A large group of BJP Mahila Morcha activists protesting Arundhati Roy's recent remarks on Kashmir broke into the compound of the writer's residence here on Sunday.
The mob assembled outside Ms. Roy's house in the high-security diplomatic enclave of Chanakyapuri around 11 a.m. and shouted slogans against her for more than half an hour. “Curiously, three news channel vans were stationed outside our house even before the protest began…the mob was abusive and broke through the front gate of the house,” Ms. Roy's husband, Pradip Krishen, said.
Ms. Roy was not in the house at the time of the attack. In a statement, she said the mob numbered as many as a hundred persons. The activists broke a few flower pots kept outside the house and dispersed before the arrival of the police
From The Hindu,Nov 1,2010
We strongly condemn the rising tide of intolerance and hate speech that led to the attack on the residential premises of the writer and social activist Arundhati Roy.
The attack, by elements of the BJP Mahila Morcha on October 31, was reportedly carried out after due advance notice was given to three of India’s leading English news channels, which had their OB vans parked outside Roy’s home. The verbal attacks on Roy began with her participation in a Delhi meeting on October 21 and a subsequent public appearance in Srinagar on October 24, at which she repeated her often quoted and widely publicised views on Kashmir.
We are shocked that responsible media commentators have with few moral qualms brought up the possibility of charging Roy under the law dealing with “sedition”, a discredited legacy of colonial years.
We are shocked, that the media engagement with this issue has stopped short of an unequivocal defence of free speech. The failure to defend the right to dissent will inevitably fuel vigilante attacks. And the old alibi – that nobody can control public reactions to intolerable provocations – will again be advanced by those who should have safeguarded basic rights, but failed colossally to do so.
We remind those who remain silent in the face of this outrage, that this particular alibi has had a long and disgraceful career, including in the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the persecution of other great creative personalities.
In August 2008, a similar attack was carried out on an exhibition mounted by SAHMAT of M.F. Husain’s work. A few months later, vigilantes of the Shri Ram Sene – a freshly minted addition to the Hindutva family – attacked women at a pub in Mangalore, for supposedly immoral behaviour
From Sahmat Press Statement
We may have difference of opinion,but a political party believing in democracy should be in fore front to defend the right of each and every person of the country to have his or her opinion.
Arundathi Roy is one of the foremost free thinker of our Country. She may be classified as an anarchist and do not represent any major political force.It may be easy for India's main opposition party to chase her out of our Country like they did with M.F.Hussein.But her presence in India and her ability to express her opinions freely is very important for Indian democracy.
Today the mob broke flower pots in Arundathi Roy's house. Tomorrow it may burn my house,and the day after it will attack you physically. They will come because you expressed your frank opinion about a subject.That will mean the end of democracy in India. Do we want that?
Showing posts with label BJP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BJP. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The speech they did not want the World to hear
The BJP MPs tried their best to drown out the speech given by Union Home Minsiter P.Chidambaram on December 8 in Indian Parliament [Lok Sabha] in reply to the debate on Liberhan Commission report on demolition of Babri Masjid.They continuosly shouted loud slogans, instead of usual practise of walking out in protest.
Here are some excerpts from the speech which was described by 'The Hindu' as
"a cool lawyerly marshalling of facts punctuated by sharp punches but also by honest self-criticism that is rare in Indian political discourse."
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM):
Mr. Chairperson, Sir, the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry was constituted in December, 1992… (Interruptions). The Commission was appointed to go into the circumstances leading to the destruction of Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure… (Interruptions). The Commission has taken 17 years to give its report… (Interruptions) 1738 hours (Madam Speaker in the Chair) I am not here to defend why the Commission was allowed to take 17 years… (Interruptions). The then Congress Government … (Interruptions). The NDA Government assumed office thereafter… (Interruptions). The NDA Government was there for six years and it also gave extensions.… (Interruptions) The UPA Government gave the remaining extensions for about nine years and three months... (Interruptions). In a sense everyone is responsible for the extensions given to Justice Liberhan Commission.
When I took over, the Commission was given extension up to 31st March, 2009… (Interruptions). I gave extension to the Commission for two months and I insisted that the Report should be given to the Government of India within two months… (Interruptions). The Commission gave its report on 20th of June, 2009… (Interruptions). The Government of the day had told the Commission that the report is long overdue and it should have been given much earlier… (Interruptions) Be that as it may, we now have a report. The report gives in great detail the sequence of events… (Interruptions)
The Report gives the minutest details of what happened on each day leading to 6th December, 1992… (Interruptions) talked about the horrendous events that took place on the 6th of December, 1992. This Report … (Interruptions) those who are found to be responsible for the destruction … (Interruptions) the source of … (Interruptions) But unfortunately it is not so.
This is one of the rare occasions when I rise to reply to a debate with sadness in my heart… (Interruptions) The way this debate has unwinded itself is a … (Interruptions) on the Parliament of India. Someone must take the responsibility … (Interruptions) The only issue before the House is not whether there was a temple there; not whether there was a mosque there; not whether a mosque was built over a temple; not whether a Hindu community owned a piece of land there; not whether a Muslim community owned a piece of land there; not whether any injustice has been done to any one community. The only issue before the House is, who has demolished the mosque? …
Pending cases in the courts, the demolition as … (Interruptions) is the Sangh Parivar, the RSS an organization which is held responsible for the black day in the history of India… (Interruptions) The Commission is aware of this.
The Commission says, “I was called upon to enquire into the sequence of events and the circumstances relating to the occurrence in the Ramjanma Bhoomi Babri Masjid complex on the 6th of December, 1992 involving the destruction of the Ramjanmabhoomi Babri Masjid structure”… (Interruptions) The Commission says, as evident from the Terms of Reference given to me, I have not been called upon, and therefore do not wish to comment upon whether the structures as they existed in Ayodhya on the 6th of December 1992 constituted a Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque or any other type of structure… (Interruptions) I have been charged with the responsibility only to find out the sequence of events, facts and circumstances leading up to the demolition of the structures at Ayodhya and certain connected matters that took place. It is not within my purview to enquire into a dispute whether it was ever a temple or a mosque built over a temple.”
Sir, in the days leading to 6th December, 1992, the Government of India issued directives to two players… (Interruptions) One was the Government of Uttar Pradesh headed by Shri Kalyan Singh and the other constitutional authority was the Home Minister of Government of India under the late P V Narasimha Rao and … (Interruptions) these were the two constitutional authorities. How was one more responsible… (Interruptions) How did one communicate to the other?… (Interruptions)
Shri S.B. Chavan wrote three letters to Shri Kalyan Singh. The first letter was on 3rd December, 1992 in which he said:
“Forces are being stationed at suitable locations in Uttar Pradesh so as to be available at a short notice if and when required by the State Government.” No one can accuse the Congress Government of that day that adequate forces were not deployed.… (Interruptions)
On the same day, Shri S.B. Chavan wrote another letter to Shri Kalyan Singh on 3rd December, 1992 in which he said: “It is understood that by 4th /5th December, 1992, the number of Karsevaks at Ayodhya would have crossed one lakh. However, it appears that infrastructural arrangements made for the Kar Sewaks are becoming increasingly stretched and insufficient for the assembled Karsevaks.” … (Interruptions)
On 5th December, 1992, Shri S.B. Chavan wrote a letter in which he used a rather stern language. “In your last letter dated 2nd December, 1992, you once again reiterated the State Government‟s commitment to protect the structure.”
Shri Kalyan Singh, in his letter of 2nd December reiterated the State Government‟s commitment to protect the structure. … (Interruptions) Drawing his attention to his promise, the Home Minister said: “There are reports that the Karsevaks are in a restive and even in belligerent mood and that many of them are resorting to extensive purchases of Trishuls which can even be used for offensive purposes. The security arrangements made by the State Governmetn may not be adequate for the occasion especially if any violence breaks out. …(Interruptions) Further, it is reported that massive crowds are gathering freely and unchecked in that the Sankeertan area. … (Interruptions) It is necessary to upgrade security arrangements substantially to prevent the possibility of any attempt being made to damage the disputed structure..… (Interruptions) Shri S.B. Chavan said that the possibility of some mischievous elements using explosives to damage the RJBBM structure cannot be ruled out. … (Interruptions) As you are aware, contingents of the central paramilitary forces have already been stationed at various places in UP so as to make them available at short notice; if required by the State Government for the security of the disputed structure and maintenance of law and order in view of the call given for the Kar Seva.… (Interruptions) I understand that only about 23 companies including four companies of CRPF are currently deployed for the security arrangements in and around the RJBBM complex. It is felt that this strength may not be sufficient to meet the security arrangements especially if any untoward development takes place… (Interruptions)
Madam, it is absolutely clear that the Chief Minister had made a solemn promise that it is the State Government‟s responsibility to protect the structure. 185 companies of paramilitary forces had been placed and they had been placed at crucial locations but they deployed only four companies in order to protect the RJBBM structure. … (Interruptions)
It was the first big untruth uttered by the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. It was an unadulterated untruth. He had no intention to protect the Babri Masjid structure. … (Interruptions) He uttered untruth to the Government of India. He uttered untruth to the Supreme Court. He uttered untruth to the National Integration Council. He uttered untruth on affidavit and that was the genesis of the destruction of the Babri Masjid complex.… (Interruptions) There was another occasion when he made a promise before the National Integration Council on 2nd November, 1991… (Interruptions)
I have got what he had said.
He said: All efforts will be made to find an amicable resolution of the issue; Pending a final solution, the Government of Uttar Pradesh will hold itself fully responsible for the protection of the Ram Janam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure; Order of the Court in regard to the land acquisition proceedings will be fully implemented; and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending before it will not be violated. … (Interruptions)
Then, a promise was made to the National Integration Council, a Council in which all the leaders of all the political parties were present; civil society is represented; and leaders of the political parties in Parliament were present. … (Interruptions) He made a solemn promise which was endorsed by the BJP and all other parties that were present. … (Interruptions)
This promise was made in the Supreme Court of India. … (Interruptions) I have got a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 15th November, 1991. … (Interruptions) An affidavit was filed and the Supreme Court then passed an order. I think this order makes a very interesting reading. … (Interruptions) Anyone who is interested in the history of this country of that period would read this order. … (Interruptions)
This order says: “We have heard Mr. Jaitley”. I hope you know who Mr. Jaitley is. Mr. Jaitley was not only a Counsel. Mr. Jaitley is today the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha. The order says: “We have heard Mr. Jaitley, the learned counsel of the respondent State. … (Interruptions) On the instructions of an officer present in the court, it has been gathered and told to us … (Interruptions) It is not denied that there are some old constructions in-between the main construction and the outer wall … (Interruptions) It can certainly be done as permitted by the High Court, but full care and attention should be devoted to ensure that the constructions, including the outer wall, which are old in character … (Interruptions) part of the disputed structure may not be … (Interruptions) This must be the total responsibility of the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance. … (Interruptions)
There was a meeting of the National Integration Council and the Chief Minister of the State … (Interruptions) He made certain statements to the Council. These were extracted from the paragraph of the affidavit … (Interruptions)
Then the Supreme Court says: … (Interruptions) Mr. Jaitley has no objection … (Interruptions) What has been stated in this paragraph. … after taking into account the stand of State of Uttar Pradesh ….. It may, therefore, be taken as a representation to the court on which ….
Madam, a promise was made to the National Integration Council; a promise was made to the Supreme Court; and a promise was made to the Government of India. But every single promise was broken by the leader of the BJP, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and the black day occurred in the history of India. … (Interruptions)
Now, why does the Commission have to go into who the Sangh Parivar is? We know who the Sangh Parivar is. … (Interruptions) It was led to believe that the RSS is a non-political organization; that the BJP is an independent organization; that the VHP is purely a religious organization; and that the Bajrang Dal is an organization of young people.… (Interruptions) These are the canards which are spread everyday. Everyday people spread the canards. The Commission went into the matter and asked, `who are these people, how did they get-together, how did they work together? So, this is the conclusion. I am quoting from paragraph 120.9 “There cannot be any dispute that the RSS is the major single largest important constituent of the Sangh Parivar. It is also accepted that the Bajrang Dal is the youth wing of VHP and Dharam Sansad and the Kendriya Marg Darshak Mandal sponsored by VHP though were portrayed as independent bodies. Similarly, Paramhans Ramchander Dass and Mulayam Singh Yadav accepted that all the members of the Sangh Parivar contested elections on the BJP tickets and become legislators of BJP party.”
… (Interruptions) I know the conclusion. … (Interruptions) It is obvious that promises held out by the BJP were completely false and made with the sole intention of misleading the Central Government and the entire country. …
(Interruptions) Let the House know that the promises held out by the BJP were completely false and made with the sole intention of misleading the Central Government and the entire country. … (Interruptions) The promises were made to secure the inaction of the Central Government and to induce it into a state of over optimistic slumber. The only other explanation possible is that the BJP itself was ineffective and inconsequential part of the larger picture. … (Interruptions) It neither has the means nor the authority nor even the influence within the Sangh Parivar to alter the course ordained. … (Interruptions) If accepted, this would further strengthen the impression that the BJP was a frontal organization and the convenient false face projected to address the more moderate sections within society and the Government. … (Interruptions) This is about your Party. … (Interruptions) I have not completed my speech yet. … (Interruptions) Some more things are coming. … (Interruptions) Madam, what is the situation? What position lies with the Supreme Court, lies with the Central Government than to create a situation in which, unfortunately, the Government of the day made a strong political judgment? Looking back I could say that it is a non-political judgment. Late Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao paid price for making that judgment and the Congress Party paid a price for that political judgment. But the fact is that non-political judgment induced by ……and false promises were made by the BJP. … (Interruptions) Now, what were the organizations that were there were doing? … (Interruptions)
I quote from paragraph 41.68: “Intelligence agencies reported that the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena were vying with each other for the “fame” of blowing up the disputed structure and this fact was within the knowledge of the VHP. The Shiv Sainiks and VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey. The Shiv Sena cadres swore on oath at Saryu River to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of local leaders and Vinay Katiyar etc.”
: Is it not a fact that the Bajrang Dal cadres, the VHP cadres were practising archery, doing rehearsals to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of the local leaders?… (Interruptions) Intelligence agencies reported that the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena were vying with each other for the “fame” of blowing up the disputed structure and this fact was within the knowledge of the VHP. … (Interruptions) The Shiv Sainiks and the VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey.… (Interruptions) The Shiv Sena cadres swore an oath at Saryu river to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of local leaders and Vijay Katiyar, etc..… (Interruptions) Can you deny that they were practising archery?… (Interruptions) Can you deny the VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey?… (Interruptions) The Governor of Uttar Pradesh sent his assessment about the prevailing situation in Ayodhya.… (Interruptions) He sent the report saying that the prevailing situation was pregnant with threat to the disputed structure. However, the Governor is right that he advised against the imposition of President‟s Rule. … Slogans were raised against the Muslim population. (Interruptions) A small selection of the slogans which became extremely popular and were regularly heard during the campaign at Ayodhya during Karseva, especially in December were these. … (Interruptions) Slogans were raised against the Muslim population. … (Interruptions) Please listen to the slogans. What were the slogans used? These were the slogans used… (Interruptions) I want to quote the slogans. These slogans were raised. … (I nterruptions) These were the slogans raised which slogans you are raising now. … (Interruptions)
Are you a responsible political party? Will these slogans do justice to the Founding Fathers of India? Do these slogans raise India‟s esteem?… (Interruptions) The Chief Minister Shri Kalyan Singh, once again and in writing ordered against use of any firearms specifically on the 6th of December, 1992.… (Interruptions) This is the conclusion in the Report. The Liberhan Commission concludes thus: “The Commission is of the considered opinion that the security apparatus was non-existent in Ayodhya on the 6th of December, 1992. The police and other personnel deployed had been bound down into an ineffective role and had specific instructions against any substantive action. They were to ensure that the Government achieved its electoral manifesto. The State administration was there to appease the political executive by helping it in consolidating their hold on the general public.” This was what happened.… (Interruptions)
I would now come to the role of the BJP leaders. I have great respect for Shri Vajpayee.… (Interruptions) He was not there on that day.… (Interruptions) He was there on the previous day.… (Interruptions) He made a speech on the 5th December.… (Interruptions) I have got a copy of that speech.… (Interruptions) I have an English translation of it.… (Interruptions) As usual, he delivered the speech and after that, he left Ayodhya.… (Interruptions) That was what happened on the 6th of December? Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi reached Ayodhya at midnight on the 5th Decmber, 1992, escorted by Anju Gupta and stayed at Janki Mahal Trust.… (Interruptions)The Commissioner, the DIG Faizabad, the District Magistrate and the SSP, Faizabad, all the four top officers called upon them and were assured by Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi that a peaceful Karseva would be carried out.… (Interruptions) Then, Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi assured that they would ensure that things happened peacefully – a promise made by Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Josh.. Shri L.K. Advani and others met at the residence of Shri Vinay Katiyar before proceeding to the disputed structure. Sarvashri Vinay Katiyar, L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi. Ashok Singhal, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambara and others were also present there and there is nothing on record to indicate whether it was a formal meeting or otherwise. I will ask Shri Advani and Shri Murli Manohar Joshi to tell us what happened in that breakfast meeting on the 6th December, 1992. What did you talk? What did you discuss? Tell us. Why are you not telling the House? What did you discuss on the morning of 6th December, 1992 when you met in the house of Shri Vinay Katiyar? (Interruptions) You had breakfast there and you went to that place. What did you discuss there and what did you decide? … (Interruptions)
The previous day, you promised the police officers, you promised the Additional Magistrate that you will ensure that everything goes off peacefully. … (Interruptions) Finally, what did you discuss there? Let the nation know it, you tell us. Paramhans Ramchander Dass admitted in his statement and have sworn that provocative slogans were raised on the 6th of December. I admire Paramhans Ramchander Dass. At least, even if his convictions are wrong, he had the courage of conviction to admit it. … (Interruptions) Even if his views are wrong, he had the courage to own up. Even if his slogans are dangerous, he had the courage to admit that he raised those slogans. There is only one thing. They went there with the sole intention of destroying the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. … (Interruptions) Madam, the Commission comes to the conclusion in paragraph 126.12 which says: “There is sufficient and believable evidence on the record including the statements of Ram Kirpal and Mark Tully etc. that provocative speeches were delivered by Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambra, Paramhans Ramchander Dass, Acharya Dharmendra Dev, B.L. Sharma, Ashok Singhal and Vinay Katiyar, Vamdev, Swami Chinmayanand, Mahant Avaidyanath etc.” There is enormous evidence on record. If you do not want to read the evidence, God only can save you. … (Interruptions) But there is enormous evidence on record that provocative statements were made there. Recording of those speeches were freely made available and used to be played in most of the shops. Karsevaks were drawing pleasure in making the journalists say, “Jai Shri Ram”. Militancy was writ large among the Karsevaks. Paramhans Ramchander Dass admitted having announced on the public address system, “demolish the structure, you will not get such an opportunity”. This is the finding. Can you deny this? … (Interruptions) Ms. Anju Gupta was the Personal Security Officer to Shri Lal Krishna Advani. … (Interruptions) Ms. Anju Gupta, a lady officer, was appointed as the Personal Security Officer to Shri Advani in Ayodhya. … (Interruptions)
Anju Gupta stated that entry of the Police Control Room was quite open, there was crowd pressure from both sides of the barricade… (Interruptions) The crowd present on the pandal at the construction site near Shesh Avtar Mandir needed to be regulated… (Interruptions) There was no physical barricading
between Ram Dewar… (Interruptions) and outside of it, which provided… (Interruptions) easy scaling of the walls en masse, and entry to the premises. There was no streamlining of the crowd towards the Chabutra and from there to the exit on the western side gate, which made the entire ground open and available, for thousands of peoples to come in suddenly and occupy… (Interruptions) There were no security personnel on the roof of the domes of the structure preventing the Kar Sewaks from demolishing it. There was no crowd examination challenging the facts stated by Anju Gupta, the Security Officer of Shri L.K. Advani, on the fateful day. There is no reason to disbelieve her on these facts since she had unrestricted access… (Interruptions) as the Security Officer attached to Shri L.K. Advani… (Interruptions) to all the happenings and overall scenario in the Ram Janam Bhoomi- Babri Masjid Complex. N.C. Padhi stated that the police allowed the public meeting in the vicinity of the vulnerable object, with their hands tied and… (Interruptions) in view of the order not to fire on the Kar Sewaks by the order of the Chief Minister… (Interruptions) Sushma Ji wanted evidence. This is evidence. Anju Gupta is evidence… (Interruptions) N.C. Padhi is evidence… (Interruptions) Ram Chandra Paramhans is evidence. This evidence is… (Interruptions) What was happening that day? This is the most important part, Madam. At about noon, 12 o‟clock, a teenage Kar Sewak vaulted onto the dome and thereby signaled the breaking of the outer cordon. Other Kar Sewaks wielding pickaxes, hammers, iron-rods and shovels started scaling the Ram Dewar and over the barriers of the outer, inner and isolation cordons, from the east, west and south directions.
Madam, I ask where do the pick-axes come from? Where do the hammers come from? Where do the iron-rods come from? Where do the shovels come from? In a tremendous team-work they carried them… (Interruptions) I will
show later, they helped them carried them. They paid them money to get this and carried to the place. They stormed the disputed structure. The police deployed at the spot… (Interruptions) Please listen to this. The police deployed at the spot gave their canes and shields to the Kar Sewaks who brandished them openly. The police lathis and the police shields were given to the Kar Sewaks and the Kar Sewaks started marching towards… (Interruptions) This is very important. The Kar Sewaks‟ assault on the disputed structure started at 12.15 p.m. They first entered the Garba Griha, carefully took away the idols and cash box, etc. to a safe place. The idols and the cash box were taken to a safe place. Then they started breaking the dome and started breaking the upper plaster of the dome with hammers. In fact the demolition was accomplished by smashing holes inside the walls. Ropes were inserted through these holes in the walls under the domes, the walls were pulled down with these ropes bringing down the domes as well… (Interruptions) It is very important. The structure was not brought down by the Kar Sewaks on the domes, the structure was brought down by digging a hole in the dome, putting the ropes to the hole and pulling the dome down with the ropes… (Interruptions) It was shameful, pre-planned, conspiratorial, wanton, cold-blooded destruction of the property which they promised they would protect… (Interruptions) L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vijayaraje Scindia, H.V. Sheshadri who were present at the Ram Katha Kunj made feeble requests to the Kar Sewaks to come down from the disputed structure either in an earnest or for the media‟s benefit. … (Interruptions) One could have reasonably perceived that the demolition of the disputed structure was not possible from the top of the domes.
No request was made to Karsevaks, not to enter the Garb Grah or not to demolish from inside under the domes. No request was made. The selected act of the leaders itself speaks about the hidden intention of one and all being to accomplish the demolition of the disputed structure. What does the Commission conclude? This charade by these leaders at the instance of L.K. Advani is in stark contradiction to their own prior conduct and their public posture, incitement and exhortations to the crowd to build a temple in place of the disputed structure. The demolition of the structure was unavoidable for the construction of a temple. They had to demolish the structure to construct the temple. Therefore, they demolished the structure. The idols and cash box removed to safe places were brought back to their original place at 7 p.m. The construction of a temporary makeshift temple commenced at 7.30 p.m..
. Even though the Chief Minister was informed about this, he gave a written order not to resort to firing under any circumstances and to take any other measure. The Magistrate ordered in writing for the forces to turn back at 2.25 p.m. The Magistrate told the forces to go back at 2.25 p.m. The police and the administration was a mute spectator. Their loyalty to the political masters was writ large. Listen to Shri Kalyan Singh‟s reaction: “It was like a badly inflated balloon that burst.” Babri Masjid structure, according to Shri Kalyan Singh, was a badly inflated balloon which burst. He further says: “All other political parties are to be blamed for frustration of Karsevaks. They should arrest me because after all I fulfilled one of the major objectives of our Party and have redeemed the Party‟s election manifesto.” This is what Shri Kalyan Singh said.
Where is Sushma ji? There is no doubt at all, from the evidence and testimony before the Commission that the Sangh Parivar, especially the Bajrang Dal, RSS, VHP, BJP and Shiv Sena cadres created circumstances consistently over a period of a decade which ultimately resulted in the events of December 6th, 1992. Sushma ji, there is an evidence. Where is she? I want her to read the evidence. It stood established before me beyond reasonable doubt that the Joint Common Enterprise was a pre-planned act for demolition under the immediate leadership of Vinay Katiyar, Paramhans Ramchander Dass, Ashok Singhal, Champat Rai, Swami Chinmayanand, S.C. Dixit, B.P. Singhal and Acharya Giriraj. They were the local leaders on the spot and the executors of the plan conceived by the RSS. The plan was conceived by the RSS. The other leaders cannot be absolved of their vicarious liability and were willing collaborators playing the roles assigned to them by the RSS. Their informed support for the Ayodhya campaign, fortified by their physical presence during the grand finale of the prolonged campaign is irrefutably established.
I conclude that the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and their office bearers as named in this report, in connivance with Kalyan Singh, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh entered into a Joint Common Enterprise for the purpose of demolition of the disputed structure and the construction of temple in its place … (Interruptions) Friends, what is your answer to this conclusion? Let us debate it. Come along. I will give you another opportunity to debate it. What is your answer to this conclusion? … (Interruptions)
It was openly asserted and commonly accepted that the pre-partition Jan Sangh was the political wing of RSS. The Jan Sangh, later, was renamed as the Bharatiya Janata Party. Though some of the leaders have tried to claim that the BJP and RSS are independent organizations, in another part of this Report, the Commission has dealt with the question and concluded that they are functionally, if not legally, intertwined and inseparable. RSS and BJP are intertwined and inseparable. The admission by Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhya, in no uncertain terms, in his books that he was deputed by the RSS to organize the Bharatiya Jan Sangh is a clear indicator of this relationship. Even on date, the RSS Office bearers, Swayam Sewaks are deputed by RSS to carry out the work of BJP; the top echelon of the BJP leadership is pre-dominantly from the RSS and they are guided by its thoughts and philosophy in governance. The RSS has considerable influence on the leadership not only of BJP but also on the other allied organizations participating in the temple construction movement or which have Hinduism as their objective. Using its sweeping influence over the organizers and the institutions participating, the RSS controlled every aspect of the Ayodhya movement. Despite the attempts made to distance the RSS or BJP from the movement by attributing the movement to the VHP or the dharam sansad, I have concluded that all the other members of the Sangh Pariwar are merely frontal organizations of RSS deputed to working in different fields. There was no illusion in the minds of a common man that RSS or the VHP were either different or distant from the BJP, or that their objectives were not identical. … (Interruptions)
Madam, in conclusion, let me say the horrendous consequences of 6th December, 1992 resulted in riots and doom. From December 1992 to January, February, March 1993, in all 2,019 people were killed in a matter of three months and 7,786 people were injured in a matter of three months… (Interruptions) Hindus were killed. Muslims were killed. People belonging to other faiths were killed. Police men were killed. The violence that was unleashed by the horrendous crime of 6th December 1992 continues to divide our country even today.… (Interruptions)
I would have thought, after the Liberhan Commission‟s Report, after this debate, there will be shame, remorse and contriteness. Unfortunately, the civilized discourse in our country seems to have bid good bye to shame, remorse and contriteness. RSS and the Sangh Parivar have no shame, no remorse, no contriteness and continue to divide the country.… (Interruptions)
Madam, let me conclude by saying that there are two ideas in India. One is the idea of India represented by the Congress and all other secular parties. And the other is the idea of India represented by the divisive politics of the BJP. I am sorry to quote from an article I wrote many months ago.… (Interruptions) But I want to quote this.
Jawaharlal Nehru once said, “India is like an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written. ” There are two ideas of India. This is the first time the BJP, an Indian political party, openly adopted a divisive and an extreme agenda. The question then that everyone‟s mind was, “will it succeed”? Apparently, it succeeded. It succeeded in 1998.… (Interruptions) The first real test over the division of Bengal… (Interruptions) for ever from India came in 2004. In 2004, the Congress Party put across another idea of India where India must be an inclusive nation.
India must celebrate its diversity. All Indians must be encouraged to develop an Indian identity even when they are proud of their respective language or religion. This is an idea that India is a nation where no one valley, no one institution … (Interruptions) will dominate over others. The two ideas of India clashed in 2004. What did the people vote for? Forget the conclusion of Justice Liberhan. Forget the indictment of Justice Liberhan.
In 2004 when the two ideas of India – one led by the BJP in power with the Prime Minister, with the Deputy Prime Minister, with the entire State establishment put forward an idea of India of a divisive agenda; the other of the Congress Party and the secular parties put forward an idea of India, of an inclusive India. The people of India voted for our idea. The people of India rejected you. The judgement of the people of India is greater than the judgement of Justice Liberhan. Justice Liberhan‟s is a Commission. The people of India are our ultimate masters. They rejected you. They rejected you in 2004. When you went to them in 2009, they rejected you in 2009 also.
Madam, let me conclude by saying only one idea will clearly prevail, that is the idea of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Dr. Ambedkar. India will be an inclusive nation. India will be a plural nation. In India no idea will dominate another idea. No institution will dominate another institution. We have brought together our idea of India. Our idea of India will prevail. Jai Hind.
Here are some excerpts from the speech which was described by 'The Hindu' as
"a cool lawyerly marshalling of facts punctuated by sharp punches but also by honest self-criticism that is rare in Indian political discourse."
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM):
Mr. Chairperson, Sir, the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry was constituted in December, 1992… (Interruptions). The Commission was appointed to go into the circumstances leading to the destruction of Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure… (Interruptions). The Commission has taken 17 years to give its report… (Interruptions) 1738 hours (Madam Speaker in the Chair) I am not here to defend why the Commission was allowed to take 17 years… (Interruptions). The then Congress Government … (Interruptions). The NDA Government assumed office thereafter… (Interruptions). The NDA Government was there for six years and it also gave extensions.… (Interruptions) The UPA Government gave the remaining extensions for about nine years and three months... (Interruptions). In a sense everyone is responsible for the extensions given to Justice Liberhan Commission.
When I took over, the Commission was given extension up to 31st March, 2009… (Interruptions). I gave extension to the Commission for two months and I insisted that the Report should be given to the Government of India within two months… (Interruptions). The Commission gave its report on 20th of June, 2009… (Interruptions). The Government of the day had told the Commission that the report is long overdue and it should have been given much earlier… (Interruptions) Be that as it may, we now have a report. The report gives in great detail the sequence of events… (Interruptions)
The Report gives the minutest details of what happened on each day leading to 6th December, 1992… (Interruptions) talked about the horrendous events that took place on the 6th of December, 1992. This Report … (Interruptions) those who are found to be responsible for the destruction … (Interruptions) the source of … (Interruptions) But unfortunately it is not so.
This is one of the rare occasions when I rise to reply to a debate with sadness in my heart… (Interruptions) The way this debate has unwinded itself is a … (Interruptions) on the Parliament of India. Someone must take the responsibility … (Interruptions) The only issue before the House is not whether there was a temple there; not whether there was a mosque there; not whether a mosque was built over a temple; not whether a Hindu community owned a piece of land there; not whether a Muslim community owned a piece of land there; not whether any injustice has been done to any one community. The only issue before the House is, who has demolished the mosque? …
Pending cases in the courts, the demolition as … (Interruptions) is the Sangh Parivar, the RSS an organization which is held responsible for the black day in the history of India… (Interruptions) The Commission is aware of this.
The Commission says, “I was called upon to enquire into the sequence of events and the circumstances relating to the occurrence in the Ramjanma Bhoomi Babri Masjid complex on the 6th of December, 1992 involving the destruction of the Ramjanmabhoomi Babri Masjid structure”… (Interruptions) The Commission says, as evident from the Terms of Reference given to me, I have not been called upon, and therefore do not wish to comment upon whether the structures as they existed in Ayodhya on the 6th of December 1992 constituted a Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque or any other type of structure… (Interruptions) I have been charged with the responsibility only to find out the sequence of events, facts and circumstances leading up to the demolition of the structures at Ayodhya and certain connected matters that took place. It is not within my purview to enquire into a dispute whether it was ever a temple or a mosque built over a temple.”
Sir, in the days leading to 6th December, 1992, the Government of India issued directives to two players… (Interruptions) One was the Government of Uttar Pradesh headed by Shri Kalyan Singh and the other constitutional authority was the Home Minister of Government of India under the late P V Narasimha Rao and … (Interruptions) these were the two constitutional authorities. How was one more responsible… (Interruptions) How did one communicate to the other?… (Interruptions)
Shri S.B. Chavan wrote three letters to Shri Kalyan Singh. The first letter was on 3rd December, 1992 in which he said:
“Forces are being stationed at suitable locations in Uttar Pradesh so as to be available at a short notice if and when required by the State Government.” No one can accuse the Congress Government of that day that adequate forces were not deployed.… (Interruptions)
On the same day, Shri S.B. Chavan wrote another letter to Shri Kalyan Singh on 3rd December, 1992 in which he said: “It is understood that by 4th /5th December, 1992, the number of Karsevaks at Ayodhya would have crossed one lakh. However, it appears that infrastructural arrangements made for the Kar Sewaks are becoming increasingly stretched and insufficient for the assembled Karsevaks.” … (Interruptions)
On 5th December, 1992, Shri S.B. Chavan wrote a letter in which he used a rather stern language. “In your last letter dated 2nd December, 1992, you once again reiterated the State Government‟s commitment to protect the structure.”
Shri Kalyan Singh, in his letter of 2nd December reiterated the State Government‟s commitment to protect the structure. … (Interruptions) Drawing his attention to his promise, the Home Minister said: “There are reports that the Karsevaks are in a restive and even in belligerent mood and that many of them are resorting to extensive purchases of Trishuls which can even be used for offensive purposes. The security arrangements made by the State Governmetn may not be adequate for the occasion especially if any violence breaks out. …(Interruptions) Further, it is reported that massive crowds are gathering freely and unchecked in that the Sankeertan area. … (Interruptions) It is necessary to upgrade security arrangements substantially to prevent the possibility of any attempt being made to damage the disputed structure..… (Interruptions) Shri S.B. Chavan said that the possibility of some mischievous elements using explosives to damage the RJBBM structure cannot be ruled out. … (Interruptions) As you are aware, contingents of the central paramilitary forces have already been stationed at various places in UP so as to make them available at short notice; if required by the State Government for the security of the disputed structure and maintenance of law and order in view of the call given for the Kar Seva.… (Interruptions) I understand that only about 23 companies including four companies of CRPF are currently deployed for the security arrangements in and around the RJBBM complex. It is felt that this strength may not be sufficient to meet the security arrangements especially if any untoward development takes place… (Interruptions)
Madam, it is absolutely clear that the Chief Minister had made a solemn promise that it is the State Government‟s responsibility to protect the structure. 185 companies of paramilitary forces had been placed and they had been placed at crucial locations but they deployed only four companies in order to protect the RJBBM structure. … (Interruptions)
It was the first big untruth uttered by the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. It was an unadulterated untruth. He had no intention to protect the Babri Masjid structure. … (Interruptions) He uttered untruth to the Government of India. He uttered untruth to the Supreme Court. He uttered untruth to the National Integration Council. He uttered untruth on affidavit and that was the genesis of the destruction of the Babri Masjid complex.… (Interruptions) There was another occasion when he made a promise before the National Integration Council on 2nd November, 1991… (Interruptions)
I have got what he had said.
He said: All efforts will be made to find an amicable resolution of the issue; Pending a final solution, the Government of Uttar Pradesh will hold itself fully responsible for the protection of the Ram Janam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure; Order of the Court in regard to the land acquisition proceedings will be fully implemented; and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending before it will not be violated. … (Interruptions)
Then, a promise was made to the National Integration Council, a Council in which all the leaders of all the political parties were present; civil society is represented; and leaders of the political parties in Parliament were present. … (Interruptions) He made a solemn promise which was endorsed by the BJP and all other parties that were present. … (Interruptions)
This promise was made in the Supreme Court of India. … (Interruptions) I have got a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 15th November, 1991. … (Interruptions) An affidavit was filed and the Supreme Court then passed an order. I think this order makes a very interesting reading. … (Interruptions) Anyone who is interested in the history of this country of that period would read this order. … (Interruptions)
This order says: “We have heard Mr. Jaitley”. I hope you know who Mr. Jaitley is. Mr. Jaitley was not only a Counsel. Mr. Jaitley is today the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha. The order says: “We have heard Mr. Jaitley, the learned counsel of the respondent State. … (Interruptions) On the instructions of an officer present in the court, it has been gathered and told to us … (Interruptions) It is not denied that there are some old constructions in-between the main construction and the outer wall … (Interruptions) It can certainly be done as permitted by the High Court, but full care and attention should be devoted to ensure that the constructions, including the outer wall, which are old in character … (Interruptions) part of the disputed structure may not be … (Interruptions) This must be the total responsibility of the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance. … (Interruptions)
There was a meeting of the National Integration Council and the Chief Minister of the State … (Interruptions) He made certain statements to the Council. These were extracted from the paragraph of the affidavit … (Interruptions)
Then the Supreme Court says: … (Interruptions) Mr. Jaitley has no objection … (Interruptions) What has been stated in this paragraph. … after taking into account the stand of State of Uttar Pradesh ….. It may, therefore, be taken as a representation to the court on which ….
Madam, a promise was made to the National Integration Council; a promise was made to the Supreme Court; and a promise was made to the Government of India. But every single promise was broken by the leader of the BJP, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and the black day occurred in the history of India. … (Interruptions)
Now, why does the Commission have to go into who the Sangh Parivar is? We know who the Sangh Parivar is. … (Interruptions) It was led to believe that the RSS is a non-political organization; that the BJP is an independent organization; that the VHP is purely a religious organization; and that the Bajrang Dal is an organization of young people.… (Interruptions) These are the canards which are spread everyday. Everyday people spread the canards. The Commission went into the matter and asked, `who are these people, how did they get-together, how did they work together? So, this is the conclusion. I am quoting from paragraph 120.9 “There cannot be any dispute that the RSS is the major single largest important constituent of the Sangh Parivar. It is also accepted that the Bajrang Dal is the youth wing of VHP and Dharam Sansad and the Kendriya Marg Darshak Mandal sponsored by VHP though were portrayed as independent bodies. Similarly, Paramhans Ramchander Dass and Mulayam Singh Yadav accepted that all the members of the Sangh Parivar contested elections on the BJP tickets and become legislators of BJP party.”
… (Interruptions) I know the conclusion. … (Interruptions) It is obvious that promises held out by the BJP were completely false and made with the sole intention of misleading the Central Government and the entire country. …
(Interruptions) Let the House know that the promises held out by the BJP were completely false and made with the sole intention of misleading the Central Government and the entire country. … (Interruptions) The promises were made to secure the inaction of the Central Government and to induce it into a state of over optimistic slumber. The only other explanation possible is that the BJP itself was ineffective and inconsequential part of the larger picture. … (Interruptions) It neither has the means nor the authority nor even the influence within the Sangh Parivar to alter the course ordained. … (Interruptions) If accepted, this would further strengthen the impression that the BJP was a frontal organization and the convenient false face projected to address the more moderate sections within society and the Government. … (Interruptions) This is about your Party. … (Interruptions) I have not completed my speech yet. … (Interruptions) Some more things are coming. … (Interruptions) Madam, what is the situation? What position lies with the Supreme Court, lies with the Central Government than to create a situation in which, unfortunately, the Government of the day made a strong political judgment? Looking back I could say that it is a non-political judgment. Late Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao paid price for making that judgment and the Congress Party paid a price for that political judgment. But the fact is that non-political judgment induced by ……and false promises were made by the BJP. … (Interruptions) Now, what were the organizations that were there were doing? … (Interruptions)
I quote from paragraph 41.68: “Intelligence agencies reported that the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena were vying with each other for the “fame” of blowing up the disputed structure and this fact was within the knowledge of the VHP. The Shiv Sainiks and VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey. The Shiv Sena cadres swore on oath at Saryu River to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of local leaders and Vinay Katiyar etc.”
: Is it not a fact that the Bajrang Dal cadres, the VHP cadres were practising archery, doing rehearsals to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of the local leaders?… (Interruptions) Intelligence agencies reported that the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena were vying with each other for the “fame” of blowing up the disputed structure and this fact was within the knowledge of the VHP. … (Interruptions) The Shiv Sainiks and the VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey.… (Interruptions) The Shiv Sena cadres swore an oath at Saryu river to demolish the disputed structure in the presence of local leaders and Vijay Katiyar, etc..… (Interruptions) Can you deny that they were practising archery?… (Interruptions) Can you deny the VHP cadres were practicing archery under the tutelage of Krishna Kumar Pandey?… (Interruptions) The Governor of Uttar Pradesh sent his assessment about the prevailing situation in Ayodhya.… (Interruptions) He sent the report saying that the prevailing situation was pregnant with threat to the disputed structure. However, the Governor is right that he advised against the imposition of President‟s Rule. … Slogans were raised against the Muslim population. (Interruptions) A small selection of the slogans which became extremely popular and were regularly heard during the campaign at Ayodhya during Karseva, especially in December were these. … (Interruptions) Slogans were raised against the Muslim population. … (Interruptions) Please listen to the slogans. What were the slogans used? These were the slogans used… (Interruptions) I want to quote the slogans. These slogans were raised. … (I nterruptions) These were the slogans raised which slogans you are raising now. … (Interruptions)
Are you a responsible political party? Will these slogans do justice to the Founding Fathers of India? Do these slogans raise India‟s esteem?… (Interruptions) The Chief Minister Shri Kalyan Singh, once again and in writing ordered against use of any firearms specifically on the 6th of December, 1992.… (Interruptions) This is the conclusion in the Report. The Liberhan Commission concludes thus: “The Commission is of the considered opinion that the security apparatus was non-existent in Ayodhya on the 6th of December, 1992. The police and other personnel deployed had been bound down into an ineffective role and had specific instructions against any substantive action. They were to ensure that the Government achieved its electoral manifesto. The State administration was there to appease the political executive by helping it in consolidating their hold on the general public.” This was what happened.… (Interruptions)
I would now come to the role of the BJP leaders. I have great respect for Shri Vajpayee.… (Interruptions) He was not there on that day.… (Interruptions) He was there on the previous day.… (Interruptions) He made a speech on the 5th December.… (Interruptions) I have got a copy of that speech.… (Interruptions) I have an English translation of it.… (Interruptions) As usual, he delivered the speech and after that, he left Ayodhya.… (Interruptions) That was what happened on the 6th of December? Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi reached Ayodhya at midnight on the 5th Decmber, 1992, escorted by Anju Gupta and stayed at Janki Mahal Trust.… (Interruptions)The Commissioner, the DIG Faizabad, the District Magistrate and the SSP, Faizabad, all the four top officers called upon them and were assured by Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi that a peaceful Karseva would be carried out.… (Interruptions) Then, Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi assured that they would ensure that things happened peacefully – a promise made by Shri L.K. Advani and Dr. Murli Manohar Josh.. Shri L.K. Advani and others met at the residence of Shri Vinay Katiyar before proceeding to the disputed structure. Sarvashri Vinay Katiyar, L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi. Ashok Singhal, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambara and others were also present there and there is nothing on record to indicate whether it was a formal meeting or otherwise. I will ask Shri Advani and Shri Murli Manohar Joshi to tell us what happened in that breakfast meeting on the 6th December, 1992. What did you talk? What did you discuss? Tell us. Why are you not telling the House? What did you discuss on the morning of 6th December, 1992 when you met in the house of Shri Vinay Katiyar? (Interruptions) You had breakfast there and you went to that place. What did you discuss there and what did you decide? … (Interruptions)
The previous day, you promised the police officers, you promised the Additional Magistrate that you will ensure that everything goes off peacefully. … (Interruptions) Finally, what did you discuss there? Let the nation know it, you tell us. Paramhans Ramchander Dass admitted in his statement and have sworn that provocative slogans were raised on the 6th of December. I admire Paramhans Ramchander Dass. At least, even if his convictions are wrong, he had the courage of conviction to admit it. … (Interruptions) Even if his views are wrong, he had the courage to own up. Even if his slogans are dangerous, he had the courage to admit that he raised those slogans. There is only one thing. They went there with the sole intention of destroying the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. … (Interruptions) Madam, the Commission comes to the conclusion in paragraph 126.12 which says: “There is sufficient and believable evidence on the record including the statements of Ram Kirpal and Mark Tully etc. that provocative speeches were delivered by Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambra, Paramhans Ramchander Dass, Acharya Dharmendra Dev, B.L. Sharma, Ashok Singhal and Vinay Katiyar, Vamdev, Swami Chinmayanand, Mahant Avaidyanath etc.” There is enormous evidence on record. If you do not want to read the evidence, God only can save you. … (Interruptions) But there is enormous evidence on record that provocative statements were made there. Recording of those speeches were freely made available and used to be played in most of the shops. Karsevaks were drawing pleasure in making the journalists say, “Jai Shri Ram”. Militancy was writ large among the Karsevaks. Paramhans Ramchander Dass admitted having announced on the public address system, “demolish the structure, you will not get such an opportunity”. This is the finding. Can you deny this? … (Interruptions) Ms. Anju Gupta was the Personal Security Officer to Shri Lal Krishna Advani. … (Interruptions) Ms. Anju Gupta, a lady officer, was appointed as the Personal Security Officer to Shri Advani in Ayodhya. … (Interruptions)
Anju Gupta stated that entry of the Police Control Room was quite open, there was crowd pressure from both sides of the barricade… (Interruptions) The crowd present on the pandal at the construction site near Shesh Avtar Mandir needed to be regulated… (Interruptions) There was no physical barricading
between Ram Dewar… (Interruptions) and outside of it, which provided… (Interruptions) easy scaling of the walls en masse, and entry to the premises. There was no streamlining of the crowd towards the Chabutra and from there to the exit on the western side gate, which made the entire ground open and available, for thousands of peoples to come in suddenly and occupy… (Interruptions) There were no security personnel on the roof of the domes of the structure preventing the Kar Sewaks from demolishing it. There was no crowd examination challenging the facts stated by Anju Gupta, the Security Officer of Shri L.K. Advani, on the fateful day. There is no reason to disbelieve her on these facts since she had unrestricted access… (Interruptions) as the Security Officer attached to Shri L.K. Advani… (Interruptions) to all the happenings and overall scenario in the Ram Janam Bhoomi- Babri Masjid Complex. N.C. Padhi stated that the police allowed the public meeting in the vicinity of the vulnerable object, with their hands tied and… (Interruptions) in view of the order not to fire on the Kar Sewaks by the order of the Chief Minister… (Interruptions) Sushma Ji wanted evidence. This is evidence. Anju Gupta is evidence… (Interruptions) N.C. Padhi is evidence… (Interruptions) Ram Chandra Paramhans is evidence. This evidence is… (Interruptions) What was happening that day? This is the most important part, Madam. At about noon, 12 o‟clock, a teenage Kar Sewak vaulted onto the dome and thereby signaled the breaking of the outer cordon. Other Kar Sewaks wielding pickaxes, hammers, iron-rods and shovels started scaling the Ram Dewar and over the barriers of the outer, inner and isolation cordons, from the east, west and south directions.
Madam, I ask where do the pick-axes come from? Where do the hammers come from? Where do the iron-rods come from? Where do the shovels come from? In a tremendous team-work they carried them… (Interruptions) I will
show later, they helped them carried them. They paid them money to get this and carried to the place. They stormed the disputed structure. The police deployed at the spot… (Interruptions) Please listen to this. The police deployed at the spot gave their canes and shields to the Kar Sewaks who brandished them openly. The police lathis and the police shields were given to the Kar Sewaks and the Kar Sewaks started marching towards… (Interruptions) This is very important. The Kar Sewaks‟ assault on the disputed structure started at 12.15 p.m. They first entered the Garba Griha, carefully took away the idols and cash box, etc. to a safe place. The idols and the cash box were taken to a safe place. Then they started breaking the dome and started breaking the upper plaster of the dome with hammers. In fact the demolition was accomplished by smashing holes inside the walls. Ropes were inserted through these holes in the walls under the domes, the walls were pulled down with these ropes bringing down the domes as well… (Interruptions) It is very important. The structure was not brought down by the Kar Sewaks on the domes, the structure was brought down by digging a hole in the dome, putting the ropes to the hole and pulling the dome down with the ropes… (Interruptions) It was shameful, pre-planned, conspiratorial, wanton, cold-blooded destruction of the property which they promised they would protect… (Interruptions) L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vijayaraje Scindia, H.V. Sheshadri who were present at the Ram Katha Kunj made feeble requests to the Kar Sewaks to come down from the disputed structure either in an earnest or for the media‟s benefit. … (Interruptions) One could have reasonably perceived that the demolition of the disputed structure was not possible from the top of the domes.
No request was made to Karsevaks, not to enter the Garb Grah or not to demolish from inside under the domes. No request was made. The selected act of the leaders itself speaks about the hidden intention of one and all being to accomplish the demolition of the disputed structure. What does the Commission conclude? This charade by these leaders at the instance of L.K. Advani is in stark contradiction to their own prior conduct and their public posture, incitement and exhortations to the crowd to build a temple in place of the disputed structure. The demolition of the structure was unavoidable for the construction of a temple. They had to demolish the structure to construct the temple. Therefore, they demolished the structure. The idols and cash box removed to safe places were brought back to their original place at 7 p.m. The construction of a temporary makeshift temple commenced at 7.30 p.m..
. Even though the Chief Minister was informed about this, he gave a written order not to resort to firing under any circumstances and to take any other measure. The Magistrate ordered in writing for the forces to turn back at 2.25 p.m. The Magistrate told the forces to go back at 2.25 p.m. The police and the administration was a mute spectator. Their loyalty to the political masters was writ large. Listen to Shri Kalyan Singh‟s reaction: “It was like a badly inflated balloon that burst.” Babri Masjid structure, according to Shri Kalyan Singh, was a badly inflated balloon which burst. He further says: “All other political parties are to be blamed for frustration of Karsevaks. They should arrest me because after all I fulfilled one of the major objectives of our Party and have redeemed the Party‟s election manifesto.” This is what Shri Kalyan Singh said.
Where is Sushma ji? There is no doubt at all, from the evidence and testimony before the Commission that the Sangh Parivar, especially the Bajrang Dal, RSS, VHP, BJP and Shiv Sena cadres created circumstances consistently over a period of a decade which ultimately resulted in the events of December 6th, 1992. Sushma ji, there is an evidence. Where is she? I want her to read the evidence. It stood established before me beyond reasonable doubt that the Joint Common Enterprise was a pre-planned act for demolition under the immediate leadership of Vinay Katiyar, Paramhans Ramchander Dass, Ashok Singhal, Champat Rai, Swami Chinmayanand, S.C. Dixit, B.P. Singhal and Acharya Giriraj. They were the local leaders on the spot and the executors of the plan conceived by the RSS. The plan was conceived by the RSS. The other leaders cannot be absolved of their vicarious liability and were willing collaborators playing the roles assigned to them by the RSS. Their informed support for the Ayodhya campaign, fortified by their physical presence during the grand finale of the prolonged campaign is irrefutably established.
I conclude that the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and their office bearers as named in this report, in connivance with Kalyan Singh, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh entered into a Joint Common Enterprise for the purpose of demolition of the disputed structure and the construction of temple in its place … (Interruptions) Friends, what is your answer to this conclusion? Let us debate it. Come along. I will give you another opportunity to debate it. What is your answer to this conclusion? … (Interruptions)
It was openly asserted and commonly accepted that the pre-partition Jan Sangh was the political wing of RSS. The Jan Sangh, later, was renamed as the Bharatiya Janata Party. Though some of the leaders have tried to claim that the BJP and RSS are independent organizations, in another part of this Report, the Commission has dealt with the question and concluded that they are functionally, if not legally, intertwined and inseparable. RSS and BJP are intertwined and inseparable. The admission by Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhya, in no uncertain terms, in his books that he was deputed by the RSS to organize the Bharatiya Jan Sangh is a clear indicator of this relationship. Even on date, the RSS Office bearers, Swayam Sewaks are deputed by RSS to carry out the work of BJP; the top echelon of the BJP leadership is pre-dominantly from the RSS and they are guided by its thoughts and philosophy in governance. The RSS has considerable influence on the leadership not only of BJP but also on the other allied organizations participating in the temple construction movement or which have Hinduism as their objective. Using its sweeping influence over the organizers and the institutions participating, the RSS controlled every aspect of the Ayodhya movement. Despite the attempts made to distance the RSS or BJP from the movement by attributing the movement to the VHP or the dharam sansad, I have concluded that all the other members of the Sangh Pariwar are merely frontal organizations of RSS deputed to working in different fields. There was no illusion in the minds of a common man that RSS or the VHP were either different or distant from the BJP, or that their objectives were not identical. … (Interruptions)
Madam, in conclusion, let me say the horrendous consequences of 6th December, 1992 resulted in riots and doom. From December 1992 to January, February, March 1993, in all 2,019 people were killed in a matter of three months and 7,786 people were injured in a matter of three months… (Interruptions) Hindus were killed. Muslims were killed. People belonging to other faiths were killed. Police men were killed. The violence that was unleashed by the horrendous crime of 6th December 1992 continues to divide our country even today.… (Interruptions)
I would have thought, after the Liberhan Commission‟s Report, after this debate, there will be shame, remorse and contriteness. Unfortunately, the civilized discourse in our country seems to have bid good bye to shame, remorse and contriteness. RSS and the Sangh Parivar have no shame, no remorse, no contriteness and continue to divide the country.… (Interruptions)
Madam, let me conclude by saying that there are two ideas in India. One is the idea of India represented by the Congress and all other secular parties. And the other is the idea of India represented by the divisive politics of the BJP. I am sorry to quote from an article I wrote many months ago.… (Interruptions) But I want to quote this.
Jawaharlal Nehru once said, “India is like an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written. ” There are two ideas of India. This is the first time the BJP, an Indian political party, openly adopted a divisive and an extreme agenda. The question then that everyone‟s mind was, “will it succeed”? Apparently, it succeeded. It succeeded in 1998.… (Interruptions) The first real test over the division of Bengal… (Interruptions) for ever from India came in 2004. In 2004, the Congress Party put across another idea of India where India must be an inclusive nation.
India must celebrate its diversity. All Indians must be encouraged to develop an Indian identity even when they are proud of their respective language or religion. This is an idea that India is a nation where no one valley, no one institution … (Interruptions) will dominate over others. The two ideas of India clashed in 2004. What did the people vote for? Forget the conclusion of Justice Liberhan. Forget the indictment of Justice Liberhan.
In 2004 when the two ideas of India – one led by the BJP in power with the Prime Minister, with the Deputy Prime Minister, with the entire State establishment put forward an idea of India of a divisive agenda; the other of the Congress Party and the secular parties put forward an idea of India, of an inclusive India. The people of India voted for our idea. The people of India rejected you. The judgement of the people of India is greater than the judgement of Justice Liberhan. Justice Liberhan‟s is a Commission. The people of India are our ultimate masters. They rejected you. They rejected you in 2004. When you went to them in 2009, they rejected you in 2009 also.
Madam, let me conclude by saying only one idea will clearly prevail, that is the idea of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Dr. Ambedkar. India will be an inclusive nation. India will be a plural nation. In India no idea will dominate another idea. No institution will dominate another institution. We have brought together our idea of India. Our idea of India will prevail. Jai Hind.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A true defender of the oppressed
The Tata Institute of Social Sciences [TISS], Mumbai recently witnessed a strange conference.
The delegates were mainly tribals coming all the way from Madhya Pradesh.
About 300 of them came to Mumbai to attend a discussion held in TISS on November 27. The topic was not how to defend against terrorists coming from across the border.
They were there to discuss 'Who will defend the defenders of tribal rights?'
The meeting was convened by Ms Shamim Modi, an Assistant Professor of TISS.
Why such a conference of tribals and academicians in TISS about defending tribal rights? Let me give you some background.
The S A S Movement
Ms Shamim Modi was working in the tribal hinterland of Madhya Pradesh for the last 13 years with her husband Anurag Modi.The Shramik Adivasi Sangathan [SAS] in which they worked was trying to enable the tribal people to fight for their land rights and to protest against their exploitation by Forest Department officials and local landlords.
Last year SAS helped sawmill workers and porters of Harda unionise against exploitation. The tribals who formed the majority of work force were a source for cheap labour. The SAS made it possible for sawmill workers to organise and protest against the denial of basic rights such as minimum wages and mishap costs.
Staus quo of exploitation threatened
The Modi couple, who were also among the leaders of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, faced stiff opposition from forest contractors and industrialists and also the district administration and the Forest Department. Shamim contested the elections (twice to the Assembly and once to the Lok Sabha) on the Samajwadi Jan Parishad ticket from Harda. That made her an enemy of many local elite and Political bigwigs.
One such political heavy weight was Kamal Patel, the local legislator belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party. Kamal Patel, a powerful Jat leader was four-time MLA from Harda and was also once the Revenue Minister in the State. He is known to secure the interests of Jats and Gujjars, who form the bulk of the landlords.
Matters worsened between Kamal Patel and the SAS during the Assembly elections in 2008 when Natwar Patel, a close aide of his and president of the sawmill owners’ association, was detained by an order of the Election Commission for threatening Shamim and preventing her supporters in the sawmills from campaigning for her. A few months later, when the mill workers, under the SAS, called a strike for their basic rights, the mill owners’ association told the District Collector that the mills would be closed down unless Shamim was arrested in 48 hours. The very next day Shamim was arrested and was detained for more than a month on charges as old as two years – instigating the tribal people and organising a dharna at the collectorate. She was shifted to the Hoshangabad jail, in the neighbouring district, and was allegedly tortured mentally and physically.
Physical attacks
The SAS movement jolted the local political mafia led by Kamal Patel as it not only was a threat to the exploitative status quo but also encouraged the tribal people not to exchange votes for cash. Shamim received several death threats. A few attempts were also made to physically harm her.
In a tactical move Ms Shamim decided to shift to Mumbai and joined the TISS as a faculty. But the most horrific attack on her life was on the afternoon of July 23 at her Vasai residence in Mumbai.
The watchman of her apartment barged into her house in an alleged attempt to kill her. Her throat was slit, her hands were broken and her head was smashed. Shamim had to have 118 stitches all over her body.
The Mumbai Police refused to register a case of attempted murder and allowed the assailant to flee out of the Country. Only when the High Court was approached that the case was handed over to CB CID and was asked to complete the probe in 3 months.
It was against this background that this discussion was organised by Ms Shamim Modi.
In the conference Modi said
“I had filed a PIL against the nexus of the BJP’s mining mafia and the forest department, The court ordered an inquiry, which proved that illegal excavation was going on in many areas. I made enemies in the BJP’s mining mafia who tried to harm me.”....
“We are strictly Gandhian in our approach and do not believe in violence at all. If the government is genuine about its desire to curb naxalism, the only way is to reward the people who have remained non-violent in their fight against the oppression that tribals are subjected to. It can then exert moral pressure on the naxals to give up arms. Instead, it is the State machinery that is trying to crush such peaceful movements.
That is why we want to raise the question: Who will defend the defenders of tribal rights?”
A Committee for Justice to Shamim Modi has been formed which includes faculty and students of the TISS, the Samajwadi Jan Parishad, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the Committee for the Release of Binayak Sen, Justice Rajendra Sachchar, Kuldip Naiyar and others.
It is always risky to raise voice for the oppressed, to fight against injustice:
But such risks have to be taken if we want to see India shining for all its citizens.
Adapted from;
Stifling a revolt
Tribals pour in to support TISS professor
Murderous assault on TISS professor: HC transfers probe to CID
The delegates were mainly tribals coming all the way from Madhya Pradesh.
About 300 of them came to Mumbai to attend a discussion held in TISS on November 27. The topic was not how to defend against terrorists coming from across the border.
They were there to discuss 'Who will defend the defenders of tribal rights?'
The meeting was convened by Ms Shamim Modi, an Assistant Professor of TISS.
Why such a conference of tribals and academicians in TISS about defending tribal rights? Let me give you some background.
The S A S Movement
Ms Shamim Modi was working in the tribal hinterland of Madhya Pradesh for the last 13 years with her husband Anurag Modi.The Shramik Adivasi Sangathan [SAS] in which they worked was trying to enable the tribal people to fight for their land rights and to protest against their exploitation by Forest Department officials and local landlords.
Last year SAS helped sawmill workers and porters of Harda unionise against exploitation. The tribals who formed the majority of work force were a source for cheap labour. The SAS made it possible for sawmill workers to organise and protest against the denial of basic rights such as minimum wages and mishap costs.
Staus quo of exploitation threatened
The Modi couple, who were also among the leaders of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, faced stiff opposition from forest contractors and industrialists and also the district administration and the Forest Department. Shamim contested the elections (twice to the Assembly and once to the Lok Sabha) on the Samajwadi Jan Parishad ticket from Harda. That made her an enemy of many local elite and Political bigwigs.
One such political heavy weight was Kamal Patel, the local legislator belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party. Kamal Patel, a powerful Jat leader was four-time MLA from Harda and was also once the Revenue Minister in the State. He is known to secure the interests of Jats and Gujjars, who form the bulk of the landlords.
Matters worsened between Kamal Patel and the SAS during the Assembly elections in 2008 when Natwar Patel, a close aide of his and president of the sawmill owners’ association, was detained by an order of the Election Commission for threatening Shamim and preventing her supporters in the sawmills from campaigning for her. A few months later, when the mill workers, under the SAS, called a strike for their basic rights, the mill owners’ association told the District Collector that the mills would be closed down unless Shamim was arrested in 48 hours. The very next day Shamim was arrested and was detained for more than a month on charges as old as two years – instigating the tribal people and organising a dharna at the collectorate. She was shifted to the Hoshangabad jail, in the neighbouring district, and was allegedly tortured mentally and physically.
Physical attacks
The SAS movement jolted the local political mafia led by Kamal Patel as it not only was a threat to the exploitative status quo but also encouraged the tribal people not to exchange votes for cash. Shamim received several death threats. A few attempts were also made to physically harm her.
In a tactical move Ms Shamim decided to shift to Mumbai and joined the TISS as a faculty. But the most horrific attack on her life was on the afternoon of July 23 at her Vasai residence in Mumbai.
The watchman of her apartment barged into her house in an alleged attempt to kill her. Her throat was slit, her hands were broken and her head was smashed. Shamim had to have 118 stitches all over her body.
The Mumbai Police refused to register a case of attempted murder and allowed the assailant to flee out of the Country. Only when the High Court was approached that the case was handed over to CB CID and was asked to complete the probe in 3 months.
It was against this background that this discussion was organised by Ms Shamim Modi.
In the conference Modi said
“I had filed a PIL against the nexus of the BJP’s mining mafia and the forest department, The court ordered an inquiry, which proved that illegal excavation was going on in many areas. I made enemies in the BJP’s mining mafia who tried to harm me.”....
“We are strictly Gandhian in our approach and do not believe in violence at all. If the government is genuine about its desire to curb naxalism, the only way is to reward the people who have remained non-violent in their fight against the oppression that tribals are subjected to. It can then exert moral pressure on the naxals to give up arms. Instead, it is the State machinery that is trying to crush such peaceful movements.
That is why we want to raise the question: Who will defend the defenders of tribal rights?”
A Committee for Justice to Shamim Modi has been formed which includes faculty and students of the TISS, the Samajwadi Jan Parishad, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the Committee for the Release of Binayak Sen, Justice Rajendra Sachchar, Kuldip Naiyar and others.
It is always risky to raise voice for the oppressed, to fight against injustice:
But such risks have to be taken if we want to see India shining for all its citizens.
Adapted from;
Stifling a revolt
Tribals pour in to support TISS professor
Murderous assault on TISS professor: HC transfers probe to CID
Thursday, March 19, 2009
BJP worried about the falling mask?
The mask of BJP is falling apart,that too so close to a General Election. This time the great grand son of Jawaharlal Nehru,Varun Gandhi tried to be more 'Hindutva' than his fellow party men.
Also the media is [again] under attack for broadcasting the video of Varun Gandhi's 'Hate speech'. What did he say?
At an election meeting in Banderkheda in Pilibhit Varun Gandhi said “This is not a hand [Congress symbol], it is the power of lotus [BJP symbol]. It will cut the head of …” He concluded with “Jai Shri Ram.
”While “Jai Shri Ram” was his battle cry at roadside meetings or assemblies, some of the other slogans used were Gau hatya rukwana hai, Varun Gandhi ko jitana hai (cow slaughter must stop, Varun Gandhi must win) and Varun nahin yeh aandhi hai, doosra Sanjay Gandhi hai (Varun Gandhi is like a storm, he is another Sanjay Gandhi).
Interesting reactions from Sangh Parivar and Varun
Varun Gandhi said that the tapes of his speech aired by some channels were “doctored” and there was a “political conspiracy” to defame him.It seems that Mr. Gandhi planned to address a press conference at the party office. But permission was not given.Following this, Mr. Gandhi addressed select media representatives at his mother Maneka Gandhi’s residence.
Communal remarks by Varun Gandhi, were strongly criticised by the party’s two Muslim faces – Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi – but some other leaders preferred to say that they had not heard the speech, which was was telecast by several channels.
Mr. Hussain said he had conveyed his strong protest to the senior party leadership, including party president Rajnath Singh and its prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani.
A few leaders in the party admitted that this, added to the fact that so far the BJP has cleared only two Muslim candidates, would certainly push back Mr. Advani’s attempt to present the BJP as the “true secular party” with others like the Congress and the Left being “pseudo secular.”
Mr. Naqvi did not deny that Mr. Gandhi used unacceptable language against Muslims, but said that this was because of his past “Congress culture,” although he was not able to say when Mr. Varun Gandhi was with the Congress, for he has been with the BJP well before he reached the age of contesting the Lok Sabha polls.
Mr Naqvi must have been mentioning the Congress legacy of Varun Gandhi.
Why Varun was given the Party ticket by the BJP? Must be just to cash in on his Nehruvian legacy. So it is ironic that the same legacy is blamed now.
The Shiv Sena has come out strongly in support of Varun Gandhi.
In an editorial in its mouthpiece Saamna on Wednesday, the Sena even expressed its admiration for Varun’s father Sanjay Gandhi, saying if he was alive the Congress would not have been so wishy-washy on the issue of fundamentalism in the Muslim community.
The editorial says that Mr. Varun Gandhi, was indeed speaking the truth.
Waxing eloquence on Mr. Gandhi, the editorial observes that the young man is a forceful reminder of his father. It is like Sanjay Gandhi is reborn and speaking through his son. The Bajrang Dal and Viswa Hindu Parishad has also come with statements supporting Varun.
This opinion on Sanjay Gandhi is interesting because the Jan Sangh[old BJP] was a part of Janata Party in 1977 while it succesfully fought against the Indira/Sanjay Gandhi dictatorial Emergency regime.Mr Advani was part of that struggle.What is his opinion now about the actions of Sanjay Gandhi?
BJP is confused and is trying to gauge the mood of the voters. It wants to put some distance between Varun's hate speech and itself so that the Party is acceptable to Secular Hindus.At the same time in secret like Shiv Sena,they must have loved the speech and must be proud of the fact that the Great grand son of Nehru has really become a 'proud Hindu'.
Reports compiled from 'The Hindu' of March 18th and 19th.
Also the media is [again] under attack for broadcasting the video of Varun Gandhi's 'Hate speech'. What did he say?
At an election meeting in Banderkheda in Pilibhit Varun Gandhi said “This is not a hand [Congress symbol], it is the power of lotus [BJP symbol]. It will cut the head of …” He concluded with “Jai Shri Ram.
”While “Jai Shri Ram” was his battle cry at roadside meetings or assemblies, some of the other slogans used were Gau hatya rukwana hai, Varun Gandhi ko jitana hai (cow slaughter must stop, Varun Gandhi must win) and Varun nahin yeh aandhi hai, doosra Sanjay Gandhi hai (Varun Gandhi is like a storm, he is another Sanjay Gandhi).
Interesting reactions from Sangh Parivar and Varun
Varun Gandhi said that the tapes of his speech aired by some channels were “doctored” and there was a “political conspiracy” to defame him.It seems that Mr. Gandhi planned to address a press conference at the party office. But permission was not given.Following this, Mr. Gandhi addressed select media representatives at his mother Maneka Gandhi’s residence.
Communal remarks by Varun Gandhi, were strongly criticised by the party’s two Muslim faces – Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi – but some other leaders preferred to say that they had not heard the speech, which was was telecast by several channels.
Mr. Hussain said he had conveyed his strong protest to the senior party leadership, including party president Rajnath Singh and its prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani.
A few leaders in the party admitted that this, added to the fact that so far the BJP has cleared only two Muslim candidates, would certainly push back Mr. Advani’s attempt to present the BJP as the “true secular party” with others like the Congress and the Left being “pseudo secular.”
Mr. Naqvi did not deny that Mr. Gandhi used unacceptable language against Muslims, but said that this was because of his past “Congress culture,” although he was not able to say when Mr. Varun Gandhi was with the Congress, for he has been with the BJP well before he reached the age of contesting the Lok Sabha polls.
Mr Naqvi must have been mentioning the Congress legacy of Varun Gandhi.
Why Varun was given the Party ticket by the BJP? Must be just to cash in on his Nehruvian legacy. So it is ironic that the same legacy is blamed now.
The Shiv Sena has come out strongly in support of Varun Gandhi.
In an editorial in its mouthpiece Saamna on Wednesday, the Sena even expressed its admiration for Varun’s father Sanjay Gandhi, saying if he was alive the Congress would not have been so wishy-washy on the issue of fundamentalism in the Muslim community.
The editorial says that Mr. Varun Gandhi, was indeed speaking the truth.
Waxing eloquence on Mr. Gandhi, the editorial observes that the young man is a forceful reminder of his father. It is like Sanjay Gandhi is reborn and speaking through his son. The Bajrang Dal and Viswa Hindu Parishad has also come with statements supporting Varun.
This opinion on Sanjay Gandhi is interesting because the Jan Sangh[old BJP] was a part of Janata Party in 1977 while it succesfully fought against the Indira/Sanjay Gandhi dictatorial Emergency regime.Mr Advani was part of that struggle.What is his opinion now about the actions of Sanjay Gandhi?
BJP is confused and is trying to gauge the mood of the voters. It wants to put some distance between Varun's hate speech and itself so that the Party is acceptable to Secular Hindus.At the same time in secret like Shiv Sena,they must have loved the speech and must be proud of the fact that the Great grand son of Nehru has really become a 'proud Hindu'.
Reports compiled from 'The Hindu' of March 18th and 19th.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Advani on Dr Ambedkar. Masking History for votes?
NDA’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on Sunday accused the Congress of adopting tactics which “ensured” defeat of Dalit icon and architect of the Constitution, Bhimrao Ambedkar in post-Independence polls.
“After Independence, when the first government of the country was taking shape, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru gave priority to give berth only to Congressmen in it. But Gandhiji advised him to include scholar leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Dr. Ambedkar in the government,” Mr. Advani said addressing the BJP’s Scheduled Caste Mahasammelan here.
“Though Dr. Ambedkar was later made chairman of the committee formed for framing the Indian Constitution in which he had ensured that all sections of society are protected, Congress at the time of elections adopted such tactics which ensured his defeat in the polls,” Mr. Advani claimed. “Unhe Congress ne parajit karvaya (He (Ambedkar) was defeated by the Congress),” Mr. Advani charged. Mr. Advani also termed the “incidents of disrespect shown by the Congress towards Dr. Ambedkar the party’s political vendetta against the Dalit messiah.”
Let us read some history and see whether how much truth is there in what our Prime ministerial candidate was saying.
History
What is the truth? Let us see what Rajni Kothari a prominent scholar says in his book 'Caste in Indian Politics'
"The era of cooperation [between Congress and Ambedkar] ended in fall of 1951 just before India's first General election.Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet primarily because of lack of support for Hindu code Bill for which he as a law minister was responsible....... "
Hindu Code Bill of 1951
Hindu Code Bill prepared by Dr Ambedkar and fully supported by Nehru was enivisaged to give equal status to Women in Civil Laws.The bill raised the age of marriage,upheld monogamy,gave women the rights to divorce,maintenance and inheritance and treated dowry as women's property.
There was strong opposition from the conservative sections of the society including the Hindu Maha Sabha,Jan Sangh and the RSS. They were of the opinion that the Bill will destroy the age old Hindu tradition and Hindu way of life.Conservative Congress leaders like the then President Dr Rajendra Prasad also opposed it. He opposed some of the provisions in the bill and wanted to postpone the consideration of the Bill till the next Parliament.It is interesting to read the correspondence between the President Prasad and Prime Minister Nehru here.
Fearing that the Bill may not be passed in Parliament and even if passed the President may send it back,Nehru decided to postpone it. Ambedkar was angry and resigned from the Ministry.
Another reason for his resignation was he wanted to activate the cadres of Schedule Caste Federation before the General Election.
Elections in 1952
Thus Ambedkar participated in the 1952 elections not as a friend of the administration[Congress] but as a bitter opponent.
Ambedkar contested under the banner of Scheduled Caste Federation.As per Rajini Kothari in the above book, "Congress had kept a seat vacant for Ambedkar until the last moment,till it came to be known that his Party entered in to an alliance with Socialist Party. Ambedkar was defeated by another Dalit from Congress Mr N.S. Kajrolkar from the Bombay North Constituency."
Though Ambedkar was defeated, Congress graciously offered him a Rajya Sabha seat which he accepted.He remained an Independent M.P till his death in 1956.
Nehru made the Hindu Code Bill a big election issue, won a massive majority in Parliament and passed the Bill as four separate acts in 1956.
Now let us once again go back to Mr Advani's statement.
Did Congress defeat Ambedkar in elections?
Yes true but only a half truth. It was Ambedkar who resigned from the Cabinet,refused Congress ticket,mobilised Dalits under the banner of Schedule Caste Federation, contested against Congress and was defeated. Even then Congress gave him a Rajya Sabha seat.Advani will never mention all the other truths as they are inconvenient for getting Dalit votes.
Was Jan Sangh supporting Ambedkar? The irony of the fact is that Jan Sangh's opposition to Hindu Code Bill was one of the reason for postponing the tabling of Bill,which in turn resulted in Ambedkar's resignation. Now Advani the leader of BJP,the new avatar of Jan Sangh is shedding crocodile tears in the name of Ambedkar. What a hypocrisy!!!
Sangh Parivar and Ambedkar
The true attitude of Sangh Parivar towards Ambedkar is well depicted in the former BJP Minister Arun Shourie's book 'Worshipping False Gods'. At the same time they do not want to loose Dalit votes by openly campaigning against Ambedkar.
BJP was always a master of such deceptions.
But it is difficult to hide history behind the saffron mask.
“After Independence, when the first government of the country was taking shape, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru gave priority to give berth only to Congressmen in it. But Gandhiji advised him to include scholar leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Dr. Ambedkar in the government,” Mr. Advani said addressing the BJP’s Scheduled Caste Mahasammelan here.
“Though Dr. Ambedkar was later made chairman of the committee formed for framing the Indian Constitution in which he had ensured that all sections of society are protected, Congress at the time of elections adopted such tactics which ensured his defeat in the polls,” Mr. Advani claimed. “Unhe Congress ne parajit karvaya (He (Ambedkar) was defeated by the Congress),” Mr. Advani charged. Mr. Advani also termed the “incidents of disrespect shown by the Congress towards Dr. Ambedkar the party’s political vendetta against the Dalit messiah.”
Let us read some history and see whether how much truth is there in what our Prime ministerial candidate was saying.
History
What is the truth? Let us see what Rajni Kothari a prominent scholar says in his book 'Caste in Indian Politics'
"The era of cooperation [between Congress and Ambedkar] ended in fall of 1951 just before India's first General election.Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet primarily because of lack of support for Hindu code Bill for which he as a law minister was responsible....... "
Hindu Code Bill of 1951
Hindu Code Bill prepared by Dr Ambedkar and fully supported by Nehru was enivisaged to give equal status to Women in Civil Laws.The bill raised the age of marriage,upheld monogamy,gave women the rights to divorce,maintenance and inheritance and treated dowry as women's property.
There was strong opposition from the conservative sections of the society including the Hindu Maha Sabha,Jan Sangh and the RSS. They were of the opinion that the Bill will destroy the age old Hindu tradition and Hindu way of life.Conservative Congress leaders like the then President Dr Rajendra Prasad also opposed it. He opposed some of the provisions in the bill and wanted to postpone the consideration of the Bill till the next Parliament.It is interesting to read the correspondence between the President Prasad and Prime Minister Nehru here.
Fearing that the Bill may not be passed in Parliament and even if passed the President may send it back,Nehru decided to postpone it. Ambedkar was angry and resigned from the Ministry.
Another reason for his resignation was he wanted to activate the cadres of Schedule Caste Federation before the General Election.
Elections in 1952
Thus Ambedkar participated in the 1952 elections not as a friend of the administration[Congress] but as a bitter opponent.
Ambedkar contested under the banner of Scheduled Caste Federation.As per Rajini Kothari in the above book, "Congress had kept a seat vacant for Ambedkar until the last moment,till it came to be known that his Party entered in to an alliance with Socialist Party. Ambedkar was defeated by another Dalit from Congress Mr N.S. Kajrolkar from the Bombay North Constituency."
Though Ambedkar was defeated, Congress graciously offered him a Rajya Sabha seat which he accepted.He remained an Independent M.P till his death in 1956.
Nehru made the Hindu Code Bill a big election issue, won a massive majority in Parliament and passed the Bill as four separate acts in 1956.
Now let us once again go back to Mr Advani's statement.
Did Congress defeat Ambedkar in elections?
Yes true but only a half truth. It was Ambedkar who resigned from the Cabinet,refused Congress ticket,mobilised Dalits under the banner of Schedule Caste Federation, contested against Congress and was defeated. Even then Congress gave him a Rajya Sabha seat.Advani will never mention all the other truths as they are inconvenient for getting Dalit votes.
Was Jan Sangh supporting Ambedkar? The irony of the fact is that Jan Sangh's opposition to Hindu Code Bill was one of the reason for postponing the tabling of Bill,which in turn resulted in Ambedkar's resignation. Now Advani the leader of BJP,the new avatar of Jan Sangh is shedding crocodile tears in the name of Ambedkar. What a hypocrisy!!!
Sangh Parivar and Ambedkar
The true attitude of Sangh Parivar towards Ambedkar is well depicted in the former BJP Minister Arun Shourie's book 'Worshipping False Gods'. At the same time they do not want to loose Dalit votes by openly campaigning against Ambedkar.
BJP was always a master of such deceptions.
But it is difficult to hide history behind the saffron mask.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
What is happening in the Election Commission of India?
Mr Gopalaswamy[centre] and MrChawla[right]
Election Commission of India is in the news daily for all the wrong reasons.
The Chief Election Commissioner[CEC] Mr Gopalaswamy has recommended to the President to remove Mr Navin Chawla from the post of Election Commissioner.
There are mainly 2 opposing viewpoints expressed [ by the 2 main political parties of India] for the reason for the fiasco.Let me examine it in detail and come to a conclusion.
The information I have is mainly from 2 newspapers, New Indian Express and The Hindu.Interestingly these 2 newspapers are divided in their opinion.The New Indian Express which is a pro-hindutva newspaper supports the BJP's point of view while 'The Hindu' which can be called an anti-BJP newspaper [or some may like to call it pro-Left/Congress] supports the Congress viewpoint.
An overview about Election Commission
Election Commission of India is a permanent Constitutional Body. The Election Commission was established in accordance with the Constitution on 25th January 1950.
The Constitution of India has vested in the Election Commission of India the superintendence, direction and control of the entire process for conduct of elections to Parliament and Legislature of every State and to the offices of President and Vice-President of India.
Originally the commission had only a Chief Election Commissioner.
Later, on 1st October 1993 two additional Election Commissioners were appointed. The concept of multi-member Commission has been in operation since then, with decision making power by majority vote.
The President appoints Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. They have tenure of six years, or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They enjoy the same status and receive salary and perks as available to Judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only through impeachment by Parliament.
The Commission transacts its business by holding regular meetings and also by circulation of papers. All Election Commissioners have equal say in the decision making of the Commission.
The Controversy
Mr.Navin Chawla, the election commissioner[EC] appointed by the UPA is alleged to be close to the Congress. The Shah Commission report on the excesses conducted by the Indira Gandhi Government during the Emergency had made some adverse remarks against Mr Chawla[He was then a Secretary under Delhi Government].Mr Chawla was appointed as EC in May 2005.
Without any obvious evidence of bias in the functioning of Mr Chawla the BJP started opposing his appointment.
On March 16, 2006, BJP Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani and 204 MPs submitted a petition to President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam seeking the removal of Mr. Chawla as Election Commissioner[EC] under Article 324(5) of the Constitution.
The article says
Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office [by the President] except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
From this action of the BJP it is clear that they knew that as per the Constitution the Government/President should refer to the CEC any complaint regarding an EC if the Government found some merit in the complaint.BJP tried a chance with the then President A.P.J.Kalam.The President referred it to the Cabinet.
A month later, BJP leader V.K. Malhotra sent a copy of this petition to the CEC,Mr Gopalaswamy who is considered close to Mr Advani.
With the President forwarding the petition to the Prime Minister, the matter rested there with the government evidently finding no merit in the BJP’s allegations.
The BJP took the matter to the Supreme Court where its arguments seemed to make no headway.
BJP withdrew the petition in August 2007.
In January 2008, the BJP leaders took the matter up with the CEC .
In July 2008 CEC asked for an explanation from Mr Chawla for the BJP's allegations.
On September 12, 2008 Mr Chawla sent his detailed and constitutionally substantive reply. In this, he questioned the locus standi of the CEC in this matter.EC quoted legal opinion saying CEC cannot arbitrarily proceed against EC.
Several correspondence followed.CEC insisited he has the legal power to act against EC while Mr Chawla and most lawyers thought otherwise.They were quoting the elaborate interpretation by the Supreme Court in its judgment in T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India v. Union of India (1995), “the CEC cannot act on his own and must await the reference through proper channels to be able to act on a complaint or petition seeking the removal of an EC.”
Now the CEC Mr Gopalaswamy has recommended the removal of Mr Chawla from the post of EC based on BJP's complaint and also his own enquiries alleging partisanship.
The irony of the fact is that Mr Gopalaswamy is about to retire on April 20 and Mr Chawla is all set to be the CEC before next General election to be held in May.
My Take on the Subject
Was Mr Chawla really partisan?
The full details of the CEC recommendations are not available.But watching the Election Commission function in the last 4 years with no serious allegations of partisanship raised by the Opposition Party, what I feel is that allegations against Mr Chawla is only a fear he might he partisan and not actual misconduct.The current CEC who is considered close to Mr Advani also did not face any allegations of partisanship.Moreover the rules and regulations of the functioning of Election Commission is such that it will be difficult to get away with partisanship.
The Government has made it clear that Mr Chawla will remain as Election Commissioner. BJP's options are limited other than throwing more mud at Mr Chawla,with whom they will have to do business for at least 2 years.Let us hope BJP will put aside their fear of partisanship and act maturely.
I agree with The Hindu that this move by CEC [at the behest of BJP] on the eve of his retirement and just before the Parliament election has provoked needless hostility and brought a political twist and divisions into the Election Commission.
At the same time it would have been better for the Congress to choose a person of high repute,with a history of clean public service and great calibre to this position of huge importance to Indian Democracy.
Let us hope that when the next vacancy in the Election Commission is filled all Political Parties are taken in to confidence and a person of stature will be appointed.
Damaging our Constitutional Institutions for narrow political gains will gravely harm our democracy.
Friday, January 30, 2009
They wanted the World to see their "moral authority and power"
You might have wondered how so much video footage of the fascist attack on girls in Mangalore were available.The attack was supposed to be a sudden and swift one.How the visual media reached there so fast?
The answer is simple.The fascist goons wanted the video footage to be seen widely,all over India. So they informed all the TV channels and might even have waited for the cameramen to get to the vantage spots before starting their molestations.
Why they wanted this publicity? For them this is a warning to all liberal minded girls[and boys who accompany them].They want to instill fear in civil society.They want to make people believe that they are powerful and will do what they like.
In last few months they had also carried out attacks against Churches,Muslims,girls in a bus going for picnic,against slaughtering houses etc.They realised that absence of Visual media in all those attacks made it less visible to public. So they took great care in organising the media before the act.
Why are they not afraid of the Video footage? Such damning evidence is sure to put them in jail right?
It depends on who are the prosecutors.The goons have absolute faith in their mentor the Home Minister Dr.V.S.Acharya, the local BJP leader.
Did the idea of giving maximum publicity back fired? May be.Only time will tell.
The answer is simple.The fascist goons wanted the video footage to be seen widely,all over India. So they informed all the TV channels and might even have waited for the cameramen to get to the vantage spots before starting their molestations.
Why they wanted this publicity? For them this is a warning to all liberal minded girls[and boys who accompany them].They want to instill fear in civil society.They want to make people believe that they are powerful and will do what they like.
In last few months they had also carried out attacks against Churches,Muslims,girls in a bus going for picnic,against slaughtering houses etc.They realised that absence of Visual media in all those attacks made it less visible to public. So they took great care in organising the media before the act.
Why are they not afraid of the Video footage? Such damning evidence is sure to put them in jail right?
It depends on who are the prosecutors.The goons have absolute faith in their mentor the Home Minister Dr.V.S.Acharya, the local BJP leader.
Did the idea of giving maximum publicity back fired? May be.Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)