(Outlook Magazine | Sep 24, 2007 )Advani's rath yatra: For Gupta, it's the trigger that led to the events of Dec 6, 1992
EXCLUSIVE BABRI DEMOLITION LIBERHAN COMMISSION
15 Years Of Nothing
All are appalled: other judges, Muslims, even saffronwallahs Saba Naqvi Bhaumik
"I personally know arguments were over some years ago. I don’t know what he is doing." Hosbet Suresh, retired judge
"For a commission of inquiry to have any meaning, the task has to be finished expeditiously." Kapil Sibal, Union minister
"If it takes 15 years, then either the judge is playing politics or he’s content to draw a salary." Prashant Bhushan, SC advocate
"Fifteen years later, if the judge can’t come up with anything, then dismiss the commission." Vinay Katiyar, ex-Ayodhya MP
"I doubt the home minister’s interest in getting the report. We all know his antecedents." Kamal Farooqi, member, BMAC
Can a commission of inquiry go on indefinitely with no sign of winding up or submitting its findings? The Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, preceded and followed by a spiral of riots across the country, was a watershed event in the history of the nation, one that redefined Indian politics. Ten days later, the Narasimha Rao government set up a one-man commission under Justice M.S. Liberhan to look into the events leading up to the December 6 denouement. Last week, Anupam Gupta, the counsel attached to the commission, told Outlook that the judge was no longer in touch with him though the understanding was that he would assist in writing the report. Gupta also dropped a bombshell when he said: "I am not sure whether Justice Liberhan would like to address L.K. Advani’s role in the demolition."
It is impossible to comment on the findings of a report that has not yet been written. But the process has clearly been lackadaisical and the spat between Gupta and Liberhan would only further damage whatever credibility this commission has left. Which is not much. Fifteen years after the demolition, even the avowedly secular UPA government has been unable to ensure that the now retired judge delivers the report. Justice Liberhan will now be remembered for sitting on the longest-ever commission of inquiry in India’s history. On August 31, the commission was granted its 41st extension for another two months. But sources in the home ministry told Outlook that it appears unlikely that the report will be in by October 31. Will it then be a 42nd extension?
Retired judge Hosbet Suresh of the Bombay High Court told Outlook: "A commission of inquiry loses all meaning if it goes on like this. I personally know the arguments were over some years ago. I have no idea what this judge is doing." Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan was more blunt. "However complex the matter," he said, "if it takes 15 years to write a report, then one can presume that either the judge is playing politics or he is content to draw the salary and perks he gets by dragging on the inquiry at a cost to the exchequer. One can also presume that the government is allowing him to do so in order to put the issue in cold storage."
Why would a Congress-led regime not be keen to put BJP leaders on the mat? Could it be because setting up a commission was a diversionary tactic in the first place, designed to take the heat off then prime minister Narasimha Rao, whose handling of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement has been repeatedly questioned? Union minister Kapil Sibal, also a senior lawyer, agrees that "for a commission of inquiry to have any meaning, the task must be finished expeditiously".
So why has the home ministry, to which the commission reports, failed to question this blatant procrastination by the judge? Other sources in the government point to home minister Shivraj Patil ("a closet Advani admirer," according to some of his party colleagues), and suggest that he may not be inclined to make an issue of Ayodhya and would be more comfortable letting sleeping dogs lie.
Political will is surely amiss. Says Kamal Farooqi, a member of the Babri Masjid Action Committee of the Muslim Law Board that had negotiated with the BJP/VHP in those saffron-tinted days: "We are aghast at the functioning of this commission and have repeatedly taken it up with the government. This judge refuses to write a report and the government says it can do nothing! We blame the Congress party’s attitude of talking of Muslim sops even while refusing to give any justice to Muslims. They think we are fools. I also have serious doubts about the home ministry’s interest in getting the report. We all know the antecedents of the home minister."
Technically, even though a government cannot be seen to be pressurising any inquiry commission, it can certainly ask the judge about his progress. But the home ministry doesn’t seem interested in any such thing. Sources told Outlook that there is no indication of the report being submitted by October 31 and further extensions are on the cards. They also said that counsel Gupta has been cautioned about bringing out differences with the judge in the open since it will impact on the "credibility of the final report". For the ministry, though, the counsel has no locus standi and only the views of the judge matter.
Except that this particular judge does not seem to be keen on making any findings or conclusions public. It is not the Muslims alone who are frustrated. Even those who played a major role in the Ram temple movement and continue to face criminal charges ask what use is an inquiry if it keeps dragging on. Vinay Katiyar, former MP from Faizabad/Ayodhya and one of the leading lights of the movement led by L.K. Advani, minces no words. "The judge was given a few months," he says. "Fifteen years later, if he can’t come up with anything, then dismiss the commission. As it is, we are all facing charges that go on and on. Even if the judge gives a report, it will have no impact on the criminal cases." Katiyar, in fact, has more to suggest. "The two sides, Hindus and Muslims, had come to an agreement over Ayodhya. But there was a vishvaasghaat (betrayal) with the movement. I won’t say anything more."
One person who certainly disowned the movement after leading it to the December 6 climax was Advani. He was famously described as having tears in his eyes and calling it the "saddest day of my life". Indeed, Advani must be the only leader of a successful mass movement who would later disown it. Years later, he is still struggling to strike the right note between jumping on to the Ram Setu movement again and trying to emerge as successor to the more acceptable A.B. Vajpayee. His political yatra has taken many twists and turns. The judge asked to examine his role in the most defining moment of Advani’s career seems, in contrast, to be sitting quite still.
By Saba Naqvi Bhaumik with Bhavna Vij-Aurora
