. The real worth of the 17-year long and extremely costly exercise lies in its forceful admonition that politics of religion must be abjured once and for all, by all concerned.
So, what next? Must not all stakeholders now ensure that the nation is not pushed back into the frenzy of communal politics of yesteryear? Instead of questioning the report and claiming ‘we did not do it’ those indicted in it should pledge they would never do it again. Have not the past votaries of communal politics already seen that, being against the conscience and social ethos of the nation, it does not even help in the long run? Within a few months after the Ayodhya disaster two legislative proposals of a deterrent nature aimed at preventing misuse of religion for electoral gains were brought before Parliament — the Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Bill and the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, both of 1993. Sixteen years later both are lying in the dustbin of history. The Liberhan report should prompt the government of the day to revive and duly enact both the proposals forthwith.
|
November 29, 2009
Harkishan Singh Surjeet on the occasion of 10th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition
From People's Democracy, November 29, 2009
Significance of Remembering December 6
Harkishan Singh Surjeet
Below we reproduce the article written by Late Comrade 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.
December 1, 2002
Significance of Remembering December 6
Harkishan Singh Surjeet
Below we reproduce the article written by Late Comrade 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.
December 1, 2002
November 28, 2009
Against Partition: April 1946 Interview with Abul Kalam Azad
From Covert Magazine
THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE
by Matbooat Chattan Lahore
Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.
If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters
THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE
by Matbooat Chattan Lahore
Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.
If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters
The mosque at Ayodhya: A destructive legacy
From The Economist print edition
Nov 26th 2009 | DELHI
A Hindu mob’s demolition in 1992 of a mosque at Ayodhya still arouses passions
AFTER 17 years, several hundred testimonies, and many missed deadlines, an inquiry into one of modern India’s darkest episodes, the destruction of a mosque by Hindu fanatics, this week at last published its findings. It prompted riotous scenes in parliament and a media whirl. The report, on the demolition in December 1992 of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, concluded that senior leaders of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including the party’s present leader, Lal Krishna Advani, were complicit in the vandalism.
The demolition sparked violence across India, in which some 2,000 people died. It has stained Indian politics ever since. For Hindu activists, the destruction was merely the first act, and less important than the still unwritten sequel, in which a glorious temple would be built to Ram, a Hindu god-king. Invading Muslims in the 16th century had allegedly plonked the mosque on Ram’s birthplace. A more recent communal disaster, a pogrom in the state of Gujarat in 2002, in which more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, are believed to have been killed, could also be traced back to Ayodhya. It started with a fire, contentiously blamed on Muslim arsonists, on a train carrying Hindu activists back from agitating there.
That the BJP was involved in the demolition of the Babri Masjid was never in doubt. It followed a noisy and divisive campaign by Mr Advani for a Ram temple on the site. After whipping up his followers, he and several other senior BJP leaders looked on as the mosque was razed with pickaxes and bare hands.
This was a watershed in modern Indian history, exacerbating tensions between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority. It propelled the BJP, which until Mr Advani’s campaign had been on the fringe of Indian politics, into a mainstream party. In 1998 a BJP-led coalition won a general election, thanks in part to the party’s continued promotion of an ideology known as Hindutva, literally “Hinduness”, that asserts Hindu rights.
Nearly two decades on, that ideology appears to have lost much of its vote-winning power. In a general election this spring, the BJP took a drubbing. It now controls only 116 seats in the 543-member parliament. Political scientists ascribed the victory of the Congress party partly to its wresting of votes from the BJP’s core supporters: upper-caste and middle-class Indians once drawn to political Hinduism.
The report by M.S. Liberhan, a judge, debunks the BJP’s long-held claim that the mosque was spontaneously torn down by Hindu zealots. Especially damaging is its description of Atal Behari Vajpayee, a former prime minister long admired across party lines for his moderate views and gentle wit, as a “pseudo-moderate”. Mr Vajpayee, like Mr Advani, was found to have been aware of the impending demolition and to have done little to stop it.
For the BJP, grappling with an ideological crisis compounded by in-fighting, the report comes at a bad time. This has fuelled allegations that prepublication leaks of parts of it were politically motivated. The government has denied this.
Muslim leaders have called on the government to punish those castigated in the report. But neither the report itself nor the government statement that followed its publication hint at this. Some reckon the government is unlikely to prosecute any politicians over the Babri Masjid incident, lest the Hindu right make martyrs of them.
Impunity has also been enjoyed by the perpetrators of both the Gujarat pogrom and of the massacre of more than 3,000 Sikhs in 1984. The government has, however, said it will follow Mr Liberhan’s suggestion of drafting a law to punish those who manipulate religion for political ends. Frictions between Hindus and religious minorities have often rallied more extreme Hindu groups aligned with the BJP. Last year, after the party came to power in Karnataka, in the south, the state suffered a rash of anti-Christian violence.
In Ayodhya itself the priest of the makeshift Hindu temple built where the mosque once stood rues the day it was ever destroyed. Ever since the Babri Masjid’s three majestic domes fell, Ram’s birthplace has been exposed to the sun and the rain, complains the softly spoken, saffron-robed Satyendra Das as he sits near his temple reading the “Bhagavad Gita”, a Hindu text. “In the mosque Ram was safe”, he adds. “Those Hindu activists did all this for political gains. We had no hassles with our Muslim brothers.”
Nov 26th 2009 | DELHI
A Hindu mob’s demolition in 1992 of a mosque at Ayodhya still arouses passions
AFTER 17 years, several hundred testimonies, and many missed deadlines, an inquiry into one of modern India’s darkest episodes, the destruction of a mosque by Hindu fanatics, this week at last published its findings. It prompted riotous scenes in parliament and a media whirl. The report, on the demolition in December 1992 of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, concluded that senior leaders of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including the party’s present leader, Lal Krishna Advani, were complicit in the vandalism.
The demolition sparked violence across India, in which some 2,000 people died. It has stained Indian politics ever since. For Hindu activists, the destruction was merely the first act, and less important than the still unwritten sequel, in which a glorious temple would be built to Ram, a Hindu god-king. Invading Muslims in the 16th century had allegedly plonked the mosque on Ram’s birthplace. A more recent communal disaster, a pogrom in the state of Gujarat in 2002, in which more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, are believed to have been killed, could also be traced back to Ayodhya. It started with a fire, contentiously blamed on Muslim arsonists, on a train carrying Hindu activists back from agitating there.
That the BJP was involved in the demolition of the Babri Masjid was never in doubt. It followed a noisy and divisive campaign by Mr Advani for a Ram temple on the site. After whipping up his followers, he and several other senior BJP leaders looked on as the mosque was razed with pickaxes and bare hands.
This was a watershed in modern Indian history, exacerbating tensions between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority. It propelled the BJP, which until Mr Advani’s campaign had been on the fringe of Indian politics, into a mainstream party. In 1998 a BJP-led coalition won a general election, thanks in part to the party’s continued promotion of an ideology known as Hindutva, literally “Hinduness”, that asserts Hindu rights.
Nearly two decades on, that ideology appears to have lost much of its vote-winning power. In a general election this spring, the BJP took a drubbing. It now controls only 116 seats in the 543-member parliament. Political scientists ascribed the victory of the Congress party partly to its wresting of votes from the BJP’s core supporters: upper-caste and middle-class Indians once drawn to political Hinduism.
The report by M.S. Liberhan, a judge, debunks the BJP’s long-held claim that the mosque was spontaneously torn down by Hindu zealots. Especially damaging is its description of Atal Behari Vajpayee, a former prime minister long admired across party lines for his moderate views and gentle wit, as a “pseudo-moderate”. Mr Vajpayee, like Mr Advani, was found to have been aware of the impending demolition and to have done little to stop it.
For the BJP, grappling with an ideological crisis compounded by in-fighting, the report comes at a bad time. This has fuelled allegations that prepublication leaks of parts of it were politically motivated. The government has denied this.
Muslim leaders have called on the government to punish those castigated in the report. But neither the report itself nor the government statement that followed its publication hint at this. Some reckon the government is unlikely to prosecute any politicians over the Babri Masjid incident, lest the Hindu right make martyrs of them.
Impunity has also been enjoyed by the perpetrators of both the Gujarat pogrom and of the massacre of more than 3,000 Sikhs in 1984. The government has, however, said it will follow Mr Liberhan’s suggestion of drafting a law to punish those who manipulate religion for political ends. Frictions between Hindus and religious minorities have often rallied more extreme Hindu groups aligned with the BJP. Last year, after the party came to power in Karnataka, in the south, the state suffered a rash of anti-Christian violence.
In Ayodhya itself the priest of the makeshift Hindu temple built where the mosque once stood rues the day it was ever destroyed. Ever since the Babri Masjid’s three majestic domes fell, Ram’s birthplace has been exposed to the sun and the rain, complains the softly spoken, saffron-robed Satyendra Das as he sits near his temple reading the “Bhagavad Gita”, a Hindu text. “In the mosque Ram was safe”, he adds. “Those Hindu activists did all this for political gains. We had no hassles with our Muslim brothers.”
Unknowingly, Liberhan repeats some arguments put forward by the Hindu nationalists
Outlook Magazine | Dec 07, 2009
The Thousand Year Myth
The Liberhan report too falls for the Hindu-Secular conundrum
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
The document that we now know as the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry Report tells us after 17 long years what all of us have known since December 6, 1992. It names and indicts the conspirators behind the Babri Masjid demolition, dismisses the theory of a spontaneous upsurge, and officially sanctifies Atal Behari Vajpayee as a pseudo-liberal. Its recommendations go nowhere, and given the current political climate, it serves little purpose other than for the Congress and the BJP to score a few political points. The size, structure and timing of the report makes it unfit for public debate and consigns it to a shelf full of similar useless documents. But as a piece of ‘literature’ produced in contemporary India, the report has a significance that goes beyond its intended purpose.
As a text, the Liberhan report mimics the way events unfolded in Ayodhya on December 6, ’92. Politicians at the time behaved as if the events of that day were a bolt from the blue that shattered all our moral, ethical and political categories. In the face of an overwhelming sense of reality, politicians exhibited a misplaced sense of innocence. The demolition of the mosque unleashed a well-orchestrated mechanism of repression and dissociation. Vajpayee resigned from his party post, and then withdrew his resignation, with alacrity. Lal Krishna Advani, the man who led the movement that culminated in the events of December 6, found himself saying that the demolition of the mosque was the saddest day of his life. Nothing really happened, either politically or socially. The prime minister of the day slept peacefully while climacteric events were unfolding.
Justice Liberhan’s report does exactly that: it takes the drama out of a political story of wilful criminality, conspiracy, subversion of the Constitution and of the rule of law, complicity and neglect by relegating it to the past. The time elapsed between the events of December 6, ’92, and the report’s submission transforms it into something that demands a historical rather than a political analysis. Many individuals implicated in the events are dead, many others have gone into political oblivion, and a few like Advani and Kalyan Singh have been partially resurrected from their political graves. Even the report’s leaking and its eventual airing in Parliament mirrors the delusional anarchy, feigned surprise and smug indolence that led to the demolition of the mosque.
There is, however, one significant question that remains unresolved between then and now: how does a nation with a vastly disproportionate sense of moral supremacy (and political and economic insignificance) manage to cover itself in such an inglorious mess? The answer is obvious. The events leading to the Babri demolition and the Liberhan report are inspired by the same myth, the myth of the reasonable, soft, spiritual, inward-looking, tolerant, peaceful and all-embracing Hindu. While Justice Liberhan historicises the process that led to the demolition of the mosque and the movement that asserted the building of a temple for Lord Rama, he leaves the myth of the Hindu self-perception unchallenged. Therefore, the chapter in the report titled ‘Secularism’ (Chapter 12) is of singular significance.
This chapter assumes that there is a single idea of India rather than a plurality of the ideas of India, restates several conflicting Supreme Court judgements regarding the meaning of Hindutva and secularism, quotes Amartya Sen indiscriminately, and ends up with cliches that contradict each other in the space of a single paragraph. Let us consider a few examples. On page 869, Liberhan says that “secularism is nothing else but providing a casteless society”, and in the next sentence goes on to argue that “the cleavage between Hindu and Muslim is a challenge to secularism”. Following another Amartya quote, Liberhan comes to the conclusion that “Hinduism within itself has a diversity that is not only in caste but also in innumerable thoughts....”
Once this foundation myth is stated, a series of conclusions follow. Liberhan believes that “the Hindu society is a well-rooted and established patient society since time immemorial.... The basis of secularism is the tradition of acceptance of complex, multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious diversity as demonstrated in the historical process of thousands of years”. Note the imprecision of the term “thousands of years”. A myth is a myth because it cannot be historicised. Unknowingly, Liberhan repeats the very arguments that Hindu nationalists have put forth since the 19th century. Liberhan also believes that a democratic polity and a secular constitution are the mainstay of the Indian nation because they are founded on an essentially secular Hindu society. What happened in Ayodhya, therefore, is merely a deviation from the well-established norm of “thousands of years”.
The Thousand Year Myth
The Liberhan report too falls for the Hindu-Secular conundrum
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
The document that we now know as the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry Report tells us after 17 long years what all of us have known since December 6, 1992. It names and indicts the conspirators behind the Babri Masjid demolition, dismisses the theory of a spontaneous upsurge, and officially sanctifies Atal Behari Vajpayee as a pseudo-liberal. Its recommendations go nowhere, and given the current political climate, it serves little purpose other than for the Congress and the BJP to score a few political points. The size, structure and timing of the report makes it unfit for public debate and consigns it to a shelf full of similar useless documents. But as a piece of ‘literature’ produced in contemporary India, the report has a significance that goes beyond its intended purpose.
As a text, the Liberhan report mimics the way events unfolded in Ayodhya on December 6, ’92. Politicians at the time behaved as if the events of that day were a bolt from the blue that shattered all our moral, ethical and political categories. In the face of an overwhelming sense of reality, politicians exhibited a misplaced sense of innocence. The demolition of the mosque unleashed a well-orchestrated mechanism of repression and dissociation. Vajpayee resigned from his party post, and then withdrew his resignation, with alacrity. Lal Krishna Advani, the man who led the movement that culminated in the events of December 6, found himself saying that the demolition of the mosque was the saddest day of his life. Nothing really happened, either politically or socially. The prime minister of the day slept peacefully while climacteric events were unfolding.
Justice Liberhan’s report does exactly that: it takes the drama out of a political story of wilful criminality, conspiracy, subversion of the Constitution and of the rule of law, complicity and neglect by relegating it to the past. The time elapsed between the events of December 6, ’92, and the report’s submission transforms it into something that demands a historical rather than a political analysis. Many individuals implicated in the events are dead, many others have gone into political oblivion, and a few like Advani and Kalyan Singh have been partially resurrected from their political graves. Even the report’s leaking and its eventual airing in Parliament mirrors the delusional anarchy, feigned surprise and smug indolence that led to the demolition of the mosque.
There is, however, one significant question that remains unresolved between then and now: how does a nation with a vastly disproportionate sense of moral supremacy (and political and economic insignificance) manage to cover itself in such an inglorious mess? The answer is obvious. The events leading to the Babri demolition and the Liberhan report are inspired by the same myth, the myth of the reasonable, soft, spiritual, inward-looking, tolerant, peaceful and all-embracing Hindu. While Justice Liberhan historicises the process that led to the demolition of the mosque and the movement that asserted the building of a temple for Lord Rama, he leaves the myth of the Hindu self-perception unchallenged. Therefore, the chapter in the report titled ‘Secularism’ (Chapter 12) is of singular significance.
This chapter assumes that there is a single idea of India rather than a plurality of the ideas of India, restates several conflicting Supreme Court judgements regarding the meaning of Hindutva and secularism, quotes Amartya Sen indiscriminately, and ends up with cliches that contradict each other in the space of a single paragraph. Let us consider a few examples. On page 869, Liberhan says that “secularism is nothing else but providing a casteless society”, and in the next sentence goes on to argue that “the cleavage between Hindu and Muslim is a challenge to secularism”. Following another Amartya quote, Liberhan comes to the conclusion that “Hinduism within itself has a diversity that is not only in caste but also in innumerable thoughts....”
Once this foundation myth is stated, a series of conclusions follow. Liberhan believes that “the Hindu society is a well-rooted and established patient society since time immemorial.... The basis of secularism is the tradition of acceptance of complex, multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious diversity as demonstrated in the historical process of thousands of years”. Note the imprecision of the term “thousands of years”. A myth is a myth because it cannot be historicised. Unknowingly, Liberhan repeats the very arguments that Hindu nationalists have put forth since the 19th century. Liberhan also believes that a democratic polity and a secular constitution are the mainstay of the Indian nation because they are founded on an essentially secular Hindu society. What happened in Ayodhya, therefore, is merely a deviation from the well-established norm of “thousands of years”.
India's Secret Service Warned About Possible Demolition in Ayodhya
outlook Magazine, Dec 07, 2009
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
by Chander Suta Dogra
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 100-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
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
by Chander Suta Dogra
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 100-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
November 27, 2009
What Matters More the Liberhan Report or its Leak?
Hindustan Times, November 27, 2009
The joke’s on us
by Barkha Dutt
What should matter more — how a report on an undisputed moment of national shame ‘leaked’ its way into the public domain or what its findings are? So far, politicians across the divide have mostly huffed and puffed about how NDTV and The Indian Express were able to access the contents of the Justice Liberhan Commission report before it was tabled in Parliament. But given that we aren’t quite talking about state secrets or national security here, isn’t it time to stop diverting the debate to the non-issue of the leak? How about some real questions? What does the commission amount to after 17 years and 48 extensions beyond a waste of taxpayers’ money? Does the judge tell us anything we didn’t know? Doesn’t the platitudinous nature of both the commission’s recommendations and the centre’s action Taken Report (atr) make a mockery of the issue? And will the din over the report give L.K. Advani a new voice within his party?
Frankly, the report is a dud. Yes, it punctures a hole in the BJP’s protective shield by crushing the party’s claim that the demolition at Ayodhya was ‘spontaneous’. Declaring that the “demolition cartel” could have been stopped by Advani had he done more than make ‘feeble requests’, the commission concludes that the kar sevaks went in to Ayodhya with their pickaxes and shovels with the specific intention of bringing the dome down. And in a humiliating irony for the BJP — given the recent crisis within the party — Liberhan decides that the RSS is the principal and the BJP a pliant student. But here’s the problem — most of these sweeping summaries, even if held true by history, read like an extended magazine article that didn’t get the benefit of a good editor. Surely, a judicial commission is meant to use the clinical tools of investigation and not the weapons of rhetoric? But while traversing through the history and geography of the Ayodhya dispute in his report, the good judge doesn’t empirically explain how he arrived at his destination.
I’m not arguing that his conclusions are necessarily incorrect. For a movement whose war cry was, ‘Ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tod do’, and whose deadwoods have come crawling out of oblivion this week to claim that December 6 remains the ‘proudest day’ of their lives, it’s not hard to believe that the demolition was planned. But a fact-finding commission that has the luxury of a 17-year single focus needs to clinically prove its hypothesis; not merely opine and grandstand. Sadly, Liberhan has taken almost two decades to write what most journalists could have written in the immediate aftermath of 1992.
Ironically, the other gap in the report connects two men on opposite sides of the political trenches — Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Both were politicians who converted ambivalence and silence into a fine art of political strategy and thus remain opaque figures in many ways. History remains divided on the omissions and commissions of both in the shame of Ayodhya. The inclusion of Vajpayee and the benign forgiveness of Rao remain two other problem areas in the Liberhan report.
While in active politics, Vajpayee, labelled a “pseudo-moderate” by Liberhan, often managed to straddle ideological contradictions by locating within them an affable philosophical vagueness. Those who know him say he may have taken the odd ride on Advani’s Ayodhya rath, but was never a constant traveller on a journey that made him distinctly uncomfortable. Others point to a speech he made in Lucknow on the eve of the demolition, in which he seemed to hint at the ensuing storm by asking how long “bhajans and kirtans could be sung standing”. So, why wasn’t this speech made a basis for summoning Vajpayee before the commission? Ironically, a Lucknow-based lawyer, I.B. Singh submitted the video clip before the commission in 2004 and asked that Vajpayee be questioned. The plea was rejected. So on what legal basis then does Liberhan list Vajpayee among the 68 “culpable” for “communal discord?”
The worst that is said about Rao, on the other hand, is that he was “day dreaming”. If the commission is to be believed, Rao was so naïve that he was “lulled into inaction” by the BJP’s “false promises”. Once again, Liberhan makes a faulty legal formulation. He argues that Rao could not have dismissed Kalyan Singh’s government before the demolition because the UP governor had advised against it. But doesn’t Article 356 mandate President’s rule based on the governor’s recommendation ‘or otherwise’? Madhav Godbole — who was Home Secretary at the time — has
gone on record to say that a Cabinet note was ready on sacking the UP government, but it never got the thumbs up from his political bosses. Interestingly, the Congress today seems keener to condemn Rao’s inaction than Justice Liberhan does.
In effect, the commission’s findings seem to lack any robust consistency. The Home Ministry’s ATR is vague and wishy-washy, but not much else could be derived from the judge’s own over-generalised recommendations. Despite Liberhan’s sweeping condemnations, it’s peculiar that the report does not propose punitive action against any individual.
So, what the BJP needs to worry about is not what Liberhan says or how his report leaked. Yet again, the party’s dilemma is ideological. Will the contradictions within take the party on another yatra into an anachronistic past? Or will it finally shed the cobwebs and realise that ironically, on the day the masjid/disputed structure fell, Ramjanmabhoomi died as a cause. And the India of 2009 just doesn’t care.
One thing though is certain. We will never see anyone taking responsibility for the Ayodhya demolition — a black swan moment in the country’s history — or for the communal riots that ensued and claimed thousands of lives. Will Parliament focus on that during the debate next week? Probably, and tragically, no.
Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV
The joke’s on us
by Barkha Dutt
What should matter more — how a report on an undisputed moment of national shame ‘leaked’ its way into the public domain or what its findings are? So far, politicians across the divide have mostly huffed and puffed about how NDTV and The Indian Express were able to access the contents of the Justice Liberhan Commission report before it was tabled in Parliament. But given that we aren’t quite talking about state secrets or national security here, isn’t it time to stop diverting the debate to the non-issue of the leak? How about some real questions? What does the commission amount to after 17 years and 48 extensions beyond a waste of taxpayers’ money? Does the judge tell us anything we didn’t know? Doesn’t the platitudinous nature of both the commission’s recommendations and the centre’s action Taken Report (atr) make a mockery of the issue? And will the din over the report give L.K. Advani a new voice within his party?
Frankly, the report is a dud. Yes, it punctures a hole in the BJP’s protective shield by crushing the party’s claim that the demolition at Ayodhya was ‘spontaneous’. Declaring that the “demolition cartel” could have been stopped by Advani had he done more than make ‘feeble requests’, the commission concludes that the kar sevaks went in to Ayodhya with their pickaxes and shovels with the specific intention of bringing the dome down. And in a humiliating irony for the BJP — given the recent crisis within the party — Liberhan decides that the RSS is the principal and the BJP a pliant student. But here’s the problem — most of these sweeping summaries, even if held true by history, read like an extended magazine article that didn’t get the benefit of a good editor. Surely, a judicial commission is meant to use the clinical tools of investigation and not the weapons of rhetoric? But while traversing through the history and geography of the Ayodhya dispute in his report, the good judge doesn’t empirically explain how he arrived at his destination.
I’m not arguing that his conclusions are necessarily incorrect. For a movement whose war cry was, ‘Ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tod do’, and whose deadwoods have come crawling out of oblivion this week to claim that December 6 remains the ‘proudest day’ of their lives, it’s not hard to believe that the demolition was planned. But a fact-finding commission that has the luxury of a 17-year single focus needs to clinically prove its hypothesis; not merely opine and grandstand. Sadly, Liberhan has taken almost two decades to write what most journalists could have written in the immediate aftermath of 1992.
Ironically, the other gap in the report connects two men on opposite sides of the political trenches — Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Both were politicians who converted ambivalence and silence into a fine art of political strategy and thus remain opaque figures in many ways. History remains divided on the omissions and commissions of both in the shame of Ayodhya. The inclusion of Vajpayee and the benign forgiveness of Rao remain two other problem areas in the Liberhan report.
While in active politics, Vajpayee, labelled a “pseudo-moderate” by Liberhan, often managed to straddle ideological contradictions by locating within them an affable philosophical vagueness. Those who know him say he may have taken the odd ride on Advani’s Ayodhya rath, but was never a constant traveller on a journey that made him distinctly uncomfortable. Others point to a speech he made in Lucknow on the eve of the demolition, in which he seemed to hint at the ensuing storm by asking how long “bhajans and kirtans could be sung standing”. So, why wasn’t this speech made a basis for summoning Vajpayee before the commission? Ironically, a Lucknow-based lawyer, I.B. Singh submitted the video clip before the commission in 2004 and asked that Vajpayee be questioned. The plea was rejected. So on what legal basis then does Liberhan list Vajpayee among the 68 “culpable” for “communal discord?”
The worst that is said about Rao, on the other hand, is that he was “day dreaming”. If the commission is to be believed, Rao was so naïve that he was “lulled into inaction” by the BJP’s “false promises”. Once again, Liberhan makes a faulty legal formulation. He argues that Rao could not have dismissed Kalyan Singh’s government before the demolition because the UP governor had advised against it. But doesn’t Article 356 mandate President’s rule based on the governor’s recommendation ‘or otherwise’? Madhav Godbole — who was Home Secretary at the time — has
gone on record to say that a Cabinet note was ready on sacking the UP government, but it never got the thumbs up from his political bosses. Interestingly, the Congress today seems keener to condemn Rao’s inaction than Justice Liberhan does.
In effect, the commission’s findings seem to lack any robust consistency. The Home Ministry’s ATR is vague and wishy-washy, but not much else could be derived from the judge’s own over-generalised recommendations. Despite Liberhan’s sweeping condemnations, it’s peculiar that the report does not propose punitive action against any individual.
So, what the BJP needs to worry about is not what Liberhan says or how his report leaked. Yet again, the party’s dilemma is ideological. Will the contradictions within take the party on another yatra into an anachronistic past? Or will it finally shed the cobwebs and realise that ironically, on the day the masjid/disputed structure fell, Ramjanmabhoomi died as a cause. And the India of 2009 just doesn’t care.
One thing though is certain. We will never see anyone taking responsibility for the Ayodhya demolition — a black swan moment in the country’s history — or for the communal riots that ensued and claimed thousands of lives. Will Parliament focus on that during the debate next week? Probably, and tragically, no.
Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV
What the Babri demolition was to India, the Mujib assassination was to Bangladesh
Hindustan Times, November 27, 2009
No two ways about it
by Pratik Kanjilal
What a relief it was yesterday, when the useless controversy over Justice Liberhan’s report was blown away as we remembered 26/11. It would have been perfect if we had remembered yet another anniversary — 60 years ago on Thursday, we passed the Constitution, the founding document on which all our laws rest. It was this document which mandated Justice Liberhan’s inquiries, for instance. The Liberhan Commission report was delayed by due process and its findings are not exactly news
only because… well, there was nothing new to find.
Investigating Ayodhya isn’t exactly rocket science. The Babri demolition was played out before the eyes of the nation. All the data that Liberhan could ever need was available in the public domain, in television footage and newspaper files. And yet the commission required Rs 8 crore of public funds and 17 years of our time to deliver. Let’s not hyperventilate too much about the expense. The government squanders more money every time it burps. The real cost lies in the years wasted, blamed as usual on due process. In those years, communal politics entrenched itself in the national consciousness as an inescapable given, though it was only a plot hatched by the handful of people that Liberhan has named.
Let me draw your attention to a case in neighbouring Bangladesh. It is a court case, unlike the Liberhan Commission, yet it bears looking at. Last Thursday, the Dhaka Supreme Court sent the conspirators in the Mujibur Rahman assassination case to the gallows. Curiously, the sentencing was barely noticed in India, though the matter bears striking structural similarities to the Babri demolition.
Hoping to spread the blame, the conspirators had tried to pass off a political assassination as a spontaneous event during a mutiny. Just as the architects of the Babri demolition are still insisting that it was the result of spontaneous public action. It was public knowledge that the murderers had gone room by room through the president’s house in Dhaka, killing everyone, including an infant, in an effort to wipe out the family. Very public knowledge — the house is now a museum commemorating the dead. Just as public as the reams of information on the Babri demolition, which expose it as the outcome of a carefully conceived plan executed with logistical precision.
What the Babri demolition is to India, the Mujib assassination is to Bangladesh, a supreme act of impunity played out in the public gaze, which hijacked the political will of the people and the future of the nation. And yet the murderers got away with it for 34 years. That’s twice as long as Liberhan took, but at least it has resulted in a sentence. Liberhan’s report is toothless. It is only fodder for fiery speechifying in Parliament next Tuesday.
To do away with due process would invite anarchy. But does it always have to be so tediously cumbersome, even in cases of national importance where outcomes are more or less obvious, or at least fall within a narrow band of possibilities? The law must preserve its high ideals, but not to the extent that its practical value is degraded. Miscarriage of justice is criminal. But so is delay, especially in a region where impunity prospers so indecently because of it.
Pratik Kanjilal is publisher of The Little Magazine
n pratik@littlemag.com
No two ways about it
by Pratik Kanjilal
What a relief it was yesterday, when the useless controversy over Justice Liberhan’s report was blown away as we remembered 26/11. It would have been perfect if we had remembered yet another anniversary — 60 years ago on Thursday, we passed the Constitution, the founding document on which all our laws rest. It was this document which mandated Justice Liberhan’s inquiries, for instance. The Liberhan Commission report was delayed by due process and its findings are not exactly news
only because… well, there was nothing new to find.
Investigating Ayodhya isn’t exactly rocket science. The Babri demolition was played out before the eyes of the nation. All the data that Liberhan could ever need was available in the public domain, in television footage and newspaper files. And yet the commission required Rs 8 crore of public funds and 17 years of our time to deliver. Let’s not hyperventilate too much about the expense. The government squanders more money every time it burps. The real cost lies in the years wasted, blamed as usual on due process. In those years, communal politics entrenched itself in the national consciousness as an inescapable given, though it was only a plot hatched by the handful of people that Liberhan has named.
Let me draw your attention to a case in neighbouring Bangladesh. It is a court case, unlike the Liberhan Commission, yet it bears looking at. Last Thursday, the Dhaka Supreme Court sent the conspirators in the Mujibur Rahman assassination case to the gallows. Curiously, the sentencing was barely noticed in India, though the matter bears striking structural similarities to the Babri demolition.
Hoping to spread the blame, the conspirators had tried to pass off a political assassination as a spontaneous event during a mutiny. Just as the architects of the Babri demolition are still insisting that it was the result of spontaneous public action. It was public knowledge that the murderers had gone room by room through the president’s house in Dhaka, killing everyone, including an infant, in an effort to wipe out the family. Very public knowledge — the house is now a museum commemorating the dead. Just as public as the reams of information on the Babri demolition, which expose it as the outcome of a carefully conceived plan executed with logistical precision.
What the Babri demolition is to India, the Mujib assassination is to Bangladesh, a supreme act of impunity played out in the public gaze, which hijacked the political will of the people and the future of the nation. And yet the murderers got away with it for 34 years. That’s twice as long as Liberhan took, but at least it has resulted in a sentence. Liberhan’s report is toothless. It is only fodder for fiery speechifying in Parliament next Tuesday.
To do away with due process would invite anarchy. But does it always have to be so tediously cumbersome, even in cases of national importance where outcomes are more or less obvious, or at least fall within a narrow band of possibilities? The law must preserve its high ideals, but not to the extent that its practical value is degraded. Miscarriage of justice is criminal. But so is delay, especially in a region where impunity prospers so indecently because of it.
Pratik Kanjilal is publisher of The Little Magazine
n pratik@littlemag.com
Mumbai: Trauma of 26/11 ISP IV 2009
Mumbai Struggles to Recover from Trauma of 26/11
Ram Puniyani
Just a year ago, Mumbai witnessed worst of the terrorist attacks. 26/11 2008 will always be remembered for the wrong reasons. This was an operation planned meticulously by a group of jeans tee shirt wearing terrorists numbering nearly 10. It seems they high-jacked a Gujarat registered fishing vessel on the high seas, sailed near Sassoon docks and reached Gateway of India in dinghies. They were carrying heavy backpacks; and divided themselves into 5 teams and unleashed mayhem mainly at CST, G.T. Hospital, Metro Cinema, Hotel Taj, Hotel Trident and Nariman House. The blasts took place at these places and also at Colaba market, Cama Hospital, Nehru Road (Vile Parle), NB Road (Malad) and at Free Press Road.
The attack left 126 people-98 civilians, 14 policemen and 14 foreigners dead and 327 injured. The Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, who was investigating Malegon blasts, was also killed in this episode of violence. The major deaths took place at CST station and in Hotels Taj and Trident. Despite this what did not find much coverage was the attack on CST, while media could not take its eyes-lenses off the plight of affluent. It was said, ‘enough is enough’, meaning that Pakistan has been doing this to ‘us’ time and over again, now is the time to retaliate. The popular yoga Guru Baba Ramdeo said that India should attack Pakistan to avenge for this act and to ensure that these acts don’t repeat. He even promised to fund the war from his own resources. His was not the only voice on the issue. Many others also felt Pakistan must be taught a lesson a la US, which attacked Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Some regard that it is due to these retaliatory attacks by US due to which the terror attacks did not recur there. This is a faulty logic on many scores.
The US intervention in Afghanistan has trapped US more than any time before. It seems to have been dragged in the murky waters of the oil rich zone, regretting the fateful moments when it launched the brutal attack. We need to realize that though the terrorist groups do emerge from the soil of Pakistan, they are more close to the Military not to the democratic regime which is in saddle today. The Pakistan based Military-Mullah Complex had been hand in glove with the policies of US. Now the democratic government wants to eradicate terrorism realizing that it is a Frankenstein’s monster created by the US and today Pakistan is the biggest victim of the terror groups, so created.
There was a talk of making the anti terror laws more stringent. Here one can see that the very oppressive Patriot Act of US, which was brought in the wake of 9/11 WTC attack has served no purpose and the most horrendous Gunatonamo Bay torture chambers have not resulted in a single break through. The terrorist who have been trained to give their life for a ‘cause’ in the Madrassas set up in Pakistan by the US-CIA-ISI route, are not the one’s who will buckle under third-fourth degree tortures. For them life is a mere preparation for entering the much promised Jannat, with all its goodies. Of course civic society was so rattled after 26/11 that in the candle vigil marches anti Pakistan hysteria was on open display. The failure to prevent this attack was attributed totally to the politicians and some of these marchers even carried the placards labeling politicians as a terrorist. This could have been the limit of frustration of the civic society!
We need to look beyond our frontiers to locate the cause of this painful phenomenon. One knows that Pakistan based terror outfits were the US outsourced stations to achieve its goal of controlling the oil wealth of the central Asian region. In addition, earlier the Pakistan military regime had been fattening itself with due support and encouragement from US state department. The military regime was playing the role of US outpost in this region. Also military regime was against the Indo Pak friendship. One recalls that when Vajpayee talked of peace and went in the bus to shake hands with Nawaj Sharif, Pakistan Prime Minister, the military boss Musharraf, silently, without sanction from the prime minister infiltrated in to Kargil. The idea of Musharraf, the army strong man, was to stall the process of peace between India and Pakistan. Strained relations between these two neighbors works to the advantage of Military complex. Even now one can see that since Zardari started talking peace, the attack by Al Qaeda outfit might have been the military’s way to stall the peace process. So what one infers is, the stronger the democratic Government, more peaceful will be the region. More the Pakistan military is in its barracks, more of peace we can expect in the region.
Many other aspects got added up in the tragic incident. Since the 26/11 occurred slightly after the Malegaon blast, a blast after which Maharashtra ATS Chief was successful in nabbing Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey and company. He was facing the ire of Hindu right wing for his work. Under pressure or for what other reasons, he was also killed in the 26/11 attack. Many confusing news came in, the place where he was killed was alternately told to be in front of Metro or in Cama lane. The then minority affairs minister A. R. Antulay’s simple question as to whether Hemant Karkare was killed by terrorism plus some thing else remained unanswered and got submerged in the massive outburst which did not want to hear anything on this score. Karkare’s post mortem report is still a secret, the committee which investigated the event Prdhan Committee, its report remains locked in the cupboards of state machinery. The bullet proof jacket which Karkare was wearing is missing. The widows of slain police officers have raised lot of questions, which remain unanswered. The demand for a sincere probe into Karkare’s death remains on the margins, not being taken seriously at all. Does some one want to hide something?
The situation needs to be brought under control. Terrorism has to be rooted out. But surely terrorism is a symptom of a deeper disease, talking about the underlying reasons is not taken up seriously. The symptomatic measures of tightening security, bringing new gadgets are easier part of the story. Demand for police reforms from a section of Peace activists is good gesture but just a first step in the direction. We do need to punish the guilty of all the crimes, built around religion or language. We also have to look beyond our borders to see that primary source of cancer is also addressed in a rational manner. Emotional response will serve no purpose. We do need to induct professionalism in our security agencies, cover our flanks, encourage peace in the region and ensure that Kasabs are not fed on the diet during their training, which is provided by the carnages happening here in different parts of the country.
--
Ram Puniyani
Just a year ago, Mumbai witnessed worst of the terrorist attacks. 26/11 2008 will always be remembered for the wrong reasons. This was an operation planned meticulously by a group of jeans tee shirt wearing terrorists numbering nearly 10. It seems they high-jacked a Gujarat registered fishing vessel on the high seas, sailed near Sassoon docks and reached Gateway of India in dinghies. They were carrying heavy backpacks; and divided themselves into 5 teams and unleashed mayhem mainly at CST, G.T. Hospital, Metro Cinema, Hotel Taj, Hotel Trident and Nariman House. The blasts took place at these places and also at Colaba market, Cama Hospital, Nehru Road (Vile Parle), NB Road (Malad) and at Free Press Road.
The attack left 126 people-98 civilians, 14 policemen and 14 foreigners dead and 327 injured. The Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, who was investigating Malegon blasts, was also killed in this episode of violence. The major deaths took place at CST station and in Hotels Taj and Trident. Despite this what did not find much coverage was the attack on CST, while media could not take its eyes-lenses off the plight of affluent. It was said, ‘enough is enough’, meaning that Pakistan has been doing this to ‘us’ time and over again, now is the time to retaliate. The popular yoga Guru Baba Ramdeo said that India should attack Pakistan to avenge for this act and to ensure that these acts don’t repeat. He even promised to fund the war from his own resources. His was not the only voice on the issue. Many others also felt Pakistan must be taught a lesson a la US, which attacked Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Some regard that it is due to these retaliatory attacks by US due to which the terror attacks did not recur there. This is a faulty logic on many scores.
The US intervention in Afghanistan has trapped US more than any time before. It seems to have been dragged in the murky waters of the oil rich zone, regretting the fateful moments when it launched the brutal attack. We need to realize that though the terrorist groups do emerge from the soil of Pakistan, they are more close to the Military not to the democratic regime which is in saddle today. The Pakistan based Military-Mullah Complex had been hand in glove with the policies of US. Now the democratic government wants to eradicate terrorism realizing that it is a Frankenstein’s monster created by the US and today Pakistan is the biggest victim of the terror groups, so created.
There was a talk of making the anti terror laws more stringent. Here one can see that the very oppressive Patriot Act of US, which was brought in the wake of 9/11 WTC attack has served no purpose and the most horrendous Gunatonamo Bay torture chambers have not resulted in a single break through. The terrorist who have been trained to give their life for a ‘cause’ in the Madrassas set up in Pakistan by the US-CIA-ISI route, are not the one’s who will buckle under third-fourth degree tortures. For them life is a mere preparation for entering the much promised Jannat, with all its goodies. Of course civic society was so rattled after 26/11 that in the candle vigil marches anti Pakistan hysteria was on open display. The failure to prevent this attack was attributed totally to the politicians and some of these marchers even carried the placards labeling politicians as a terrorist. This could have been the limit of frustration of the civic society!
We need to look beyond our frontiers to locate the cause of this painful phenomenon. One knows that Pakistan based terror outfits were the US outsourced stations to achieve its goal of controlling the oil wealth of the central Asian region. In addition, earlier the Pakistan military regime had been fattening itself with due support and encouragement from US state department. The military regime was playing the role of US outpost in this region. Also military regime was against the Indo Pak friendship. One recalls that when Vajpayee talked of peace and went in the bus to shake hands with Nawaj Sharif, Pakistan Prime Minister, the military boss Musharraf, silently, without sanction from the prime minister infiltrated in to Kargil. The idea of Musharraf, the army strong man, was to stall the process of peace between India and Pakistan. Strained relations between these two neighbors works to the advantage of Military complex. Even now one can see that since Zardari started talking peace, the attack by Al Qaeda outfit might have been the military’s way to stall the peace process. So what one infers is, the stronger the democratic Government, more peaceful will be the region. More the Pakistan military is in its barracks, more of peace we can expect in the region.
Many other aspects got added up in the tragic incident. Since the 26/11 occurred slightly after the Malegaon blast, a blast after which Maharashtra ATS Chief was successful in nabbing Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey and company. He was facing the ire of Hindu right wing for his work. Under pressure or for what other reasons, he was also killed in the 26/11 attack. Many confusing news came in, the place where he was killed was alternately told to be in front of Metro or in Cama lane. The then minority affairs minister A. R. Antulay’s simple question as to whether Hemant Karkare was killed by terrorism plus some thing else remained unanswered and got submerged in the massive outburst which did not want to hear anything on this score. Karkare’s post mortem report is still a secret, the committee which investigated the event Prdhan Committee, its report remains locked in the cupboards of state machinery. The bullet proof jacket which Karkare was wearing is missing. The widows of slain police officers have raised lot of questions, which remain unanswered. The demand for a sincere probe into Karkare’s death remains on the margins, not being taken seriously at all. Does some one want to hide something?
The situation needs to be brought under control. Terrorism has to be rooted out. But surely terrorism is a symptom of a deeper disease, talking about the underlying reasons is not taken up seriously. The symptomatic measures of tightening security, bringing new gadgets are easier part of the story. Demand for police reforms from a section of Peace activists is good gesture but just a first step in the direction. We do need to punish the guilty of all the crimes, built around religion or language. We also have to look beyond our borders to see that primary source of cancer is also addressed in a rational manner. Emotional response will serve no purpose. We do need to induct professionalism in our security agencies, cover our flanks, encourage peace in the region and ensure that Kasabs are not fed on the diet during their training, which is provided by the carnages happening here in different parts of the country.
--
Mein Kampf a hit on Dhaka streets
BBC News
27 November 2009
By Alastair Lawson
BBC News, Dhaka
Mabul with the book
Mabul generally sells six copies of the book in a day
Booksellers touting their wares amid the heavy traffic in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, have discovered an unusual best-seller.
Adolf Hitler's autobiography manifesto Mein Kampf is selling as well as Dan Brown's latest novel, The Lost Symbol.
The street vendors in Dhaka are found at every major road junction and intersection.
Most of the sellers are young boys and many compete with beggars to attract the attention of motorists.
Last week, Mein Kampf did unusually well because many bought the book to give it away as an Eid present.
'All the rage'
Mabul, 15, is among many boys who risk the chaos of Dhaka's roads to earn a living selling pirated copies of popular paperbacks.
Among his offerings are The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, the 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin, The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy and copies of Mein Kampf (volumes one and two).
"For some reason Hitler's book is all the rage among educated people - on a typical day I can sell as many as five or six," Mabul told the BBC.
Hitler is not as popular as Dan Brown or Amartya Sen among Dhaka's motorists and their passengers, but there is a constant demand for his book.
"I think it's because many people have seen Hitler in films and want to know more about him."
Mabul earns up to 1,000 taka ($8) a day in his job, usually working eight hours a day for six days a week.
He says that the best time to sell books is when traffic is at its heaviest, in the morning and evening rush hours.
When it is gridlocked, some people appear to buy his books because they are bored and there is nothing else to do.
Career path
Nearly all the books Mabul sells are photocopies of books he has bought from dealers - and in some cases the photocopying is not of the highest quality.
The maps in his Lonely Planet guide to Bangladesh, for example, are difficult to read and of poor quality.
Yet despite the dubious legality of his career path, Mabul and his friend Aminul - who has the use of only one arm - typify the entrepreneurial spirit for which many Bangladeshis are renowned.
"If I didn't do this job I would have no income - it's as simple as that," said Aminul, as he proffers a copy of Monica Ali's latest novel.
"It's not easy being disabled and selling books in a Dhaka traffic jam. Several times we come close to getting run over."
27 November 2009
By Alastair Lawson
BBC News, Dhaka
Mabul with the book
Mabul generally sells six copies of the book in a day
Booksellers touting their wares amid the heavy traffic in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, have discovered an unusual best-seller.
Adolf Hitler's autobiography manifesto Mein Kampf is selling as well as Dan Brown's latest novel, The Lost Symbol.
The street vendors in Dhaka are found at every major road junction and intersection.
Most of the sellers are young boys and many compete with beggars to attract the attention of motorists.
Last week, Mein Kampf did unusually well because many bought the book to give it away as an Eid present.
'All the rage'
Mabul, 15, is among many boys who risk the chaos of Dhaka's roads to earn a living selling pirated copies of popular paperbacks.
Among his offerings are The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, the 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin, The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy and copies of Mein Kampf (volumes one and two).
"For some reason Hitler's book is all the rage among educated people - on a typical day I can sell as many as five or six," Mabul told the BBC.
Hitler is not as popular as Dan Brown or Amartya Sen among Dhaka's motorists and their passengers, but there is a constant demand for his book.
"I think it's because many people have seen Hitler in films and want to know more about him."
Mabul earns up to 1,000 taka ($8) a day in his job, usually working eight hours a day for six days a week.
He says that the best time to sell books is when traffic is at its heaviest, in the morning and evening rush hours.
When it is gridlocked, some people appear to buy his books because they are bored and there is nothing else to do.
Career path
Nearly all the books Mabul sells are photocopies of books he has bought from dealers - and in some cases the photocopying is not of the highest quality.
The maps in his Lonely Planet guide to Bangladesh, for example, are difficult to read and of poor quality.
Yet despite the dubious legality of his career path, Mabul and his friend Aminul - who has the use of only one arm - typify the entrepreneurial spirit for which many Bangladeshis are renowned.
"If I didn't do this job I would have no income - it's as simple as that," said Aminul, as he proffers a copy of Monica Ali's latest novel.
"It's not easy being disabled and selling books in a Dhaka traffic jam. Several times we come close to getting run over."
Politics of Babri Masjid
The Daily Star, 27 November 2009
by Kuldip Nayar
LET the temple come up." This was the remark by Atal Behari Vajpayee when I asked for his reaction to the destruction of the Babri Masjid one day after the incident. I was surprised by his comment because I considered him a liberal force in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).
Yet, I did not attach much importance to his remark. Now that the one-man commission on the demolition, headed by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, has named Vajpayee as one of the collaborators in the pulling down of the mosque, his remark falls into the slot. How could he have reacted differently when he was a party to the "meticulously planned" scheme to demolish the mosque?
That L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, the other two BJP leaders, were co-conspirators was known on December 6, 1992, itself. The surprising name for me is that of Vajpayee. I would have been indulgent towards him if I had not seen a clip of his speech. A television network showed it on the day a Delhi paper had published the leaked report. Vajpayee said on December 5, one day before the demolition of the masjid, at Lucknow that the ground would be "leveled" and a yangya (religious celebration) held at that place.
The commission has said that the destruction of the masjid was "preventable." Advani could have done it. But all of them, "pseudo-moderates" as the commission has described them, knew about what was happening and were "not innocent of wrongdoing."
The indictment has exposed our polity because all the three came to occupy top positions in the country. Vajpayee became the prime minister, Advani the home minister and Joshi, the human resources development minister. If all the three were collaborators in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they were dishonest in taking the oath of office which demanded that the oath taker would work for the country's unity and uphold the constitution, which mentions secularism in the preamble. The Liberhan Commission has said that they were among the 68 who were "culpable" in taking the country to the brink of "communal discord."
Not only that. The three leaders acted against the Supreme Court's order "not to disturb the status quo." In other words, they made a mockery of the country's judiciary and the constitution to which they swore before assuming power. And they ruled for six years without a tug of conscience.
The question is not only legal but also moral and political. How can the planned demolition be squared up with the holding of office by Vajpayee, Advani and Joshi? This is a matter that the nation must debate to find an answer, at least for the future. Those who have no clean hands should not be allowed to defile the temple of Parliament. And if they do so, what should be the punishment when facts come to light? True, the BJP came to power through the Lok Sabha election. Would the party have won so many seats if the commission had submitted its report before 1999, when the BJP led the coalition?
It is unthinkable that the commission should say that the centre could not have interfered in the affairs of Uttar Pradesh until the state governor had asked it to do so. This is an alibi. My experience is that the governor adjusts his power to suit the convenience of whichever party is at the helm of affairs in New Delhi. The governor was bound to report according to the wishes of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, whom he personally knew because both belonged to Andhra Pradesh.
Even otherwise, the centre has an overall responsibility to protect the constitution. Rao could have easily acted before the demolition took place. The proclamation to impose president's rule was ready a fortnight earlier. It was awaiting the cabinet approval. The prime minister did not convene the meeting. This means his connivance, although in his book Rao mentions the pressure of his party men that did not allow him to react in time. When the demolition began, there were frantic calls to the Prime Minister's Office. He was said to be at puja (prayer) and continued to be at it till the demolition was over. What should one make out of this?
Even if the Congress were to deny the allegation against Rao, the party should explain how a small temple was built overnight at the site where the Babri Masjid stood a few hours earlier. The centre was then in full control because UP had been put under president's rule after dismissal of the state government. In any case, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute had transcended the state borders and the centre was following the developments every day. The commission's silence on Rao's behaviour is meant to cover up his complicity and that of the Congress party.
One thing that Justice Liberhan has not explained in his 900-page report is the span of 17 years between his appointment and the submission of his findings. Though he has blamed it on the commission's counsel for the delay, it is still difficult to understand that the probe should have taken such a long time. A sum of Rs.8 crore was spent on the commission and people have commented that he was prolonging his job.
I expected the government's Action Taken Report to be precise and meaningful. But it is too general and too vague. And it is shocking that the government should say that there wouldn't be punitive action against anybody. Some of the guilty are saying openly that they are not repentant over what they have done. It would be tragic if those who demolished the mosque went scot-free. They are also responsible for the killing of 2000 people in the wake of the masjid's destruction.
The danger of communal discord confronts the nation in one form or another. The Liberhan Commission has rightly underlined it: the basic difference between those who want a pluralistic society and those who are obsessed with Hindutva. The ideology of the BJP, or more so of its mentor, the RSS, is clear. But those who are playing politics over the demolition are doing the greatest disservice to the country.
The report parked at the home ministry a few months ago was waiting to be scooped. It is the prerogative of journalists to do so. Why should political parties make its publication an issue instead of discussing how to punish those who conspired to pull down the mosque? Significantly, all secular parties came to the rescue of the BJP when the question of the report's leakage was raised. It was sought to be made a privilege issue. This is one way to evade the real problem.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
by Kuldip Nayar
LET the temple come up." This was the remark by Atal Behari Vajpayee when I asked for his reaction to the destruction of the Babri Masjid one day after the incident. I was surprised by his comment because I considered him a liberal force in the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).
Yet, I did not attach much importance to his remark. Now that the one-man commission on the demolition, headed by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, has named Vajpayee as one of the collaborators in the pulling down of the mosque, his remark falls into the slot. How could he have reacted differently when he was a party to the "meticulously planned" scheme to demolish the mosque?
That L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, the other two BJP leaders, were co-conspirators was known on December 6, 1992, itself. The surprising name for me is that of Vajpayee. I would have been indulgent towards him if I had not seen a clip of his speech. A television network showed it on the day a Delhi paper had published the leaked report. Vajpayee said on December 5, one day before the demolition of the masjid, at Lucknow that the ground would be "leveled" and a yangya (religious celebration) held at that place.
The commission has said that the destruction of the masjid was "preventable." Advani could have done it. But all of them, "pseudo-moderates" as the commission has described them, knew about what was happening and were "not innocent of wrongdoing."
The indictment has exposed our polity because all the three came to occupy top positions in the country. Vajpayee became the prime minister, Advani the home minister and Joshi, the human resources development minister. If all the three were collaborators in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they were dishonest in taking the oath of office which demanded that the oath taker would work for the country's unity and uphold the constitution, which mentions secularism in the preamble. The Liberhan Commission has said that they were among the 68 who were "culpable" in taking the country to the brink of "communal discord."
Not only that. The three leaders acted against the Supreme Court's order "not to disturb the status quo." In other words, they made a mockery of the country's judiciary and the constitution to which they swore before assuming power. And they ruled for six years without a tug of conscience.
The question is not only legal but also moral and political. How can the planned demolition be squared up with the holding of office by Vajpayee, Advani and Joshi? This is a matter that the nation must debate to find an answer, at least for the future. Those who have no clean hands should not be allowed to defile the temple of Parliament. And if they do so, what should be the punishment when facts come to light? True, the BJP came to power through the Lok Sabha election. Would the party have won so many seats if the commission had submitted its report before 1999, when the BJP led the coalition?
It is unthinkable that the commission should say that the centre could not have interfered in the affairs of Uttar Pradesh until the state governor had asked it to do so. This is an alibi. My experience is that the governor adjusts his power to suit the convenience of whichever party is at the helm of affairs in New Delhi. The governor was bound to report according to the wishes of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, whom he personally knew because both belonged to Andhra Pradesh.
Even otherwise, the centre has an overall responsibility to protect the constitution. Rao could have easily acted before the demolition took place. The proclamation to impose president's rule was ready a fortnight earlier. It was awaiting the cabinet approval. The prime minister did not convene the meeting. This means his connivance, although in his book Rao mentions the pressure of his party men that did not allow him to react in time. When the demolition began, there were frantic calls to the Prime Minister's Office. He was said to be at puja (prayer) and continued to be at it till the demolition was over. What should one make out of this?
Even if the Congress were to deny the allegation against Rao, the party should explain how a small temple was built overnight at the site where the Babri Masjid stood a few hours earlier. The centre was then in full control because UP had been put under president's rule after dismissal of the state government. In any case, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute had transcended the state borders and the centre was following the developments every day. The commission's silence on Rao's behaviour is meant to cover up his complicity and that of the Congress party.
One thing that Justice Liberhan has not explained in his 900-page report is the span of 17 years between his appointment and the submission of his findings. Though he has blamed it on the commission's counsel for the delay, it is still difficult to understand that the probe should have taken such a long time. A sum of Rs.8 crore was spent on the commission and people have commented that he was prolonging his job.
I expected the government's Action Taken Report to be precise and meaningful. But it is too general and too vague. And it is shocking that the government should say that there wouldn't be punitive action against anybody. Some of the guilty are saying openly that they are not repentant over what they have done. It would be tragic if those who demolished the mosque went scot-free. They are also responsible for the killing of 2000 people in the wake of the masjid's destruction.
The danger of communal discord confronts the nation in one form or another. The Liberhan Commission has rightly underlined it: the basic difference between those who want a pluralistic society and those who are obsessed with Hindutva. The ideology of the BJP, or more so of its mentor, the RSS, is clear. But those who are playing politics over the demolition are doing the greatest disservice to the country.
The report parked at the home ministry a few months ago was waiting to be scooped. It is the prerogative of journalists to do so. Why should political parties make its publication an issue instead of discussing how to punish those who conspired to pull down the mosque? Significantly, all secular parties came to the rescue of the BJP when the question of the report's leakage was raised. It was sought to be made a privilege issue. This is one way to evade the real problem.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
Mohammad Manzoor Alam on the professed innocence of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee
Mr. Vajpayee is an honourable man
by Dr. Manzoor Alam
Mr Vajpayee is an honourable man
Dr Mohammad Manzoor Alam on the professed innocence of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee in the crime of Babri Masjid demolition
Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, the civilised mukhauta (mask) of the uncivil Sangh, has always had his way of hunting with the hound and running with the hare. He has, in the words of the late Kamlapati Tripathy, perfected the art of speaking with a forked tongue.
The Sangh has consistently used him to project a softer face while engaging in violent, hate-driven politics. That is the reason the Sangh’s former high-falutin jargon maker Govindacharya described him as the mukhauta of the Sangh.
The Liberahan Commission report has disturbed the hornet nest called the Sangh Parivar. Instead of coming clean on the anti-national conspiracy to trigger nationwide anti-Muslim riots by demolishing the Babri Masjid, they have announced their intent to “take an aggressive stance” on the enquiry report. That is what we call “chori aur seena-zori ”.
Virtually every Sanghi is asking with an expression of injured innocence: “How come a gentleman like Vajpayeeji has been dragged into the demolition episode?” Even the hero of Ayodhya destruction, Mr LK Advani, has claimed to be surprised at the inclusion of Mr Vajpayee in Liberahan’s list of the indicted.
The Ayodhya crime took place on December 6, 1992. The Sangh combine is saying Mr Vajpayee was not there in Ayodhya on that fateful day. It is half true, as any other Sangh declaration is. The fact is that he was merely at a couple of hours drive from Ayodhya, sitting in Lucknow in the evening of December 5, 1992. He said there that he had come to Lucknow to go to Ayodhya to participate in Kar Seva the next day.
His handlers, the RSS bosses, decided that the mukhauta should not be seen in the company of the vandals destroying the Babri Masjid. He said he was to proceed to Ayodhya when he was asked to go back. He said, “Mujhe kaha gaya hai ki tum Dilli wapas jao ”.
In his familiar blow-hot blow-cold style the honourable Mr Vajpayee did everything to aggravate the communal tension and create enough hysteria to demolish the mosque. He blew hot saying he did not know what was gong to happen at Ayodha the next day: “Mein nahin jaanta ki kal wahaan kya hoga ”. The honourable Mr Vajpayee knew everything, but he knew nothing.
He very well knew what the kar sevaks and their ringleaders were up to. His veiled, “Mein nahin jaanta ki kal wahaan keya hoga ” was, in fact, a rhetorical way of saying, “I know that tomorrow our parivar is going to commit a dastardly act”. This was his way of blowing cold.
The cynicism and evil intent of the Sangh was reflected clearly in his remark that the ground would have to be levelled there (at Ayodhya): “Wahaan zameen ko samtal karna padega ”. Naturally, what he meant was clear: that the Babri Masjid would have to be demolished and the ground to be levelled for a Ram temple to be built on it.
The Liberahan report has indicted Mr Vajpayee for his role in the crime. His name figures even ahead of Mr Advani. Some newspapers have a full report of what he said on December 5, 1992. That shows how deeply he was involved. The Sangh had not hatched the conspiracy by keeping him out of the loop.
He staged another charade in Delhi soon after the Ayodhya crime. He announced that he was to take sanyas from politics. If somebody was foolish enough (which quite enough journalists were) he or she would believe that he was going to renounce politics. How true the honourable Mr Vajpayee was to his word can be known from the fact that he went on to become India’s prime minister twice, the first time for a humiliatingly short time.
Now that he has been forced out of politics by bad health and old age Mr Vajpayee cannot claim that he has voluntarily taken sanyas. Originally, the sanyas was meant to convey some measure of disapproval of the demolition.
The honourable Mr Vajpayee’s words and deeds have wrought serious damage in the past. The blood of hundreds of innocent Muslims is as much on his head as anybody else’s in the Sangh. On the day his first government was brought down unceremoniously the late Comrade CB Gupta told the Lok Sabha that the blood of 900 innocent people massacred in Nellie in the 80s was also on Mr Vajpayee’s head, who had triggered the bloodbath with his hate speech immediately before the incident.
Yes, Mr Vajpayee is an honourable man, above suspicion, above blame.
Regards,
Mohammad Tanweer Alam
Mobile- +91-9971770711
by Dr. Manzoor Alam
Mr Vajpayee is an honourable man
Dr Mohammad Manzoor Alam on the professed innocence of Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee in the crime of Babri Masjid demolition
Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, the civilised mukhauta (mask) of the uncivil Sangh, has always had his way of hunting with the hound and running with the hare. He has, in the words of the late Kamlapati Tripathy, perfected the art of speaking with a forked tongue.
The Sangh has consistently used him to project a softer face while engaging in violent, hate-driven politics. That is the reason the Sangh’s former high-falutin jargon maker Govindacharya described him as the mukhauta of the Sangh.
The Liberahan Commission report has disturbed the hornet nest called the Sangh Parivar. Instead of coming clean on the anti-national conspiracy to trigger nationwide anti-Muslim riots by demolishing the Babri Masjid, they have announced their intent to “take an aggressive stance” on the enquiry report. That is what we call “chori aur seena-zori ”.
Virtually every Sanghi is asking with an expression of injured innocence: “How come a gentleman like Vajpayeeji has been dragged into the demolition episode?” Even the hero of Ayodhya destruction, Mr LK Advani, has claimed to be surprised at the inclusion of Mr Vajpayee in Liberahan’s list of the indicted.
The Ayodhya crime took place on December 6, 1992. The Sangh combine is saying Mr Vajpayee was not there in Ayodhya on that fateful day. It is half true, as any other Sangh declaration is. The fact is that he was merely at a couple of hours drive from Ayodhya, sitting in Lucknow in the evening of December 5, 1992. He said there that he had come to Lucknow to go to Ayodhya to participate in Kar Seva the next day.
His handlers, the RSS bosses, decided that the mukhauta should not be seen in the company of the vandals destroying the Babri Masjid. He said he was to proceed to Ayodhya when he was asked to go back. He said, “Mujhe kaha gaya hai ki tum Dilli wapas jao ”.
In his familiar blow-hot blow-cold style the honourable Mr Vajpayee did everything to aggravate the communal tension and create enough hysteria to demolish the mosque. He blew hot saying he did not know what was gong to happen at Ayodha the next day: “Mein nahin jaanta ki kal wahaan kya hoga ”. The honourable Mr Vajpayee knew everything, but he knew nothing.
He very well knew what the kar sevaks and their ringleaders were up to. His veiled, “Mein nahin jaanta ki kal wahaan keya hoga ” was, in fact, a rhetorical way of saying, “I know that tomorrow our parivar is going to commit a dastardly act”. This was his way of blowing cold.
The cynicism and evil intent of the Sangh was reflected clearly in his remark that the ground would have to be levelled there (at Ayodhya): “Wahaan zameen ko samtal karna padega ”. Naturally, what he meant was clear: that the Babri Masjid would have to be demolished and the ground to be levelled for a Ram temple to be built on it.
The Liberahan report has indicted Mr Vajpayee for his role in the crime. His name figures even ahead of Mr Advani. Some newspapers have a full report of what he said on December 5, 1992. That shows how deeply he was involved. The Sangh had not hatched the conspiracy by keeping him out of the loop.
He staged another charade in Delhi soon after the Ayodhya crime. He announced that he was to take sanyas from politics. If somebody was foolish enough (which quite enough journalists were) he or she would believe that he was going to renounce politics. How true the honourable Mr Vajpayee was to his word can be known from the fact that he went on to become India’s prime minister twice, the first time for a humiliatingly short time.
Now that he has been forced out of politics by bad health and old age Mr Vajpayee cannot claim that he has voluntarily taken sanyas. Originally, the sanyas was meant to convey some measure of disapproval of the demolition.
The honourable Mr Vajpayee’s words and deeds have wrought serious damage in the past. The blood of hundreds of innocent Muslims is as much on his head as anybody else’s in the Sangh. On the day his first government was brought down unceremoniously the late Comrade CB Gupta told the Lok Sabha that the blood of 900 innocent people massacred in Nellie in the 80s was also on Mr Vajpayee’s head, who had triggered the bloodbath with his hate speech immediately before the incident.
Yes, Mr Vajpayee is an honourable man, above suspicion, above blame.
Regards,
Mohammad Tanweer Alam
Mobile- +91-9971770711
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
