To all those who have been attending our last two sessions on the Ayodhya dispute, thank you for coming and strengthening the debate here at PILSARC!
Tomorrow, despite a resolution passed last week to move on to the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 / 1992 (J&K), we have decided to spend one more session threshing out the Babri debacle.
The judgement arrived just a few hours back, therefore the delay in sending out this mail - I am pleased to invite you all to the third session of the PILSARC Friday talk series. To those who missed the last two sessions, here is your chance to catch up and have your views heard on what is arguably the most hotly debated and socially volatile judgement in recent years.
Please bring along friends / colleagues / interesting people you know / students, and join us as we begin analysing the Allahabad High Court's pronouncement on the Ayodhya title suit.
What - Ayodhya judgement analysed
Who - Lead by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan
When - Tomorrow, Friday, 01 October, 2010
What time - 5.30 p.m.
Where - PILSARC Library (Basement), A 131, New Friends Colony, Delhi - 25
Tea, snacks and copies of the available discussion materials are on us, as is the difficult responsibility of steering the conversation!
The PILSARC Friday Talk Series is intended to provide a free and informal forum for intelligent, critical, analytical minds to speak out and have their voices heard.
I look forward very much to seeing you all here tomorrow evening!
Regards,
Rashmi
Showing posts with label "babri masjid" "liberhan commission" "truth and reconciliation". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "babri masjid" "liberhan commission" "truth and reconciliation". Show all posts
Friday, October 1, 2010
Ayodhya Title Suit Judgement of the Allahabad High Court
The Babri Masjid was destroyed on the 6th December 1992. It has all along been assumed that the site on which it stood belonged to the Sunni Wakf Board, this having been decided in the 1940s; and the Hindu claim having been rejected in 1885. It is also clear that the Muslims did not lose the right to full ownership of the site after the fateful idols were installed because the Wakf Board filed its suit before 12 years expired. The present judgment of the High Court seems to set aside the Muslim claim to full ownership of the site and seeks to make out a case of joint ownership of some part of the site. On what this is based will only be known once these massive judgments are read.
At this stage, without reading the full judgment it appears that there is a split decision, 2:1 in favour of a three way division of the site. The dissenting judge, Justice Sharma seems to have been wholly on the side of the Hindu argument. Justice S.U Khan found discrepancies in some of the evidence and does not appear to have accepted fully that the pillars found below the Mosque were of a live Hindu Temple that was destroyed between 1526 – 28. Nevertheless Justice S.U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal have concluded that there should be a three way split of the area between the parties, with the site on which the present prayer is being made going to the Hindus and the rest being divided. Both Justice Khan and Agarwal seem to recognize the Hindu sentiment, that this was Ram Janmabhoomi, needs to be respected and built a case for the right to prayer at that sight on this speculative basis. This is speculative because no one can really pin point where the mythical Lord Ram was born or even that centuries ago prayer in fact took place at this sight to commemorate the birth of Lord Ram.
The judges seem to have over reached themselves on the legal question and decided something doubtfully to and offer a solution which nobody had asked for. This is why many are calling this judgment as not a judgment of a court of law based on legalities, but a Panchayati judgment looking for a solution for the future. If the legal questions had been properly answered the site would have belonged to the Muslim community and the Hindu right to prayer would have been recognized as a moral rather than a legal right which the Muslims should consider conceding. Both, honour and dignity would have been satisfied. In this way the judgment could have been a basis to work towards an enduring solution. But the Muslim legal rights not have been recognized, seems to make the very existence of the Sunni Wakf Board’s rights to the land and the presence of the Babri Masjid a chimera. The fact of the matter is that the site does belong to the Sunni Wakf Board. There was a Masjid on that site which is centuries old even if disused. That Masjid was destroyed on 6th December 1992 as an act of sacrilege. To even hint that the very legal foundation of the existence of the Masjid was infirm seems a misplaced way of going about things.
In the negotiations in 1989 under PM Rajiv Gandhi and of 1991-92 under PM Narasimha Rao one of the most important questions was whether Babur in fact destroyed a Temple to build a Mosque. In Muslim terms, this would have made the site haram. This had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Muslims. I am not entirely sure that in the light of archaeological evidence, the Muslims will be satisfied that this has been proved to their satisfaction. Even within the judgment, as we know it now, there may appear to be some discrepancy about this singularly important question. If indeed, archaeological evidence may suggest that there may have been a Temple in and around this site earlier, then Babur did not destroy an existing living temple to render the site haram. Judges are ill equipped to answer questions of this nature on which historians and archaeologists differ fundamentally.
To that extent, both Muslim pride and dignity may not have been served by this judgment, both on the question of Muslim ownership of the site as well as whether Babur in fact destroyed an existing living temple to render the site haram.
The next question is whether this judgment of a three way split is a workable solution for the future to create peace with dignity for all. No one can oppose the idea that a shared site in which Hindu, Muslim and secular can co-exist peacefully. But is this in fact a workable solution on a correct basis for an enduring solution for the future? In the future, will Muslims, Hindus and secularists look back at this solution with pride; and support it to the hilt. It may be difficult to countenance and accept the idea that although the Muslims were denuded to the right of the full site, they must nevertheless accept one third of what they were entitled to on a basis that they were not really entitled to it.
For the moment a lot is going to depend on the generosity of the Muslims to accept the denuding of their right and the proposed solution. It would have been better if the Muslims’ full ownership were recognized along with the right to Hindu prayer. The secular angle to this is that no minority should be forced into a legal solution in which their full rights have not been recognized and they have been given a compensatory one third as part of a new truth, justice and the Indian way of life. The Indian way of life required that no community or group should be pushed into a solution through an incorrect basis of law and moral entitlement.
Although the destruction of the Mosque on 6th December 1992 was not an issue before the court, the fact that a Mosque was destroyed on a Sunni Wakf Board site cannot be denied. The entire world is asking what Indian governance and justice had to offer in the wake of this act of sacrilege. The offer made by the Court which appears to have no legal basis is that Hindu sentiment should be respected. And, as an exercise in distributive justice, the Muslim should be given a part of a cake that is cut three ways. Both the world outside India as well as within the country may continue to make the accusation that India is a Hindu country which is prepared to marginalize the dignity, respect and entitlement of its minorities.
We must all make a plea for calm; but a plea for calm does not mean accepting this verdict. If the Muslim community as an act of grace accepts it and does not appeal to the Supreme Court that may well be the end of the matter, subject to a fair division of the one third split which would not be as easy as the judgment may assume.
But having won the Babri Masjid case, the Hindus should now stop seeking a recriminatory path of so called historic injustice by Muslim or Christian invaders. There should be no call, “Mathura next and Varanasi thereafter.” The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 says that, on all other sites, rights that existed on 15th August 1947 should be respected. This parliamentary closure of remedying historical injustices should therefore be closed.
At this stage, without reading the full judgment it appears that there is a split decision, 2:1 in favour of a three way division of the site. The dissenting judge, Justice Sharma seems to have been wholly on the side of the Hindu argument. Justice S.U Khan found discrepancies in some of the evidence and does not appear to have accepted fully that the pillars found below the Mosque were of a live Hindu Temple that was destroyed between 1526 – 28. Nevertheless Justice S.U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal have concluded that there should be a three way split of the area between the parties, with the site on which the present prayer is being made going to the Hindus and the rest being divided. Both Justice Khan and Agarwal seem to recognize the Hindu sentiment, that this was Ram Janmabhoomi, needs to be respected and built a case for the right to prayer at that sight on this speculative basis. This is speculative because no one can really pin point where the mythical Lord Ram was born or even that centuries ago prayer in fact took place at this sight to commemorate the birth of Lord Ram.
The judges seem to have over reached themselves on the legal question and decided something doubtfully to and offer a solution which nobody had asked for. This is why many are calling this judgment as not a judgment of a court of law based on legalities, but a Panchayati judgment looking for a solution for the future. If the legal questions had been properly answered the site would have belonged to the Muslim community and the Hindu right to prayer would have been recognized as a moral rather than a legal right which the Muslims should consider conceding. Both, honour and dignity would have been satisfied. In this way the judgment could have been a basis to work towards an enduring solution. But the Muslim legal rights not have been recognized, seems to make the very existence of the Sunni Wakf Board’s rights to the land and the presence of the Babri Masjid a chimera. The fact of the matter is that the site does belong to the Sunni Wakf Board. There was a Masjid on that site which is centuries old even if disused. That Masjid was destroyed on 6th December 1992 as an act of sacrilege. To even hint that the very legal foundation of the existence of the Masjid was infirm seems a misplaced way of going about things.
In the negotiations in 1989 under PM Rajiv Gandhi and of 1991-92 under PM Narasimha Rao one of the most important questions was whether Babur in fact destroyed a Temple to build a Mosque. In Muslim terms, this would have made the site haram. This had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Muslims. I am not entirely sure that in the light of archaeological evidence, the Muslims will be satisfied that this has been proved to their satisfaction. Even within the judgment, as we know it now, there may appear to be some discrepancy about this singularly important question. If indeed, archaeological evidence may suggest that there may have been a Temple in and around this site earlier, then Babur did not destroy an existing living temple to render the site haram. Judges are ill equipped to answer questions of this nature on which historians and archaeologists differ fundamentally.
To that extent, both Muslim pride and dignity may not have been served by this judgment, both on the question of Muslim ownership of the site as well as whether Babur in fact destroyed an existing living temple to render the site haram.
The next question is whether this judgment of a three way split is a workable solution for the future to create peace with dignity for all. No one can oppose the idea that a shared site in which Hindu, Muslim and secular can co-exist peacefully. But is this in fact a workable solution on a correct basis for an enduring solution for the future? In the future, will Muslims, Hindus and secularists look back at this solution with pride; and support it to the hilt. It may be difficult to countenance and accept the idea that although the Muslims were denuded to the right of the full site, they must nevertheless accept one third of what they were entitled to on a basis that they were not really entitled to it.
For the moment a lot is going to depend on the generosity of the Muslims to accept the denuding of their right and the proposed solution. It would have been better if the Muslims’ full ownership were recognized along with the right to Hindu prayer. The secular angle to this is that no minority should be forced into a legal solution in which their full rights have not been recognized and they have been given a compensatory one third as part of a new truth, justice and the Indian way of life. The Indian way of life required that no community or group should be pushed into a solution through an incorrect basis of law and moral entitlement.
Although the destruction of the Mosque on 6th December 1992 was not an issue before the court, the fact that a Mosque was destroyed on a Sunni Wakf Board site cannot be denied. The entire world is asking what Indian governance and justice had to offer in the wake of this act of sacrilege. The offer made by the Court which appears to have no legal basis is that Hindu sentiment should be respected. And, as an exercise in distributive justice, the Muslim should be given a part of a cake that is cut three ways. Both the world outside India as well as within the country may continue to make the accusation that India is a Hindu country which is prepared to marginalize the dignity, respect and entitlement of its minorities.
We must all make a plea for calm; but a plea for calm does not mean accepting this verdict. If the Muslim community as an act of grace accepts it and does not appeal to the Supreme Court that may well be the end of the matter, subject to a fair division of the one third split which would not be as easy as the judgment may assume.
But having won the Babri Masjid case, the Hindus should now stop seeking a recriminatory path of so called historic injustice by Muslim or Christian invaders. There should be no call, “Mathura next and Varanasi thereafter.” The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 says that, on all other sites, rights that existed on 15th August 1947 should be respected. This parliamentary closure of remedying historical injustices should therefore be closed.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Babri Masjid - Time for Truth and Reconciliation
Babri Masjid - Time for Truth and Reconciliation
Rajeev Dhavan
From a totally different viewpoint, kavivar Bachchan’s words come to mind: Kya bhuloon, kya yaad karoon mai? (What shall I forget, what shall I remember?). Is the destruction of Babri Masjid to be forgotten? As part of the triumph of ‘forgetting’ over truth? After 17 years, is the Liberhan Report irrelevant? Are we no longer interested in the truth?
There are many ways to perceive the fall of Babri Masjid. Counsel for UP simply told the Court “I hang my head in shame”. Introducing the BJP White Paper (February 1993) L.K. Advani unrepentantly praised the “kar sevaks … for erasing a symbol of our subjugation (and) … begin building a symbol of resurgence (to show us) as if in a flash how far we have to travel”. Secularists found the act “barbaric”. 6 December 1992 was a watershed in India’s secular governance. Before there were communal riots, the wanton slaughter of the Sikhs in 1984 and rath yatras. Religion took politics by storm. But 6 December 1992 was the remorseless destruction of a mosque.
There is little point in talking of historical revenge. After 1947, citizens simply cannot destroy a religious building they don’t like. The suit was pending. The Constitution disallows such sacrilege. 6 December 1992 sends a chilling message that lumpen Hindus provoked by the Sangh Parivar can always terrorize any community or their mosques, churches, holy places with total impunity. After Babri Masjid fell, there were ‘no-holds-barred’. No one could touch these marauders. Photographs identifying the miscreants were available, they were not ferreted out. Everyone was interested in getting the big-wigs (Advani, Joshi, Uma Bharati). Even that was botched up. After 1992, all hell broke loose against Christians, Muslims and others. Revd. Staines and his sons were murdered. In Bombay, police joined the Hindu rioters with action and inaction to murder Muslims. Muslim painters like Hussain were harassed. The Godhra riots in 2002 showed how a pro Sangh Parivar state of Gujarat can permit the killing of Muslims with impunity. Art galleries and libraries were ransacked. A terrifying politically inspired and protected Hindu fundamentalism was let loose with satanic results.
Should 6 December 1992 be forgotten? On what terms? Just because the Liberhan Report has been egregiously delayed does not mean it can be ignored. Clearly the BJP and Sangh Parivar (as self evident from repeated statements) applaud 6 December. They now want the Mathura and Benares mosques; or any other. There is some confusion over PN Oak’s thesis that the Taj Mahal was originally a temple! But the Taj Mahal is too secularly ‘sacral’ to invite such sacrilege! Who knows?
Now what is to be done with the Liberhan Report? The legal significance of a commission’s Report is that it is fact-finding. No further prosecutions may flow from it. Somehow in India we take the shameless view that public indictment is not enough. Our leaders only fear the public humiliation of criminal conviction. Advani was cleared by Mr. Jethamalini in the Hawala transactions on a technicality. Sibal got Narsimha Rao on the MP bribery case. Both these lawyers were politically rewarded. No one is interested in the truth. No one will accept the truth and bow out of political life. We live in a political milieu of save-your-hide-at-all-costs.
The Liberhan Report has all the hype of a make believe ‘who-dunn-it-mystery’. What was the role of Joshi, Advani, Vijay Raje Scindhia, Ashok Singhal and others who watched from a terrace? There is a great moral obfuscation. The Advani-Joshi rath yatras were uncompromisingly for kar sevaks on the site of the Masjid. The provocation was clear. After the site fell, L.K. Advani’s preface to the BJP White Paper praised the kar sevaks for their historic destruction. Ruchira Gupta’s evidence to the Liberhan Commission on 14 November 2006 stated when the second dome fell Uma Bharati hugged Joshi with joy. Mrs. Scindhia said, “Ab meri ankhon ko shanti mili hai (my eyes are at peace now). Meanwhile, Ruchira was attacked, under the cry “Mussalman! Mussalman!” Reportedly, Advani was concerned that the kar sevaks might get hurt! When asked by Ruchira (to whom Advani had given his binoculars) why did Advani not stop the mayhem, he was quiet. Ruchira Gupta had accompanied Advani for the last four days. Advani was clear that he was not going to sweep the floor on the site. It was kar seva at all costs. He “swore by Ram that the mandir will be built here.”
We are not here concerned with the criminal conspiracy cases going on in Rae Bareilly and Lucknow. The law will take its course. But Commissions of Inquiry are not concerned with criminal liability but fact-finding. In this case, the purpose of the Commission was also to consider who is morally and politically culpable? Due to Commission reports, TT Krishnamachari and Kairon resigned in the 1950s. The idea behind a Commission, is partly to shame even the shameless and to ensure that what happens shall never happen again. In the case of the Babri Masjid, there was a comprehensive failure – by the BJP and Sangh Parivar, the State of UP which did not use the centre’s battalions and the Centre standing idly by Kalyan Singh was found in contempt of the Supreme Court. Narsimha Rao’s contempt was never decided by the Supreme Court when he was alive. Unfortunately, everyone – no less the media – feels that the only significance of the Liberhan Commission is whether it can be the basis of criminal liability.
There is an unfortunate controversy about whether Liberhan had treated Advani lightly. The former counsel to the Commission Mr. Anupam Gupta has gone public to suggest Liberhan took a ‘soft’ approach in this regard. This is unpleasant, a breach of responsibility and unfair. Liberhan denies all this. His distinguished record as a judge and Chief Justice of Madras and Andhra would not suggest susceptibility to bias. I argued Jaylalitha’s case before him for two years. He was impeccable. Like Justice Wadhwa’s report on the Staines matter he might have become ambivalent. But, we will have to wait.
The Liberhan Report must also depend on how we (the public) receive it and are prepared to receive it. There is a moral plane at which all governance works. Advani supported and provoked the kar seva, watched like Nero from the terrace and wrote an introduction to the BJP supporting this sacrilege as the correct moral and political thing to do. He does not want to own up to criminal conspiracy. But, he does own up to the sacrilege as a good thing – pointing to historical revenge as a reason. Basically, he seems to be saying, “I approve the destruction of the masjid. I saw its fall. I urged the kar seva and mobilized thousands. I watched from the terrace and joined the jubilation. I wanted it done. But I did not do it.” Today the official policy of the Sangh Parivar and BJP is that such destructions are good.
It is this official policy that makes the destruction of the Babri Masjid significant and divides the nation apart; and will continue to do so.
The Liberhan Report and the government’s Action Taken Report will help us review our conscience so that this kind of incident never happens again. But the Report should be released and not kept secret because the government’s ministers are slow at reading; and even slower at making up their mind. Our next step should be truth and reconciliation.
Rajeev Dhavan
From a totally different viewpoint, kavivar Bachchan’s words come to mind: Kya bhuloon, kya yaad karoon mai? (What shall I forget, what shall I remember?). Is the destruction of Babri Masjid to be forgotten? As part of the triumph of ‘forgetting’ over truth? After 17 years, is the Liberhan Report irrelevant? Are we no longer interested in the truth?
There are many ways to perceive the fall of Babri Masjid. Counsel for UP simply told the Court “I hang my head in shame”. Introducing the BJP White Paper (February 1993) L.K. Advani unrepentantly praised the “kar sevaks … for erasing a symbol of our subjugation (and) … begin building a symbol of resurgence (to show us) as if in a flash how far we have to travel”. Secularists found the act “barbaric”. 6 December 1992 was a watershed in India’s secular governance. Before there were communal riots, the wanton slaughter of the Sikhs in 1984 and rath yatras. Religion took politics by storm. But 6 December 1992 was the remorseless destruction of a mosque.
There is little point in talking of historical revenge. After 1947, citizens simply cannot destroy a religious building they don’t like. The suit was pending. The Constitution disallows such sacrilege. 6 December 1992 sends a chilling message that lumpen Hindus provoked by the Sangh Parivar can always terrorize any community or their mosques, churches, holy places with total impunity. After Babri Masjid fell, there were ‘no-holds-barred’. No one could touch these marauders. Photographs identifying the miscreants were available, they were not ferreted out. Everyone was interested in getting the big-wigs (Advani, Joshi, Uma Bharati). Even that was botched up. After 1992, all hell broke loose against Christians, Muslims and others. Revd. Staines and his sons were murdered. In Bombay, police joined the Hindu rioters with action and inaction to murder Muslims. Muslim painters like Hussain were harassed. The Godhra riots in 2002 showed how a pro Sangh Parivar state of Gujarat can permit the killing of Muslims with impunity. Art galleries and libraries were ransacked. A terrifying politically inspired and protected Hindu fundamentalism was let loose with satanic results.
Should 6 December 1992 be forgotten? On what terms? Just because the Liberhan Report has been egregiously delayed does not mean it can be ignored. Clearly the BJP and Sangh Parivar (as self evident from repeated statements) applaud 6 December. They now want the Mathura and Benares mosques; or any other. There is some confusion over PN Oak’s thesis that the Taj Mahal was originally a temple! But the Taj Mahal is too secularly ‘sacral’ to invite such sacrilege! Who knows?
Now what is to be done with the Liberhan Report? The legal significance of a commission’s Report is that it is fact-finding. No further prosecutions may flow from it. Somehow in India we take the shameless view that public indictment is not enough. Our leaders only fear the public humiliation of criminal conviction. Advani was cleared by Mr. Jethamalini in the Hawala transactions on a technicality. Sibal got Narsimha Rao on the MP bribery case. Both these lawyers were politically rewarded. No one is interested in the truth. No one will accept the truth and bow out of political life. We live in a political milieu of save-your-hide-at-all-costs.
The Liberhan Report has all the hype of a make believe ‘who-dunn-it-mystery’. What was the role of Joshi, Advani, Vijay Raje Scindhia, Ashok Singhal and others who watched from a terrace? There is a great moral obfuscation. The Advani-Joshi rath yatras were uncompromisingly for kar sevaks on the site of the Masjid. The provocation was clear. After the site fell, L.K. Advani’s preface to the BJP White Paper praised the kar sevaks for their historic destruction. Ruchira Gupta’s evidence to the Liberhan Commission on 14 November 2006 stated when the second dome fell Uma Bharati hugged Joshi with joy. Mrs. Scindhia said, “Ab meri ankhon ko shanti mili hai (my eyes are at peace now). Meanwhile, Ruchira was attacked, under the cry “Mussalman! Mussalman!” Reportedly, Advani was concerned that the kar sevaks might get hurt! When asked by Ruchira (to whom Advani had given his binoculars) why did Advani not stop the mayhem, he was quiet. Ruchira Gupta had accompanied Advani for the last four days. Advani was clear that he was not going to sweep the floor on the site. It was kar seva at all costs. He “swore by Ram that the mandir will be built here.”
We are not here concerned with the criminal conspiracy cases going on in Rae Bareilly and Lucknow. The law will take its course. But Commissions of Inquiry are not concerned with criminal liability but fact-finding. In this case, the purpose of the Commission was also to consider who is morally and politically culpable? Due to Commission reports, TT Krishnamachari and Kairon resigned in the 1950s. The idea behind a Commission, is partly to shame even the shameless and to ensure that what happens shall never happen again. In the case of the Babri Masjid, there was a comprehensive failure – by the BJP and Sangh Parivar, the State of UP which did not use the centre’s battalions and the Centre standing idly by Kalyan Singh was found in contempt of the Supreme Court. Narsimha Rao’s contempt was never decided by the Supreme Court when he was alive. Unfortunately, everyone – no less the media – feels that the only significance of the Liberhan Commission is whether it can be the basis of criminal liability.
There is an unfortunate controversy about whether Liberhan had treated Advani lightly. The former counsel to the Commission Mr. Anupam Gupta has gone public to suggest Liberhan took a ‘soft’ approach in this regard. This is unpleasant, a breach of responsibility and unfair. Liberhan denies all this. His distinguished record as a judge and Chief Justice of Madras and Andhra would not suggest susceptibility to bias. I argued Jaylalitha’s case before him for two years. He was impeccable. Like Justice Wadhwa’s report on the Staines matter he might have become ambivalent. But, we will have to wait.
The Liberhan Report must also depend on how we (the public) receive it and are prepared to receive it. There is a moral plane at which all governance works. Advani supported and provoked the kar seva, watched like Nero from the terrace and wrote an introduction to the BJP supporting this sacrilege as the correct moral and political thing to do. He does not want to own up to criminal conspiracy. But, he does own up to the sacrilege as a good thing – pointing to historical revenge as a reason. Basically, he seems to be saying, “I approve the destruction of the masjid. I saw its fall. I urged the kar seva and mobilized thousands. I watched from the terrace and joined the jubilation. I wanted it done. But I did not do it.” Today the official policy of the Sangh Parivar and BJP is that such destructions are good.
It is this official policy that makes the destruction of the Babri Masjid significant and divides the nation apart; and will continue to do so.
The Liberhan Report and the government’s Action Taken Report will help us review our conscience so that this kind of incident never happens again. But the Report should be released and not kept secret because the government’s ministers are slow at reading; and even slower at making up their mind. Our next step should be truth and reconciliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)