(Courtesy: Tehelka.com)
HISTORICAL WRONG BY THE EXTREME RIGHT
A G NOORANI is a scathing and incisive critic of the Sangh Parivar. In this chapter, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, excerpted from his book 'The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour', he argues that the three Bharatiya Janata Party Union ministers - Home Minister L K Advani, Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and Sports Minister Uma Bharati- chargesheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, were criminally, not politically motivated (as they and the Sangh Parivar are arguing).
New Delhi, December 5
The instant and widespread reaction to the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 was that it was a crime as grave and poignant as the assassination of Gandhi on January 30, 1948. Nathuram [Godse] assumed full responsibility for his crime. The chronicle of the lies and prevarication by the perpetrators of the crime at Ayodhya is of enormous and abiding moral, legal and political relevance for the nation.
The BJP wants to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. It simultaneously acknowledges as well as denies its involvement in the crime. Jaswant Singh, a senior BJP leader, claimed in 1996: ãWe have accepted our responsibility directlyä (Economic Times June 11). He cited Kalyan Singhâs resignation as Uttar Pradeshâs Chief Minister and statements ãfrom Atal Behari Vajpayee to L K Advani to the Sarsanghchalak [of the RSS] that this was not the right thing to happen.ä Kalyan Singh, on the other hand, expressed his pride in the deed; Advani first blamed Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and, next, acclaimed the event as a historic one. Vajpayee made noises of regret, only to sail along with Advani. BJP Vice-President Sunder Singh Bhandari called it a ãcrimeä on December 6. Jaswant Singh asserted, ãIt should not have happened. I mean, in the sense that the BJP was one of the participants, the BJP has direct responsibility.ä Ashok Singhal, as always, did not agree. He told his admirers in London that the kar sevaks had removed a stigma attached to the Hindu community. This was a matter of pride for Hindus the world over. It was like Hanuman setting fire to Lanka.
Why did it take two-and-a-half years for Vajpayee to admit what was known to the entire world÷the identity and affiliations for the people who actually ãdid pull downä the mosque? Organiser of May 7, 1995 published an article by Vajpayee: ãBut we did pull down the structure in Ayodhya. In fact, it was a reaction to the Muslim vote bank Now, I think the Hindu society has been regenerated, which was the task of the RSS. Earlier, Hindus used to bend before an invasion but not now. This change in Hindu society is worthy of welcome.ä True to form, he explained two days later that ãhe meant that the Hindus pulled down the structure, not the RSS workers.ä But why did it take two-and-a-half years for Vajpayee to admit what was known to the entire world÷the identity and affiliations for the people who actually ãdid pull downä the mosque? The need was perpetrated in broad daylight in the presence of the then BJP President, Murli Manohar Joshi, his predecessor and successor L K Advani, the VHPâs Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore and V H Dalmia, not to forget Vijayaraje Scindia, Vinay Katiyar of the Bajrang Dal, Uma Bharati, Sadhvi Ritambhara and others.
LIES ALL AROUND
Advani and Joshi arrived in Lucknow from Ayodhya on the evening of December 6, 1992 but refused to explain the events of the day to a shocked nation through the press corps assembled there. The Indian Express reported that ãAdvani was heard ordering sealing of all entry points to Ayodhya to prevent Central forces from entering the town. This was around 2 pm when men were hammering away atop the domes of the structure.ä The Hindu reported identically. The first dome was brought down at 2.45 pm. The two others collapsed at 4.30 pm and 4.45 pm. Advani refused permission to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh to resign at 12.30 pm, and even at 2 pm. He resigned only at 5.30 pm. With classic duplicity, Advani was to write to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha a few hours later from Lucknow: ãI deeply regret the happenings at Ayodhya today I feel sorry that I could not prevent the occurrence.ä When the news of the demolition reached the BJPâs office in New Delhi, Vice-President Sunder Singh Bhandari described the act as ãunfortunate, unexpected, unjustifiedä. He added, ãThis is a crime.ä Bhandari went further still: ãHe said a group had all of a sudden gone out of control. He said his party was not able to identify who all were involved but it would certainly carry out the identification exercise and take action if any party member was involved.ä He was not forgiven for this.
Three years later, the Shiv Senaâs chief Bal Thackeray ãaccused the BJP of implicating the Sena in the demolition of Babri Masjid. Naming Mr Sunder Singh in this regard, Mr Thackeray said while [the BJP] was afraid to acknowledge the role of the Bajrang Dal in the destruction and passing the buck on to the Shiv Sena, he said he was not ashamed of taking pride in the actä His resentment at the BJPâs caddish breach of the honour among thieves is understandable. His man, Moreshwar Save, owned up to the deed immediately on December 6. Parivar men were vying with one another to spin yarns. Another vice-president of the BJP, K R Malkani, said that the demolition could have been the work of ãagents provocateursä. The VHP attributed it to ãanti-social elements who had infiltrated the ranks of the kar sevaksä. Ashok Singhal said it was ãnot preplannedä and the kar sevaks action was but the ãsurfacing of suppressed pent-up feelingä. For Vajpayee, the event was ãunfortunateä. But this poet and man of refined feelings was quick to dismiss it as of little consequence. ãIt was a disputed structure and it was being used as a temple.ä Contrast his remarks with those of RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras:
BJP leaders soon went about looking for plausible defences. Bhandari, K L Sharma, Sikander Bakht, M L Khurana and J P Mathur blamed ãsome mysterious elements who had evidently decided on mischiefä I can understand the anger and anguish of our Muslim brothers due to the demolition. But they must also consider the fact that if they could be so incensed over the demolition of a mosque which had no significance for them and where ãnamaazä was not being read [sic], the sentiments of the Hindus must also be equally strong over the disputed structures at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi.
BJP leaders soon went about looking for plausible defences. Bhandari, K L Sharma, Sikander Bakht, M L Khurana and J P Mathur blamed ãsome mysterious elements who had evidently decided on mischiefä. Inconsistently enough, they spoke of provocation to the kar sevaks and tried indirectly to justify the demolition, arguing that it had a background that needed to be understood. Advani returned to Delhi on December 7 and was arrested the next morning on charges of spreading communal disharmony. He claimed, ãWe could not gauge the intensity of the peopleâs feelings over Ayodhya.ä Only 500-600 directly participated in the demolition out of the 5,000-6,000 involved in it in a crowd of two lakh. A day later, he said: And today, when an old structure which ceased to be a mosque over 50 years back is pulled down by a group of people exasperated by the tardiness of the judicial process, and the obtuseness and myopia of the executive, they are reviled by the President, the Vice-President, and political parties as betrayers of the nation, destroyers of the Constitution and what not.
Thus, on December 8, only two days after the demolition, Advaniâs defence had crystallised. Vajpayee, too, remained unrepentant: ãThis is not the first time a place of worship has been demolished.ä On December 8, Kalyan Singh echoed the now established party line÷that of a spontaneous outburst of mass indignation. RSS general secretary Rajendra Singh, however, made a significant admission the following day: ãIn the sense that so many kar sevaks gathered, it may be called preplanned.ä The Organiser (December 13) revealed some details of what was clearly a meticulously laid-out plan: ãIt was decided to devise a strategy [to buy time by filing an assuring affidavit in the Supreme Court] The game plan was not to allow the Centre to pre-empt the arrival of kar sevaks at Ayodhya by dismissing the U P government and deploying paramilitary forces Kalyan Singh had even selected a house to which he planned to shift within hours of his dismissal.ä
Advani and Joshi ãwere asked to set out on yatras commencing from Varanasi and Mathuraä to explain the tactic to ãthe rank and fileä. Vajpayee decided to switch to the ãmoderateä stance a week later (December 13): ãOn the first day I did say that [sic] let us condemn the happenings in Ayodhya, but others did not help me.ä But he did not condemn it either. It was no more than a ãmisadventureä and ãthe worst miscalculationä. It was not preplanned though some kar sevaks were ãvery, very [sic] determined to do away with the structureä. A section of them ãwent out of controlä.
Mark this promise: ãWe are trying to find out who masterminded the whole thing, if there was any agency or group. We are trying to ascertain the facts and see that such things are not repeated.ä But Shrikant Joshi, private secretary to Deoras, confidently asserted that ãkar sevaks had nothing to do with itä and alleged that it was officials from the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) ãdisguised as karsevaks who first ran towards the structure and began demolishing it.ä Malkani opined in his book The Politics of Ayodhya and Hindus-Muslim Relations, published later in the year, ãShrikant could well be right only those opposed to the Sangh parivar could have done it.ä
Kalyan Singh, who knew better, said on December 16, ãI do not have any regrets and repentance for the happenings in Ayodhya on December 6 and the disturbances that followed afterwards as the demolition of the disputed structure was a spontaneous outburst of pent-up Hindu sentiments.ä That very day, the RSS-linked Hindi daily, Swadesh, published from Bhopal, carried an interview with a Bajrang Dal activist, Dharmendra Singh Gurjar, in which he described in detail how his 100-strong squad had undergone training and done the job at Ayodhya. Other such disclosures began to appear in the press shortly thereafter.
Kalyan Singh was most blatant. He faced a choice ãbetween contempt o court and contempt of Godä in which he would not go against the will of Shri Ram himselfä. He had had a ãtelephonic conversation with Ram Lallaä Parliament, Vajpayee and colleagues adopted a standard form of regret: ãExtremely sorry.ä Vajpayee said that (December 17) those who demolished the structure must come forward, own up their deed and accept punishment. ãThe temple for Ram shall be built on truth.ä But there was not a trace of regret in the BJP National Executiveâs resolution on December 24. It simply blamed the Centre. The BJPâs whizkid, K N Govindacharya, had no inhibitions about confirming on December 31 the calculated strategy of mobilising the mob revealed earlier by Organiser. What Advani said at [his] first press conference after his release was significant: the events of December 6, he said, were the intensification of the ideological debate that began in 1990.
By now, all trace of regret had vanished. ãWe have no regrets,ä M M [Murli Manohar] Joshi said on January 24, explaining that the BJP had always wanted ãthe structureä to go. Advani was certain that the demolition would change the course of Indian history. Providence had ordained it. Kalyan Singh was even more blatant. He faced a choice ãbetween contempt of court and contempt of Godä in which he would not go against the will of Shri Ram himselfä. He had had a ãtelephonic conversation with Ram Lallaä, and he was convinced that the demolition was an act of God. December 6, 1992, he said, was Kranti Divas (Revolution Day) on which the foundation of a new India was laid. The demolition was an act of ãnational prideä. ãWith the cries of Jai Sri Ram, the kar sevaks performed their job and I resigned.ä The BJPâs White Paper on Ayodhya (April 1993) was more circumspect. The demolition was the result of ãan emotive outburstä in the face, inter alia, of ãthe highly provocative structureä.
Correspondents of repute who were at Ayodhya and a host of other witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry Commission comprising Kamala Prasad (chairman) and five academics, and the Citizenâs Tribunal on Ayodhya, comprising two former Supreme Court Judges (O Chinnappa Reddy and D A Desai) and a former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court (D S Tewatia) testified to prior planning. The Commission and the Tribunal came to the same conclusion. ãThere was undoubtedly a conspiracy to destroy the Babri Masjid,ä the Tribunal held.
This is too terrible a truth to be admitted. It will entail enormous moral, political and legal consequences. Hence, the lies and prevarication. But, the entire Ayodhya movement launched by the Sangh parivar has been based on sheer fraud and force from the very beginning, something that devout Hindus have never failed to acknowledge. As Madhav Godbole, who was Union Home Secretary during the demolition, records in his memories, Unfinished Innings: I visited Ayodhya on 29 December 1992 in connection with the proposed acquisition of land and to review the law and order arrangements in the light of the earlier decision to permit darshan. Unlike other visitors from Delhi in the past [like S B Chavan and Naresh Chandra] who took darshan at the Ram Lalla temple and offered pooja there, I did not do so, nor did I accept any prasad. Though a devout person myself, I believe that oneâs religion is a personal matter. In any case, I had enough of Ayodhya and sincerely believed that God could not reside in that temple, the construction of which was associated with so much deceit and wanton violence.
It is about this temple that Vajpayee had claimed in the Lok Sabha: ãThe temple for Ram shall be built on truth.ä The demolition and the charge-sheet It is absolutely incontrovertible that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was (a) wrongful act. Ram Jethmalani, who went on to become the Law Minister in Vajpayeeâs cabinet, had opined, while Advaniâs rath yatra was on:
Failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime, which disgraced India before the world and will ever be a blot on its record in history, will only signify that the rule of law no longer governs the country The Indian Penal Code makes it a serious criminal offence to pull down any place of worship. It is no defence in law that the place of worship was constructed five hundred years ago on the site of another demolished place of worship belonging to the community of the accused. The throngs that threaten to converge on Ayodhya and pull down the mosque will in the eye of law be an unlawful assembly determined to commit offences of mischief, criminal trespass, wounding of religious feelings, and desecration of a holy place. Grievous injury and killings as possible consequences will be within the reasonable contemplation of its members. It would be the plain duty of the government to tackle the situation according to the law of land. The law doubtless requires the state to use all the force at its command to disperse the unlawful assembly and prevent the commission of the threatened offences. The resulting mayhem and loss of life will only be legitimate consequences of the execution of legal and constitutional duty. Every sane person must therefore pause and do a bit of rational introspection while there is still some time left÷however short.
The time bomb is ticking away. When it explodes communal harmony and national integration will be the prime casualties. The nation will not emerge stronger but weakened and debilitated beyond measure. Mr L K Advani is a Member of Parliament. He has sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. While he will lead the assembly of law-breakers what does he expect the UP government to do? Its Ministers are also sworn to uphold the law and Constitution. The police force is statutorily committed to neutralise the marching hordes even though composed of sadhus, acharyas, and otherwise respectable political leaders. There is no loophole or ambiguity in the law. (Indian Express October 16, 1990) Soon after the demolition, Jethmalani said on January 1, 1993 that ãthe BJP should have first come to power and made the act a permissible one under the law. The premature act is a violation of the existing law of the land.ä On December 17, Vajpayee told the Lok Sabha that those who demolished the structure must accept punishment. Why all the squealing now? It is clearly a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code. Can its perpetrators be permitted to go scot-free? This is not only a legal question. It is a moral question of profound implications for the future of Indiaâs polity. Failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime, which disgraced India before the world and will ever be a blot on its record in history, will only signify that the rule of law no longer governs the country.
On October 5, 1993 the day the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed the charge-sheet, K L Sharma, BJP General Secretary, denounced it as ãpolitically motivatedä and accused the CBI of ãsleeping over the issue for so longä. One of the persons cited as accused, the former Chief Minister of U P, Kalyan Singh, said the same day that the charges were ãbaselessä. On October 8, Advani said the case was ãfactually spurious, legally untenable and politically mala fide.ä Advani added, ãThe demolition was a regrettable surprise. I could not share the elation of many on that day. But the charge-sheet is good for the BJP.ä Having said that, he professed to see ãa gulfä between the BJPâs appreciation of the situation and that of the ãcommon Hinduä and quoted from K R Malkaniâs book to say that the demolition had come as a ãmighty pleasant surpriseä to most Hindus. The truth is the very opposite of this assertion. The common Hindu was shocked and saddened. The Sangh Parivar was jubilant. The charge-sheet is mostly based on admissions by kar sevaks and leaders themselves. On March 30, 1993, Uma Bharati said the demolition was part of a ãpreconceived plan and she was the pivot of the plan and gave the signal to break the Babri Masjid.ä Santhosh Dubey of the Shiv Sena said on October 7, 1993: ãThe remnants of the demolished structure are still with us. If the government has guts, it should arrest me.ä The following day, one of the accused, the Senaâs state unit chief Pawan Pandey, said: ãWe have repeatedly admitted out part in the act. We donât bother about the Governmentâs court. Our only concern is the verdict of the people.ä Kalyan Singh has been repeatedly quoted as gloating over the demolition: ãSh Kalyan Singh has made admissions/statements to the media as well as in his public speeches made at intervals which are clearly indicative of his complicity in the demolition of the disputed structureä Several of his speeches are quoted: ãThat on 4.5.93 at Hamirpur he said, ÎI am thankful to you, you have demolished the thousand years old structureâäSOn 19.2.93 at Mainpuri he said that the structure of slavery was demolished and the structure of Ram temple has been erected.ä
The charge-sheet adds:
The immediately after the demolition of the Babri Masjid disputed structure Jai Bhagwan Goel admitted that he and Shri Moreshwar Save were in charge and commanding the demolition That all the preparations were done by them and they demolished the Babri Masjid.
The Organiser says that ãAdvani and Joshi were asked to set out on rath yatras The BJP leaders sent signals to the quarters concerned that the party might enlarge its area of confrontation if the Centre did not allow kar seva at Ayodhya on December 6 SThat Shri Bala Saheb Thackeray admitted to the said video magazine that he was proud of his boys if they had demolished the Babri Masjid structure and that it was a constructive work of his people. He also said that if he would have been the Prime Minister of India, he would have demolished the disputed structure officially instead of leaving it to the Shiv Sainiks.
That accused Moreshwar Save admitted to The Independent newspaper that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was planned and executed in a military precision by 500 Shiv Sainiks who were trained in the Chambal valley for a fortnight.
The charge-sheet says: The investigation also revealed that on 5.12.1992, a secret meeting was held at the residence of Shri Vinay Katiyar, which was attended by S/Shri L K Advani, Pawan Pandey, etc wherein a final decision to demolish the disputed structure was taken. During the same period Sh Kalyan Singh, when contracted by a witness, told him that ãRok construction par lagi hai, destruction par nahin". [It is construction which has been restrained (by the Supreme Court), not destruction.]
That in furtherance of the abovesaid criminal conspiracy kar seva mobilisation journey was purposely undertaken by Shri L K Advani from Varanasi and Shri Murli Manohar Joshi from Mathura on 1.12.1992 which finally culminated at Ayodhya on 5.12.1992 and in the course of such journeys, which involved public speeches,SShri Advani vehemently asserted repeatedly that the kar seva to be held from 6.12.92 at Ayodhya would not mean only bhajan and kirtan, but would as well involve construction of Shri Ram Temple. It would be done with bricks and shovels. He further asserted on 2.12.1992 to the Jansatta that the BJP will break the law for the construction of Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at Ayodhya.ä
But, then, this was revealed by none other than Organiser in its issue of December 13 which carried a telephonic report of the operations at Ayodhya. In sheer jubilation it revealed its ãgame planä÷negotiations through journalist-mediators; the false affidavits in the Supreme Court÷to buy time to collect crowds. The filing of affidavits is called a ãtactical moveä: ãThe game plan was not to allow the Centre to pre-empt the arrival of the kar sevaks at Ayodhya by dismissing the UP Government and deploying paramilitary forces in and around Ayodhya.ä In law, such a ãgame planä constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
Why was all the elaborate charade of negotiations and affidavits undertaken unless the object was the demolition of the mosque? Who all were privy to what Organiser calls ãthe game planä? ãKalyan Singh,ä we are told, ãhad taken all preliminary steps and had even selected a house to which he planned to shift within hours of his dismissal.ä Which Chief Minister sworn to uphold the law has ever contemplated so strange a step? Organiser further reveals that ãL K Advani and Dr M M Joshi were asked to set out on yatra commencing from Varanasi and Mathura respectivelySThe BJP leaders sent signals to the quarters concerned that the party might enlarge its area of confrontation if the Centre did not allow kar seva at Ayodhya on December 6.ä They were thus privy to the ãgame planä revealed by Organiser itself. The charge-sheet recites details of preparations÷ training of a VHP outfit in Ahmedabad from September 22 onwards, the closing ceremony being attended by Ashok Singhal, Moropant Pingle (RSS) and Giriraj Kishore (VHP); the Bajrang Dal youth training in the Chambal valley; and the role of Moreshwar Save, who made the infamous public admission of planning and preparation. The rehearsal at Naltila Ram Katha Kunja, 500 metres from the mosque, is mentioned. So is the equipment placed in the hands of the kar sevaks.
There is more: It was 6.12/1992 that Shri L K Advani in a public speech in the proximity of the disputed structure shortly before the actual demolition of the disputed site amongst other facts duly projected by him had also emphasised that ãAaj kar seva ka akhiri din hai, kar sevak aaj akhiri kar seva karengeä (It is the final day for the kar seva today. The kar sevaks will be doing the final kar seva today). When the demolition of the disputed structure was in progress, he also told that the Central forces were moving from Faizabad towards Ayodhya, but they were not afraid of it and instructed the public to block the national highway straightway so that forces do not reach Ram Janam Bhoomi. The investigation also disclosed that as and when demolition was in progress, Shri L K Advani in fact advised the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Kalyan Singh, not to tender his resignation to the Governor of UP till the demolition of the disputed structure stands completed. This bit came out in the evidence before the Citizensâ Commission too.
A minister who provides moral help to militants up in arms against the state is a certifiable security risk. If he happens to be Home Minister, in charge of national security as well, he deserves the boot from the President Clearly, there is a case to answer and not for the accused alone. Kuldip Nayyar reported in The Statesman of February 24, 1993 that the RSS boss, Balasaheb Deoras, ãat Nagpur received the call himself. It was as if he was anxiously awaiting something important. The two Marathi words communicated were: Fateh zali (work completed). He is said to have felt relieved.ä The Hinduâs correspondent reported (November 2, 1992) that the VHPâs ãconfrontationist path on the Ayodhya issue was the direct outcome of the hardline stance adopted by the RSS at its recent Ujjain conclaveä. That conclave ended on October 27, 1992. The rest is history.
Union home minister as an accused
A minister in government who provides moral help to militants up in arms against the state is a certifiable security risk. If he happens to be Home Minister in charge of national security as well, he deserves the boot from the President. Advani faces a charge-sheet prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is now under his control. Dated October 5, 1993, it alleges, after a through investigation, that he participated in a conspiracy to demolish the masjid on December 6, 1992 and committed grave offences in pursuance of that conspiracy. It also charged two other ministers, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati. On February 4, 1994, the Supreme Court issued notice for contempt of court against Advani and others. On August 27, 1994, Special Judicial Magistrate Mahipal Sirohi found that a prima facie case existed which warranted committal of those accused by the CBI to trial by a Sessions Court which alone could pass sentence in a grave case like this.
On September 9, 1997, Jagdish Prasad Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge (Ayodhya Episode), Lucknow, ãconcluded that in the present case, a criminal conspiracy to demolish the disputed structure of Ram Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid was hatched by the accused persons in the beginning of 1990 and was completed on 6.12.1992. Shri Lal Krishan [sic] Advani and others hatched criminal conspiracies to demolish the disputed premises on different times at different places. Therefore, I find a prima facie case to charge Shri Bala Saheb Thakre [sic], Shri Lal Krishan Advani, Shri Kalyan Singh, Shri Vinay Katiyarä and others under Section 147, 153(A), 153(B), 259, 295(A) and 505 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Thus, the case was found proved prima facie warranting a regular trial. Matters had gone far beyond a charge-sheet filed in a court by the police. Two judicial officers, the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge found that a prima facie case was established on the facts. However, one formality remained for the trial to begin. Section 228 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that where the Sessions Judge ãframes any charge,ä as in the Ayodhya case, ãthe charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charge or claims to be tried.ä In short, the accused must himself be physically present in order that his or her plea to the charge is recorded. The lawyerâs presence will not suffice. Accordingly Judge Srivastava ordered: ãAll the accused persons are directed to be presented in the Court on 17-10-1997 for framing of the charges.ä By filing revision applications in the Allahabad High Court and absenting themselves, the accused have averted the opening of the trial for a full two years since October 17, 1997.
The Sessions Judgeâs 61-page order is a public document which has been published in full as a CPI (M) publication entitled Ayodhya Conspiracy of Saffron Brigade Unmasked. The Sessions Judgeâs order recorded: ãOn 5-12-1992 a secret meeting was held at the house of Sh Vinay Katiyar which was attended by Sh. Lal Krishan Advani, Pawan Kumar Pandey and a final decision to demolish disputed structure was taken. Their argument was that there was a ban on construction not on demolition and accused No 1 to 38 assembled near Ram Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid on 6-12-92 and Sh Lal Krishan Advani categorically said in his public speech before the demolition of disputed structure that Îtoday is the last day of Kar Seva. Kar Sewaks would perform last Kar Seva.ä When he came to know that central force was proceeding from Faizabad to Ayodhya then he [Advani] asked the public to block National highway so that central forces do not reach Ram Janambhoomi. Prosecution has also contended that when disputed structure was being pulled down Sh. Advani asked Kalyan Singh not to tender his resignation till the disputed structure is completely pulled down.ä
What was Advaniâs defence? ãNo masjid existed on the spot, as no Namaz was ever held there. Disputed structure was a mandir for centuries. The court had restrained from constructing mandir. There was no injunction against demolition of the mandir.ä And the Sessions Judgeâs finding? ãOn a careful perusal of evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case, I have come to conclusion that the prima facie evidence as alleged against the accused persons is made out.ä
It is disgraceful that in order to save Advaniâs tarnished skin, he and the Prime Minister should dishonestly stretch the law and set a dangerous precedent for use by law-breakers in power in the future and armed militants on the rampage at present In paragraph 36, he traced Advaniâs movement just prior to the offence and concluded (para 37) that he was very much a party to the conspiracy. In a later interview (Outlook, December 20, 1999), Advani said: ãI had nothing to do with the demolition.ä The Judgeâs Order, however, recorded, ãAs per Ms Ruchira Gupta, PW-145 that Shri Advani declared that CRPF may arrive at any time. Therefore, all the people should raise barricade on the main roads so as to prevent CRPF from coming near the spot.ä This was also reported by correspondents of The Hindu and Indian Express (December 7, 1992).
Advani says that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was a ãpolitical offenceä. What will be say to the militants who indulge in acts of violence in, say, Kashmir or the North-East? ãAs for the demand for my resignation,ä says Advani, Îthere is a clear distinction between a political case and being charge-sheeted in any other case, however motivated it may have been.ä The hawala case, over which he resigned from the Lok Sabha on being charge-sheeted, ãinvolved moral turpitude of sorts, relating to corruptionä. The implication is plain the demolition of a house of worship does not involve ãmoral turpitudeä. Prime Minister Vajpayee sang the same tune on December 7, 1999. ãThere is no corruption charge against them, nor any allegation of misuse of office. You know there is a difference between charges of corruption and this kind of case.ä Can the demolition of a house of worship be characterised as a ãpolitical offenceä at all as the expression is understood in the civilised world?
By all established definitions of ãterrorismä, the demolition of the Babri mosque was a ãterrorist actä. By all established definitions of a ãpolitical offenceä, terrorism falls far outside it. Were Advaniâs Vajpayeeâs test to pass muster, the armed militants in Kashmir and in northeastern India, the Peopleâs War Group (PWG) and other Naxalite groups would be beyond the reach of the law. It is disgraceful that in order to save Advaniâs tarnished skin, he and the Prime Minister should dishonestly stretch the law and set a dangerous precedent for use by law-breakers in power in the future and armed militants on the rampage at present. To both of them, as well as the other charge-sheeted ministers, one would pose a simple question: what about the assassins of Gandhi, led by the RSSâs own Nathuram Godse, and those of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi? Were they also political offenders like L K Advani, Murli Mahohar Joshi and Uma Bharati?
The day after The Narasimha Rao government lost no time in shutting the stable doors after it had allowed the communal beast to flee. On December 10, 1992, notifications were issued under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 banning the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, and, in a show of balance, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Islamic Sewak Sangh. On June 4, 1993 Justice P K Bahri of the Delhi High Court, sitting on the Tribunal appointed under the Act, upheld the ban on the VHP but quashed the ones against the RSS and the Bajrang Dal. He however, spoke of ãthe laudable objects being pursued by VHP.ä If the Government sought consciously to have its cosmetic ban on the RSS quashed by a judge whose ãpublic philosophyä was manifestly sympathetic to these bodies, it could not have prepared the case for the bans with greater ineptitude. (See the writerâs critiques in Frontline, July 2 and September 10, 1993.) The Governmentâs counsel rightly said, ãThe BJP is a political wing of the RSS.ä
The evidence on this linkage before the Tribunal itself was overwhelming. If RSS supreme Balasaheb Deoras was a trustee of the VHP, Singhal of the VHP was a member of the RSS. A VHP publication Virat Hindu Sammelan refers to the RSSâs acticities and those of the ãsisterä organisations. Singhal attended most meetings of the RSSâs executive bodies from 1989 to 1992. The VHP admitted to the Tribunal that the RSS ãis a kind of universityä which produces ãgreat nationalistsä. RSS leader Rajendra Singh used other metaphors: ãtraining instituteä and ãa fatherâs house.ä Acharya Giriraj Kishore of the VHP told the Tribunal that his press release of December 2 ãhad mentioned that the kar sevaks would be functioning [on December 6] within in the discipline to be enforced by RSS workers.ä Formally, both the RSS and the VHP asserted that they were ãnot inter-relatedä or ãinter-linkedä. The RSS has in its reply denied the contents of the speeches imputed to the leaders of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal and in some cases tried to justify them.
The evidence on this linkage before the Tribunal itself was overwhelming. If RSS supreme Balasaheb Deoras was a trustee of the VHP, Singhal of the VHP was a member of the RSS. Why then did the Tribunal completely ignore the evidence on this point? Rajendra Singh excelled himself: ãHe deposed that he had little knowledge of the working of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal and whatever knowledge he has is derived from news reports.ä But the RSS reply cited facts pertaining to the VHP and the Bajrang Dal ãbased on personal knowledge of this witnessä and ãprepared on his instructions aloneä. A book brought on the record by the RSS itself, RSS: A Vision in Action, referred to the Sangh parivar and the VHP as its members.
Why then did the Tribunal completely ignore the evidence on this point? Justice Bahriâs own outlook is anything but enlightened: ãThe laudable objects being pursued by VHP cannot be objected, for strengthening the various Hindu sects for uniting themä (p 284). He proceeded to refer to invasions by Muslim rulers, conversions to Islam (p 284) and to British policies ãso that those Muslims should not get assimilated in the mainstream of the culture of this countryä (p 285). This is the very view which the Sangh parivar espouses.
Presidentâs rule was imposed on December 15, 1992 in three BJP-ruled States÷Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh and invited this action by resigning on December 6. The Supreme Court upheld the three contested Proclamations under Article 356 of the Constitution on March 11, 1994 in S R Bommai vs Union of India & Ors ([1994] 3 Supreme Court Cases page 1). Seven of the nine judges who decided the case held that secularism is part of the unamendable ãbasic structureä of the Constitution. Justices P B Sawant and Kuldip singh cited the BJPâs 1991 Election Manifesto among the ãprofessions and acts which are evidently against the Constitutionä.
Particularly noteworthy were Justice P B Jeevan Reddy's observations: Shri Parasaran is right in his submission that what happened on December 6, 1992 was no ordinary event, that it was the outcome of a sustained campaign carried out over a number of years throughout the country and that it was the result of the speeches, acts and deeds of several leaders of BJP and other organisations. The event had serious repercussions not only within the country but outside as well. It put in doubt the very secular credentials of this nation and its Government÷and those credentials had to be redeemed. The situation had many dimensions, social, religious, political and international. Rarely do such occasions arise in the life of a nation. The situation was an extraordinary one, its repercussions could not be foretold at that time. Nobody could say with definiteness what would happen and where? The situation was not only unpredictable, it was a fast-evolving one. The communal situation was tense. It could explode anywhere at any time. One the material placed before us, including the reports of the Governors we cannot say that the President had no relevant material before him on the basis of which he could from the satisfaction that the BJP governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh cannot dissociate themselves from the action and its consequences and that these Governments, controlled by one and the same party, whose leading lights were actively campaigning for the demolition of the disputed structure, cannot be dissociated from the acts and deeds of the leaders of BJP. In the then prevailing situation, the Union of India thought it necessary to ban certain organisations including RSS and here were Governments which were headed by persons who ãswore by the values and traditions of the RSSä and were giving ãovert and covert support to the associate communal organisationä (vide report of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh).
The Governor of Himachal Pradesh reported that "the Chief Minister himself is a member of RSS". The Governor of Rajashtan reported that the ban on RSS and other organisations was not being implemented because of the intimate connection between the members of the Government and those organisations. The three Governors also spoke of the part played by the members of the Government in sending and welcoming back the kar sevaks. They also express the opinion that these Governments cannot be expected, in the circumstances, to function objectively and impartially in dealing with the emerging law and order situation, which had all the ominous makings of a communal conflagration. [...] .
A G Noorani is a lawyer, columnist, author and political commentator. His most recent book is Constitutional Questions in India. He is currently working on another book, The Kashmir Question Revisited
Return to South Asia Citizens Web