Tehelka.com - June 04 , 2005
Demolishers in the dock
Former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh ignored state intelligence inputs on the threat to the Babri mosque in 1992, and lied to the Centre in a secret communication. Former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani misquoted Nehru to justify the elaborate rituals for the construction of the Ram temple. These facts were revealed during their cross-examination by the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry probing the outrage. Ajmer Singh reports
The Babri Masjid demolition inquiry and the cross-examination of key witnesses by the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, which is currently on, has exposed some of the blatant lies of the Kalyan Singh government, which was in power at that time in UP.
It is now revealed that Kalyan Singh, as the chief minister, had written intelligence inputs about the threat to the disputed structure from the state police, but he lied about it in a secret communication to the Government of India. Even the Central government’s secret communication, in this context, was ignored by the state government.
Moreover, former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani and Singh, in their written statements to the commission, wrongly claimed that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (vhp) owned the disputed land, which in fact belonged to the government. The commission records, accessed by Tehelka, also reveal that Advani distorted facts regarding reconstruction of the Somnath temple, while drawing parallels with the Ram temple. (see box)
A few months before the demolition, Singh had written to the Centre that security arrangements were in place and there was no threat to the Babri Masjid, even though the state government had received an intelligence report suggesting a serious threat to the disputed structure, as some security barricades had been removed and massive digging and levelling work had begun around the complex.
The Union home ministry had also cautioned the state government about the threat to the structure. Tehelka is in possession of the secret report dated June 7, 1992, prepared by the intelligence wing of the UP police and signed by the then Superintendent of Police, GK Shukla, and the goi secret reports dated May 29, May 30 and June 3, 1992.
Former Union Minister of State for Home MM Jacob had written to the chief minister that there was a deliberate attempt to raze the structure, and that some speakers had declared that the next phase of the Ram temple would involve the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
According to the state intelligence report dated June 7, 1992 (translated from Hindi): “After the levelling work around the disputed structure and dumping of earth towards the western side, security arrangements of the disputed structure have weakened. The removal of the outer security ring has made access to the disputed structure much easier, and dumping of earth near the barricades towards western and southern sides have further facilitated access. Towards the western side of the disputed structure, iron gates have been installed to prevent entry, but it is not safe in the absence of barbed wire and locks, as anyone can enter the disputed structure after opening the gate.”
The report further stated: “In order to bring a bad name to the bjp government and create serious problems for the district administration, any determined or anti-social element or Opposition party could damage the disputed structure. After levelling work was carried out around the disputed structure, security personnel (Provincial Armed Constabulary) did not stay as alert as they were earlier, and followers of the vhp and Bajrang Dal were rarely stopped by them. There is a need to reconsider and strengthen security arrangements within the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid disputed structure.”
The Singh government, after receiving this report, forwarded a contradictory report (in possession of Tehelka, dated June 16, 1992) to the Centre. The report said that there was no let-up in the security of the structure, and after the construction of the perimeter wall, security arrangements are stronger than before. It said, sentries were on duty 24 hours, closed circuit cameras were in place, and devotees were being searched. It also said that there was no threat to the structure from digging or levelling and there would be no water-logging. “I assure you that from time to time security arrangements are being reviewed and security of the disputed structure is of utmost importance to the state,” Singh said in his letter.
Alarmed at the digging and levelling work, which was never explained by the state government, Union Home Minister SB Chavan had already written to the former chief minister on May 29, 1992, “…in this connection I wish to state that the construction of the compound wall does not obviate the need for having barricades and the concertina wires. If a determined crowd within the walled enclosures attempts to cause damage to the structure, there will be no physical barrier which could stop them in the absence of the barricades. I would, therefore like to reiterate the need for restoring the barricades which have been removed…I would also like to mention the apprehension that the digging undertaken recently near the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure in the course of levelling the ground is likely to endanger the structure itself…”
Jacob had also written to the former chief minister on May 30, 1992: “…Digging operations which are reported to have reached a depth of about 10 ft in front of the structure would lead to collection of water during rains resulting in seepage to the depth of the foundation, weakening it in the process. The allegation is that this is being done deliberately so that the structure collapses on its own… Dumping of earth on the western and southern side of the structure, in some places almost up to the height of the perimeter wall, on the one hand, and the height of the fencing around the structure on the other, has rendered ineffective whatever protection to the structure was afforded by the perimeter wall and the fencing.”
“If dumping of earth is continued in this manner, very soon the level of the ground at least on the western side would reach the top of the fencing making access to the structure from the rear, relatively easy…With the removal of the outer cordon arrangement which included 12 barricades at distances up to 2km, there is now only a single barricade near the present entry point on Manas Trust lane. The iron pipe barricading/concertina rolls/barbed wire on the western, southern and eastern sides of the complex have been removed. Other physical security measures…have also become non-functional. All this would make it difficult to prevent determined crowds from rushing in… Several speakers are reported to have declared openly that the next phase of the Ram temple would involve the demolition of Babri Masjid.”
Following this communication, the then Union Home Secretary Madhav Godbole wrote to the then Chief Secretary VK Saxena on June 3, 1992: “As has been mentioned therein serious apprehensions are being expressed in a number of quarters that digging on a large-scale will lead to collection of water during the rains and would ultimately weaken the foundation of the structure of Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex…It would be helpful to know the purpose for which such large scale levelling and digging operations have been undertaken….”
This was actually a build-up to the demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992, which the bjp top brass justified thus: It was an outburst of pent up emotion as karsevaks had been waiting for long and had gathered at Ayodhya for a symbolic karseva on December 6.
Both Advani and Singh blamed the Allahabad High Court for a delayed judgement suggesting that the demolition would not have occurred or the situation could have been defused to make karseva possible. They suggested that even if the acquisition of land was struck down by the court, karseva was still possible as vhp owned pieces of the land. On the contrary, the karseva was not possible, as according to government records this was government land.
Singh stated in his affidavit: “The state government had been anxiously waiting for the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in case of the acquisition of the 2.77 acres of land before December 6, 1992. The Ayodhya movement leaders and the UP government expected the Hon’ble High Court to give its judgement one way or the other before December 6, 1992 as the argument and hearing were finalised on November 4, 1992. Even adverse judgement, striking down the acquisition of the land, would have resulted in the handing over of the possession of 2.04 acres of land out of a total acquisition of 2.77 acres back to the vhp from whose possession it was acquisitioned.”
“The result would have been that the karseva and the construction work could have commenced on this 2.04 acres of land on or about December 6, 1992... So far the deponent (Singh) knows in this matter the judgement was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court on or about December 11, 1992,” he states further.
This lie, however, stands exposed as according to the Bommai report (SR Bommai headed the members of the Standing Committee of National Integration Council), “The tourism department of the state government had acquired 2.77 acres of land around the Ram Janmbhoomi area in October 1991. Out of this land 0.36 acres belonged to private owners and the rest, 2.41 acres, was nazul land which was also transferred to the tourism department..”
When on May 12, commission counsel Anupam Gupta, drew Singh’s attention to this fact he refused to comment and demanded a copy of the document.
Asked to comment on the affidavits of the district magistrate and superintendent of police, Faizabad, who stated that in December 1949 the idols of Ramchandraji were placed inside the Babri mosque, Singh evaded an answer. He instead quoted the Archaeological Survey of India about the pre-existence of the temple and the remnants of a temple found during an excavation.
During the cross-examination the commission counsel produced the court statement of the district magistrate and SP, Faizabad.
According to former SP Kirpal Singh’s statement (in the court of civil judge, Faizabad; Gopal Singh vs Zahur Ahmed and eight others, regular suit No. 2 of 1950), Para 12 reads: “The property in suit is known as Babri mosque and it has for a long time been in use as a mosque for the purpose of worship by Muslims.
It has not been in use as a temple of Shri Ramchandraji.”
Para 13 states: “On the night of December 22, 1949 idols of Shri Ramchandraji were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside it.” Former Deputy Commissioner Faizabad JN Ugra also stated this in the above-mentioned suit.
This fact is further substantiated in a book titled The Babri Masjid Question: A Matter Of National Honour edited by AG Noorani which also mentions that Ram Krishna Paramhans claimed that he had placed the idols in the mosque.
Para 17 states: “...the people who had placed the image in the mosque were never caught or tried. In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, December 22, 1991, Abbot Paramhans declared that he was the one who had put the image inside the mosque.” (Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India, Peter Van der Veer, Oxford University Press, 1996).
But for the rss the act of placing the idols in the mosque was divine intervention.
|
