A lot of newsprint and airtime has been wasted on the voluminous report presented by Justice (Retd.) MS Liberhan. Frankly, the report was too big and uninteresting for me to go in full. Hence, I will be restricting myself mostly to the angle of conspiracy, seemingly established by the Report.
Conclusions of Liberhan’s research as enunciated in Chapter 14 of the voluminous report can be summarized in the following points:
- Demolition of the Babri Masjid was not an unintended spontaneous event except for ‘self serving hyperbole’
- Logistically, given the total preparedness of the Kar Sevaks, there was a well planned conspiracy to destroy the Masjid
- Financial support came from Sangh Parivar funds including Bank Accounts operated by various named persons
- The then Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and his hand picked bureaucrats were involved in the conspiracy to destroy the Masjid and allowed a ‘parallel government’ and ‘cartel’ to facilitate the campaign which infiltrated the Government
- The State of UP had become a willing ally and co-conspirator in the joint common enterprise…(of)…demolishing the structure
- The conspiracy arose from the single minded efforts of the RSS and VHP ideologues and theologians to manipulate ordinary people into a frenzied mob
- The campaign had nothing to do with a popular mandate from the people who were manipulated to support it
- The police fell in line with the conspiracy
- The Union Government was crippled by the failure of intelligence and the ‘all-is-well reports by its rapporteur Tej Shankar
- Not a single video camera was put in place
- The media and journalists were subjected to systematic harassment
- Leaders like Vajpayee, Advani, Joshi and Govindacharya knew of the designs of the Sangh Parivar and lent their support in various ways.
- Muslim leaders ‘wittingly or unwittingly; did not counter the plans of the RSS and VHP, effectively to make the latter’s task easier
- 68 persons are found ‘culpable’, including Advani, Vajpayee and Joshi, but not Narasimha Rao
While there may be a lot of hair splitting on the inefficacy and uselessness of the report, a few points are beyond contention, i.e., the Sangh Parivar nurtured and promoted the movement for the liberation of the disputed shrine, that for the common man, construction of the magnificent temple was possible only after removal of the existing disputed structure and LK Advani, being the foremost leader of the Ayodhya movement, bears the primary responsibility for the demolition of the disputed structure.
However, these conclusions by themselves are not sufficient to accept that there was a deep rooted conspiracy to demolish the mosque the same day. While the usual suspects may point to the systematic demolition of the structure on that fateful day, we must not mistake trees for the woods and recognize the fact that the of the estimated five lakh people assembled at Ayodhya, at least a few thousands participated in the demolition. The Kar Sevaks were not a bunch of lumpen and unemployed youth alone but comprised a mix of professionals, salaried class, traders, women and even children. For any observer of mob mentality, it is common knowledge that mobs create their own leaders and are capable of achieving quite a lot in a short span of time, particularly if that task does not involve any constructive activity. Refer to the brick by brick demolition of the house of one of the Srinagar sex scandal accused, wherein a mob, after completing their Friday namaaz, simply went over and destroyed everything in less than an hour. Or, more recently, when the city of Kolkata came to a halt following a spontaneous rally of more than a lakh individuals, protesting state atrocities at Nandigram. When even organized political parties find it difficult to rustle up crowds of more than 10,000 strong these days, one would think that the possibility of one hundred thousand people assembling at a short notice can only be a result of a long drawn sustained campaign. But then, masses never fail to amaze. And when we talk of Ayodhya, we are talking of not a disparate mob, assembled together for divergent purposes. We are talking of a group, all individuals of which had a single agenda, i.e., the removal of the structure and construction of a temple at that site. After all, isn’t it plain common sense that if people were leaving their homes and families behind, unsure if they would ever come back and proceed to Ayodhya to work for the construction of a temple, they would have decided to first remove whatever was there standing on ground? Demolition of the structure was only a logical culmination of the urges driving those pilgrims on a destructive / constructive mission.
I dare say that the political leadership of the Sangh Parivar was never interested in constructing the temple and never wanted the destruction to happen at all. This contention is well based on a few observations of the reaction of the top leadership post demolition. The reported first comments of Rajju Bhaiyya, the then Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, when he heard of the demolition were “Ab to Sarkar Gayi”. Journalists who were present at the site on that fateful day have unanimously reported that LK Advani was visibly distraught at the spectacle and that a lot of leaders from the RSS and VHP appealed to the masses to desist from demolishing the disputed structure. While the conspiracy theorists may paint an Oscar worthy acting talent in Mr Advani, such suppositions are too fanciful to merit serious attention. Then, we must not ignore the fact that the assembled Kar Sevaks first went about in the demolition task, totally unconcerned about the idol of Ramlalla which was still inside the structure. Only a non directed mob would have had capacity of committing such a sacrilegious act. It was only moments before the final crumbling of the structure that the idol and its belongings were brought out safe in a steel trunk. A systematic conspiratorial effort certainly would have ensured removal of the deity before the first brick was touched.
Lest it be forgotten in the cacophony of allegations, spare a thought to the belief that Kar Seva had become a mere ritual for the BJP. The first instance, i.e., November 2, 1990 saw scores die in police firing while the one in June 1992 was a simple bhajan affair. While the BJP leadership might have seen the structure as a Golden egg laying goose, the average Hindu on street and in kitchens, was fast losing patience with the leaders of the movement.. December 6 was the day when the leadership of the movement passed on from its leaders to the led and the pilgrims achieved, albeit partially, what they had set out to achieve.
Had the BJP really been interested in constructing the temple, it could have easily erected the small scale version of the grand temple the offer for which had been made by the erstwhile King of Ayodhya (A small but functional model of the temple had been prepared and was capable of getting fabricated at a short time). The armed forces cleared the site of Kar Sevaks only about noon on December 7, 1992; ample time for the fabrication work to have happened. Probably the five century long struggle for resurrection of a Grand Temple devoted to Lord Ram was not destined to close in 1992. But maybe, some day, this centuries-long desire will indeed be fulfilled.
Regarding the report, it is a shameful travesty of all norms of investigation. What Mr Liberhan has produced after 17 years of ‘investigation’ could have been produced the next day. The entire report is full of assumptions, homilies and prescriptions and reads like an editorial of a pompous journalist. However, in spite of missing out the name of Rajiv Gandhi and Karan Singh among the list of 68, he has refreshed public memory that the Temple Movement was a epoch which cut across the political spectrum. By reminding people that it was Dau Dayal Khanna, who first raised the demand for restoration of the site to the Hindus, that Gulzari Lal Nanda was part of the troika which formulated the strategy of fermenting the temple movement, that Karan Singh’s well attended ‘Viraat Hindu Sammelans’ prepared the ground for receptivity to this movement, that Deoraha Baba was among the prime instigators of public opinion, we re-realise that the sentiments to liberate the shrine were not limited to Hindus of the saffron variety alone but ran across people of all political hues. It was the unfortunate hijacking of the movement by the expedient BJP which ruined it, leaving us with only a makeshift temple instead of a concrete structure to worship in. The Hindutva minded groups should perennially be grateful to Rajiv Gandhi for having allowed darshan at the site, something which a BJP led Government would never have done. By bringing to light the galaxy of leaders behind the movement, Liberhan nails one of his own lies, that the movement did not enjoy popular support. Such supposition is laughable and would make one believe that the ‘investigator’ was deep in a Rip Van Winkle sleep when the large parts of the country pulsated with emotions and cries of ‘Mandir Wahin Banayenge’ reverberated across the Nation. While it is true that people’s emotions were exploited, tell me, which mass movement is rational and devoid of emotions? Even with regards to our century long freedom movement, it was more of the imagery of Bharat Mata in chains and the tales of sacrifices of leaders of that era which fired public imagination. Can any sane person really claim that it was Dadabhai Naoroji’s ‘The Economic Drain and Un-British Rule in India’ fired the mass imagination more than Bankim Chandra’s ‘Vande Ma Taram’? To imagine that any movement can be sustained on basis of logic alone is idealistic. Any movement requires leaders and these leaders have to play on emotions of the people. Ayodhya movement was nowhere different from mass movements across the world.
One aspect which I would certainly agree with is that Babri Masjid symbolized Indian Secularism. In fact, I would go a step ahead and say that, that structure symbolized everything which is wrong with the way India practices secularism. Here we had a structure built on a shrine, which till some time back, was universally acknowledged as the site of a temple dedicated to Lord Ram. This was the site for which a mass movement was carried on, with a demand that the mosque be ‘shifted’ elsewhere. Note that there was no demand of demolition, it was only shifting. Huge piles of evidence in support of the existence of temple were produced by the parties demanding construction of the temple. On the other hand, we had a group which insisted on continuation of the mosque there, oblivious to the sentiments of the agitating Hindus. Rather than the debate being focused on the existence of the temple, all sorts of elements ganged together to question the historicity of Lord Ram himself, as if this was the question at any point of time! Finally, these people wanted the Government to massacre the Kar Sevaks, so that the disputed structure, which for all practical purposes, was a temple, could be saved! We heard many from this group sermonizing the Hindus that a hospital should come up, a urinal should come up, or any damned structure could come up, only it should not be a temple. I do not recollect any of them ever appealing to the Muslims to voluntarily hand over the site to the Hindus in interest of peace and harmony!
Anyone can imagine what consequences such an act would have caused. Not only would have the mosque been saved, it would have destroyed public support for all other liberation movements. Public support cannot be rallied again and again and the tolerant Hindu would never have accorded support to another movement which would have created disharmony in the society. Further, which sites would they have targeted? With Kashi and Mathura, while the evidence of Muslim desecration and destruction are too vivid to be ignored even by the ‘secular’ historians, those shrines have fully functional temples. The business minded Hindu would never have rallied to ‘liberate’ these shrines fully. With regards to smaller shrines like the Saraswati Mandir at Dhar or the Datta Peeth at Baba Budangiri Hills, the former was anyways sorted out by courts and the latter is a dispute which rose primarily on account of unilateral action of Waqf Board. Moreover, it is not a Mosque, only a dargah for the believer, worshipping which itself is kufr for the puritan. Anyways, had the Muslims had shown their ‘generosity’ in Ayodhya, I doubt if anyone would have managed public support for more ‘liberations’ elsewhere. However, since the mosque was a symbol of Indian Secularism, such thoughts themselves were heresy. And so we are at a juncture where we have been left with an unfinished structure an unfinished agenda and a cynical mass which has lost hope of seeing the Grand Temple coming up in their lifetimes.
