[sacw] SACW: 'Historical wrong by the extreme Right' by AG Noorani

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #2 | 7 December 2000
____________________________

(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: "We have
accepted our responsibility directly" (Economic Times June 11). He cited
Kalyan Singh's resignation as Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister and statements
"from Atal Behari Vajpayee to L K Advani to the Sarsanghchalak [of the
RSS] that this was not the right thing to happen." 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 "crime" on December 6.
Jaswant Singh asserted, "It should not have happened. I mean, in the sense
that the BJP was one of the participants, the BJP has direct
responsibility." 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 "did pull down" the mosque? Organiser of May 7, 1995
published an article by Vajpayee: "But 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." True to form, he explained two
days later that "he meant that the Hindus pulled down the structure, not
the RSS workers." 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 "did pull down" 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 VHP's
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 "Advani 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." 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: "I deeply regret the happenings at Ayodhya today I feel sorry that
I could not prevent the occurrence." When the news of the demolition
reached the BJP's office in New Delhi, Vice-President Sunder Singh
Bhandari described the act as "unfortunate, unexpected, unjustified". He
added, "This is a crime." Bhandari went further still: "He 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."
He was not forgiven for this.

Three years later, the Shiv Sena's chief Bal Thackeray "accused 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 act" His resentment at the BJP's 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 "agents provocateurs". The VHP
attributed it to "anti-social elements who had infiltrated the ranks of the
kar sevaks". Ashok Singhal said it was "not preplanned" and the kar sevaks
action was but the "surfacing of suppressed pent-up feeling". For Vajpayee,
the event was "unfortunate". But this poet and man of refined feelings was
quick to dismiss it as of little consequence. "It was a disputed structure
and it was being used as a temple." 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 "some
mysterious elements who had evidently decided on mischief" 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 "namaaz" 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 "some
mysterious elements who had evidently decided on mischief". 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, "We
could not gauge the intensity of the people's feelings over Ayodhya." 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, Advani's defence
had crystallised. Vajpayee, too, remained unrepentant: "This is not the
first time a place of worship has been demolished." 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: "In the sense that
so many kar sevaks gathered, it may be called preplanned." The Organiser
(December 13) revealed some details of what was clearly a meticulously
laid-out plan: "It 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."

Advani and Joshi "were asked to set out on yatras commencing from Varanasi
and Mathura" to explain the tactic to "the rank and file". Vajpayee decided
to switch to the "moderate" stance a week later (December 13): "On the
first day I did say that [sic] let us condemn the happenings in Ayodhya,
but others did not help me." But he did not condemn it either. It was no
more than a "misadventure" and "the worst miscalculation". It was not
preplanned though some kar sevaks were "very, very [sic] determined to do
away with the structure". A section of them "went out of control".

Mark this promise: "We 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." But Shrikant Joshi,
private secretary to Deoras, confidently asserted that "kar sevaks had
nothing to do with it" and alleged that it was officials from the Research
and Analysis Wing (RAW) "disguised as karsevaks who first ran towards the
structure and began demolishing it." Malkani opined in his book The
Politics of Ayodhya and Hindus-Muslim Relations, published later in the
year, "Shrikant could well be right only those opposed to the Sangh parivar
could have done it."

Kalyan Singh, who knew better, said on December 16, "I 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." 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 "between contempt o
court and contempt of God" in which he would not go against the will of
Shri Ram himself". He had had a "telephonic conversation with Ram Lalla"
Parliament, Vajpayee and colleagues adopted a standard form of regret:
"Extremely sorry." Vajpayee said that (December 17) those who demolished
the structure must come forward, own up their deed and accept punishment.
"The temple for Ram shall be built on truth." But there was not a trace
of regret in the BJP National Executive's resolution on December 24. It
simply blamed the Centre. The BJP's 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. "We have no regrets," M M [Murli
Manohar] Joshi said on January 24, explaining that the BJP had always
wanted "the structure" 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 "between contempt of court
and contempt of God" in which he would not go against the will of Shri
Ram himself". He had had a "telephonic conversation with Ram Lalla", 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 "national pride". "With the
cries of Jai Sri Ram, the kar sevaks performed their job and I resigned."
The BJP's White Paper on Ayodhya (April 1993) was more circumspect. The
demolition was the result of "an emotive outburst" in the face, inter alia,
of "the highly provocative structure".

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 Citizen's 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. "There was undoubtedly a conspiracy to destroy the Babri
Masjid," 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 one's 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: "The
temple for Ram shall be built on truth." 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 Vajpayee's cabinet, had opined,
while Advani's 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 "the 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." 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 India's 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
"politically motivated" and accused the CBI of "sleeping over the issue for
so long". One of the persons cited as accused, the former Chief Minister of
U P, Kalyan Singh, said the same day that the charges were "baseless". On
October 8, Advani said the case was "factually spurious, legally untenable
and politically mala fide." Advani added, "The 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." Having said that, he professed to see "a
gulf" between the BJP's appreciation of the situation and that of the
"common Hindu" and quoted from K R Malkani's book to say that the
demolition had come as a "mighty pleasant surprise" 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 "preconceived plan
and she was the pivot of the plan and gave the signal to break the Babri
Masjid." Santhosh Dubey of the Shiv Sena said on October 7, 1993: "The
remnants of the demolished structure are still with us. If the government
has guts, it should arrest me." The following day, one of the accused, the
Sena's state unit chief Pawan Pandey, said: "We have repeatedly admitted
out part in the act. We don't bother about the Government's court. Our only
concern is the verdict of the people." Kalyan Singh has been repeatedly
quoted as gloating over the demolition: "Sh 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 structure" Several of his speeches are quoted:
"That on 4.5.93 at Hamirpur he said, 'I am thankful to you, you have
demolished the thousand years old structure'"=85On 19.2.93 at Mainpuri he
said that the structure of slavery was demolished and the structure of Ram
temple has been erected."

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 "Advani 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 =85That 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 "Rok 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,=85Shri 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."

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 "game plan"-negotiations
through journalist-mediators; the false affidavits in the Supreme Court-to
buy time to collect crowds. The filing of affidavits is called a "tactical
move": "The 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." In law, such a "game plan"
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 "the game plan"? "Kalyan Singh," we are
told, "had taken all preliminary steps and had even selected a house to
which he planned to shift within hours of his dismissal." Which Chief
Minister sworn to uphold the law has ever contemplated so strange a step?
Organiser further reveals that "L K Advani and Dr M M Joshi were asked to
set out on yatra commencing from Varanasi and Mathura respectively=85The BJ=
P
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." They were thus privy to the "game plan" 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 "Aaj kar seva ka akhiri din hai, kar sevak aaj
akhiri kar seva karenge" (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 Citizens' 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, "at 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." The Hindu's correspondent reported (November 2, 1992) that
the VHP's "confrontationist path on the Ayodhya issue was the direct
outcome of the hardline stance adopted by the RSS at its recent Ujjain
conclave". 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, "concluded 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 Katiyar" 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 "frames any
charge," as in the Ayodhya case, "the 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." In short, the accused must
himself be physically present in order that his or her plea to the charge
is recorded. The lawyer's presence will not suffice. Accordingly Judge
Srivastava ordered: "All the accused persons are directed to be presented
in the Court on 17-10-1997 for framing of the charges." 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 Judge's 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 Judge's order recorded: "On
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 'today is the last day of Kar Seva. Kar Sewaks
would perform last Kar Seva." 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."

What was Advani's defence? "No 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." And the Sessions Judge's finding? "On 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."

It is disgraceful that in order to save Advani's 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
Advani's 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: "I had nothing to do with the
demolition." The Judge's Order, however, recorded, "As 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." 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 "political
offence". What will be say to the militants who indulge in acts of
violence in, say, Kashmir or the North-East? "As for the demand for my
resignation," says Advani, 'there is a clear distinction between a
political case and being charge-sheeted in any other case, however
motivated it may have been." The hawala case, over which he resigned from
the Lok Sabha on being charge-sheeted, "involved moral turpitude of sorts,
relating to corruption". The implication is plain the demolition of a house
of worship does not involve "moral turpitude". Prime Minister Vajpayee sang
the same tune on December 7, 1999. "There 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." Can the
demolition of a house of worship be characterised as a "political offence"
at all as the expression is understood in the civilised world?

By all established definitions of "terrorism", the demolition of the Babri
mosque was a "terrorist act". By all established definitions of a
"political offence", terrorism falls far outside it. Were Advani's
Vajpayee's test to pass muster, the armed militants in Kashmir and in
northeastern India, the People's War Group (PWG) and other Naxalite groups
would be beyond the reach of the law. It is disgraceful that in order to
save Advani's 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 RSS's
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 "the
laudable objects being pursued by VHP." If the Government sought
consciously to have its cosmetic ban on the RSS quashed by a judge whose
"public philosophy" was manifestly sympathetic to these bodies, it could
not have prepared the case for the bans with greater ineptitude. (See the
writer's critiques in Frontline, July 2 and September 10, 1993.) The
Government's counsel rightly said, "The BJP is a political wing of the
RSS."

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 RSS's acticities and those of the "sister" organisations. Singhal
attended most meetings of the RSS's executive bodies from 1989 to 1992. The
VHP admitted to the Tribunal that the RSS "is a kind of university" which
produces "great nationalists". RSS leader Rajendra Singh used other
metaphors: "training institute" and "a father's house." Acharya Giriraj
Kishore of the VHP told the Tribunal that his press release of December 2
"had mentioned that the kar sevaks would be functioning [on December 6]
within in the discipline to be enforced by RSS workers." Formally, both the
RSS and the VHP asserted that they were "not inter-related" or
"inter-linked". 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: "He 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." But the RSS reply cited facts pertaining to the VHP and the
Bajrang Dal "based on personal knowledge of this witness" and "prepared on
his instructions alone". 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 Bahri's own outlook is anything but enlightened: "The laudable
objects being pursued by VHP cannot be objected, for strengthening the
various Hindu sects for uniting them" (p 284). He proceeded to refer to
invasions by Muslim rulers, conversions to Islam (p 284) and to British
policies "so that those Muslims should not get assimilated in the
mainstream of the culture of this country" (p 285). This is the very view
which the Sangh parivar espouses.

President's 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 "basic structure" of the Constitution. Justices P B Sawant and
Kuldip singh cited the BJP's 1991 Election Manifesto among the "professions
and acts which are evidently against the Constitution".

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 "swore by the values and
traditions of the RSS" and were giving "overt and covert support to the
associate communal organisation" (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

______________________________________________
SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be
accessed at http://www.egroups.com/messages/act/
////////////////////////////////////

Disclaimer: opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily correspond to views of SACW compilers.