The No-Action Taken Report A Travesty of Justice

Is the over 1000-page Justice Liberhan Commission of Inquiry Report, tabled in Parliament on November 24, going to prove a 5-day wonder? Is it an eloquent essay in obfuscation? Was the costly probe – instituted on December 10, four days after the national shame, meant to deflect public attention from then Prime Minister’s alleged cooperation with the then BJP-led UP dispensation? Does the Report make us wiser on the event, or currents and cross-currents behind it, or add something significant and new that was hitherto unknown to the citizenry? Does the Action Taken Report (ATR) – interpreted by some wiseacres as No-Action Taken Report – wipe every tear from the eye of every sufferer? Does a riot-widow or a riot-orphan now feel she or he has ultimately, after 17 long years, got justice? Does the report, on whose preparation, the national exchequer had to shell out about Rs. 8 crore, ensure security of Islamic heritage, particularly mosques and safety and life with dignity of the major minority of plural Bharat? Has the 1-man commission done justice to the job or left much to be desired?

Our reading is the Report fails to inspire confidence of the victims and the affected mostly because the ATR shies away from the demands of justice.

A cursory glance at the voluminous report, written in lucid and effective language, painfully takes us back to the fateful days, which, incidentally ever remain fresh in the mind of the concerned. Some wounds remain ever green. The planned destruction of the Babri Masjid is one of them, because it occurred when the Congress was in power, whose Prime Minister chose to vegetate at a time when he was supposed to, rather was duty-bound to, act and show the majesty of law to the law-breakers. The sufferers’ feeling is he was in league with the outlaws.

The most glaring flaw rather failure of the Justice Liberhan Report lies in the clean chit to Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao. The reason he cites is clumsy, out of date, and does not stand to the constitutional scrutiny, as far as powers of the Prime Minister are concerned.

To quote Mr. M.L. Singhvi: “Law and order is a state subject. The Central government has no locus and power to deal with law and order on the spot.”

On the role of P.V. Narasimha Rao government, the Liberhan report said, “The logistics of the situation ruled with a long-drawn operation and the Governor’s advice against imposition of President’s Rule. The Central government had no option but to repeatedly request the state government to make use of Central forces in the state.”

It appears as if the Congress spokesman and Mr. Justice Liberhan are determined to let the offender off at all costs. Hasn’t the President the power to dismiss or recall a biased, erring or failing Governor to save the situation?

As then suggested by Mr. M.L. Fotedar, Mr. Rao could easily bring UP under the President’s rule. But he didn’t and tried to argue that the Masjid would remain safe. Ultimately, Mr. Fotedar resigned from the government. So did Mr. Arjun Singh after some time. Need one tell the defenders of the inefficient Mr. Rao that officially 2000, 7000 according to unconfirmed estimates, defenceless persons were killed by the well-armed in the wake of the Masjid dilapidation particularly in rural Bharat.

The second flaw of the report is the unnecessary denunciation of the Intelligence apparatus. Mr. Liberhan should have checked and re-checked and cross-checked before making the less-than-responsible allegation. The IB and the CBI kept Mr. Rao well-posted with developments in UP with special reference to the Babri Masjid.

There are no buyers of this baseless accusation.

Another rather significant factor is the “soft Hindutva” line occasionally-cum-consistently pursued by the Congress. The late Mrs. Indira Gandhi was a trail-blazer in this regard. For political reasons she, when out of power, saw nothing odd in her hypocritical approach when she wished long life for the late Mr. M.S. Golwalkar, through a bouquet of blooming flowers. She would visit temples also when politics demanded. So was Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. So is Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Are we exaggerating?

Is it not a fact that the shilanyas took place on November 9, 1989 when Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of the heterogeneous country?

Is it not a fact that earlier the locks of the Babri Masjid were opened on February 1, 1986, when the Congress was in power and Mr. Arun Nehru was Minister for Internal Security, who had, when cornered, revealed that orders had come from above? Does “above” not mean the Prime Minister?

And mark! The entire saffron brigade was present in full strength when the lock, put in 1949, was unlocked.

What we want to underscore is that the dubious efforts on the part of the Congress to prove “we are greater Hindus” plays its logical role in keeping the Saffron afloat.

The third flaw of the report is the description of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee as moderate. Hadn’t Mr. Liberhan read the between-the-lines message in Vajpayee’s December 5, 1990 speech? Did Mr. Vajpayee not talk of the “ground will be levelled”? And that is not the only point. Now he might be sad at the destruction of the shrine. So says Mr. Advani also. There is a marked difference between “spitting fire” and seeing to it that the object to be burned is burnt. As a mature, seasoned politician, they know how to effectively say nasty things and get away with it.

The Saffron is furious on the Report calling Mr. Vajpayee “pseudo-moderate”. A confusion is being deliberately created by the admirers of the BJP icon. The basic point involved is: Did his out-of-parliament speeches not push Bharat towards the brink of communal discord? His admirers should substantiate their anger by citing a few examples of the moderacy of Mr. Vajpayee. Did he, or could he dismiss Mr. Modi after the Gujarat pogrom?

The fourth flaw of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry Report constitutes the unkindest cut in the soft-belly of Indian Muslims. His comment is unjustified as it happens to be uninformed. We do not suspect his intentions. But he is definitely less-than-enlightened on the important subject.

To quote him: “The Muslim leadership provided the rabid Hindu ideologues sufficient cause to instil fear into the common citizen of India. Whether the political Muslim leadership represented the view of the average Muslim citizen of India is “highly doubtful”.

The report also lamented: “The Muslim leadership did little to counter the latest fear stoked by the RSS and VHP leadership…. The sins of omission of the Muslim leadership certainly made the Sangh Parivar’s task much easier.”

Does Mr. Liberhan know, and if he does not know he must know, that it will be ominous for all of us when the Indian Muslims decide to opt for agitational politics. Almost as a rule, Muslims stand in the dock on each and every communal issue. The needle of suspicion remains ever directed towards the major minority. The behind-the-scene sympathies of the police, paramilitary forces like the PAC and BMP and administration have, more often than not been with the architects of the upheavals. Discrimination is practised even in the issuance of curfew passes. In all the untoward incidents, the majority of the arrested belong to the minority. False cases against them are filed without the least compunction. One does not know how many households have thus been destroyed and how many careers have thus been put in jeopardy. How Muslims can fight un-equal battles?

Their less-than-advanced media always tries its level best to remove the misgivings of the majority about Islam, Muslims and their point of view. But little has so far been achieved as far as reforming the motivated is concerned. We cannot say about the “political Muslim leadership” which is a part of the national political parties. Bound by the whip, Muslims there cannot deviate from the party line. Batla House case is a case in point. As far as the Muslim leadership, represented by All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat or All India Muslim Personal Law Board is concerned, they have never disappointed the plural nation. They promptly react and put up Muslim case before the government in proper perspective.

So did the two Babri Masjid Action Committees, though they were not invited by the Liberhan Commission. They fulfilled their moral obligation voluntarily. What can they do, or could do when the Commission itself failed to take cognizance of their constructive standpoint.

Mr. Liberhan has chosen to forget that the Muslim leadership did oppose the faux pas on the part of the then Congress government as well as the moves of the sangh parivar. And for this Mr. Liberhan, as a gentleman judge, must apologise to the community as well as the nation at large.

As far as the ATR, the government does not seem to be serious. Soon after the tabling of the Report, the government was clear: No fresh charges, no punitive action against the indicted by the panel for the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Now look: Mr. Justice Liberhan’s reply to the question who demolished the Babri Masjid, is: “The hands that tore down the disputed structure… belonged to the common man…. His better sense followed by the cacophony of religious righteousness” unleashed by the sangh parivar.

Who hatched the conspiracy? Mr. Justice Liberhan says: The sangh parivar, including RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and BJP. Demolition was pre-planned as it was carried out by a few; idol and cash box removed in time; makeshift temple erected and idol brought back according to plan.

Who was responsible for it all? Mr. Justice Liberhan’s response is: Responsibility is shared by three categories – the ‘radicals’ or those who brought the hordes and planned the demolition, the ‘pseudo-moderates’, including Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Advani, who gave physical, ideological and intellectual support, and the ‘tertiary’ lot like officials who forgot their constitutional obligations and looked the other way.

Who are the culpable individuals? To Mr. Liberhan, they are: virtually every Sangh Parivar leader, including Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Advani, Mr. M M Joshi, Mr. Ashok Singhal, ex-RSS boss Mr. KS Sudershan, Mr. Bal Thackeray – all of whom led the country ‘to the brink of communal discord’.

The Commission’s finding about Mr. Kalyan Singh is: Mr. Kalyan Singh led a ‘cartel’ comprising, among others, Mr. Vinay Katyar, Mr. Lalji Tandon, Mr. Ashok Singhal, Mr. Vishnu Hari Dalmia, Mr. Kalraj Mishra and Govindacharya. The Commission said it was supported by Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi and Mr. Vajpayee.

On Mr. Kalyan Singh’s role, the Liberhan Commission observes: “The very fact that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, its Ministers and its mandarins supported the destruction with tacit, open, active and material support at every step but did not make it part of the officially stated agenda, lends overwhelming credence to the fact that they were aware of the gross illegality and impropriety they were guilty of.”

We Muslims ask: Do the powers-that-be not find any guilt in the people pinpointed by Mr. Justice Liberhan? He finds criminal offence in their behaviour. What logic guides the Government in exonerating the guilty?

Does the Government want to institutionalise injustice? Otherwise, what is the explanation of not punishing the guilty or not implementing the recommendations of several commissions? The Srikrishna Commission Report is just a case in point.

The general perception is our Government sets up Commissions to divert popular attention. With no serious intention to punish the guilty, the too-costly, the Liberhan Commission really appears to be an essay in obfuscation, instituted with a view to deflecting national anger. One reason why the punitive action is not being taken even after the Commission Report named the sangh parivar leaders holding them responsible for hatching the conspiracy, planning the action and ultimately demolishing the Babri Masjid, is that it is inconvenient for the rulers.

The flaws and lacunae of the Justice Liberhan Commission Report, which does not make the nation wiser, cannot be ignored even for a while. How can one digest, pardon to the unpardonable?